Parental Relinquishment - A Bad Idea Violating Rights

[Gravlen]

This seems like basically the status quo to my eyes.

If you strike out everything relevant about my post, sure.

Nope. No "paper abortions", no "safe havens", no "responsibility termination via state action", a requirement that "mothers [...] name fathers at birth", a requirement that "noncustodial parents pay child support under threat of [...] sanction", and no exemption for "sperm donors" is the status quo. That your motivations for the rules are different doesn't change the rules.

Some small points:
Your point 2 is silly, and follows from the error of connecting this to "biological" parents. At that point, someone has volunteered to take over the responsibility, so the child is ensured continued support.

This is a silly practice from a logical standpoint. Either biological parents are responsible for ensuring this right of the child, in which case they are tapped for support whether or not they consent, or biological parents are not per se responsible, whereupon we can find other people.

And we know it's the former, because in instances where a single parent has accepted full responsibility, not seeking support of the other parent, and has fallen on hard times - the state pursues the other parent for support regardless of the original single parents' wishes.

I struck out several parts where you argue in bad faith or use faulty reasoning, but overall I don't see a problem with this.

You struck out the relevant part that actually results in equal treatment under law in order to keep the sexist status quo that harms children.

You say that, but fail to show it.

[Ostroeuropa]

If you strike out everything relevant about my post, sure.

Nope. No "paper abortions", no "safe havens", no "responsibility termination via state action", a requirement that "mothers [...] name fathers at birth", a requirement that "noncustodial parents pay child support under threat of [...] sanction", and no exemption for "sperm donors" is the status quo. That your motivations for the rules are different doesn't change the rules.

This is a silly practice from a logical standpoint. Either biological parents are responsible for ensuring this right of the child, in which case they are tapped for support whether or not they consent, or biological parents are not per se responsible, whereupon we can find other people.

And we know it's the former, because in instances where a single parent has accepted full responsibility, not seeking support of the other parent, and has fallen on hard times - the state pursues the other parent for support regardless of the original single parents' wishes.



You struck out the relevant part that actually results in equal treatment under law in order to keep the sexist status quo that harms children.

You say that, but fail to show it.

Do you have any evidence that mothers are required to name fathers at birth?

[Galloism]

If you strike out everything relevant about my post, sure.

Nope. No "paper abortions",

Is the status quo, yes.

no "safe havens",

Is NOT the status quo.

All 50 states have safe haven laws.

no "responsibility termination via state action",

Is NOT the status quo.

The state can involuntarily terminate parental rights - which INCLUDES parental responsibilities.

Here you go.

a requirement that "mothers [...] name fathers at birth",

What state requires this, where?

a requirement that "noncustodial parents pay child support under threat of [...] sanction",

This is the status quo.

and no exemption for "sperm donors" is the status quo. That your motivations for the rules are different doesn't change the rules.

Generally speaking NOT the status quo (certain states are different).

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ ... tions.html

You say that, but fail to show it.

Regarding parents accepting full responsibility and the other parent still being on the hook?

Here you go:

But I Have a Clearly Written Contract That Relinquishes All of My Rights!
Don't be so sure! Many states treat contracts that relinquish parental rights as "against public policy." These kinds of contracts may be unenforceable. Even if you have a well-written contract, the courts may still throw it out and force full parental obligations on you.

It is still a good idea to have a written contract because the court may use the contract to determine the parties' intentions. This is why it is important to use a doctor AND consult a lawyer familiar with the laws of your state, before going ahead with sperm donation.

Even if another party accepts full responsibility, if that other party is the other parent, we throw that out as null and void and require the biological parent pay.

[Gravlen]

Nope. No "paper abortions", no "safe havens", no "responsibility termination via state action", a requirement that "mothers [...] name fathers at birth", a requirement that "noncustodial parents pay child support under threat of [...] sanction", and no exemption for "sperm donors" is the status quo. That your motivations for the rules are different doesn't change the rules.


You say that, but fail to show it.

Do you have any evidence that mothers are required to name fathers at birth?

Yes.

The Convention of the Rights of the Child art. 7:

Article 7

1. The child shall be registered immediately after birth and shall have the right from birth to a name, the right to acquire a nationality and. as far as possible, the right to know and be cared for by his or her parents.

and the European Convention on Human rights art. 8, the Right to respect for private and family life, forms the backdrop (though both are legally binding).

Continue to The Children Act of 8 April 1981 No. 7, Section 5:

Responsibility of the authorities to establish paternity or co-maternity
If the child has neither a father nor a co-mother in accordance with the provisions of sections 3 and 4, the authorities shall be responsible for establishing who is the father [...]

But if the burden lies on the authorities, that means it's not on the mother, right? No. It has become settled law that the statute places a duty to name the father - or potential father - on the woman:

Et annet spørsmål er statens plikt til å avklare farskap der hvor moren ikke oppgir noe navn, og hvor heller ingen aktuelle «kandidater» melder seg. Etter norsk rett har kvinnen i slike tilfeller en forklaringsplikt, men nektelse av å oppgi potensi­elle fedres identitet vil i praksis ikke møtes med straffansvar.

NOU 2009:5, Farskap og annen morskap
(My bolding and underlining)

This is established law, and has been repeated in later publications. Example Innst. 230 S (2009–2010)

Komiteen vil understreke at kvinnen etter norsk rett har en forklaringsplikt, selv om nektelse av å oppgi potensielle fedres identitet i praksis ikke vil møtes med straffeansvar eller kutt i velferdsytelser. Mor har en forklaringsplikt, og hun blir innkalt til bidragsfogden og informeres om rettsvirkningene av at farskap blir fastslått eller ikke.

[Imperial Esplanade]

It's almost as if abortions ("paper" or otherwise) are bad ideas to begin with.

[New Emeline]

It's almost as if abortions ("paper" or otherwise) are bad ideas to begin with.

Explain?

[Gravlen]

Nope. No "paper abortions",

Is the status quo, yes.

no "safe havens",

Is NOT the status quo.

All 50 states have safe haven laws.

"You've got what the intergalactic call a very planetary mindset, Morty. It's more complicated out here."
Your US-centric attitude and/or failure to limit this thread to the situation in the US is not my problem. My point stands.

no "responsibility termination via state action",

Is NOT the status quo.

The state can involuntarily terminate parental rights - which INCLUDES parental responsibilities.

Here you go.

"I'm not British. I'm not American. I'm not French. Whatever thing they practise, that is their business." - Paul Kagame

a requirement that "mothers [...] name fathers at birth",

What state requires this, where?

The Kingdom of Norway, a sovereign state.

a requirement that "noncustodial parents pay child support under threat of [...] sanction",

This is the status quo.

and no exemption for "sperm donors" is the status quo. That your motivations for the rules are different doesn't change the rules.

Generally speaking NOT the status quo (certain states are different).

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ ... tions.html

Yes. Like where I'm currently living. Is this slowly sinking in now?

You say that, but fail to show it.

Regarding parents accepting full responsibility and the other parent still being on the hook?

No, that I "struck out the relevant part that actually results in equal treatment under law in order to keep the sexist status quo that harms children".

[Kramanica]

I agree for the most part.

[Galloism]

Is the status quo, yes.



Is NOT the status quo.

All 50 states have safe haven laws.

"You've got what the intergalactic call a very planetary mindset, Morty. It's more complicated out here."
Your US-centric attitude and/or failure to limit this thread to the situation in the US is not my problem. My point stands.

Is NOT the status quo.

The state can involuntarily terminate parental rights - which INCLUDES parental responsibilities.

Here you go.

"I'm not British. I'm not American. I'm not French. Whatever thing they practise, that is their business." - Paul Kagame

This is the status quo.



Generally speaking NOT the status quo (certain states are different).

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/ ... tions.html

Yes. Like where I'm currently living. Is this slowly sinking in now?

You knew this was a US centric thread when you walked in.

However, I am interested - your state CANNOT terminate parental responsibilities for neglect, etc? Care to prove it? Parents whose children are taken by the state owe the state child support? Proofs?

What state requires this, where?

The Kingdom of Norway, a sovereign state.

What's the punishment? Can you show me where someone has been charged with a crime for failing to the name the father?

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

It's almost as if abortions ("paper" or otherwise) are bad ideas to begin with.

Okay, and how do you propose dealing with the gap between "puberty" and "the age at which you can afford children," bearing in mind that no one but the super rich will be sure when that day will come?

[Galloism]

But if the burden lies on the authorities, that means it's not on the mother, right? No. It has become settled law that the statute places a duty to name the father - or potential father - on the woman:

Et annet spørsmål er statens plikt til å avklare farskap der hvor moren ikke oppgir noe navn, og hvor heller ingen aktuelle «kandidater» melder seg. Etter norsk rett har kvinnen i slike tilfeller en forklaringsplikt, men nektelse av å oppgi potensi­elle fedres identitet vil i praksis ikke møtes med straffansvar.

NOU 2009:5, Farskap og annen morskap
(My bolding and underlining)

Google translate sayeth regarding your quote:

Another question is the duty of the state to clarify paternity where the mother does not specify any name and where no current "candidate" is reported. According to Norwegian law, in such cases, the woman has a duty to explain, but refusal to indicate the identity of the prospective fathers will in practice not meet criminal liability.

Bolding and underlining mine.

For shame Gravlen, trying to pass off an unenforced obligation as a "real" obligation.

This is established law, and has been repeated in later publications. Example Innst. 230 S (2009–2010)

Komiteen vil understreke at kvinnen etter norsk rett har en forklaringsplikt, selv om nektelse av å oppgi potensielle fedres identitet i praksis ikke vil møtes med straffeansvar eller kutt i velferdsytelser. Mor har en forklaringsplikt, og hun blir innkalt til bidragsfogden og informeres om rettsvirkningene av at farskap blir fastslått eller ikke.

Google translate sayeth:

The committee will emphasize that the woman under Norwegian law has a duty of explanation, although the refusal to provide the identity of a potential fathers in practice will not meet with criminal liability or cuts in welfare benefits.

Mother has a duty of explanation and she is summoned to the subsidiary and informed about the legal effects of paternity being determined or not.

Almost like she doesn't have any enforceable obligation to name a father and the state will do literally nothing if she doesn't.

[MERIZoC]

>Desperately trying to come up with convoluted solutions to specific problems that could easily be solved by communism

how tf does communism solve this.

Are the children shared equally or something?

Child support is an unnecessary concept when the entire community supports each other.

[Gravlen]

"You've got what the intergalactic call a very planetary mindset, Morty. It's more complicated out here."
Your US-centric attitude and/or failure to limit this thread to the situation in the US is not my problem. My point stands.


"I'm not British. I'm not American. I'm not French. Whatever thing they practise, that is their business." - Paul Kagame




Yes. Like where I'm currently living. Is this slowly sinking in now?

You knew this was a US centric thread when you walked in.

Bullshit. You never said anything of the sort.

But even if you had, so what? Have real world experience no value in this discussion? When someone says "It's like that where I live" why didn't that pique your curiosity? Oh right, because you didn't make this thread trying to advocate for those solutions, did you. You have no interest in an honest debate about this.

However, I am interested - your state CANNOT terminate parental responsibilities for neglect, etc? Care to prove it? Parents whose children are taken by the state owe the state child support? Proofs?

Barnevernloven § 9-2

Når et barn er plassert utenfor hjemmet som følge av et vedtak etter loven, kan kommunen kreve at foreldrene skal betale oppfostringsbidrag​1 fra måneden etter at plasseringen ble iverksatt og til den måneden plasseringen opphører. Oppfostringsbidrag​1 kan bare kreves dersom dette anses rimelig ut fra foreldrenes økonomiske situasjon.

The Kingdom of Norway, a sovereign state.

What's the punishment? Can you show me where someone has been charged with a crime for failing to the name the father?

There is a legal obligation, but it's not a criminal act to fail to name the father.

[Galloism]

You knew this was a US centric thread when you walked in.

Bullshit. You never said anything of the sort.

But even if you had, so what? Have real world experience no value in this discussion? When someone says "It's like that where I live" why didn't that pique your curiosity? Oh right, because you didn't make this thread trying to advocate for those solutions, did you. You have no interest in an honest debate about this.

I actually am. And I find this next bit very interesting:

However, I am interested - your state CANNOT terminate parental responsibilities for neglect, etc? Care to prove it? Parents whose children are taken by the state owe the state child support? Proofs?

Barnevernloven § 9-2

Når et barn er plassert utenfor hjemmet som følge av et vedtak etter loven, kan kommunen kreve at foreldrene skal betale oppfostringsbidrag​1 fra måneden etter at plasseringen ble iverksatt og til den måneden plasseringen opphører. Oppfostringsbidrag​1 kan bare kreves dersom dette anses rimelig ut fra foreldrenes økonomiske situasjon.

Google translate sayeth:

When a child is placed outside the home as a result of a decision pursuant to the law, the municipality may require that parents pay reimbursement allowance 1 from the month after the placement was initiated and until the month the placement expires. Breeding allowance 1 can only be required if this is considered reasonable based on the parents' financial situation.

This actually makes sense and is in line with my proposal, as it would reduce government expenditures. I'm sure "breeding allowance" is a bad translation, but I think I get the gist.

There is a legal obligation, but it's not a criminal act to fail to name the father.

Ok, how is it enforced? What measures are taken to ensure compliance?

[Kramanica]

how tf does communism solve this.

Are the children shared equally or something?

Child support is an unnecessary concept when the entire community supports each other.

So child support then.

The community would support children.

Ergo, child support.

[Hammer Britannia]

Child support is an unnecessary concept when the entire community supports each other.

So child support then.

The community would support children.

Ergo, child support.

*Bad dum tssk*

[Gravlen]

But if the burden lies on the authorities, that means it's not on the mother, right? No. It has become settled law that the statute places a duty to name the father - or potential father - on the woman:

Et annet spørsmål er statens plikt til å avklare farskap der hvor moren ikke oppgir noe navn, og hvor heller ingen aktuelle «kandidater» melder seg. Etter norsk rett har kvinnen i slike tilfeller en forklaringsplikt, men nektelse av å oppgi potensi­elle fedres identitet vil i praksis ikke møtes med straffansvar.

NOU 2009:5, Farskap og annen morskap
(My bolding and underlining)

Google translate sayeth regarding your quote:

Another question is the duty of the state to clarify paternity where the mother does not specify any name and where no current "candidate" is reported. According to Norwegian law, in such cases, the woman has a duty to explain, but refusal to indicate the identity of the prospective fathers will in practice not meet criminal liability.

Bolding and underlining mine.

For shame Gravlen, trying to pass off an unenforced obligation as a "real" obligation.

Oh how cute, you think the failure to attach penal sanctions to a legal obligation makes it not a legal obligation.

Show's over, I guess. I should not write anything more I guess, because the government is sure to storm in and arbitrarily arrest me in violation of the constitution and relevant statues - which does not have any penal sanctions attached to them

No. A legal obligation is a legal obligation. You said "Require mothers to name fathers at birth", not "Require mothers to name fathers at birth and threaten them with punishment if they don't. Parliament suggested attaching penal consequences to it under Innst. 230 S (2009–2010) quoted above, but in Prop. 105 L (2012–2013) they decided not to do that, and for logical reasons. "I don't know" is a difficult hurdle to pass in this case, and proving it beyond a reasonable doubt is going to be a challenge in most (all) cases where the mother refuses to cooperate.

This is established law, and has been repeated in later publications. Example Innst. 230 S (2009–2010)

Komiteen vil understreke at kvinnen etter norsk rett har en forklaringsplikt, selv om nektelse av å oppgi potensielle fedres identitet i praksis ikke vil møtes med straffeansvar eller kutt i velferdsytelser. Mor har en forklaringsplikt, og hun blir innkalt til bidragsfogden og informeres om rettsvirkningene av at farskap blir fastslått eller ikke.

Google translate sayeth:

The committee will emphasize that the woman under Norwegian law has a duty of explanation, although the refusal to provide the identity of a potential fathers in practice will not meet with criminal liability or cuts in welfare benefits.

Mother has a duty of explanation and she is summoned to the subsidiary and informed about the legal effects of paternity being determined or not.

Almost like she doesn't have any enforceable obligation to name a father and the state will do literally nothing if she doesn't.

Still, a legal obligation remains.

[Kramanica]

So child support then.

The community would support children.

Ergo, child support.

*Bad dum tssk*

Really, commies think that communism would solve everything when really a lot of the shit they advocate for is stuff we already have.

"Hey, let's have a system where the community supports children! We could pool some supplies together and them distribute them to children in need!"

This is literally child support.

[New Emeline]

>Desperately trying to come up with convoluted solutions to specific problems that could easily be solved by communism

how tf does communism solve this.

Are the children shared equally or something?

Seize the means of (re)production!

[Fartsniffage]

how tf does communism solve this.

Are the children shared equally or something?

Seize the means of (re)production!

That's sexual harassment.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

*Bad dum tssk*

Really, commies think that communism would solve everything when really a lot of the shit they advocate for is stuff we already have.

"Hey, let's have a system where the community supports children! We could pool some supplies together and them distribute them to children in need!"

This is literally child support.

No, child support is a system that drives low-income fathers deeper into poverty and prevents them from gaining the education and skills they need to make it in the world.

Pooling everyone's resources would allow those who've already established their careers to help with the child-raising until their fathers have established their own.

Outright communism is pushing it, but we've already given the voters a say in how other voters' children are raised, both through schools and through youth centers. This would just be taking it a few steps further.

[Gravlen]

Bullshit. You never said anything of the sort.

But even if you had, so what? Have real world experience no value in this discussion? When someone says "It's like that where I live" why didn't that pique your curiosity? Oh right, because you didn't make this thread trying to advocate for those solutions, did you. You have no interest in an honest debate about this.

I actually am. And I find this next bit very interesting:

However, I am interested - your state CANNOT terminate parental responsibilities for neglect, etc? Care to prove it? Parents whose children are taken by the state owe the state child support? Proofs?

Barnevernloven § 9-2

Når et barn er plassert utenfor hjemmet som følge av et vedtak etter loven, kan kommunen kreve at foreldrene skal betale oppfostringsbidrag​1 fra måneden etter at plasseringen ble iverksatt og til den måneden plasseringen opphører. Oppfostringsbidrag​1 kan bare kreves dersom dette anses rimelig ut fra foreldrenes økonomiske situasjon.

Google translate sayeth:

When a child is placed outside the home as a result of a decision pursuant to the law, the municipality may require that parents pay reimbursement allowance 1 from the month after the placement was initiated and until the month the placement expires. Breeding allowance 1 can only be required if this is considered reasonable based on the parents' financial situation.

This actually makes sense and is in line with my proposal, as it would reduce government expenditures. I'm sure "breeding allowance" is a bad translation, but I think I get the gist.

There is a legal obligation, but it's not a criminal act to fail to name the father.

Ok, how is it enforced? What measures are taken to ensure compliance?

The mother will be called into a conference with the social- and welfare office (NAV), and they will have a conversation with her with regard to the child's right to know both of the parents, the duty of the mother to name the father, the responsibility of the government to name the father if possible even if she won't assist, that the case will proceed if there's other information, and that she won't be punished if she gives the information at a later date. She will also be informed of the legal consequences, including that she might be compelled to provide a DNA sample herself and/or the child if there's reasons to believe that a specific person is the father.

If, at any time, NAV gets any new information concerning the question of fatherhood, be it from the child, a potential father, or others, she may be called in for new rounds of these conversations.

[New Emeline]

Seize the means of (re)production!

That's sexual harassment.

oh oops

[Galloism]

Google translate sayeth regarding your quote:



Bolding and underlining mine.

For shame Gravlen, trying to pass off an unenforced obligation as a "real" obligation.

Oh how cute, you think the failure to attach penal sanctions to a legal obligation makes it not a legal obligation.

Show's over, I guess. I should not write anything more I guess, because the government is sure to storm in and arbitrarily arrest me in violation of the constitution and relevant statues - which does not have any penal sanctions attached to them

No. A legal obligation is a legal obligation. You said "Require mothers to name fathers at birth", not "Require mothers to name fathers at birth and threaten them with punishment if they don't. Parliament suggested attaching penal consequences to it under Innst. 230 S (2009–2010) quoted above, but in Prop. 105 L (2012–2013) they decided not to do that, and for logical reasons. "I don't know" is a difficult hurdle to pass in this case, and proving it beyond a reasonable doubt is going to be a challenge in most (all) cases where the mother refuses to cooperate.

Google translate sayeth:



Almost like she doesn't have any enforceable obligation to name a father and the state will do literally nothing if she doesn't.

Still, a legal obligation remains.

There's a very interesting debate on whether an unenforceable law is still a law at all in practical terms.

If it is, abortion is still against the law in over 20 US states, but this law is unenforceable because the US Supreme Court blocked enforcement. The US Flag Code is a law, despite the fact that people can freely wear flag underwear. A number of states still prohibit atheists from running for office - but these laws are all unenforceable.

Do they still really convey a legal obligation?

Under some theories of law, people say yes. Under other theories, it's no.

I had a discussion with Neo Art on this one time regarding safe haven laws.

It is technically illegal to drop off a baby at the safe haven point. However, there is no punishment allowed or specified by law (in 48 states, I believe).

This thread, while not about safe haven laws, is to discuss such unpunishable laws as a whole.

My view is that, the meat of the law is in its teeth. If a law is unenforceable, its not a law. If no one can be punished for not obeying it, there is no incentive to obey it, and, thus there is no law - only words on a sheet of paper.

Nope, it's still illegal.

It's just not enforcible by state authorities.

Oh let's not go into that one again. An unenforceable law is one that, for all intent and purposes, doesn't exist.

If your statutory duty is not enforceable, it doesn't exist.

[Galloism]

The mother will be called into a conference with the social- and welfare office (NAV), and they will have a conversation with her with regard to the child's right to know both of the parents, the duty of the mother to name the father, the responsibility of the government to name the father if possible even if she won't assist, that the case will proceed if there's other information, and that she won't be punished if she gives the information at a later date. She will also be informed of the legal consequences, including that she might be compelled to provide a DNA sample herself and/or the child if there's reasons to believe that a specific person is the father.

If, at any time, NAV gets any new information concerning the question of fatherhood, be it from the child, a potential father, or others, she may be called in for new rounds of these conversations.

So there's no teeth to the law at all, other than they can compel the production of evidence if they find something to match it with (which is true whether you've broken a statutory duty or not).

Now try that with any of the other items above. Maybe we don't force noncustodial parents to pay support, but we call them in for a meeting, tell them what their requirement is, and take literally no action to enforce it. Or maybe we don't force sperm donors to pay support, but we call them in for a meeting, tell them what their requirement is, and take literally no action to enforce it. Or we call in parents who have given up their children for adoption, have a meeting, tell them their requirement to pay support to the adoptive parents, but take literally no action to enforce it.

Sound like a requirement to you?