How come men pay child support for a kid they never wanted?

Question

I am doing a debate/propsing a law for a class. The topic I chose to argue is "Women who have a child against the father's objection should not be able the to seek child support." I need help with main ideas that I should address, if there's any relevant or applicable law and ideas of that sort. I need sound, reasonable, and logical arguments. I have my ideas already I have done a lot of research but I think asking this on here might open my eyes to points I may have not thought of. Also opposing views are welcome, it will help me in developing my counterattacks. Thanks in advance

wow you guys are missing the whole point. If the woman is the one who chose to keep the baby and the guy didnt want to be a father, why is it the guys fault? The woman wants the kid so badly then she should have the responsibility. What about the women who decieve the man and get pregnant on purpose? Thats not fair at all. It shouldnt just be the womans choice on what happens. How come she gets to decide what happens?

Answer 1

You may want to ask this in the "Law & Ethics" section under "Politics & Government." I think you'll end up with more attacks and less information in this area.

As for your question - you may want to look into the case of Rylan Nitzschke.

Answer 2

I will answer honestly and tactfully as I can. Most non-custodial parents who don't see their kids much, or at all, has nothing to do with them not caring, but almost always everything to do with never being able to do anything right according to the custodial parent. The child starts mimicking this loud and clear (I know your son is young yet), but if I were to assess how this child will feel about his father when he is old enough to understand and convey it, based on all of your posts about his father, your son will most likely not like his father, either, just like you don't. You were young when you had your son, I am assuming the father was, too. Heavy. Heavier still that your son has health issues. My guess is that he'll pay child support, and maybe come around more when the tension between the 2 of you and your families die down. Or not. Doesn't mean he doesn't care.... may mean that he has no clue how to do this.

Answer 3

This is interesting I am a university law lecturer specialising in family law, medical law and child law and it would appear that you have your heart set on a specific answer anyway, some of the answers on this site are worth considering to give you a balanced viewpoint - I don't know if the intention is to give a one sided argument and if it is then that is fine, however if you are being assessed on this and you should be giving a balanced viewpoint then as a lecturer I would fail a student who only considers one perspective.

Whether or not to hold someone responsible for child support is complicated and depends on a number of factors. Normally contractually you could not hold someone liable for something which they did not agree to however tort law and criminal law both impose liability on a person if the consequences of their actions were forseeable - having sex without a condom can lead to pregnancy and so the risk of the action is forseeable and therefore recklessness or negligence should not negate liability.

However debates like this miss the point, the most important person in all of this is the child, the child has done nothing wrong, didn't ask to be born and therefore should not suffer if its parents are feckless. The point of child support is that children are given what they need by those who created them, the latin maxim ignorantia juris neminem excusat (ignorance of the law is no excuse) could be said to apply in such a situation, even if a person does not know that he could be held liable for the child he created then this should also not negate liability for that child. Obviously this does not apply to children created by donor insemination from a regulated clinic as the donor is not legally the father so has no responsibilities towards the child.

There are also a number of interesting human rights issues surrounding bodily integrity, the man has no right to force a woman to have an abortion (Scottish case of Kelly v Kelly 1997 SC 285) because this would place more importance on his rights than on hers and would mean that there would be a requirement that she could have her body interfered with without her consent which would amount to assualt by the medical team so ultimately the woman's autonomy is protected by this law - if this interests you check out cases on what has become known as the maternal/foetal conflict whereby the woman's right (in the UK) trumps all others.

You might want to consider the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 for determination of parentage, surrogacy etc. You should also consider searching Westlaw for information on Child Support - you haven't mentioned which country you live in and obviously the laws are different depending on where you live however the HFEA 1990 applies throughout the UK as does the child support legislation - Child Support Act 1991, Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000, Child Support (Maintenance Assessment Procedure) Regulations 1992 all of these are available from the opsi website and Westlaw

Hope this gets your ideas flowing.

Answer 4

No contraception is 100%. If you have sex, there is a risk of conception. If you absolutely do not want a child and would not accept the consequences - do not have sex!

You seem completely emotionally detached regarding abortion (I'm assuming that is supposed to be the solution to the fathers objection). I am not at all against abortion, but I could not personally have one ... that is not the father's choice, not even remotely (his opinion ought to be taken into consideration, but it is not his choice) and there should be no consequences to a women being unable to have an abortion!!!

Therefore, if a child is created, both parents have equal responsibility to the child.
When people seek child support, the amount is determined on what the father (or mother) can afford ... taking into consideration income and outgoings.

If the female 'tricked' the male into a pregnancy (or some other situation other than accidental pregnancy) ... well then that's a completely different situation.

Answer 5

I haven't read the other answers, sorry!

Here is the reason why, plain and simple:

It took two to make a baby.

Yes, the mother had the option, legally, of seeking an abortion. However from the beginning there was a choice made by two people to have sex. Every time you have sex you risk becoming pregnant. Contraception, whether 'pulling out', condoms, IUDs, Pill, or other, only reduce this risk. Unless the man in question was so drunk as to be incapable of making that decision (in which case how in heck did he 'get it up') or was mentally incompetent to make that decision, he made a decision to risk pregnancy.

Abortion is an option, yes, but is not an obligation. It's a last-minute 'out' that has been made available (moral question aside). Giving the child up for adoption, same.

"I didn't want the baby" is not a valid argument. If one does not wish to have a baby, one should keep his or her pants on. The act of having sex is a consent to reproduction.

Sorry - I see that you're looking to propose the law, not fight it, so this might not help you. The only case I can see where it might be valid to allow a guy to get out of CS where he did not want the child is if you can prove that he was under the false impression that birth control measures were being taken, or better yet, false impression of sterility of his partner.

Answer 6

You've done a lot of research and you don't know if there are any relevant laws? The law everywhere requires both parents to support their children. Try turning your question around. Should a man be able to force a woman he has impregnated to have an abortion against her will with the threat of withholding child support if she refuses? The state looks at it from the perspective of the child. It's not the kid's fault that either or both parents wanted or didn't want kids. Once teh child is here it's the parents' responsibility to care for it whether they wanted it or not. What's the alternative? Make the taxpayers support the child? Let it starve? Kill it?

Answer 7

I know that there is a case where the man who doesnt want a child doesnt have to pay child support. If the father signs away his rights to the child than the mother cannot go after him for child support. He also has no right to visitation or any other say about the childs life. My friend had this happen to her. The biological father for her son signed away his rights to her son and she was told she would never be able to go after him for support. I am not sure if this law is everywhere or just here where I live. I think this is perfectly alright. If the father doesnt want the baby and agrees to have nothing to do with the baby or the mother than he shouldnt have to pay child support but the moment he decides to be a part of that childs life than he is obligated to help with the support of the child.

Answer 8

I think this is an open-ended question. It took both to make the baby and both should be responsible. However, I don't believe it is right for a woman to trap a man into having a baby. What we are really missing here is what is happening to the child. I believe it is only the woman's right to decide whether or not to abort her baby. Speaking from experience, it is an emotional thing to do. But both parents should be involved in raising the child. It is a bigger issue than monetary support.

Answer 9

Because BOTH parents should be in an agreement that the child is born or given up for adoption of not. This falls under the same principal as when a woman doesnt want the baby and the father does, but she still aborts its. They BOTH suffer the consequences. Just because a mom doesnt want to abort her baby or give him or her up for adoption does not mean that the father can say no, you abort the baby or give it up. For that to happen both parties need to agree.

Honestly, if you take a stand point from a pro-lifer it makes perfect sense. He was there at the point of conception and he HAS no other choice but to take responsibility for his actions. Just because 1 person says I dont want this child, doesnt mean they shouldnt have to buck up and be a man or woman. They know the consequences of sex and they took the risk.

Put yourself into a womans shoes who is involved with a man and you get pregnant. You have your life pretty much in order... would you abort your child? For the sake of my arguement, I am going to say you decided against it, you want this baby more than anything in this world, simply because it is part of you! Well your partner says nope, dont want it. What do you do? Do you let him loose of all responsibility when he drops this bomb shell and you are torn between your child and your lover?

Answer 10

Men have sex with the knowledge that sexual activity can produce a life. They have the ability to reduce the chance of pregnancy in many of the same way women do (ie: condoms, pulling out, not having sex, not having vaginal sex) His involvement in an activity that knowingly can produce a child while obviously not taking the required steps to stop his semen from doing so, indicates his acceptance of any consequences associated with the act.

In partnership with the woman he willingly participated in beginning the life so he therefore does not have the authority to end it without the same partnership and consent.

Also, Abortion has a number of effects upon the womans body other than the death of the child. Recovery can be long and painful and may prohibit the woman from ever being fertile again. Even if he had the right to demand abortion he does not have the right to demand the subsequent damage to the womans body without her consent to do so. Thus if a man cannot demand the abortion of a baby to end his liability it stands to reason that he cannot abandon his legal responsibility for the child that he created during a consensual, purposeful act, that was participated in willingly and without duress.

The law would not allow me to escape a contract that was entered into under those same circumstances, and a mans legal responcibility to his genetic offspring is similar in nature to a contractual obligation. Think of sex like a contract. If its entered into by both party's on a consentual basis, both must agree to a change in its terms for any change to be valid.

Hope this helps with the logic side of it.

Answer 11

If the father doesn't want the child or to pay child support he can give up his rights.

I am against this because children should not be held accountable. This would not be the child's fault. There are a lot of different ways this situation could have been prevented. Condoms, birthcontol, not having sex, vasectomy