Child support law

[Scomagia]

We don't, but should we? If they know who the father is and refuse to name them, I think that's a deprivation of the child's rights.

It would mean you have to forgo the woman's rights and concentrate on those of the child in question. The question is, how will society react to this?

A woman has no right to deny a child roughly half of its relevant medical information, access to their father, and access to their father's resources by refusing to name the father. None at all. It's negligent at the very least and should be punishable.

[Galloism]

I doubt it.

Do we legally punish mothers who fail to/refuse to name fathers?

We don't, but should we? If they know who the father is and refuse to name them, I think that's a deprivation of the child's rights.

Well, that would be the logical outgrowth of "children have a right to THEIR parents resources".

It would also mean that if children are taken in by the state (IE, put in foster care due to neglect, etc), parents would owe the state child support, yet I think there's only one country in Europe that even has that codified into law, and they don't even do it regularly as far as I can tell.

Taken to the logical extreme, it would also be required for parents to pay child support to adoptive parents. Or recognize that we're selling children to the adoptive parents (as they are assuming a debt of the biological parents), with the relevant legal and tax ramifications of that.

[Datlofff]

Ok, lets say a friend of yours is being told he is the father of this child. He has been sleeping with the girl and all but he is not entirely certain that this kid is his. It could be timing. It could be that the kid looks nothing like him. It could be a host of other things. In that case, he requests a paternity test.

The other scenario is that he's denying he's the father, in which case, the mother requests a paternity test to assuage doubts. If there is reasonable doubt, I think a paternity test should be performed.

And if she's tricked him into believing he's the father, what then? Let her get away with it?

Paternity tests could be legally mandated to be performed at birth. That way we can just cut the problem off at the head.

[Scomagia]

We don't, but should we? If they know who the father is and refuse to name them, I think that's a deprivation of the child's rights.

I think the idea is more that it'd incentivize pretending to know who the father is when you don't. We've seen enough of that on Maury as it is.

If we're going to go that route, we need compulsory paternity testing at birth for everyone.

If it's feasible, I'd agree with required paternity testing before a father can be legally name.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Ok, lets say a friend of yours is being told he is the father of this child. He has been sleeping with the girl and all but he is not entirely certain that this kid is his. It could be timing. It could be that the kid looks nothing like him. It could be a host of other things. In that case, he requests a paternity test.

The other scenario is that he's denying he's the father, in which case, the mother requests a paternity test to assuage doubts. If there is reasonable doubt, I think a paternity test should be performed.

And if she's tricked him into believing he's the father, what then? Let her get away with it?

In that case there isn't much I can say. If he feels tricked, then he should ask for a paternity test, I assume. But even in that case, I don't know if the court would then relieve him from child support.

[Scomagia]

We don't, but should we? If they know who the father is and refuse to name them, I think that's a deprivation of the child's rights.

Well, that would be the logical outgrowth of "children have a right to THEIR parents resources".

It would also mean that if children are taken in by the state (IE, put in foster care due to neglect, etc), parents would owe the state child support, yet I think there's only one country in Europe that even has that codified into law, and they don't even do it regularly as far as I can tell.

Taken to the logical extreme, it would also be required for parents to pay child support to adoptive parents. Or recognize that we're selling children to the adoptive parents (as they are assuming a debt of the biological parents), with the relevant legal and tax ramifications of that.

Yeah, it's complicated to be sure. That's why I'm not absolutely fixed on any one idea because the policy implications are a bit beyond my ken. The issue you raised with adoptive parents, for instance, is one I hadn't even considered.

[Datlofff]

And if she's tricked him into believing he's the father, what then? Let her get away with it?

In that case there isn't much I can say. If he feels tricked, then he should ask for a paternity test, I assume. But even in that case, I don't know if the court would then relieve him from child support.

Some do. Michigan didn't. https://www.abc15.com/news/national/und ... ld-support

Not just Michigan, but many states have "daddy by default laws" which means that men can be required to pay money to take care of a child that is not biologically theres. Some states do the same thing with alimony too if the couple isn't married.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It would mean you have to forgo the woman's rights and concentrate on those of the child in question. The question is, how will society react to this?

A woman has no right to deny a child roughly half of its relevant medical information, access to their father, and access to their father's resources by refusing to name the father. None at all. It's negligent at the very least and should be punishable.

As things stand, we don't force women to name the father if they do not wish to. Is it negligent? Yes. Should the child know who their father is? Yes. But that's not what we do. How do we respect the rights of a child, the rights of the father and the rights of the woman? Someone's rights will need to supersede those of the other two in this case.

[Datlofff]

A woman has no right to deny a child roughly half of its relevant medical information, access to their father, and access to their father's resources by refusing to name the father. None at all. It's negligent at the very least and should be punishable.

As things stand, we don't force women to name the father if they do not wish to. Is it negligent? Yes. Should the child know who their father is? Yes. But that's not what we do. How do we respect the rights of a child, the rights of the father and the rights of the woman? Someone's rights will need to supersede those of the other two in this case.

The rights of a child who can't legally or physically take care of itself should overrule the rights of both parents. It has been shown this is kinda the way things go before. The government forces children to attend school, even if the parents don't want them to. The Government forces children to be vaccinated in some states, even if the parents don't want to do it, etc. The child has a right to know their father. The father has the obligation to take ownership of his child. And the mother has the obligations to suck it up. Don't want anyone to know you have a kid with your best friends husband? Shouldn't of fucked him.

[The South Falls]

As things stand, we don't force women to name the father if they do not wish to. Is it negligent? Yes. Should the child know who their father is? Yes. But that's not what we do. How do we respect the rights of a child, the rights of the father and the rights of the woman? Someone's rights will need to supersede those of the other two in this case.

The rights of a child who can't legally or physically take care of itself should overrule the rights of both parents. It has been shown this is kinda the way things go before. The government forces children to attend school, even if the parents don't want them to. The Government forces children to be vaccinated in some states, even if the parents don't want to do it, etc. The child has a right to know their father. The father has the obligation to take ownership of his child. And the mother has the obligations to suck it up. Don't want anyone to know you have a kid with your best friends husband? Shouldn't of fucked him.

You don't need to run out telling everybody, if it is required, then the woman should only tell the court discreetly.

[Scomagia]

A woman has no right to deny a child roughly half of its relevant medical information, access to their father, and access to their father's resources by refusing to name the father. None at all. It's negligent at the very least and should be punishable.

As things stand, we don't force women to name the father if they do not wish to. Is it negligent? Yes. Should the child know who their father is? Yes. But that's not what we do. How do we respect the rights of a child, the rights of the father and the rights of the woman? Someone's rights will need to supersede those of the other two in this case.

Clearly I'm arguing the child's rights override the father's questionable right to be an anonymous fuck and the mothers questionable right to be a selfish cunt.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

As things stand, we don't force women to name the father if they do not wish to. Is it negligent? Yes. Should the child know who their father is? Yes. But that's not what we do. How do we respect the rights of a child, the rights of the father and the rights of the woman? Someone's rights will need to supersede those of the other two in this case.

Clearly I'm arguing the child's rights override the father's questionable right to be an anonymous fuck and the mothers questionable right to be a selfish cunt.

I'd argue this should be a case by case thing, however. There may be good reasons for the mother not to want to reveal who the father is. Or good reasons for the father not to want to be in the child's life. It's not just a simple ''he's an anonymous fuck'' or ''she's a selfish cunt''.

[Scomagia]

Clearly I'm arguing the child's rights override the father's questionable right to be an anonymous fuck and the mothers questionable right to be a selfish cunt.

I'd argue this should be a case by case thing, however. There may be good reasons for the mother not to want to reveal who the father is. Or good reasons for the father not to want to be in the child's life. It's not just a simple ''he's an anonymous fuck'' or ''she's a selfish cunt''.

No, it shouldn't be "case by case". A woman has no right to withhold that information. There are no good reasons. If she's ashamed of who she mated with, too fucking bad. If he doesn't want to be known, too fucking bad. It's called responsibility. The utility of that information to the child is indisputable. There's no utility in hiding it except to hide who you fucked, which is entirely beneficial to the woman over the child.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'd argue this should be a case by case thing, however. There may be good reasons for the mother not to want to reveal who the father is. Or good reasons for the father not to want to be in the child's life. It's not just a simple ''he's an anonymous fuck'' or ''she's a selfish cunt''.

No, it shouldn't be "case by case". A woman has no right to withhold that information. There are no good reasons. If she's ashamed of who she mated with, too fucking bad. If he doesn't want to be known, too fucking bad. It's called responsibility.

Yes, it should be case by case because we don't know the reasons behind this kind of withholding of information. She could be protecting the child and herself from an abuser. He could be protecting himself from an abuser. That too is being responsible.

If anything, the revealing could be done to the courts and they in turn act.

[Holy Tedalonia]

I'd argue this should be a case by case thing, however. There may be good reasons for the mother not to want to reveal who the father is. Or good reasons for the father not to want to be in the child's life. It's not just a simple ''he's an anonymous fuck'' or ''she's a selfish cunt''.

No, it shouldn't be "case by case". A woman has no right to withhold that information. There are no good reasons. If she's ashamed of who she mated with, too fucking bad. If he doesn't want to be known, too fucking bad. It's called responsibility.

Just because your related by blood doesnt make it a "right" to know an individual. In the grand scheme of things, knowing your biological father is likely not going to make a change over the missing father figure, and even if you were able to meet one day you would be strangers to one another. In the end of the day, you'd only be making an acquaintance.

[Scomagia]

No, it shouldn't be "case by case". A woman has no right to withhold that information. There are no good reasons. If she's ashamed of who she mated with, too fucking bad. If he doesn't want to be known, too fucking bad. It's called responsibility.

Yes, it should be case by case because we don't know the reasons behind this kind of withholding of information. She could be protecting the child and herself from an abuser. He could be protecting himself from an abuser. That too is being responsible.

If anything, the revealing could be done to the courts and they in turn act.

Neither of those are valid reasons for denying the child information that they have a right to know. If abuse is an issue, we have laws around that sort of thing. The presence of alleged abuse is not sufficient to rob a child of their history. Nothing is sufficient to rob a child of their history.

[Ostroeuropa]

Yes, it should be case by case because we don't know the reasons behind this kind of withholding of information. She could be protecting the child and herself from an abuser. He could be protecting himself from an abuser. That too is being responsible.

If anything, the revealing could be done to the courts and they in turn act.

Neither of those are valid reasons for denying the child information that they have a right to know. If abuse is an issue, we have laws around that sort of thing. The presence of alleged abuse is not sufficient to rob a child of their history. Nothing is sufficient to rob a child of their history.

There's a separate issue at play regarding DNA from child support, and i'd be inclined to agree with you that where possible, the child's genetic history is something they have a right to given the relevant medical information it can provide, I would extend this to adoptions and so on too.

That's also separate from identity of the parents. It seems to be quite simple that the DNA and relevant information can be held by medical professionals, with the privacy of the parents guarded by them, while still providing the relevant information to the child as a patient.

[The South Falls]

Clearly I'm arguing the child's rights override the father's questionable right to be an anonymous fuck and the mothers questionable right to be a selfish cunt.

I'd argue this should be a case by case thing, however. There may be good reasons for the mother not to want to reveal who the father is. Or good reasons for the father not to want to be in the child's life. It's not just a simple ''he's an anonymous fuck'' or ''she's a selfish cunt''.

There are those in the witness protection program, informants, former or current gang members, lottery winners, etc.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yes, it should be case by case because we don't know the reasons behind this kind of withholding of information. She could be protecting the child and herself from an abuser. He could be protecting himself from an abuser. That too is being responsible.

If anything, the revealing could be done to the courts and they in turn act.

Neither of those are valid reasons for denying the child information that they have a right to know. If abuse is an issue, we have laws around that sort of thing. The presence of alleged abuse is not sufficient to rob a child of their history. Nothing is sufficient to rob a child of their history.

There are situations in which is is better that a child doesn't know who the mother or the father is. It is not optimal but there are indeed situations that warrant this. If a woman or a man will be abusive presences in a child's life, it is best that the child doesn't have such presences. If we think about a child's well being, really think about it, then yes, this situation warrants the erasure of a child's history. It is a parent's responsibility to protect their child, and this can include keeping a child away and safe from an abuser.

[The South Falls]

Neither of those are valid reasons for denying the child information that they have a right to know. If abuse is an issue, we have laws around that sort of thing. The presence of alleged abuse is not sufficient to rob a child of their history. Nothing is sufficient to rob a child of their history.

There's a separate issue at play regarding DNA from child support, and i'd be inclined to agree with you that where possible, the child's genetic history is something they have a right to given the relevant medical information it can provide.

You can provide such a history without fully exposing the father to everyone.

[Ostroeuropa]

There's a separate issue at play regarding DNA from child support, and i'd be inclined to agree with you that where possible, the child's genetic history is something they have a right to given the relevant medical information it can provide.

You can provide such a history without fully exposing the father to everyone.

Yep, addressed in an edit. Medical professionals can hold the information and supply it to the child without revealing the identity of the father. This is already an option for organ donors and so on, they have the option to retain privacy.

[Scomagia]

No, it shouldn't be "case by case". A woman has no right to withhold that information. There are no good reasons. If she's ashamed of who she mated with, too fucking bad. If he doesn't want to be known, too fucking bad. It's called responsibility.

Just because your related by blood doesnt make it a "right" to know an individual. In the grand scheme of things, knowing your biological father is likely not going to make a change over the missing father figure, and even if you were able to meet one day you would be strangers to one another. In the end of the day, you'd only be making an acquaintance.

Medical history is the most powerful reason reason that you're wrong. If a child is ignorant of their father, half of their relevant medical information is permanently beyond their grasp. Genetic disease and risk factors can completely blindside them because...mama didn't want to admit who she fucked. It's a travesty.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Just because your related by blood doesnt make it a "right" to know an individual. In the grand scheme of things, knowing your biological father is likely not going to make a change over the missing father figure, and even if you were able to meet one day you would be strangers to one another. In the end of the day, you'd only be making an acquaintance.

Medical history is the most powerful reason reason that you're wrong. If a child is ignorant of their father, half of their relevant medical information is permanently beyond their grasp. Genetic disease and risk factors can completely blindside them because...mama didn't want to admit who she fucked. It's a travesty.

You seem to be blaming women about this completely. Ostro gave an alternative to this. Reveal the pertinent info to doctors and that way, any medical info is on record without revealing father or mother, whichever is the case.

[Scomagia]

There's a separate issue at play regarding DNA from child support, and i'd be inclined to agree with you that where possible, the child's genetic history is something they have a right to given the relevant medical information it can provide.

You can provide such a history without fully exposing the father to everyone.

Well, I never said it should be available to everyone .

[Scomagia]

Medical history is the most powerful reason reason that you're wrong. If a child is ignorant of their father, half of their relevant medical information is permanently beyond their grasp. Genetic disease and risk factors can completely blindside them because...mama didn't want to admit who she fucked. It's a travesty.

You seem to be blaming women about this completely. Ostro gave an alternative to this. Reveal the pertinent info to doctors and that way, any medical info is on record without revealing father or mother, whichever is the case.

Because women are the only ones at fault, here. A man can hardly have himself named as the father completely on his own, nor can he keep from being named.

As long as the child knows who their father is and can get the relevant info, I don't care if the information is otherwise confidential. But that information shouldn't be anonymous to the child. They still have a right to know specifically who they come from.