Signing away paternity

The Sweeper

Am going to throw this hornets' nest out there and see what happens.

For various reasons, the subject of paternity has come up in the home lives of those close to me. Some of the blokes I know are paying maintenance on children who are the result of a one night stand, and with whom they have little or no relationship - but they wouldn't have it any other way.

Some of the women I know are getting maintenance from useless bastards who have a poor relationship with the child but persist in interfering, usually at inopportune moments, in the child's life.

The third case scenario is that I also know some parents who have a functional relationship with their co-parent, involving sharing of funds and involvement in child care, yet no intimate or friendly personal relationship between them.

Having viewed all of these scenarios, I am starting to believe that men who father unwanted children as the result of a consensual one night stand or short-term relationship in which it was clear to all parties that a child was not the planned outcome - those men should have an option to sign away paternal rights and responsibilities - in other words, they don't have to pay maintenance, but they don't get to have anything whatsoever to do with their child. I don't believe it should be a cheap or easy option - so I don't believe it should be the male equivalent of the morning after pill, for instance, but I do believe it should be an option.

I suppose this comes from my belief that having your biological father persistently in your life for 18 years through a financial commitment that is not supported by an emotional commitment - I think it's more damaging than beneficial. Some of the most fucked up kids I've ever encountered - who become fucked up adults to boot - had the influence through their childhood of some feckless waster father who never wanted them and ended up destroying their self esteem through this system of intermittent approval and interest. Miss one birthday, exaggerate another. Be around for some special occasions and not others. Show an interest one year, none the next.

It ties in with the fact that I knew one guy in my life (one that I know of) whose girlfriend got pregnant, and had an abortion that he didn't want her to have. A strongly catholic chap who at the time was in his early twenties, it totally and utterly destroyed him. He was shattered and it took him nearly eight years to even consider another relationship with a woman. In his early 40s now, I believe it still upsets him to think of it. What's my point? My point is that men don't get a say really - if the woman wants the child, he has to pay maintenance and support the child, but if she doesn't want it and he does, he's at her mercy completely. Obviously I'm not comfortable with the idea that any woman be forced to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term, but I believe there is a balance that needs to be redressed in terms of men's rights to be a father or not.

It's a common argument in guardianship cases that it takes more than DNA to make a parent, but that same argument doesn't seem to apply to the financial world of absentee fathers.

Any opinions? Should men be allowed to opt out of unwanted parenthood (with the caveat that it's not a cheap and easy way out), or should they carry the can for their actions whatever the circumstance?

ntlbell

I would of thought a lot of fathers all ready do opt out of fatherhood?

I know some that just have a DD setup with the bank to the mothers account and have no contact with mother or child?

When anything like this comes up I always look to the benefit of the child and I see no benefit in the father opting out from a financial point of view.

Xiney

I think if a father wants to be less involved in his child's life, he ought to pay MORE maintenance.

ntlbell

Xiney wrote: »

I think if a father wants to be less involved in his child's life, he ought to pay MORE maintenance.

That doesn't make much sense.

ntlbell

Xiney wrote: »

I think if a father wants to be less involved in his child's life, he ought to pay MORE maintenance.

If the father wanted the mother to have an abortion but she refused should he pay less?

Iago

I don't think you're going to get the relevant response here. Somewhere like humanities or parenting would be far more suitable, as you're more likely to get fathers who post there regularly.

Otherwise you're just highlighting the very point you're making, you're posting a question as to whether or not men should be given a choice in a forum that's predominantly female orientated. You'll therefore get a female perspective and men won't be given a choice

for the record I'm male and I've been a parent since I was 16, although I haven't been in a relationship with his mother since I was 17.

Munstermad

As a mum of a son who was the result of a brief relatioship and who's child was rejected by his biological sperm doner twice in his life, i agree the father should be given the option to sign away all paternal rights. On approval from the mother and a family law/relationship specialist...with terms and conditions.
I was luck to meet a fab man who adopted my son and the sd lost his paternal rights anyway. Not that he was bothered.
What is best for the child is the primary goal, an absent father is no good to anyone, why should he have any rights. On the other hand it shouldn't be used as a tool to punish or threaten real fathers...Real men.

Peared

It's only one small point but how surely a child whose father didn't want to know him would feel worse knowing he actually signed him away.

I don't think men should escape their fianancial responsibilities and being given the option to 'sign and not pay' would mean many immature idiots would do it with little thought.

Xiney

When two consenting adults have sexual intercourse, it should be understood that there is a chance pregnancy may result. All attempts should be made to minimize said possibility if so undesired, but it will remain, however small.

Should a child result from an egg and a sperm encountering each other, as frequently happens in such a case, it is equally the responsibility of the sperm person as it is the egg person. However, in our society, if only one person is involved in providing for the emotional and physical needs of a child, it is more often than not the egg person to whom these tasks fall.

If the sperm person doesn't want to provide emotional or physical support, he should make up for it with more financial support than someone who is helping in other ways.


I feel in a small majority of cases (there was a PI recently), men are duped into having children they didn't plan ("Don't worry I'm on the pill" followed by "oh gosh I'm pregnant") but if the man was to wear a condom in these cases, he wouldn't have to worry about that.

ntlbell

Peared wrote: »

I don't think men should escape their fianancial responsibilities and being given the option to 'sign and not pay' would mean many immature idiots would do it with little thought.

There's as many idiot mothers out there who prevent the father from having a real involvement in the child's life as there is men who avoid their responsibilities financially.

Don't kid yourself.

ntlbell

Munstermad wrote: »

As a mum of a son who was the result of a brief relatioship and who's child was rejected by his biological sperm doner twice in his life, i agree the father should be given the option to sign away all paternal rights. On approval from the mother and a family law/relationship specialist...with terms and conditions.
I was luck to meet a fab man who adopted my son and the sd lost his paternal rights anyway. Not that he was bothered.
What is best for the child is the primary goal, an absent father is no good to anyone, why should he have any rights. On the other hand it shouldn't be used as a tool to punish or threaten real fathers...Real men.

unless your married they don't get any rights by default

so what would he be signing away exactly?

ntlbell

Xiney wrote: »

If the sperm person doesn't want to provide emotional or physical support, he should make up for it with more financial support than someone who is helping in other ways.

and women who don't offer equal time with the child etc should get less then i take it yes?

Wibbs

Great idea for debate from MAJD and I think some valid angles there from ntlbell. It's the woman's body so her right to choose as far as the pregnancy goes. But one could argue that a man ought to have rights over his DNA and what happens. After all it's part of him, so some ownership does come into it and from an emtional, time and financial angle it's his whole life too. Whether he chooses to have it become another human being and at the point that it does he should have some right to decide if he wants to be involved. As it is it does seem entirely biased towards the biology of one gender and I thought that we should be at least open to thinking about other options. I mean we don't suggest women of child bearing age should be excluded from the workplace on pure financial/business terms because of possible ramifications from their gender biology, so why should men be excluded on their biology?

Peared

ntlbell wrote: »

There's as many idiot mothers out there who prevent the father from having a real involvement in the child's life as there is men who avoid their responsibilities financially.

Don't kid yourself.

I sincerely doubt that.

Wibbs

Xiney wrote: »

Should a child result from an egg and a sperm encountering each other, as frequently happens in such a case, it is equally the responsibility of the sperm person as it is the egg person. However, in our society, if only one person is involved in providing for the emotional and physical needs of a child, it is more often than not the egg person to whom these tasks fall.

If the sperm person doesn't want to provide emotional or physical support, he should make up for it with more financial support than someone who is helping in other ways.

Yes but the egg person holds all of the cards as far as having or not having the child to term. The sperm person has no "right to choose" and even after the birth their rights are vague. Their responsibilities are clear though. Hardly equatable.

ntlbell

Peared wrote: »

I sincerely doubt that.

How surprising.

Peared

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes but the egg person holds all of the cards as far as having or not having the child to term. The sperm person has no "right to choose" and even after the birth their rights are vague. Their responsibilities are clear though. Hardly equatable.

If you are a man and definitely don't want a child then don't come inside a woman. Really it's as simple as that.

Same for women, if you have unprotected sex it is up to you to deal with the consequences of it. Granted after the pregnancy occurs, women have an additional option - they can abort. Men can't. But men can walk away - women can't.

Peared

ntlbell wrote: »

How surprising.

Why? Because I am female?

Xiney

ntlbell wrote: »

and women who don't offer equal time with the child etc should get less then i take it yes?

If he wants to be involved and she doesn't let him (for any reason other than abusive behaviour including emotional/mental abuse) then he shouldn't have to pay the premium "deadbeat" rate, no.

brianthebard

Wibbs wrote: »

Great idea for debate from MAJD and I think some valid angles there from ntlbell. It's the woman's body so her right to choose as far as the pregnancy goes.

Eh not really, not in this country at least. And I'm not trying to cause a massive abortion debate, but while it remains illegal in Ireland then its the choice of both parties. (Or neither, depending on the way you look at it.) I'm sure this particular law was never intended as a means of equality of the sexes, but while it is there, it does achieve that to a certain extent.

On topic, I agree with Peared that knowing your father signed off on his responsibilities would be pretty nasty, but in the sort of cases we are talking about that's just a legal stamp that affirms what the child already knows. While I don't think guys should be trapped into paying for maintenance, if a mother is going to struggle then the father should be expected to help. So what I'm trying to say is maintenance should be reformed, rather than abolished or establishing the option of ignoring it.

ntlbell

Peared wrote: »

If you are a man and definitely don't want a child then don't come inside a woman. Really it's as simple as that.

Same for women, if you have unprotected sex it is up to you to deal with the consequences of it. Granted after the pregnancy occurs, women have an additional option - they can abort. Men can't. But men can walk away - women can't.

women can walk away and many do.

Peared

Not from being pregnant they can't.

Xiney

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes but the egg person holds all of the cards as far as having or not having the child to term. The sperm person has no "right to choose" and even after the birth their rights are vague. Their responsibilities are clear though. Hardly equatable.

Women don't often have abortions to get away from bringing a child into this world. There is adoption, after all.

They generally do it to avoid pregnancy and giving birth - neither of which a man will ever have to deal with.


If a man who would expect his partner to abort has sex with a woman who won't want to no matter what, then that is a question of choosing one's partners more wisely, or being extra extra careful and then accepting the fact that sometimes things go wrong.

ntlbell

brianthebard wrote: »

Eh not really, not in this country at least. And I'm not trying to cause a massive abortion debate, but while it remains ilegal in Ireland then its the choice of both parties. (Or neither, depending on the way you look at it.) I'm sure this particular law was never intended as a means of equality of the sexes, but while it is there, it does achieve that to a certain extent.

.

The choice is still there for her no one can stop her aborting the child

the only choice then is should she break the law or not but the choice always lies with the woman, regardless of what the man wants he has NO choice legal or otherwise.

ntlbell

Peared wrote: »

Not from being pregnant they can't.

That's easy for her to avoid tho isn't it?

don't let a man cum inside her?

everything is easy in your world see?

ntlbell

Xiney wrote: »

If he wants to be involved and she doesn't let him (for any reason other than abusive behaviour including emotional/mental abuse) then he shouldn't have to pay the premium "deadbeat" rate, no.

but surly she should have a deadbeat mother rate attached?

so she could make up his reduced rate as he doesn't get equal access to the child?

why is it only a one way thing?

Xiney

because in my argument, there are two rates:

father makes attempt to be involved, doesn't matter if it's thwarted = X
father makes no real attempt to be involved = X + supplement of Y


And yes, I do believe it should be up to the father to prove that he is involved with his child's life.

ntlbell

Xiney wrote: »

because in my argument, there are two rates:

father makes attempt to be involved, doesn't matter if it's thwarted = X
father makes no real attempt to be involved = X + supplement of Y


And yes, I do believe it should be up to the father to prove that he is involved with his child's life.

and my point is why is there no supplement on mothers who don't give the father equal access rights etc?

why is the financial punishment only one way?

Munstermad

ntlbell, in answer to your question yes i did marry and my husband then he and I, believe it or not adopted my son. The sd did not sign his rights away they were taken from him through the adoption process when he failed to contest the procedure.

On another point, many many more men than women abandon their children, being rejected by either parent is traumatic and has a profound effect.
What difference is there in the pain if a child is abandoned by being deliberately absent parent or by legally acknowledging you are a failure as a parent and signing away your rights...male or female...

ntlbell

Munstermad wrote: »

ntlbell, in answer to your question yes i did marry and my husband then he and I, believe it or not adopted my son. The sd did not sign his rights away they were taken from him through the adoption process when he failed to contest the procedure.

On another point, many many more men than women abandon their children, being rejected by either parent is traumatic and has a profound effect.
What difference is there in the pain if a child is abandoned by being deliberately absent parent or by legally acknowledging you are a failure as a parent and signing away your rights...male or female...

I don't think I was asking about your specific situation I mean in general men don't get any rights by default so in the OP's question he wouldn't be signing anything away bar finanacial rights which would have no real benifit on the child for him to do so.

I was under the impression that if you marry someone else he wouldn't be able to contest the adoption he only has to be made aware of the fact but I'm sure you know more about it than I

brianthebard

Peared wrote: »

Not from being pregnant they can't.

Come on now, there aren't children in orphanages who's mothers are alive? Fair enough a pregnant woman can't pretend she's not pregnant but there's lots of ways for her to walk away all the same, before or after birth.

ntlbell wrote: »

The choice is still there for her no one can stop her aborting the child

the only choice then is should she break the law or not but the choice always lies with the woman, regardless of what the man wants he has NO choice legal or otherwise.

True but I don't think that's the point Wibbs was making.

Peared

ntlbell wrote: »

That's easy for her to avoid tho isn't it?

don't let a man cum inside her?

everything is easy in your world see?

That makes no sense.

And your world is the same as my world. It's one and the same.

Unfortunately.

ntlbell

Peared wrote: »

That makes no sense.

And your world is the same as my world. It's one and the same.

Unfortunately.

You said. If a man doesn't want to have kids don't cum inside of women.

Here's were the magic happens wait for it.

If a woman doesn't want to get pregnant which is i would assume she doesn't if she wants to walk away

don't let a man cum inside you? no pregnancy?

the same point you made towards men no ?

ntlbell

brianthebard wrote: »

True but I don't think that's the point Wibbs was making.

It wasn't a reply to Wibbs post IIRC

Peared

brianthebard wrote: »

Come on now, there aren't children in orphanages who's mothers are alive? Fair enough a pregnant woman can't pretend she's not pregnant but there's lots of ways for her to walk away all the same, before or after birth.

But brianthebard, what I mean is.. Say I fly over to galway on my broomstick and we have us some hot caveman type playdates and you get me up the duff... I can't walk away from it. I have to make an incredibly difficult decision and take a physical, painful course of action, regardless of what I choose I can't just say nah I don't want a brianthebardjunior I'm outta here and forget all about it.

ntlbell

Peared wrote: »

But brianthebard, what I mean is.. Say I fly over to galway on my broomstick and we have us some hot caveman type playdates and you get me up the duff... I can't walk away from it. I have to make an incredibly difficult decision and take a physical, painful course of action, regardless of what I choose I can't just say nah I don't want a brianthebardjunior I'm outta here and forget all about it.

But your saying if you dont want it then don't let a man cum inside you

or if your male dont cum inside a woman so why are you over having playdates letting a man cum inside you if you dont want to get up the duff?

your own logic doesn't seem to sit well with you for some strange reason

brianthebard

ntlbell wrote: »

It wasn't a reply to Wibbs post IIRC

Well I replied to Wibbs, and you replied to me, so it appeared like you were continuing the theme.

Peared wrote: »

But brianthebard, what I mean is.. Say I fly over to galway on my broomstick and we have us some hot caveman type playdates and you get me up the duff... I can't walk away from it. I have to make an incredibly difficult decision and take a physical, painful course of action, regardless of what I choose I can't just say nah I don't want a brianthebardjunior I'm outta here and forget all about it.

First off...cool, caveman playdates (a little humour for a heavy thread). Second off, you're assuming that all fathers are making a painfree choice? I'm not sure that's the case. I appreciate what you are saying by physical pain, but there are plenty of women who wouldn't feel any emotional pain from having to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. That's just how it is.

Xiney

ntlbell wrote: »

and my point is why is there no supplement on mothers who don't give the father equal access rights etc?

why is the financial punishment only one way?

I see your point.

In that case, I amend my payment structure to the following:

Dad wants to be involved, but for no good reason Mom doesn't let him = X - Z
Dad is sufficiently involved = X
Dad is not involved, either because he doesn't want to be or because he is barred from seeing his child for good reason = X + Y


That work for you?

Wibbs

Peared wrote: »

If you are a man and definitely don't want a child then don't come inside a woman. Really it's as simple as that.

Same for women, if you have unprotected sex it is up to you to deal with the consequences of it.

Yes but your caveat for women was the unprotected bit. Lets look at this objectively as we can. Man and woman have sex. Woman takes bigger risk as she is the one who gets pregnant and indeed more men abandon their kids. So logic would suggest that the woman takes more responsibility for contraception, no? As it stands the general consensus is that it should be equal(and I agree FWIW), but the outcome is not equal. That's a sticking point there.

after the pregnancy occurs, women have an additional option - they can abort. Men can't. But men can walk away - women can't.

Or they can adopt, or they can keep the child. None of which the man has any say in. The only option he has is to walk so maybe that should be allowed for in law with some caveats.

Xiney wrote:

Women don't often have abortions to get away from bringing a child into this world. There is adoption, after all.

Yes but the rate of adoption has dropped considerably since the abortion option has become more available, which would suggest that in fact abortion is partly a way to get away from bringing a child into the world.


Starting trouble is not exactly a shining start to me being the new male mod around here.

Wibbs

brianthebard wrote: »

True but I don't think that's the point Wibbs was making.

Wasn't far off TBH.

Peared

@ NTL

What I said was that if you take that risk as a woman you have to deal with the consequences. That is still my point.

Respond if you wish, your just on the borderline trolling is tedious at best.

ntlbell

Xiney wrote: »

I see your point.

In that case, I amend my payment structure to the following:

Dad wants to be involved, but for no good reason Mom doesn't let him = X - Z
Dad is sufficiently involved = X
Dad is not involved, either because he doesn't want to be or because he is barred from seeing his child for good reason = X + Y


That work for you?

Loving it.

Xiney

Wibbs wrote: »

Yes but the rate of adoption has dropped considerably since the abortion option has become more available, which would suggest that in fact abortion is partly a way to get away from bringing a child into the world.

Often these adoptions would have been for babies born out of wedlock.

Arguably the babies up for adoption in times past would have been aborted these days. The woman would still have rather avoided the unmarried pregnancy, but since she couldn't do that, she avoided raising the child at least by giving it up.

Abortion avoids bringing a child into the world, that's the end result. But if women were willing to go through with the pregnancy but not the raising of the child, they'd go for adoption instead. It's to avoid pregnancy that people choose abortion.

Peared

Xiney wrote: »

I see your point.

In that case, I amend my payment structure to the following:

Dad wants to be involved, but for no good reason Mom doesn't let him = X - Z
Dad is sufficiently involved = X
Dad is not involved, either because he doesn't want to be or because he is barred from seeing his child for good reason = X + Y


That work for you?

I'm sorry but I lolled.

brianthebard

Wibbs wrote: »

Wasn't far off TBH.

Fair enough, when you called it a right I assumed you meant something different.

Red Hand

Xiney wrote:

Abortion avoids bringing a child into the world, that's the end result. But if women were willing to go through with the pregnancy but not the raising of the child, they'd go for adoption instead. It's to avoid pregnancy that people choose abortion.

Is it? For all abortions? I would think that there would be many reasons why someone would choose abortion-age of the female in question, avoiding pregnancy and birth, unable to raise a child if it were born for whatever reason, possible complications in the future when giving birth due to illness or whatever, family/spousal pressure, ethical reasons...and many many more.

Red Hand

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

Any opinions? Should men be allowed to opt out of unwanted parenthood (with the caveat that it's not a cheap and easy way out), or should they carry the can for their actions whatever the circumstance?

I would say that it's not like someone forced a fellow to have a one night stand. Even if they were following all the contraception do's and don'ts, the fact is the whole purpose of sex is to make new offspring. So, yes, carry the can would be my answer for most of these scenarios.

the_syco

Xiney wrote: »

Dad wants to be involved, but for no good reason Mom doesn't let him = X - Z
Dad is sufficiently involved = X
Dad is not involved, either because he doesn't want to be or because he is barred from seeing his child for good reason = X + Y

Ah. Good reason tends to suck. Also, good reason tends to be why the problem (of father not being able to see child) exists at the moment.

Peared wrote: »

What I said was that if you take that risk as a woman you have to deal with the consequences. That is still my point./quote]
You take the risk, we pay the price. With the morning pill, you have the power, we take the risk, and maybe pay the price.

Phototoxin

simply put the choice is made when sex is done.

The_Minister

Peared wrote: »

But brianthebard, what I mean is.. Say I fly over to galway on my broomstick and we have us some hot caveman type playdates and you get me up the duff... I can't walk away from it. I have to make an incredibly difficult decision and take a physical, painful course of action, regardless of what I choose I can't just say nah I don't want a brianthebardjunior I'm outta here and forget all about it.

And if BriantheBard offers to pay for you to fly to a Marie Snopes clinic in England, pay for the abortion and flights, should he not be able to call it quits since he offered you a way out?

brianthebard

I feel somewhat uncomfortable with what brianthebard is proposing here...