Signing away paternity

b3t4 · 15-01-2009 11:03am

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

This signing away of paternity is the option for men who don't want children at this time or in the forseeable future in their life.

Then they really, really need to think about whether they want to have sex for now. Hormones are a b!tch but we all have a choice on whether to act on them or not.

It would also provide a choice for men who discover they are a father years after the event - a past short-term girlfriend comes back into your life years on and announces her child is actually your child, and while she never wanted you to have anything to do with it, and so never told you and denied you the first few years of your child's life, well now hard times are a-bitin' and it's time for you to cough up maintenance.

Then that person should be able to say and prove that they did not know to a court and not have to pay back maintenance.

It gives me empathy for other adults who don't get a choice.

They really did have a choice though. They made a choice to have sex with that person and that choice has caused a pregnancy to occur.

Dragan wrote: »

There are no fool proof ways to avoid pregnancy, other than not having sex.

And that's the crux of the issue and always will be till a 100% contraceptive devise exists.

If you're having sex then you can't simply stick your head in the sand to the notion that a pregnancy could be a result of said sex. In my experience, more men than women seem to have their head in the sand.
A.

ntlbell · 15-01-2009 11:32am

b3t4 wrote: »

T

If you're having sex then you can't simply stick your head in the sand to the notion that a pregnancy could be a result of said sex. In my experience, more men than women seem to have their head in the sand.
A.

How is it possible for a man to have unprotected safe (bar rape) with a woman who hasn't got her head in the sand? if the responsibility is on both?

that makes little or no sense. she either agrees to not using contraception or she doesn't how does it make men having their head in the sand?

b3t4 · 15-01-2009 11:56am

ntlbell wrote: »

that makes little or no sense. she either agrees to not using contraception or she doesn't how does it make men having their head in the sand?

What I'm trying to say, badly I might add, is a man should never accept the 'I'm on the pill, it's ok' line. If they don't want a pregnancy then they should take the methods available to them to prevent a pregnancy, a condom, relying on a woman, who you barely know, to prevent a pregnancy isn't the brightest of ideas.

A.

ntlbell · 15-01-2009 11:57am

b3t4 wrote: »

What I'm trying to say, badly I might add, is a man should never accept the 'I'm on the pill, it's ok' line. If they don't want a pregnancy then they should take the methods available to them to prevent a pregnancy, a condom, relying on a woman, who you barely know, to prevent a pregnancy isn't the brightest of ideas.

A.

but if a woman allowed him to have sex and stated she was on the pill

wouldn't she have her head in the sand no?

nomorebadtown · 15-01-2009 12:00pm

Seanies32 wrote:

Goes for both sexes. The amount of women who are on the pill and say sure go on, is very common, many who should know better.

Too true.

From personal experience and from my friends' experiences, the amount of this that goes on is shocking:

casual encounter...

guy: damn, ok hold on, i'll go get some condoms...be back in a little while

girl: no its grand i'm on the pill, get back over here...

guy: ehh....

The Sweeper · 15-01-2009 1:26pm

To be honest, I don't accept the abstention argument.

The abstention argument suggests that every person who engages in a sexual act needs to accept the possibility that the selfsame sexual act may result in a child, before participating in that act.

I don't believe that to be the case. I believe women are just as guilty as men are of having sex that they do not wantto , need to, or believe will result in a pregnancy. Hence they take the contraceptive pill, use other contraceptive devices, and request the use of condoms.

Saying "If you do not want to have a child, do not have sex" nullifies the whole point of contraception. It also overlooks the fact that people have a - albeit varying - basic human need for the contact, closeness, release and intimacy of the sexual act. Contraception was designed so that people of both sexes could fulfill their respective needs for sexual intimacy without the threat of pregnancy.

To me, there's something about the whole abstention debate that portrays women as victims somehow, and I don't believe they are. I believe women are whole and autonomous adults, as driven by their own sexual urges as men are. On that basis, they are responsible for contraception and the control of their own fertility, just as much as men are.

It's only when that system of control fails, then the scales tip - then women are in a one person, one vote democracy - she's the person, she gets the vote.

holdmyhand? · 15-01-2009 1:27pm

i grew up with jus my dad (my mother was the one paying maintance and not being in my life, missing birthdays/trying to buy my love etc) so i think just to say 'should he sign away rights is unfair' because sometimes its she that should be thinking bout it.

15-01-2009 3:11pm

I was to the understanding that if his name isnt on the birth cert, they don't get any rights by default ?

Xiney · 15-01-2009 3:13pm

Minesajackdaniels wrote: »

To be honest, I don't accept the abstention argument.

The abstention argument suggests that every person who engages in a sexual act needs to accept the possibility that the selfsame sexual act may result in a child, before participating in that act.

I don't believe that to be the case. I believe women are just as guilty as men are of having sex that they do not wantto , need to, or believe will result in a pregnancy. Hence they take the contraceptive pill, use other contraceptive devices, and request the use of condoms.

Saying "If you do not want to have a child, do not have sex" nullifies the whole point of contraception. It also overlooks the fact that people have a - albeit varying - basic human need for the contact, closeness, release and intimacy of the sexual act. Contraception was designed so that people of both sexes could fulfill their respective needs for sexual intimacy without the threat of pregnancy.

To me, there's something about the whole abstention debate that portrays women as victims somehow, and I don't believe they are. I believe women are whole and autonomous adults, as driven by their own sexual urges as men are. On that basis, they are responsible for contraception and the control of their own fertility, just as much as men are.

It's only when that system of control fails, then the scales tip - then women are in a one person, one vote democracy - she's the person, she gets the vote.

I am not advocating abstinence. It would be hugely hypocritical of me for a start

I am, however, advocating knowing your partner to the point that you know as a woman, what the penis's preference is for abortion/full term pregnancy is; and as a man, what the vagina's preference is for the same.

No doubt it'd be a total mood killer to one night stands everywhere, but I suppose I don't have much sympathy then.

ntlbell · 15-01-2009 3:14pm

Deleted User wrote: »

I was to the understanding that if his name isnt on the birth cert, they don't get any rights by default ?

they get no rights by default if they're not married regardless of what's on the birth cert - zip.

K-9 · 15-01-2009 4:09pm

ntlbell wrote: »

they get no rights by default if they're not married regardless of what's on the birth cert - zip.

Yep, Zilch rights with the legal responsibility to pay Maintenance.

Nevyn · 15-01-2009 4:12pm

Well what about the right of the child to know it's other parent and their inheritance rights ?

ntlbell · 15-01-2009 4:31pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Well what about the right of the child to know it's other parent and their inheritance rights ?

what about them?

Nevyn · 15-01-2009 4:43pm

Should the parents have the right to extingish those rights ?

ntlbell · 15-01-2009 4:54pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Should the parents have the right to extingish those rights ?

right or no right they can do it regardless, the same way a mother can abort the right to life regardless of rights.

so I don't see how it's relevant.

K-9 · 15-01-2009 5:38pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Should the parents have the right to extingish those rights ?

That would be a major problem with it. The child has a legal entitlement to his Fathers estate. Could a Mother and indeed Dad sign that away?

You could have children who the Father accepts being entitled to part of his Estate and other children Not. That is unfair.

Also if the Father does get a Road to Damascus moment, should he be allowed back into the childs life a few years later?

ntlbell · 15-01-2009 5:50pm

Seanies32 wrote: »

That would be a major problem with it. The child has a legal entitlement to his Fathers estate. Could a Mother and indeed Dad sign that away?

I don't think you can as children in married and unmarried have the exact same rights this would be a tricky one

I'm not sure what happens if the estate is left in a will to the current wife/partner of the father tho...

K-9 · 15-01-2009 5:59pm

ntlbell wrote: »

I don't think you can as children in married and unmarried have the exact same rights this would be a tricky one

I'm not sure what happens if the estate is left in a will to the current wife/partner of the father tho...

Not 100% sure but without one I think it's 2/3 the wife, 1/3 the children.

I'd say the child could make a claim, rights signed away or not!

PS. AFAIK, children of a marriage and unmarried are treated the same. I think the law was updated in the 70's.

Sangre · 15-01-2009 8:22pm

Seanies32 wrote: »

Not 100% sure but without one I think it's 2/3 the wife, 1/3 the children.

I'd say the child could make a claim, rights signed away or not!

PS. AFAIK, children of a marriage and unmarried are treated the same. I think the law was updated in the 70's.

write them out with a will. Child has no automatic right to inherit.

metrovelvet · 15-01-2009 9:07pm

I dont think anyone should have the right to abort so I'll start off from the adoption point.

So the question is if women [unmarried women, that is] have the right to unilaterally give her child up for adoption then should a putative father be allowed to walk [vacate paternity as they call it in my country] legally and permanently?

Sure. Why not? On conditions of course. To level the playing field, he would be required to spend 6,720 hours with the child minimum [total hours the mother spends with the child before s/he is born] plus whatever the time required the bio mother has to spend with the baby before the adoptive parent takes the child.

Secondly, he should have paternity established before it is vacated so there is a legal paper trail the child can follow should s/he choose to pursue knowlege of his identity.

Thirdly, like in adoption, in the US there should be a grace period of a select time where you can change your mind, my suggestion would be one year before the agreement becomes set in stone for good.

Medical histories should be demanded.

The putative father also abdicates any rights or privaleges his family may have in contacting the child or the child's mother.

A biographical history of the father should be on file along with an explanation as to why he rejected the child.

the_syco · 15-01-2009 9:57pm

metrovelvet wrote: »

A biographical history of the father should be on file along with an explanation as to why he rejected the child.

Along with the mothers reason for rejecting giving away her child.

metrovelvet · 15-01-2009 9:59pm

the_syco wrote: »

Along with the mothers reason for rejecting giving away her child.

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

Trinity · 15-01-2009 10:59pm

My sons father didnt sign away his paternal rights, he lost them due to fcuking my son around for 8 years. In fact hes still watching the post as his dad promised to send a present by post on his 6th birthday. Hes 8 and a half :rolleyes:

He gives no money, no support and after fighting for 8 years to get him to be a Dad, i gave up last year and told him to fcuk off out of his life. He was a no show for 6 christmas's and all birthdays. He was a no show for his first day at school. He'd say he would be over next week and we wouldnt hear from him for 6 months.

I found out he had emigrated when my 4 yr old rang him and he said he was living in another country. He sent my son photos of himself and his 2 'new children'. I didnt even get a chance to explain to my son (i didnt know and we looked at the photos together when they arrived)

Time and time again i gave him to option of walking away and it was no of course i want to be in his life blah blah.

And yesterday, for the first time in 8 years, my son didnt refer to him as Dad when he spoke of him. He called him that guy (insert name here).

It hurt like fcuk but you know it was obvious to the child the father had no interest.

So as far as i'm concerned he has no rights.

Lockstep · 15-01-2009 11:13pm

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

dotsman · 15-01-2009 11:33pm

Xiney wrote: »

No doubt it'd be a total mood killer to one night stands everywhere, but I suppose I don't have much sympathy then.

OK, so am I right in saying that you don't personally do one-night-stands? If so, am I also right that you believe that, just because you don't do them, then "to hell with those immoral people who do"?

That's not much of a solution when you allow your own personal preferences to ignore the situation of a lot of people. Many people are able to enjoy one night stands. Just because some of them do it due to being mature enough and emotionally stable enough doesn't mean they should be ignored.

The Sweeper · 16-01-2009 1:01am

Trinity1 wrote: »

My sons father didnt sign away his paternal rights, he lost them due to fcuking my son around for 8 years. In fact hes still watching the post as his dad promised to send a present by post on his 6th birthday. Hes 8 and a half :rolleyes:

He gives no money, no support and after fighting for 8 years to get him to be a Dad, i gave up last year and told him to fcuk off out of his life. He was a no show for 6 christmas's and all birthdays. He was a no show for his first day at school. He'd say he would be over next week and we wouldnt hear from him for 6 months.

I found out he had emigrated when my 4 yr old rang him and he said he was living in another country. He sent my son photos of himself and his 2 'new children'. I didnt even get a chance to explain to my son (i didnt know and we looked at the photos together when they arrived)

Time and time again i gave him to option of walking away and it was no of course i want to be in his life blah blah.

And yesterday, for the first time in 8 years, my son didnt refer to him as Dad when he spoke of him. He called him that guy (insert name here).

It hurt like fcuk but you know it was obvious to the child the father had no interest.

So as far as i'm concerned he has no rights.

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?

metrovelvet · 16-01-2009 3:56am

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?

If I were in Trinity's position I would have rather he signed it away, and probably would petition for a vacating of paternity.

My situation is not far off, though the father pays maintenance so my petitioning for a vacating of paternty would be a weak case. I did offer it to him but he said no.

K-9 · 16-01-2009 6:36am

Sangre wrote: »

write them out with a will. Child has no automatic right to inherit.

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

K-9 · 16-01-2009 6:55am

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's a bummer, but that's life. Otherwise you could have men forcing women to have abortions to avoid paying Maintenance. All he'd have to say is I wanted her to have an Abortion and it's a get out clause. Many men pay nothing anyway, this just gives them self justification.

dotsman wrote: »

OK, so am I right in saying that you don't personally do one-night-stands? If so, am I also right that you believe that, just because you don't do them, then "to hell with those immoral people who do"?

That's not much of a solution when you allow your own personal preferences to ignore the situation of a lot of people. Many people are able to enjoy one night stands. Just because some of them do it due to being mature enough and emotionally stable enough doesn't mean they should be ignored.

I think the above isn't really relevant to the thread. We all know a one night stand can result in a pregnancy. Shag away, just be aware of your responsibilities.

Thinking about this more, I'd agree with whoever said, some sort of trust fund should be set up.

Too many men would use a signing away of paternity rights as a licence to shag all around them with no consequences. That is not a good thing for society to encourage. We should be encouraging Dads to be more involved, not giving them get out of jail clauses.

I'm just thinking about a married man I know who got a girl pregnant. He told the girl to feck off and have an Abortion. This just gives him justification for his actions. Maybe in cases like that, the wife would be informed that he is signing away rights, as it may affect the wifes estate in the future.

Lockstep · 16-01-2009 11:45am

Seanies32 wrote: »

It's a bummer, but that's life. Otherwise you could have men forcing women to have abortions to avoid paying Maintenance. All he'd have to say is I wanted her to have an Abortion and it's a get out clause. Many men pay nothing anyway, this just gives them self justification.

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

Signing away paternity

Comments