Double standards of parents' rights

108 posts in this topic

@DDBug: Theoretically I am sure you are right - practically you are so wrong. The custodial parent has ultimate control - irrespective of legal backing. However the non-custodial parent is the one that pays... so I think perhaps you are not quite seeing the point of this thread.

 

And yes, the poor father IS the disadvantaged one* and it is NOT chauvenism.

 

*More often that not financially, definitely emotionally and personally.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There are also many, many women who don't believe in abortion due to other reasons than religion.

Well that's really their issue to deal with then - they still have a choice and if this belief sways them towards having the child, then that is ultimately still their decision. Most of them probably don't believe in sex outside of marriage either. So if you stick to ALL of the dogma, then this issue should never arise - except in the case of rape, of course, but it's a bit of a moot point as I'm pretty sure the man isn't going to be able to financially support his offspring from prison. If he can, then he should be fleeced...

 

EDIT: On the other side, there is nothing at all in the law to stop a woman from having an abortion, no matter how much the man is against it. So as the law already doesn't take into consideration the moral position of the father, it would be unfair to use the moral position of the mother as a reason to force the man to take on the responsibility.

 

 

Hazza - sorry, I feel kids have a right to know their parents. And by running from the issue, those parents are showing their kids what they are really made of as well, unfortunately.

You can think whatever you like, and I agree that this is the ideal situation. However currently, a child has no legal right to force it's parents to see them...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't agree that biological parents should have to pay for the children they have given up for adoption either. There are all kinds of problems orbiting around such an arrangement. If the child is adopted and the biological mother pays for everything wheras the 2 real parents (i.e. the ones nurturing and caring for him/her etc) pay nothing - how is that fair? Wouldn't that cause a lot of people to become parents simply to use the cild as a money cow for milking the unknown unseen biological mother? What if the parents have different lifestyle expectations for the rearing of the child than the bio mother would have? What if those expectations are beyond the means of the bio mother? Should the latter pay only a certain proportion of her wages/social welfare payments for the rearing of the child so that she may only partially-support her bio child financially? What if the bio mother is poor wheras the new parents are rich?

Also, shouldn't the real parents be held responsible for the upbringing of their children?!

If the bio mother is going to have to pay for the upbringing of her child, then it seems she should be able to regain custody (perhaps partial) of the child if she changes her mind. After all, there should be no responsibilities without rights. However if that were the case, we could see situations where a child finds him/herself in a tug of war between the bio and adoptive parents. This is a fun can of worms.

As Carm said, if a parent gives up their child for adoption, he/she waives all rights and responsibilites to that child

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

@DDBug: Theoretically I am sure you are right - practically you are so wrong. The custodial parent has ultimate control - irrespective of legal backing. However the non-custodial parent is the one that pays... so I think perhaps you are not quite seeing the point of this thread.

 

And yes, the poor father IS the disadvantaged one* and it is NOT chauvenism.

 

*More often that not financially, definitely emotionally and personally.

I am not "so wrong" and can PM you with a few cases I know of personally. I know more women stuck with men forcing visitation just to insult the mother or refusing visitation as a type of revenge, if the father wants visitation the law backs him up. And I know more women receiving little or no child support than I know men paying half their wages to support their children. So, no, the only point I am seeing here is "poor men" and not "poor parents" or "poor child". This situation is never black and white, but it's being made out to be.

 

 

...You can think whatever you like, and I agree that this is the ideal situation. However currently, a child has no legal right to force it's parents to see them...

True, it doesn't. The child only has the right to be supported financially, not emotionally.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just wondering . . . If the woman decides to give the kid up for adoption (no mention of father's ID), can/should the state make her pay child support to the Jugendamt/foster family?

If she really gives it up for adoption, I don't think the adoptive family gets any money from anybody. The point of adoption is that it's legally your kid just like you had it yourself. Foster parents who take kids temporarily get payments for it but if you want to give up a baby for adoption, there are loads of people who want to adopt.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@LeonG, well, a man that doesn't want to be financially responsible for a kid he never wanted in the first place can't give up his half for adoption.

 

1 - If both the man and the woman want the child, then nobody looses.

2 - If the woman doesn't want the child and the man wants it (I grant you that must be the exception), then the man looses because he can (and shouldn't) force the woman to have the child.

3 - If the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, then the man looses in the sense that the woman can force him to be financially responsible.

4 - If both don't want the child, nobody looses.

 

I like Hazza's idea of a man having the option to opt-out before the pregnancy was too late to terminate. It pretty much equalizes case #3. The woman would then take her own decision with full knowledge of the consequences. But this "opting out" should be done with lawyers to prevent the least amount of legal problems in the future. Also, this would make it harder for these men to choose this option. It shouldn't be just done via a post-it left on the fridge.

 

<sarcasm>

Maybe the ultimate solution is to have pre-sex agreements that both would sign before consuming the act. Kind of kills the mood, but some guys would think twice about one-nighters... B)

</sarcasm>

 

In any case, there's never going to be a perfect solution that solves everybody's problems in this matter. The only thing women and men can do is know their rights and act accordingly. If you want to have sex that badly, then be prepared for all the possible consequences (for both).

 

Break's over. Back to work...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Well that's really their issue to deal with then - they still have a choice and if this belief sways them towards having the child, then that is ultimately still their decision. Most of them probably don't believe in sex outside of marriage either.

And, as a man, you can never understand the feeling of having a new life growing inside of you. So it's easy for you to say that above, but the bottom line is, you cannot really relate.

 

I have had an abortion and I have had a child, so I have experienced both sides. I believe a woman should have a choice, for sure, and it is a very private and intimate choice at that. But I know I could never have an abortion. It's not a religious thing for me at all. In fact, I don't believe that "life begins at conception". But for me, knowing the potential of a beautiful child is growing in me is enough for me to know I could never have another abortion. The mental anguish I went through when I did nearly broke me. And now, having my gorgeous son who is the most precious thing in my life, I could never imagine to snuff out that kind of potential ever again.

 

My son was a "surprise" and his father was ill-equipped to become a daddy - young, just finishing university, no job, emotionally immature, etc. We discussed abortion and adoption extensively, and through those discussions, I realized that neither would ever be an option for me. When I made my decision, I released his father from financial obligation. But as my son grew in me and then finally made his appearance, it became obvious to his father that he could never turn his back and he stepped up to the plate even more than I ever could have imagined he would.

 

Seeing as it is not a religious or moral thing for me, I don't have a problem with sex outside of marriage. But I DO know the consequences of having sex - even protected sex, as I was on the Pill when I got pregnant with my son, and a condom broke when I got pregnant the first time and had an abortion. And it is something I have discussed with my partner, and he knows that I wouldn't have an abortion if I ever did get pregnant accidentally again.

 

WRT father's rights - it is such a tricky situation. I can see both sides. But I think for any kind of "contract" to work, it would have to be made before even having sex. The emotions present in both partners with an unexpected pregnancy can be huge, and that is not the time to make a life-changing decision. And then there are circumstances like my own, where the father was uncertain in the beginning and then warmed to it over time. Just too many tricky parts to be able to make a black and white situation out of it.

 

And I don't think the "opt-out before it is too late to terminate" idea could address every situation either. It is still a kind of "get out of jail free" card for the man. He gets the fun of the sex without consequence. It still leaves everything on the woman. Sex IS for procreation - simple fact. If a person is not willing to deal with the possible consequence of that, they shouldn't be having sex.

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You can think whatever you like, and I agree that this is the ideal situation. However currently, a child has no legal right to force it's parents to see them...

 

True, it doesn't. The child only has the right to be supported financially, not emotionally.

The German Supreme Court does not agree with either of you:

 

The fines imposed on the reluctant father by the court were not retracted, the court did in fact see an obligation of the father to see the child as the child's inherent right.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Sex IS for procreation - simple fact. If a person is not willing to deal with the possible consequence of that, they shouldn't be having sex

That has gotta be the most banal thing I've seen written here for a long time...

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Forcing a pissed off dad to "nurture" a child is asking for lotsa trouble and risking emotional scars on the kiddo.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@mj davey - exactly.

I never said the opposite, but I did say this is why mothers lose out - they can't force the father to be a part of the child's life, and the child looses out. The father can to walk away in that aspect, leaving the mother "holding the bag" emotionally, even if there is a monthly financial obligation.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That has gotta be the most banal thing I've seen written here for a long time...

Doesn't make it any less true. If everyone stopped to think before having sex, "Okay, this might result in a pregnancy, and quite possibly a child," I bet some people would make different choices, or at least, make a thoughtful, conscious choice. Don't get me wrong, I think sex is great, and I don't think people should only have sex to procreate, and I don't have any moral problem with any kind of sex, as long as it is two (or more ;)) consenting adults.

 

And although my statement was obvious, I bet most people DON'T think about the possible consequence. Plus, there are tons of options for having great sex without risking pregnancy - anal, oral, mutual masturbation, etc.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

That has gotta be the most banal thing I've seen written here for a long time...

I think she's right and more mature and responsible than most of us here probably

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

And I don't think the "opt-out before it is too late to terminate" idea could address every situation either. It is still a kind of "get out of jail free" card for the man.

Yup, I agree. A lot of men's position sound very much to me like: she should have the kid if it suits me, she shouldn't if it doesn't. Also not sure why the financial obligation for fathers of kids is such a big deal. The woman pays in time commitment, perhaps lost income etc. It's not a one-way thing.

 

The other thing that's not really mentioned here which I've seen often enough is that a lot of men seem to string women along or at least don't set their expectations clearly. Some are just downright evasive or even liars. Do the big "I'm so in love with you" or "let's have half a dozen babies", but when that comes to be in an entirely normal manifestation, it's suddenly "but I never said I wanted that...".

 

I also don't think it's "banal" to suggest avoiding sex. Looking round at my 40 something peers, it seems the most obvious solution. The (straight) ones without kids (wanted or otherwise) are the ones who afaik have not had very the most active sex lives. I'd include me in that. It's not *that* hard to avoid reproduction if you actively put your mind to it, not in this day and age, or if your circumstances give you few chances. That's not meant to be in anyway judgemental, just logic. The practicalities and randomness of sex are that, go round having a lot of it, you are usually significantly increasing your chances of reproducing. That story of mother nature is centuries old!

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Jesus... is the den of debauchery that is TT finally realisin that Father Joe had it right all along... quelle surprise...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@swimmer: no idea who you are, but I wouldn't tar other 'straight' couples without kids with your sad perception of sexless lives... that's even more banal and pointless that leezas statement - which she, being mature and responsible agrees with! This is not only quasi-homophobic, it is sad that you are whining about your personal situation...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I don't agree that biological parents should have to pay for the children they have given up for adoption either. There are all kinds of problems orbiting around such an arrangement. If the child is adopted and the biological mother pays for everything wheras the 2 real parents (i.e. the ones nurturing and caring for him/her etc) pay nothing - how is that fair? Wouldn't that cause a lot of people to become parents simply to use the cild as a money cow for milking the unknown unseen biological mother? What if the parents have different lifestyle expectations for the rearing of the child than the bio mother would have? What if those expectations are beyond the means of the bio mother? Should the latter pay only a certain proportion of her wages/social welfare payments for the rearing of the child so that she may only partially-support her bio child financially? What if the bio mother is poor wheras the new parents are rich?

Also, shouldn't the real parents be held responsible for the upbringing of their children?!

If the bio mother is going to have to pay for the upbringing of her child, then it seems she should be able to regain custody (perhaps partial) of the child if she changes her mind. After all, there should be no responsibilities without rights. However if that were the case, we could see situations where a child finds him/herself in a tug of war between the bio and adoptive parents. This is a fun can of worms.

As Carm said, if a parent gives up their child for adoption, he/she waives all rights and responsibilites to that child

I didn't question whether or not the birth mother should pay the adoptive parents, but rather the Jugendamt or foster family. I was informed that if the birth mother gives up her baby and parental rights, then then she would not be obligated to pay child support until the baby is adopted; however, there is no such provision that allows the biological father to give up his parental rights and child support obligations if he doesn't want to "be a dad".

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just wondering . . . If the woman decides to give the kid up for adoption (no mention of father's ID), can/should the state make her pay child support to the Jugendamt/foster family?

 

 

I believe in personal responsibility, so yes, the mother should pay child support to the foster family as opposed to burdening society as a whole.

- hams

 

I wasn't replying directly to you damara - more to the notion as expressed/suggested/implied by you and hams and perhaps others that a mother who gives her baby up for adoption should have to financially support that child. I did not realise that you meant just until the child is adopted (not after) hence the rant above. However, I still don't think the woman should have to financially support the child until then either. Just as I think that a man should be given the opportunity to waive all rights and responsibilities - this would be permanent. My mother was fostered from the age of 3 up. Her mother was alive but incapable of taking care of the children due to illness. She never recovered and my Mum never met her. The children could not be adopted because she was still alive and unable to care for them. I think it would be wrong to force a sick mother whose children have been put into care to pay the foster family (in my mother's case - the only family she had ever known as she could not remember her original family).

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now