Signing away paternity

K-9

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Obviously, proof that he asked her to get an abortion and offered to enable the process would be required.

Personally, I don't see that as justification, too many men don't pay anyway, so it's a great excuse.

Lockstep

Seanies32 wrote: »

Personally, I don't see that as justification, too many men don't pay anyway, so it's a great excuse.

What is your point here? I already said that proof would be required that the man didn't want the baby and offered to enable an abortion.

The woman made a unilateral decision to have the baby, as such the father should not be obligated to pay for it;s upkeep.

K-9

kickoutthejams wrote: »

What is your point here? I already said that proof would be required that the man didn't want the baby and offered to enable an abortion.

The woman made a unilateral decision to have the baby, as such the father should not be obligated to pay for it;s upkeep.

I made my point, if you don't see it well..............

My major problem with the proposal is it does nothing to alleviate the problem of Dads walking away without giving a feck.

Too many skinflints would use it as an easy opt out so some other financial penalty needs to be introduced.

The Corinthian

kickoutthejams wrote: »

If the father wanted to abort the child, and the mother refused, then the mother being able to shake him down for maintenance in the future seems a bit harsh IMHO

It is harsh, but neither is he blameless.

The situation that results in a man ending up like this is down to two choices:

• Their mutual choice to have sex.
• Her choice to keep and raise the child.

If either of these two conditions are not met there's no case. Full stop.

The first one both have had an equal choice and must pay the price for the pregnancy. If the woman chooses abortion or adoption, this means that he should share the cost (arguably the bulk of it as he is not going through any medical procedures or labour). He also shares a measure of the liability in terms of damages.

The second though is a concious choice by the mother alone. Actually, of the three people affected by this choice, only her interests are bizzarely considered. After all, it may not be in the child's best interests to be kept - adoption may be the best thing for it.

Women do have this choice. They may choose against abortion for religious or moral reasons, but that's still a choice. They may choose against adoption, but that too is still a choice. And those choices do exist - even in Ireland, where while abortion may be illegal, women have a constitutional right to travel for it.

A man can either take the punishment or run - the paternal equivalent of a backstreet abortion. And if he takes the punishment he is in indentured servitude for the next 18 - 23 years. Imagine if there was no means of getting an abortion and adoption meant that the adoptive mother had to also pay maintenance to the adoptees?

One may argue that if a man does not want to get into such a situation he should keep it in his pants, but that effectively exonerates women from responsibility. It would be like arguing that if a woman did not want to get sexually molested she should not wear provocative clothing.

As things stand, the option to vacate paternity does not exist in any shape or form in Ireland. Even if a mother were to offer it, a man would gain nothing from it. He would still be liable to pay maintenance and, in fact, his agreement to vacate paternity could later be used against him in court.

My own feeling is that the entire issue has become too centred upon the rights of the woman. She can abort/adopt or not if she chooses. The interests of the child actually don't come into play in this, let alone the father's. A review of this is long overdue.

Seanies32 wrote: »

The child could contest it if no proper provision has been made for his children.

To begin with, proper provision does not imply an equal share - a judge could award a nominal amount, depending upon the circumstances.

If a man wants to disown such a child he will, especially if he has the support of family to do so. He can sign ownership of everything to others or put himself into 'debt' to them, so that when the inevitable happens his estate is non-existent. That is his visible estate, as much of it could be overseas.

And all this is assuming that a child even knows of his/her father's death, or knows where they are, to contest anything in the first place.

Contesting wills is realistically only practical if the father has made no provisions like the above and/or the value of the estate merits such a case. In most cases, it's not worth the emotional and financial cost to pursue, even if one could actually get something.

the_syco

metrovelvet wrote: »

But the mother isnt rejecting or giving away her child when the father signs away paternity.

My bad. I was reading the "thirdly, like an adoption" bit.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

To begin with, proper provision does not imply an equal share - a judge could award a nominal amount, depending upon the circumstances.

If a man wants to disown such a child he will, especially if he has the support of family to do so. He can sign ownership of everything to others or put himself into 'debt' to them, so that when the inevitable happens his estate is non-existent. That is his visible estate, as much of it could be overseas.

And all this is assuming that a child even knows of his/her father's death, or knows where they are, to contest anything in the first place.

Contesting wills is realistically only practical if the father has made no provisions like the above and/or the value of the estate merits such a case. In most cases, it's not worth the emotional and financial cost to pursue, even if one could actually get something.

That wasn't really the point I was making.

The child would be treated exactly the same as any other child of the Dad, born in wedlock, or not!

The Corinthian

Seanies32 wrote: »

That wasn't really the point I was making.

The child would be treated exactly the same as any other child of the Dad, born in wedlock, or not!

De jure you're correct. Under Irish law any child is eligible to a share (if the deceased has other children) of one third of the estate (if the deceased was married), or a share (if the deceased has other children) of the entire estate (if the deceased was not married) and dies intestate (without a valid will). Otherwise, the child may challenge it on the grounds that they have not been provided for adequately.

De facto, see above post.

the_syco

Seanies32 wrote: »

The child could contest it if no proper provision has been made for his children.

Can they still contest to the will if they are adults when he dies, and thus are no longer dependant on the mother?

The Corinthian

the_syco wrote: »

Can they still contest to the will if they are adults when he dies, and thus are no longer dependant on the mother?

Of course. The legal distinction between legitimate and illegitimate children was abolished some time ago and as the father cannot relinquish his responsibilities, the (adult) child is an heir, just like any other child of his.

This can open up the scenario of a man who may have fathered a child from a one night stand or brief relationship in his youth, going on to marry years later and having a family, only for them to find when he dies that a stranger has a claim towards their inheritance. If his wife dies before him and he, naturally, inherits from her, then her estate is also subject to this claim. Good thing men die younger then, heh?

In the case of adoption, the (adult) child has no such rights. The mother not only relinquishes all her and the father's responsibilities (and rights) but also the child's rights to inheritance from them, when the child is adopted.

In the case of fathers without guardianship rights, the only provision is that there is a "reasonable attempt to consult" them of the adoption - essentially to inform them. The mother need not present proof that she has actually done so.

Trinity

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

Trinity I don't want to poke a sore spot on you, but on the basis of your experience, would you rather the arsehole had signed his way out of your son's life from before birth and left nothing but a trust fund your son would benefit from on his 18th birthday? If you think of how you would have had to handle telling your son about his biological father if that had been the case, versus what you've had to put up with, would you rather he had signed away his paternity?

I honestly dont know the answer to that question.

On one hand yes, it would have saved my son a lot of hurt and imho some of his emotional problems are down to this situation.

On the other hand, i gave his father every opportunity to bond with him, i gave him every opportunity to be part of his life, my son has met his father, has spent *some* time with him and i am glad that he had that opportunity.

Either way whether he heard it from me, or in this case found out for himself, the child knows at the end of the day his father has no interest in being part of his life.

Had i asked the father to make that decision early on, without giving the father the opportunity to see if he felt differently having spent time with the child, i would get the blame no doubt, and perhaps have regrets in later years. That this peice of paper came between my son and his father. Its a very big decision to ask someone to make, well a legally binding one anyway.

I imagine in later life my son will go looking for him. At least his father can never blame me for this situation, and more importantly neither can my son.

So I guess maybe the answer is no, not without trying first.

Saibh

In my case, my son father was given the opportunity to be part of his life but he choice not to have anything to do with him, therefore in my opinion he signed away any parental rights he had.

I have mentioned to my son did he want to know anything about his father and he said straight out no.

metrovelvet

Saibh wrote: »

In my case, my son father was given the opportunity to be part of his life but he choice not to have anything to do with him, therefore in my opinion he signed away any parental rights he had.

I have mentioned to my son did he want to know anything about his father and he said straight out no.

Well, how else can you interepret it really? I took the refusal of both guardianship and of naming himself on the birthcert, along with chronic absenteeism, personal insults, obfuscation, game playing, etc etc, perjury as a clear sign that he has vacated paternity.

Trinity

Saibh wrote: »

In my case, my son father was given the opportunity to be part of his life but he choice not to have anything to do with him, therefore in my opinion he signed away any parental rights he had.

I have mentioned to my son did he want to know anything about his father and he said straight out no.

Poor kids eh

I know you might disagree and even think that they are better off without these arse holes but at the end of the day its rejection and it hurts me like hell that my son was rejected by his flesh and blood.

K-9

Trinity1 wrote: »

Poor kids eh

I know you might disagree and even think that they are better off without these arse holes but at the end of the day its rejection and it hurts me like hell that my son was rejected by his flesh and blood.

I know you have probably heard it a 1,000 times and words are cheap, but his loss.

He can't say to your son in 10/15 years, if he was so inclined to look for him, it was your fault.

You can't bring a horse to water!

Saibh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well, how else can you interepret it really? I took the refusal of both guardianship and of naming himself on the birthcert, along with chronic absenteeism, personal insults, obfuscation, game playing, etc etc, perjury as a clear sign that he has vacated paternity.

Trinity1 wrote: »

Poor kids eh

I know you might disagree and even think that they are better off without these arse holes but at the end of the day its rejection and it hurts me like hell that my son was rejected by his flesh and blood.

What I should have added as well I rather be in my situation i.e. no contact at all when I see what others have experienced. I would hate to see any child go through that.

I am very proud of how he has turned out (if I do say so myself):)

MJOR

MAJD has some valid points in that rejection from a parent can rightly fu€k you up. Some of the closet friends i have were from broken homes / single parents and now as we approach 30 it still haunts them.

I think when you engage in sex it's the resposibility of both consenting adults to actually take responsibility to make sure an unwanted pregnancy doesn't happen, however in the worst case scenario then both parties have equal responsibility.
i know a guy married a lovely woman who had two children when they met They hadn't seen their bio father in a few years. They were all living in germany at this time. They went on to get married have two more kids and relocate to ireland. The bio father made no attempt to prevent this from happening. As far as anyone knows here they are a family of six. The kids intend on changing their surname to his when they are 18 (they are 15 and 14 now). The main reason the guy has not adopted them is his wife is adament that their father still pay maintenace. Her children were born within a marriage (not that that really matters in my book) but they were planned and he just left without a backward glance. He more or less told her he wanted to move on with his life and not be a parent.

In this instance that guy id their Dad and their father is the man that fathered them. All their problems are solved by their Dad and their father pays their mom a measley sum every month. Their Dad helps them with homework. Their father does very little, has missed every major event in their lives bar their conception and maybe one or two birthdays.

Rights and responsibilties are not clearly defined this is true. A lot of the time really the childs interests aren't looked after. It becomes a game of emotional ping pong and one upmanship. I think that in no way should a man be allowed to sign away his rights or responsibilties.

The Corinthian

MJOR wrote: »

I think that in no way should a man be allowed to sign away his rights or responsibilties.

Which is fine as long as you accept the same of women. No abortion and no adoption (without both parent's consent). Otherwise the whole thing becomes a bit of a joke.

And this is before you consider that men don't have any rights to give away. They have the option to apply for them, but none are automatic. So this too would have to be redressed - and fathers, even if they're abusive alcoholics, would have to get automatic and irreversible guardianship rights. Just like mothers, even if they're abusive alcoholics, do now.

MJOR

The Corinthian wrote: »

Which is fine as long as you accept the same of women. No abortion and no adoption (without both parent's consent). Otherwise the whole thing becomes a bit of a joke.

And this is before you consider that men don't have any rights to give away. They have the option to apply for them, but none are automatic. So this too would have to be redressed - and fathers, even if they're abusive alcoholics, would have to get automatic and irreversible guardianship rights. Just like mothers, even if they're abusive alcoholics, do now.

you have to admit that the abortion thing is hard to enforce on anyone. I take your point about both sexes. After all it takes two to tango. I admit that not all mothers are great . I'm not sure statistically percentage wise how many single fathers v's single mothers there are out there and i know the child isn't always better off with the mother. I just think that sure men get a raw deal but so do women in a lot of cases.

The Corinthian

MJOR wrote: »

you have to admit that the abortion thing is hard to enforce on anyone.

I agree, but what I was referring to was a question of equality of rights and responsibilities. How this is achieved isn't important, only that it is.

Presently we have a situation whereby if a woman wants to walk away from parental responsibilities it is a question of a "woman's right to choose", if a man does we get a resounding "won't someone think of the child".

In short, you really can't have it both ways. You can't claim an unfair advantage because you are the one getting pregnant and then demand equal rights in other walks of life, such as employment, when pregnancy affects you negatively.

Here's a scenario: Imagine a mother wants to have an abortion and the father has a surrogate ready to give birth to the child instead. In both cases a medical procedure takes place and the woman's bodily rights are respected, yet this would open up a can of worms legally. Could the woman (who would go through a medical procedure anyway) be forced to do this rather than abortion? Would she be allowed (or place as a condition) that she can sign her parental responsibilities away?

Remember, if abortion is simply about a woman's rights to her body, then a termination or transfer will satisfy that right. The embryo is out.

Of course she may then lose her rights to what to do with her genetic code, but isn't that the case with men already? Should she not equally get hit for maintenance? If not you're essentially admitting that the real reason for the abortion is financial.

So either both can walk away or neither can (without mutual consent) is the equitable solution. Personally I don't mind which one. Otherwise it's just a case of wanting your cake and eating it and inevitably such inequality will get redressed in time.

K-9

Maybe there would be a referendum on it, same as Abortion.

I don't like justifying a fathers right to walk away on a womans right to have an abortion.

Whether we like it or not men are walking away from a child, the woman from an unborn child.

PS. This not meant as an opinion/comment on Abortion in anyway, just comparing it to the topic. To me, the 2 aren't comparable.

johnnyskeleton

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.

Interesting, so if I'm a millionaire I can go around impregnating women and then abandoning them by paying the premium "deadbeat" rate that I can easily afford?

As regards the OP, as ntlbell correctly states for unmarried couples there is no need to sign away paternity as natural fathers are not legal fathers so there is nothing to sign away. If anything, all this would do is prevent situations where a father runs off in the early years of the child's life but then has a change of heart and tries to get involved and it would equally prevent a mother who runs into financial diffiulty when the child reaches schoolgoing age from claiming maintenance from the now wealthy natural father.

As regards the emotional welfare of the child arguments, you really can't generalise. For some children, even having some connection to their natural father is better than no connection. In others, the best thing for the child is to have no relationship at all with him. In between, there are a myriad of permutations and combinations, and our current system which is essentially a moveable feast of options allows for these differeing individual circumstances.

IMO your heart is in the right place but it's a bad idea.

metrovelvet

MJOR wrote: »

I think that in no way should a man be allowed to sign away his rights or responsibilties.

Why not formalise and legalise what is happening anyway? This way he signs away his rights also and the mother doesnt have to leave an "open door" policy whereby she has to facilitate a relationship after the father has broken any possible trust.

The main difference as I see the difference between abortion and a man walking away is that there is with the latter, still an accessible child in the picture, a child who can ask questions, who has rights,whereas the former obviously cant, unless of course you hold a seance and you believe in those things.

Lockstep

Seanies32 wrote: »

I made my point, if you don't see it well..............

My major problem with the proposal is it does nothing to alleviate the problem of Dads walking away without giving a feck.

Too many skinflints would use it as an easy opt out so some other financial penalty needs to be introduced.

As I said before, proof etc would be needed before a father could be absolved of such things.

The mother has the ultimate say in whether it is kept or not, she makes the choice to keep it or not (granted duress may be present)
As she is able to make such a choice, but the father is still forced to have responsabilties without rights, it seems inequitable to force him to pay upkeep on a child he never wanted to have but that the mother, knowing his attitude to the child, still had anyway.

Although I would favor leeway being given to the judiciary in these cases to decide on what would be equitable maintenance in cases where duress on the mother was present.

The Corinthian wrote: »

It is harsh, but neither is he blameless.

Blameless no, reduced liability, yes.

The Corinthian wrote: »

The situation that results in a man ending up like this is down to two choices:

• Their mutual choice to have sex.
• Her choice to keep and raise the child.

If either of these two conditions are not met there's no case. Full stop.

The first one both have had an equal choice and must pay the price for the pregnancy. If the woman chooses abortion or adoption, this means that he should share the cost (arguably the bulk of it as he is not going through any medical procedures or labour). He also shares a measure of the liability in terms of damages.

WHy should he shoulder the bulk of it, seeing as it is the woman who comes to this choice?



Other than, that, I broadly agree with what you say.

The Corinthian

kickoutthejams wrote: »

WHy should he shoulder the bulk of it, seeing as it is the woman who comes to this choice?

No matter what the choice a woman makes, she will still have to go through either pregnancy and birth and/or a medical procedure. Men do not and so should really make up for this fact as they are equally culpable for the pregnancy.

Nonetheless, I see your point on a number of levels. How can you ask a man who is against an abortion to pay for it? Or if the woman has complications during childbirth and the man was in favour of abortion, he can hardly be liable.

Lockstep

The Corinthian wrote: »

No matter what the choice a woman makes, she will still have to go through either pregnancy and birth and/or a medical procedure. Men do not and so should really make up for this fact as they are equally culpable for the pregnancy.

THat's just the way men and women are made.
I don't think it's fair to impose financial culpability on one party because of this.

The Corinthian

kickoutthejams wrote: »

THat's just the way men and women are made.
I don't think it's fair to impose financial culpability on one party because of this.

The financial culpability is for the choice that results in the consequence. The choice is to have sex, the consequence is pregnancy, and so the burden of that choice should be split as best as we can, taking into account the biological differences.

However, raising a child is a separate choice, and not simply a consequence of the choice to have sex, therefore the man cannot be held responsible for that if he is not part of that choice.

Boiling things down to how "men and women are made" is too much of a cop-out. We've evolved to compensate for what nature has given us, after all.

Lockstep

The Corinthian wrote: »

The financial culpability is for the choice that results in the consequence. The choice is to have sex, the consequence is pregnancy, and so the burden of that choice should be split as best as we can, taking into account the biological differences.

But is giving financial leeway to the woman not saying that pregnancy is something burdensome, for which they should be compensated for?

Sure there are women around who hate having to carry a child, but others like it. Carrying around another human inside them and so on.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Boiling things down to how "men and women are made" is too much of a cop-out. We've evolved to compensate for what nature has given us, after all.

How is it a cop-out?

Men and women have been having and rearing children for millions of years, this isn;t something assigned by us, it is a natural thing.
Are we going to give the judicial system the power to arbitrarily determine the 'cost' of bearing a child?

The Corinthian

I think there's some confusion in your understanding of what I'm saying, so I'll attempt to explain it another way.

A man may not be responsible for the choice to keep and raise a child, if he has does not made this choice that led directly to it. However he is still equally responsible for the pregnancy as he did make the choice that led directly to it.

The cost of a pregnancy, whether it goes to term or ends in abortion is a combination of financial, physical/emotional and risk (of medical complications). Once pregnant, there's no escaping this, even if there is still the choice to escape parenthood.

So if he is liable for 50% of this, then he is liable for 50% of the physical/emotional and risk cost also. As he cannot share these directly, he must thus compensate for it in the only way he can - financially (but with caveats).

Otherwise you're saying that a man is 50% responsible for the choice that led directly to pregnancy, but only, say, 20% for the consequences. It's not dissimilar to the current situation where a woman is 100% responsible for the choice that led directly to parenthood, but only, in theory, 50% for the consequences, which is also wrong.

kickoutthejams wrote: »

But is giving financial leeway to the woman not saying that pregnancy is something burdensome, for which they should be compensated for?

Well, pregnancy is something burdensome, regardless of whether the woman wants to go to term or not.

How is it a cop-out?

Because it returns us to the "that's just how things are" argument, which is actually also used by opponents of the principle of vacation of paternity to dismiss the principle of equality. Men should not be able to have their cake and eat it any more than women.

Lockstep

The Corinthian wrote: »

A man may not be responsible for the choice to keep and raise a child, if he has does not made this choice that led directly to it. However he is still equally responsible for the pregnancy as he did make the choice that led directly to it.

Agreed. Although I would say there are circumstances where he is more liable (told the woman he had a vasectomy) or less liable (she told him she was on the pill)

The Corinthian wrote: »

So if he is liable for 50% of this, then he is liable for 50% of the physical/emotional and risk cost also. As he cannot share these directly, he must thus compensate for it in the only way he can - financially (but with caveats).

I really don't think it is equitable to implement a catch all term dictating that a man, because of his anatomy, should be more financially culpable in such circumstances.
I'd be very wary of the government going into this territory and saying that men should be coughing up extra for something they physically can do nothing about.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Otherwise you're saying that a man is 50% responsible for the choice that led directly to pregnancy, but only, say, 20% for the consequences. It's not dissimilar to the current situation where a woman is 100% responsible for the choice that led directly to parenthood, but only, in theory, 50% for the consequences, which is also wrong.

He is equally responsible, however, he should not be forced to pay extra for something beyond his control. Money =/= carrying a child and I'd be worried if it started being brought into the equation.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Well, pregnancy is something burdensome, regardless of whether the woman wants to go to term or not.

It is sometimes, but it should be taken on a case by case basis. Some women I know are anticipating getting pregnant and having a kid. Others would be horrified if it happened to them.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Because it returns us to the "that's just how things are" argument, which is actually also used by opponents of the principle of vacation of paternity to dismiss the principle of equality. Men should not be able to have their cake and eat it any more than women.

Opposing paterntity leave (men can't get pregnant) is slightly different. The man might be needed to help out the woman/bond with the child or whatever. Natural part of pregnancy.

Imposing penalties on the man is a different kettle of fish due to him lacking a woman's internal organs.. In one case, the man does have a choice; he can leave his job/work less hours etc.
In the other, there is nothing he can do to give himself a womb.

The Corinthian

kickoutthejams wrote: »

Agreed. Although I would say there are circumstances where he is more liable (told the woman he had a vasectomy) or less liable (she told him she was on the pill)

Just to note that both cases are not full proof as both vasectomies and the pill fail. I would agree with you in the case of fraud that can be proven.

I really don't think it is equitable to implement a catch all term dictating that a man, because of his anatomy, should be more financially culpable in such circumstances.
I'd be very wary of the government going into this territory and saying that men should be coughing up extra for something they physically can do nothing about.

Neither can the woman. Certainly she can choose going to term or termination, but both have their own risks and consequences that a man does not have to go through. You need to account for that in an equitable system.

It is sometimes, but it should be taken on a case by case basis. Some women I know are anticipating getting pregnant and having a kid. Others would be horrified if it happened to them.

Whether they're thrilled about the idea or not it's still not easy for many of them them.

Opposing paterntity leave (men can't get pregnant) is slightly different. The man might be needed to help out the woman/bond with the child or whatever. Natural part of pregnancy.

Imposing penalties on the man is a different kettle of fish due to him lacking a woman's internal organs.. In one case, the man does have a choice; he can leave his job/work less hours etc.
In the other, there is nothing he can do to give himself a womb.

You seem to be arguing against yourself there?