Child support and male entitlement
| July 29th, 2005The more I hear men’s rights activists fulminating about the unfairness of child support, the more I wonder how typical my situation is, and whether there are any general lessons to be drawn about expectations of men and women when it comes to child-raising.
My relationship with the father of my child ran into difficulties before my pregnancy was even confirmed. Initially, we hoped to live together, but it quickly became clear that there were too many barriers, both logistical and emotional, for this to be a viable possibility, at least for a few years. I did some research into the rights and obligations of a non-custodial parent and found that although I would be entitled to a certain level of support as a custodial parent, I wasn’t legally obliged to demand it.
I had no desire to take him for every penny I could get: he was someone I cared deeply about but couldn’t live with. Since bearing and raising a child would affect my ability to work, and since I hoped he would want to see his child well cared-for, I envisaged a compromise whereby he made voluntary support payments and was in other ways an active father.
I reckoned without his stubbornness and commitment to traditional family structures. He informed me that it would be better for the child if he was in no way involved, since this would free me up to find a stepfather I could live with and build an approximation of a traditional family. That I have emotional problems that would make the search for a stepfather the worst possible fate I could inflict on myself or the child did not enter into his thinking: the child needed two parents who lived together, and since we couldn’t provide that, he didn’t want to be involved.
Later, he tried to soften that approach by saying that we lived too far apart to make visitation practical. If I lived closer to him, he suggested, it would be far easier to work something out. When I finally ended the relationship, he said that he’d hoped we would be able to find a solution, although I’m not sure what that solution should have been. I can only assume it would have involved my seeing the light and moving halfway across the country to live close to someone who had proved himself incapable of respecting anything about me that he didn’t agree with.
When I look back over the uglier arguments, I’m struck by how often he tried to put both blame and responsibility on me for the fact that he’d fathered a child without being ready for fatherhood. My explanation that I hoped to get pregnant was rendered meaningless by my statement that I’m committed to a woman’s right to choose. That I told him I wasn’t using any birth control wasn’t enough: I should also have told him the date of my last menstrual period. He believes that a child needs a father figure on the spot, therefore I had to enter another relationship despite my own understanding of myself.
I’ve also been told by family members that I’m not being fair to him and should have done more to make the relationship work. I don’t know what more I could have done without sacrificing my self-esteem and my plans for the future on the altar of his personal convenience, but I suspect that is a sacrifice I was expected to make. Not for him, of course, but for the child. It would be equally reasonable to expect him to move halfway across the country to be closer to me, but no-one is demanding that. Because I have no job to leave? Because I’m a woman? Because all my reasons for not wanting to move have been sifted through the mesh of rationality and found wanting?
The bottom line is that we both made a choice when we engaged in unprotected sex, and that choice has consequences for both of us. I go through the discomforts and dangers of pregnancy and childbirth and have the joyful but heavy responsibility of a child at the end of it. He has to pay a percentage of his income to support the child.
And yet he’s the one who feels treated unfairly.
July 29th, 2005 at 11:05 am
It’s not about you. None of this is about you–it’s about his desire to be a blameless victim who doesn’t have to face and take responsibility for the consequences of his choices, and about everyone else’s desire to control you through the choices they want to impose on you.
This comment was written by Kai Jones.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 11:52 am
I hope things get to the point where he feels and is reponsible enough to act like more than jsut an unwilling sperm donor.
This comment was written by Josh Jasper.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
Not to sound too cold and practical about this Nick, but if you haven’t done so already you should talk to a family law attorney sensitive to your issues. Not because you necessarily need to take any kind of legal action, but because you’re going to need a good idea of all the respective legal rights and obligations at work here. Mr. “I don’t think I should have to act responsibly here” could easily turn later into Mr. “I think I should be allowed to start asserting parental rights even though I’ve been out of the picture for eons.” It wouldn’t be the first time.
This comment was written by nolo.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 12:13 pm
Nolo, a visit to my local citizens’ advice bureau is scheduled in the near future to confirm exactly what the legal situation is.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
hmmm. I think it can be argued that you did, in fact, use him to get pregnant. Isn’t that what you informed him of when you told him you wanted to become pregnant and that you weren’t on birth control? I think that also implies that pregnancy was more important to you than the viability of your particular relationship with him. Why do *you* feel he is financially obligated to pay child support? You actively chose to become pregnant — did you discuss his views on fatherhood prior to your doing so?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 12:31 pm
I’m not sure what you mean about using him to get pregnant. Yes, I made use of the fact that he was prepared to have unprotected sex with me, but that’s not to imply I saw him as a walking sperm bank. With hindsight, I can say that it would have been better to discuss our different views on parenthood before the event, but I assumed that he understood my views (I’ve expressed them openly and we were friends for over a year) and would speak up if he disagreed enormously.
I get the impression that his views on fatherhood have shifted as he considered them. When I told him I wanted to get pregnant, he was enthusiastic about it, and even when he started having misgivings he spoke of his long-held dream of being a father.
I do sometimes feel that I was slightly unfair to him in that I had plenty of time to consider getting pregnant and he hadn’t considered the possibility before that night. On the other hand, the option was always open to him to say “Well, I need some time to think about that, in the meantime we’d better use condoms, OK?” He didn’t, and now we both have a child to consider.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 12:52 pm
Q, I strongly disagree with you on this one.
If a man is unwilling to be a father, he shouldn’t have unprotected vaginal intercourse. If he’s really really really unwilling to be a father he shouldn’t engage in any activity where semen gets close to a vagina.
If he’s willing to engage in those activities he needs to be prepared to face the consquences, be they seeing his potential progeny aborted against his will, or finding himself with a child to raise.
Men have a surefire method of keeping themselves from parenting. If they don’t use it, they have every responsibility for that.
This comment was written by Jake.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 1:11 pm
If a man is unwilling to be a father, he shouldn’t have unprotected vaginal intercourse.
If a woman is unwilling to be a mother, she shouldn’t have unprotected vaginal intercourse. True or false?
If true, what happens to abortion rights? If false, why the different treatment for different genders?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 1:28 pm
Robert: women get pregnant through rape and coerced intercourse. Don’t even try to paint that as the same scenario. For many women, the choice to have sex or abstain from it is not theirs to make.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
Why the different treatment? Seriously? Um, maybe because it’s the woman who goes through the pregnancy?
This comment was written by Beidran.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
Nick: I meant “use” in the utilitarian sense, not the “take advantage” sense.
Jake: I’m not sure I’m suggesting a blanket “men don’t have to step up to the financial plate” rule. I was curious about the specifics of this pregnancy and relationship and why Nick feels that it might be male entitlement that is wrapped around the financial question.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 1:32 pm
Robert, that’s an old question with an oft-repeated answer. Has something to do with that nine-month gestation period.
Nick– glad to hear you’re taking the steps to get all the info you need. I hope my advice didn’t sound insulting.
This comment was written by nolo.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 1:44 pm
I know this thread isn’t supposed to be about abortion, but in tangentially it is.
In another thread on this site about pregnancy being a process (or some such thing) someone introduced the idea that abortion wouldn’t be necessary with an artificial womb. It was very interesting how many pro-choice arguments seemingly turned from “its not the fetus that is the problem its the pregnancy” AND “Its my body so its my choice” TO “I want the control as to whether or not I have offspring”. In other words, if the fetus could be removed safely (thereby negating the “my body my choice” argument) and raised in an artificial womb many would still want to kill the fetus. Many of the arguments maintained that outlawing abortion is simply punishing women for having sex. It seems to me those arguments could apply equally to men in the case of whether or not they want to be fathers and whether or not you are simply punishing men for having sex. If a woman’s right is not simply “its my body my choice” but rather “I don’t want offspring”, why can’t men have the same right to absolve themselves of all parental responsibility?
This comment was written by TheEngineerFormerlyKnownAsLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 2:09 pm
If a woman’s right is not simply “its my body my choice” but rather “I don’t want offspring”, why can’t men have the same right to absolve themselves of all parental responsibility?
As soon as men can be impregnated, they too can have the same choice.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
But Larry is positing the question in a context where women aren’t impregnated either, Jake.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 2:25 pm
Jake Squid: “As soon as men can be impregnated, they too can have the same choice. ”
Ahh hemm. Maybe you didn’t read the whole post? You know, the part that removed pregnancy from the equation of abortion (at least partially)?
This comment was written by TheEngineerFormerlyKnownAsLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
But pregnancy has never been removed from the equation, it’s merely been extremely shortened in the hypothetical future technology scenario. See, the hypothetical future technology scenario doesn’t forego intercourse & uterus. Sexual intercourse does happen and insemination, fertilization & implantation all happen. The woman, in hypothetical future technology scenarioland, does get pregnant & then has the option of moving the zygote/embryo/fetus to the artificial womb.
So, I will say again that as soon as men can get pregnant they can have the same choice.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 2:30 pm
She did discuss that she was not on birthcontrol and wanted pregnancy, which ultimately means he failed to take the precautions that were right for him at the time if it was something he did not want. He had sex knowing that his partner was not using birthcontrol and took a gamble.
As for the abortion tangent, it’s interesting how anti-choice men like to swing the argument about to make women who are choosing life be the one’s that hold the lions share of accountability. My best advice to those men is to find out in advance what your lover’s feelings are on pregnancy, pregnancy right now and parental responsibility. Men have a choice as well and whether the choice is to leave yourself open to impregnating a woman, getting an STD or using a condom, the myth that choice is not available is nonsense. And if somehow you do end up with an STD, it’s not like the woman giving you an STD has any right to demand you not get that STD treated, right?
You don’t have to like your choices or consequences any more than the woman you sleep with does, but it doesn’t mean that you aren’t accountable if the dice roll lands on ’she’s pregnant!’ and you slept with someone that has different reproductive beliefs than you do.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 2:41 pm
There’s a difference between garnishing someone’s paycheck and taking control, even temporary control, of their body. Pro-choice (and anti-”choice for men”) activists differentiate between the choice to not continue a pregnancy and the choice to not pay child support for the same reason the courts allow people to sue for money but not for pounds of flesh.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 2:42 pm
I think Kim has it spot on. It sounds like there was at least the knowledge that Nick was unprotected and hopeful for pregnancy, and if her partner was not ready to seriously consider that burden then the onus would IMMEDIATELY be on him to use birth control (condoms) until he had fully examined the topic and decided on what he wanted. It’s called personal responsibility.
This comment was written by wookie.Now that this person has not taken responsibility previously, he doesn’t want to do so now. Unfortunately, this should not be an option for anyone (not taking responsibility for personal actions).
Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 2:58 pm
Jake Squid: “So, I will say again that as soon as men can get pregnant they can have the same choice.”
Or until women no longer need to go through the pregnancy to reproduce?
This comment was written by TheEngineerFormerlyKnownAsLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 3:07 pm
I have a couple of things I’d like to toss out.
In discussions of abortion, I really think it’s useless to suggest abstinence on the part of a man that uses some form of birth control, and who doesn’t want to accidentally impregnate someone. A truly tiny sector of society is abstinent - for everyone else, sex is a necessary part of their daily life. This is as true for men as it is for women.
Also, I believe that by virtue of biology, a woman has the last say in whether a fetus inside her is carried to term - her body, her choice. But in the baby-incubator secnario, both possible-parents-to-be have an equal say as to whether the fetus matures. When the zygote is not in her body, she loses the veto power.
This comment was written by Sara.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 3:19 pm
Perhaps male entitlement was the wrong word for what I was trying to describe, but it was more than the financial question that I thought of as an entitlement issue. He tried to paint me as responsible for a decision we both made freely, and expected me to rearrange my life to fix what he saw as a problem (lack of two-parents-together). I don’t know whether that was individual assholishness on his part or a symptom of a wider problem, which is why I just wonder whether there are general lessons to be drawn.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 3:38 pm
“Robert: women get pregnant through rape and coerced intercourse. Don’t even try to paint that as the same scenario. For many women, the choice to have sex or abstain from it is not theirs to make.”
Most of women who abort their children had consensual sex. Further abortion is not the only legal option for woman to avoid her parental responsibilities, it’s one of 3.
Abortion, adopting out, and legal abandonment allow for *women,
only* to evade the consequences of sex and legal responsibility toward
their children.
Men are held to have “chosen” at time of sex, while women are NOT.
This comment was written by Larry.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
Take this hypothetical:
My wife and I are worried about having babies. We set aside some eggs.
We have a divorce, and I get half of the eggs.
I then hire a surrogate mother, fertilize the eggs and implant them.
Can I now get child support from my ex-wife?
Would it be different if the lab had fertilized the eggs before freezing them?
This comment was written by Mike.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
Nick:
The ex and I had an unplanned pregnancy which resulted in our parenting of our son. At the time I figured that at age (almost) eighteen and with enough resources to follow through with the pregnancy, I would do so and make my decision whether or not to adopt or parent through the course of the prengnacy. During this time it became clear that he viewed pregnancy and fatherhood as a Hallmark card, while I was kicked out of my parents’ home and couch-crashed with friends for the duration of my pregnancy.
Arguments ensued and we had little to no contact while I was pregnant. We tried to make decent arrangements but couldn’t on our own. However, soon after our son was born we decided to give it another go, at which point I “sacrific[ed] my self-esteem and my plans for the future on the altar of his personal convenience” because I was indeed expected to do so by everyone involved but me. Not knowing better, I dove in to the most horrible year of our lives. We were miserable, depressed, at one another’s throats. I moved out after both of us experienced a serious emotional breakdown apiece.
After we split we tried to make arrangements for visitation and child support outside of court, both of us agreeing that because I had a more flexible schedule I should be primary caregiver and he would have copious visitation time. He would pay child support in $X on N day every month. We did this for awhile with sporadic success, but for whatever reason the lack of a court order allowed him to feel free to trample all over me and our original agreement, and would withhold child support if he thought I was being mean to him or if he thought it would give him leverage. We then changed it to him paying the full price at an in-home daycare (same amount of money) but that fell through when I found out that he hadn’t paid our daycare provider in months. She continued to keep our son, and keep me in the dark, because she knew I was stuggling to get through college.
We embarked on a horrific custody and child support lawsuit that had me accused of everything from mental illness, drug abuse, child abuse and neglect. Though I tried to play fair the whole time, I was forced to bring out his skeletons, leading to wounds that still have yet to heal on both sides.
The irony is that the arrangement ruled on by the courts was exactly the one we had agreed upon in the first place. And it works! It was tense for awhile but the two of us get along now quite well. We have a modest child support agreement, he covers our son’s insurance expenses, and gets an overnight twice a week and pretty much any other time he asks for one.
All this is to say that boundaries must be established in the relationship if you want the relationship between him and your child to continue. If he wants nothing to do with the child, I would strongly suggest you have him sign away his rights to be a parent. This is not to say that he couldn’t become a positive force later on, but it prevents him from being a negative one by trampling on your rights as the parent. Foregoing child support in a case where he is disinterested or resistant to fatherhood will save you a lot of grief in the long term.
This may not be the most popular (somewhat unsolicited) advise, but “Forget the semantics and start thinking about the bigger picture” is the most honest advice I can give you with my experience and the experiences of my friends.
Now back to your thread derailment.
This comment was written by Lauren.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 4:38 pm
>>Most of women who abort their children had consensual sex. Further abortion is not the only legal option for woman to avoid her parental responsibilities, it’s one of 3.
Abortion, adopting out, and legal abandonment allow for *women,
only* to evade the consequences of sex and legal responsibility toward
their children.>>
Men are accountable for child-support iff the woman assumes the greater role of custodial parent. Both parents have parallel support obligations after the child’s birth; the only reason women aren’t usually seen as having non-custodial parental obligations is that they’re usually the custodial parents.
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 4:46 pm
Seeing as how there are now two “Larry”s in this thread could some mod change the name in my previous posts to “TheEngineerFormerlyKnownAsLarry” or something unique?
This comment was written by TheEngineerFormerlyKnownAsLarry.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
I second Lauren’s advice.
Also, for all the folks who are wondering why a woman ought to have veto power over a fetus growing outside her womb (this of course being a purely theoretical conversation, as it is doubtful that artificial wombs are likely to be around for at least several generations to come, if that)—exactly how do you think that fetus is going to get from the woman’s womb to an artificial one? You do realize that scalpels and anaethesia are going to be involved, right? You do realize that it would be an invasive medical procedure, right? And that since it’s still her body that is going to be impacted by any decision she makes, it’s still her choice what, if any medical procedures are going to be performed on her, right?
Sheesh.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 5:38 pm
Ah, it’s cute when the anti-feminists think they’ve worked in a “gotcha”. I suppose the sentence could have been phrased better, but that’s quibbling over semantics.
In our legal system, if you give someone a gift, it’s theirs to do with what they like. If a man ejaculates inside a woman, he has given her his semen and she is free to use it as she likes. She can make a baby with it, if she wants. She can abort if she wants. She can squeeze out the semen and put it in a vial to wear around her neck so people can sniff it if she likes and the man, having given it freely to her, has no rights to stop her.
As much as many men would like our law to follow the piss on it/spit on it/come in her view of legal ownership over a woman’s body, that’s simply not how the law works. You come in a woman, she gets to keep your semen. If you don’t like that you have two choices–don’t give her your semen (use a condom) or give her the kind of semen she can’t use to make a baby (get a vasectomy). Thems the law, guys. Sorry.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 5:46 pm
This question is discussed in copious detail here
My short answer is that both men and women should have the right to do whatever they want to with their own bodies to protect themselves from unwanted parenthood.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 5:56 pm
This brought to mind a rather disturbing scene from a rather disturbing book I read when I was 18. It featured a young girl finding a discarded, tied-off condom in some public place and carrying it around inside her as part of some kind of sexual experimentation.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 5:59 pm
That’s hardcore demented. I love it.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 6:24 pm
I have three headaches right now. One from the sun beating down on my head all day (local county fair), one of the ice cream variety, and one from all the stupidity I keep running into online. So please excuse any snarkiness that’s too, well, snarky.
“My explanation that I hoped to get pregnant was rendered meaningless by my statement that I’m committed to a woman’s right to choose.” There are people stupid enough to think these things cancel each other out?!
“That I told him I wasn’t using any birth control wasn’t enough . . .” Speaking of unbelievable stupidity.
“If a man is unwilling to be a father, he shouldn’t have unprotected vaginal intercourse.” versus “If a woman is unwilling to be a mother, she shouldn’t have unprotected vaginal intercourse,” OBVIOUSLY, she has the option of birth control, which unprotected vaginal intercourse does not override. Once male birth control is available (I think they’re working on developing a male oral contraceptive), men who don’t want to be fathers can have unprotected vaginal intercourse without worrying (about that, anyway). In addition, either of them have the authority to require the use of a condom in any sex they have.
Regarding the argument about how “I don’t want offspring” relates to abortion and to men’s and women’s options, 1) both men and women can choose not to contribute their genetic material to a pregnancy, and 2) women, because they carry the fetus for nine months, also have that option during most of the pregnancy. Each person, male and female, loses control over their genetic material the instant it leaves their body, men at conception, women at birth.
Piny–You. Are. A. Genius. “Pro-choice (and anti-”choice for men”) activists differentiate between the choice to not continue a pregnancy and the choice to not pay child support for the same reason the courts allow people to sue for money but not for pounds of flesh.” Absolutely brilliant!
“Abortion, adopting out, and legal abandonment allow for *women,
only* to evade the consequences of sex and legal responsibility toward
their children.” Generally the latter two happen AFTER the guy in question has abandoned the mother (and hence the child)–otherwise I see no reason why the father could not request to take the baby if the mother didn’t want it. Around where I live there’s this organization called the Fathers’ Adoption Registry; I know nothing about it but what was depicted in the commercials, which was a man who wanted the baby his ex-girlfriend was planning to give up for adoption. And, OBVIOUSLY, if men got pregnant, they could have abortions, too.
Too often, people think of child support as money lost to the custodial parent, when it should be thought of as money paid to the child, for, well, child support. And mothers, by the time said child is born, have given nine months worth of total child support, life support, full-time, with no breaks and at great inconvenience. Translate that into money–say, minimum wage, plus overtime for all but forty hours in every week, plus medical expenses, cost of extra food and maternity clothes, plus a bonus for the time, energy, and pain spent during labor, and that’s a shitload of child support right there, of which no father will ever pay.
Mike–”My wife and I are worried about having babies. We set aside some eggs.
We have a divorce, and I get half of the eggs.” Why would you get half? They’re hers. Fertilized embryoes, yes. Eggs, I doubt it. But, if this did happen, once YOU have sole control over them and how they’re used, she ceases to be responsible for them. It’s the same principle as sperm donors being exempt from being sued for child support.
La Lubu–VERY good point. Person in whom fetus is contained controls how it gets out of her. I had a nightmare a couple nights ago in which I was pregnant and in a car accident and some pro-life surgeon decided the (viable) fetus was more important than I was and just sliced me open to get it out, which dramatically increased the danger I was in, and I was struggling to stay alive so I could sue him. There was a murder up here, too, about six months ago, in which one woman cut another one open like that and kidnapped her fetus, and left her to bleed to death. (Unfortunately, I’m not kidding.)
This comment was written by Kyra.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 6:47 pm
Thank you La Lubu - that is exactly what I’ve been trying to communicate. So,
Or until women no longer need to go through the pregnancy to reproduce?
Yes. Once reproduction is completely removed from the human body, both (or, perhaps at that point, all) genetically contributing parents will have equal say on what happens to the embryo that they all purposely created outside of any human body. I think, however, that Mr. Sperm ‘n Eggs will hunt you down and hurt you if you pursue this line of inquiry as it is, apparently, objectively immoral to reproduce in such a way.
And, as long as we’ve gone down this long weird road of tangential speculation on reproductive technologies of the future, I would like to bring Raznor’s womanbabykeet & attendant moral quandries into the discussion.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 7:09 pm
I think the fake-womb argument is one of the lamest derails of abortion/child support discussions ever. It’s the kind of thing you bring up around the bong in grad school (dude!). If we ever get to Brave New World territory where all babies grow in glass bottles from conception, then we’ll have to adapt our laws accordingly. But that has absolutely no bearing on the discussion at hand.
And the sniveling “but why don’t MEN get to decide about abortions too?” argument is just too annoying. Put on your jimmy hats or get a vasectomy, fellas. It ain’t brain surgery. It’s not that hard to avoid being a daddy, and once you’ve ejaculated, your choice is already made. If those aren’t enough options for you, start agitating for male birth control pills that work better than condoms. No sensible woman is going to have a problem with you doing so.
As far as Nick Kiddle’s question, I would just second what everyone else says here; either get a legally-enforced child support set up, or make sure he terminates his parental rights. He made his choice on the night in question, and for your child’s sake, you have to make sure its future is as stable as possible no matter what bio-dad does.
This comment was written by emjaybee.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 7:24 pm
In our legal system, if you give someone a gift, it’s theirs to do with what they like.
In our legal system, if you turn around and then ask for payment to buy the gift nappies, you get laughed out of court. The “semen is a gift” argument is a perfectly valid position - in a world where males bear no responsibility for children.
Since males DO bear responsibility for children, coequal with females, that analogy breaks down.
My short answer is that both men and women should have the right to do whatever they want to with their own bodies to protect themselves from unwanted parenthood.
Ah, again we find ourselves in agreement, Amp. And it hurt no one, do what thou wilt. But let’s not start down that road again; I haven’t had time to do my research.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 7:41 pm
The problem is, abortion ultimately -is- a form of birth control, but saying that frankly ends up having people run with it into territory of people assuming women use it as ’standard’ birthcontrol.
So either you find out all the options of birthcontrol available, and what sort your partner will or will not be comfortable with and proceed knowingly, or you risk it and risk paying child-support, or risk a woman choosing a form of birth-control you may not be comfortable with.
This comment was written by Kim (basement variety!).Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 8:05 pm
Kyra said:
I figure at minimum wage, plus overtime, a pregnancy should entitle a woman to $46,350 in simple pay alone. Not counting expenses. Not counting harm to her health or body. Not counting pain and suffering. Ouch.
This comment was written by mousehounde.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 9:19 pm
Warning: strong opinions ahead.
The artificial womb concept is ridiculous and insulting. A woman provides more to a fetus than a place to gestate. There is psychic/psychological connection that affects the child’s emotional well-being, and even the movement of her body provides for the child’s neurological development. There will never be a surrogate equal to a mother.
First, do establish your legal rights immediately. Judges are very unsympathetic if a problem arises and you haven’t made the effort to see that the child is properly supported, or terminated the father’s rights. Don’t worry about taking his money. You told him you wanted a baby, he had sex with you, he took the risk. It doesn’t matter if he used a condom or not - he knew your intent was to be a mother. I’m also put off by the idea of someone who isn’t trying to reproduce having unprotected sex. There’s a plague on the planet, ya know. I hope the baby is smarter than he is.
I’m sick to wretched death of men who think they can get away with impregnating women and then whine about child support. He risks a few dollars- she risks her life and most times the complete care of the child is going to fall on her even if they stay together. She gets the blame for getting pregnant. She risks death or severe injury in giving birth. She gets to raise them if he splits. She’ll change the diapers, give up her career or have her career limited, and more likely than not, she’ll live in poverty if she raises the child alone. His life will only change if he wants it to.
Even if a woman has an abortion, her body may be permanently changed by the pregnancy, and she may never recover from the emotional scars. If she gives a child up for adoption, she may never get over the guilt. There is no such thing as an easy way out of an unwanted pregnancy for a woman. It is a life-changing event no matter what the final outcome. Men rarely even bear the burden they should feel at having abandoned a child, and are generally unchanged emotionally and physically. There’s nothing even approaching equality in the situation, so forget all the arguments about fairness.
A man will often lie to obtain sex and it isn’t unusual for a man to impregnate multiple partners, each of whom believes herself to be in a monogamous relationship. Men face absolutley no burden for lying, infidelity, even murder if they have unprotected sex when they know they have HIV. Consider child support a BARGAIN to what I’d make men responsible for if I made the laws.
I start from the assumption that people are going to have sex. It’s natural, it’s healthy and it doesn’t have to have procreative intent or a blessing from state or church to be a positive activity. People do have a responsibilty to prevent the spread of disease, though, and to make a good faith effort not to create children they don’t want. Accidents happen, though, as do rape, coercion and abuse, so I believe abortion should be not just legal, but free so that poor women have fair access to it.
In the specific case we’re talking about, Dude made his decision, so he lives with the consequences. You want the baby, which is awesome, and I hope you’re both very healthy and happy. He pays, or he gives up parental rights. When given that choice, you may be surprised how quickly he finds the cash he should be providing. You make the decisions that are best for you, because your well-being will have a direct effect on the well-being of your child. Your family will almost certainly be more supportive when they see the baby.
Women have been raising children alone since the beginning of time. The first couple wasn’t an “Adam and Eve” it was a Madonna and Child. You can do it. If he chooses to stay away, it is truly his loss. He’ll regret it when he’s older.
This comment was written by Morgaine Swann.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 11:19 pm
I am disappointed at how a post about conflicting ideals about how to raise a child (and whether an absent progenitor has a right to dictate how the custodial parent should conduct him/herself) has devolved into a discussion of hypothetical artificial wombs.
This man had sex with a biological woman who *flatly stated* she’d gone off the pill and was interested in getting pregnant. She did not sneak in and steal his sperm. She did not trick him into having unprotected sex. She did not assault him. He willingly participated in the act of procreation. Then he decided he’d rather not have any contact with the child and didn’t want to pay child support, but wanted to dictate how that child was raised.
I think it’s horrifying that this ex-boyfriend feels he has a right to impose his will on Nick, especially given the circumstances. Is a hastily-selected secondary parent with whom the relationship may or may not work out prefereable to a single-parent home? For some people, maybe. But whose choice is it? I’d say the people who would be having this relationship and raising the child should decide whether to participate, rather than the ex-boyfriend has dropped this baby like a hot potato.
This comment was written by Denise.Report this comment to the moderators
July 29th, 2005 at 11:36 pm
This man had sex with a biological woman who *flatly stated* she’d gone off the pill and was interested in getting pregnant. She did not sneak in and steal his sperm. She did not trick him into having unprotected sex. She did not assault him. He willingly participated in the act of procreation.
Yep. He’s totally responsible for that child, and will be for at least the next 18 years.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 4:56 am
Dear Dad,
When I was in my 30’s you sent me a Christmas card. Last year after the funeral a lawyer sent me a copy of your will, in which I was named as a beneficiary of any remainder. There was no remainder, but it meant a lot to me that I was named.
Ma didn’t require you to pay any support. She said I could sue you myself when I turned 18. I talked about it with Sis — if she wanted to do something through a lawsuit, I would cooperate with the effort. Otherwise, I did not have any interest in taking action.
We had survived the worst of times without you. We used the “Hansel & Gretel” model for survival. We would leave a trail of pebbles, in order to find our way back home. Those pebbles were little acts of loyalty to each other, honesty with each other. We would not allow the facts of our lives to be carried away by the birds. We would verify each other’s reality.
We were dirt-poor, we moved a lot, and along the way we survived physical, mental, emotional & sexual abuse. I felt bad for being unable to protect my sister. She felt bad for letting me take some of her beatings. But we confessed to each other, forgave each other.
Everywhere we went, people would comment on how nice it was, how rare it was, to see a brother and sister so close. But we felt the pain of our symbiosis. Later in life, we would follow the trail of pebbles; we would do what was necessary in order to have individual lives.
I had to let go of all my angry claims against you, because you provided me with a dear sister who made all the difference in my life. We made it home. Still, it boggles my mind that you & Ma couldn’t know how much it would have meant to us if you had cared one shit.
Your son,
Pete
This comment was written by Pete.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 5:50 am
Sorry. I can’t let this one go. Engineer Larry wrote (13) :
Maybe you should go re-read that thread. Nick conceded in it once it got rolling that she herself had always asssumed that this “artificial womb” business would lead to an end to abortion. After being reminded that there would always be women who would not want offspring under any circumstances, she re-evaluated her opinion. But that hardly means that pro-choice women on this blog had never voiced the last view in your salad bar of quotes before, Engineer Larry. It also hardly means that the three quotes you picked are somehow each standing in splendid isolation from one another.
Either you’ve failed to read the abortion threads in depth or you’re being disingenuous. In either case, the idea that the “control” argument appeared like nowhere out of the blue just a couple of weeks ago is crap.
This comment was written by alsis39.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 6:00 am
piny
Have you even read my post? Mother can avoid all legal responsibilities toward her child after it’s birth, including financial support, by simply returning it to the hospital within 72 hours of birth, no questions asked and no input from the father (who may have wanted to raise his child) required.
She can also give the child away for adoption that is again doable without even letting the father know he has a child.
So since mother is not required to pay for child support if she choses to return the child to the hospital within 72 hours, or when she decides to give her child away for adoption why should a man be responsible for financing her decision to give birth to, keep, and raise her child?
This comment was written by Larry.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 6:16 am
In our legal system, if you turn around and then ask for payment to buy the gift nappies, you get laughed out of court. The “semen is a gift” argument is a perfectly valid position - in a world where males bear no responsibility for children.
Wrong again. But a nice try. Once the baby is born, and I know this pains anti-feminists to admit this, it’s a separate human being and not just your semen in its full form. As such, it’s not a “gift” or an “object”. It’s a person and he/she has rights.
The problem is that you have got to learn that semen is not the end all, be all of making a child. It’s one of the raw materials, definitely. And you gave the raw material to a woman, knowing that one of the things she is legally allowed to do with it is make a child that you have responsibility for.
Indeed, it is hard to cast around for an analogy for a child’s right to support from both parents. And that is because a child is a human being, not a bottle of semen. And human beings, unlike bottles of semen, have rights. That anti-choicers can’t tell the difference between the contents of a used condom and a classroom full of kids doesn’t change the facts.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 6:20 am
Seriously, this whole notion that giving up semen means you give up responsibility for your own child presupposes that there is no difference between semen and children. An eerie view inside the anti-choice mind.
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 6:43 am
Ampersand, in the thread you linked you stated this:
There are documented cases of women doing something pretty darn close to that - statutory raping underaged boys who were later forced to pay for child support.
http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm
“In County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J., the California Court of Appeals stated that although a 15 year old boy who was seduced by a 34 year old woman, was a victim of the 34 year old (she was prosecuted for statutory rape), the 15 year old father is obligated to pay child support to the child.
The 34 year old mother was prosecuted and convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor. According to the criminal court, the 15 year old was a victim. The willingness or lack of willingness of a 15 year old having intercourse with a 34 year old, was not an issue. Statutory rape is statutory rape with those age differences.
The father admitted paternity. The courts switched over to the family law component. There, the same District Attorney’s office which said he was a victim of statutory rape, contended that the new born child should not become a further victim by allowing a parent (15 year old) to avoid the responsibility of supporting the child when and as he is able.
Father’s attorney argued that the California Constitution states that “all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to restitution from the persons convicted of the crime for losses they suffer.”
The clincher for the court, as it turned out, was that the 15 year old admitted that he was a willing participant in the intercourse.”
Although not relevant for the criminal action against the mother, the court found that the willingness of the father did allow them to differentiate between a minor who has been the victim of willing statutory rape and one who was not a willing participant.
There is also a strong history of case law precedents in California and other states, where courts have found that for purposes of child support, voluntary intercourse resulting in voluntary parenthood, allows the minor parent to be liable for the financial support of the minor infant.”
Imagine this for a second with sexes reversed, 34 year old man statutory raping 15 year old girl, getting custody of the child that resulted from rape, and then suing her for child support.
Here’s another, rather famous case:
“When Shane Seyer was twelve years old, he was sexually molested, repeatedly, over a period of several months, by his babysitter.
Colleen Hermesmann, the babysitter, was initially charged with statutory rape (”indecent liberties with a child” in Kansas) but plea-bargained to a lesser charge — “contributing to a child’s misconduct.
When Colleen Hermesmann and her new baby went on welfare, the state did what it usually does in cases of single mothers seeking state assistance — it tried to find the father, in this case young Shane Seyer, and to get him to pay child support.
In March, the Kansas state supreme court ruled that when Shane Seyer was molested by his babysitter at age 12, he consented to 18 years of child-support payments. “We conclude,” the court wrote, “that the issue of consent to sexual activity under the criminal statutes is irrelevant in a civil action to determine paternity and for support of the minor child of such activity.”
The court ruled that “[i]n an action by the State against a minor father for reimbursement of funds paid for support of his child, the fault or wrongdoing of the mother at the time of conception, even if criminal, has no bearing on the father’s duty to support such child.”
The last two paragraphs, Ampersand, seriously challenge your insertion that women cannot legally rape men to get sperm and then later sue them for child support.
This comment was written by Larry.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 7:02 am
Amanda,
If you’re going to state your opinion on a subject can you at least offer a logical and rational viewpoint that can be substantiated with physical evidence? So far you have offered the most absurd, illogical, erratic, delusional, sexist, hypocritical, and insane concepts in regards to the various gender issues whether they be domestic violence, child support, child custody, alimony, etc.
It would be a good idea for you to educate yourself on the subject of gender issues because so far you have demonstrated that you know very little about the subject. If your views on gender issues were to be used as a reflection of your knowledge on the subject, then it must be said that you know very little about the state of law system, the history of feminism, the structure of the Government and the actual relations between men and women.
Please educate yourself on the subject, because your views are insane and fallacious; making you appear to be an uneducated bigot who wishes to live in a society that is built on female supremacy rather than equality.
It is quite easy to refute the claims made by Amanda Marcotte as can be seen at the following web pages:
http://www.mens-rights.net/commentary/chriskey/29-04-05-amanda-marcotte.htm
http://www.mens-rights.net/commentary/chriskey/19-05-05-amanda-marcotte.htm
This comment was written by Chris Key.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 7:16 am
Forgive me for being sceptical, Larry. The site you linked has plenty of charming stuff (why no link to any bigger media, governmental agency? Oh, right. Liberal media and government is evil.):
http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/forlegalchildporn.htm,
An article advocating for legal possession of child pornography, and
http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/notabuse.htm
Well, folks, decide for yourself: (emphasis added)
Parents and laws cause rape? That’s novel. On the “real abuse”, the article goes on:
I see.
School, church, hugging a grandma = abuse, being an object or participant in child pornography = not abuse. Oh boy am I glad I was “abused” in the sense this writer considers abuse, not the way most sane people do.
And did I mention the “cool teen sites” -links? Yuck. Enough is enough. Now I must take a shower.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 7:22 am
Larry, you are wrong about women having unilateral right to avoid responsibility for a child. If a woman wants to give up a child for adoption, the father must consent. If he doesn’t consent and wants to assume custodial care, he has as much legal entitlement to obtain support from the mother as if their roles had been reversed. Don’t argue about this, it is incontrovertibly the law, with Supreme Court backing, and I know some, and know of many other, men who refused their consent and made life extremely complicated for the mother of their children. As was their right.
The law may be uneven as it flows from biological differences, but once the child is born the law assumes equality (even if many judges don’t).
Second, let’s just say it like it is: Nick’s case is unusual. In most cases the pregnancy is an unwelcome surprise to both parties (even if it shouldn’t be). And in the real world, men have a great deal of influence over whether their SO has a baby — visit a few abortion clinics and it is evident that many women are there (at least ostensibly) because their boyfriends make it clear that there will be no marriage, no roping them in, so to speak, via parenthood, whether unplanned by both or just the father.
So women who “surprise” their SOs with a pregnancy that they intended without consultation are usually quite disappointed by the results, because the intent usually isn’t just to have a baby, but a full-blown family life. And that you cannot coerce from anyone. (I had a babysitter who found this out, and who ended up having an abortion — she was disgusted by her boyfriend’s response to her “oops pg”, but any neutral party could have told her that it was quite predictable that when you stop taking OCPs without consulting your boyfriend he might resent the consequences.)
More legal advice for Nick: support is for the benefit of the child, not you, and judges do not look kindly on parents who they perceive as holding their interests above those of their children by foregoing support. But they do appreciate a parent who is extremely reasonable about what is expected. Which is to say, paternity should be legally established, and a reasonable amount of support requested, in lieu of an agreement to terminate parental rights. (But I would never ask for the latter without consulting an attorney well versed in local law and custom — asking for the termination of a parent’s rights in the absence of demonstrated abuse or incapacity is also extinguishing the child’s rights to support that, even if not necessary today, may become necessary in the future.
This comment was written by Barbara.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 7:27 am
Um, my ranting against those articles was kind of off topic, on the topic at hand I think it would be a fair suggestion if men could, with the approval of the woman (beforehand) write off at many of their responsibilities. Along with rights, of course. But then again, the issue of the born child being an actual human being with rights regarding to parents comes into conflict with this.
This comment was written by Tuomas.Argh. I don’t know really (and I suppose I am parroting plenty of people here)… Having an obligation towards the born child should be the responsibility of both parents, and due to several reproductive choices really affecting the one being pregnant more (abortion, giving the baby for adoption… A man might become a father without even noticing, I think women notice the process known as “pregnancy” and “childbirth” when it happens to them.)
Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 7:34 am
Oops, pressed enter too early: the comment should follow: Due to the process being much more time/health-consuming for women it is only natural that women have control over the process, not just intercourse/contraception like men do. (And if men can get pregnant by some freakish technology, or women can sire children, then the roles are defined by whoever is pregnant, is given more choice during/immediately after the pregnancy.)
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 7:40 am
Tuomas, ageofconsent was the first page that came up on google. With little trouble I’m sure you could have found a more reliable source.
http://login.findlaw.com/scripts/callaw?dest=ca/caapp4th/50/842.html (requires free registration)
County of San Luis Obispo v. Nathaniel J. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 842 , 57 Cal.Rptr.2d 843
[No. B100055. Second Dist., Div. Six. Nov 4, 1996.]
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. NATHANIEL J., a Minor, etc., Defendant and Appellant.
(Superior Court of San Luis Obispo County, No. FS13368, Paul H. Coffee, Judge.)
(Opinion by Gilbert, J., with Stone (S. J.), P. J., and Yegan, J., concurring.)
COUNSEL
Patrick J. Perry for Defendant and Appellant.
Daniel E. Lungren, Attorney General, Roderick E. Walston, Chief Assistant Attorney General, Carol Ann White and Mary A. Roth, Deputy Attorneys General, for Plaintiff and Respondent.
OPINION
GILBERT, J.
Victims have rights. Here, the victim also has responsibilities.
A 34-year-old woman seduces a 15-year-old boy and becomes pregnant. She gives birth to a daughter and thereafter applies for Aid to Families with Dependent Children. Is the child’s father obligated to pay child support even though he is a victim of statutory rape? (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d).) We conclude he is liable for child support.
Defendant Nathaniel J. appeals a judgment establishing paternity and reserving an order of child support. We affirm.
Facts
On January 20, 1995, Ricci Jones gave birth to a daughter. The child’s father, Nathaniel J., was 15 years old when Jones conceived the child. Jones then was 34 years old. [50 Cal.App.4th 844]
Upon complaint, San Luis Obispo police officers investigated Jones’s unlawful sexual intercourse with Nathaniel J. (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d).) fn. 1 During an interview with a police officer, Nathaniel J. described the sexual intercourse as “a mutually agreeable act.” The San Luis Obispo County prosecutor prosecuted Jones and obtained a conviction of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor.
The San Luis Obispo County District Attorney’s office sought child support and welfare reimbursement from Nathaniel J. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 11350, 11350.1, 11475.1.) Nathaniel J., by a guardian ad litem, admitted paternity but contended he was not required to pay child support because he was a victim of statutory rape. (Pen. Code, § 261.5, subd. (d).) The trial court ruled that paternity was established and reserved an order of child support. Presumably when Nathaniel J. reaches majority or completes his schooling, the court will reassess his ability to provide support.
Nathaniel J. appeals and contends exacting child support from a victim of statutory rape violates public policy. He also argues that the procedure followed herein denied him due process of law.
Discussion
I.
[1] Nathaniel J. asserts that public policy protects him from the effects of sexual exploitation by an adult. (Angie M. v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1217, 1225 [44 Cal.Rptr.2d 197] [strong public policy protects minors from sexual exploitation].) He points out that strong public policy inheres in penal statutes criminalizing sexual exploitation of minors. (E.g., Pen. Code, §§ 261.5, 288a, 273f, 288.2, 310.5, 311.1.)
Nathaniel J. contends the reserved child support order “is exactly the exploitation which the Legislature intended to prevent” because it inflicts economic loss on a crime victim. He points to the constitutional declaration that “all persons who suffer losses as a result of criminal activity shall have the right to restitution from the persons convicted of the crimes for losses they suffer.” (Cal. Const., art. I, § 28, subd. (b).) Nathaniel J. adds that the child will not suffer because she will receive welfare support. We reject these contentions. [50 Cal.App.4th 845]
California law provides that every child has a right to support from both parents. (Fam. Code, §§ 3900, 3901 [former Civ. Code, §§ 196, 196a, 242]; County of Shasta v. Caruthers (1995) 31 Cal.App.4th 1838, 1841 [38 Cal.Rptr.2d 18].) Family Code section 3900 provides that, subject to other statutes governing support, the father and mother of a child bear “equal responsibility” to support the child.
The law should not except Nathaniel J. from this responsibility because he is not an innocent victim of Jones’s criminal acts. After discussing the matter, he and Jones decided to have sexual relations. They had sexual intercourse approximately five times over a two-week period.
In an action to impose vicarious liability upon a minor’s parents, Cynthia M. v. Rodney E. (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 1040, 1045 [279 Cal.Rptr. 94], held a minor’s consent to unlawful sexual intercourse was “a permissible consideration” in denying liability. “[T]here is an important distinction between a party who is injured through no fault of his or her own and an injured party who willingly participated in the offense about which a complaint is made.” (Id., at pp. 1046-1047.) One who is injured as a result of criminal conduct in which he willingly participated is not a typical crime victim. (Id., at p. 1047, fn. 13.) It does not necessarily follow that a minor over the age of 14 who voluntarily engages in sexual intercourse is a victim of sexual abuse. (Planned Parenthood Affiliates v. Van de Kamp (1986) 181 Cal.App.3d 245, 261 [226 Cal.Rptr. 361].)
Authorities from other states support imposition of a child support obligation upon a minor who has been the victim of unlawful sexual intercourse. State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer (1993) 252 Kan. 646 [847 P.2d 1273, 1278], held that a 13-year-old boy’s presumed lack of consent to intercourse under criminal statutes was irrelevant in paternity and child support proceedings. “This State’s interest in requiring minor parents to support their children overrides the State’s competing interest in protecting juveniles from improvident acts, even when such acts may include criminal activity on the part of the other parent.” (Id., at p. 1279.)
In re Paternity of J.L.H. (1989) 149 Wis.2d 349 [441 N.W.2d 273, 276-277], held that for purposes of child support, voluntary intercourse may result in voluntary parenthood, although the child’s father was 15 years old. Other states agree. (Jevning v. Cichos (Minn.Ct.App. 1993) 499 N.W.2d 515, 518 [child’s interests in receiving support supersedes economic consequences minor father suffers from statutory rape]; Mercer County DSS v. Alf M. (1992) 155 Misc.2d 703 [589 N.Y.S.2d 288, 289-290] [16-year-old [50 Cal.App.4th 846] victim of statutory rape legally responsible for child support]; Weinberg v. Omar E. (1984) 106 A.D.2d 448 [482 N.Y.S.2d 540, 541] [age of putative father irrelevant in paternity proceeding and does not excuse support obligation].) We agree with the reasoning and holdings of these decisions.
II.
[2] Nathaniel J. claims the procedure followed by the trial court denied him due process of law because the district attorney’s noticed motion did not inform him that “in order to exercise his … right to trial, he … must appear at the hearing on the motion.” (Welf. & Inst. Code, § 11350.1, subd. (a).)
Here the district attorney filed a noticed motion for child support, stating that Nathaniel J. “admits paternity but disputes liability because he was the victim of [statutory rape].” In accompanying points and authorities, the district attorney stated: “Judgment in Actions Pursuant to Welfare and Institutions Code Sections 11350 and 11350.1 May Be Rendered Pursuant to Noticed Motion.” At the July 19, 1995, hearing at which Nathaniel J. appeared through his attorney, the district attorney stated: “[O]ur office is seeking to establish paternity. We are not seeking a child support order … until such time as the minor becomes an adult and is able to pay support.” fn. 2 Nathaniel J. did not request a trial. He requested a continuance to “find authority” for his defense. He added: “I may want to appeal.” The trial court granted two continuances, amounting to two months. Nathaniel J. appeared by his attorney at further hearings and did not request a trial. He received adequate notice and may not now complain.
Accordingly, the judgment is affirmed. The parties shall bear their own costs on appeal.
Stone (S. J.), P. J., and Yegan, J., concurred.
FN1. Penal Code section 261.5, subdivision (a) provides: “Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor….” Subdivision (d) provides: “Any person over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony ….”
FN2. We grant respondent’s motion to augment the record to include the reporter’s transcripts of the July 19, 1995, and September 6, 1995, hearings.
This comment was written by Larry.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 7:55 am
Larry:
I suppose I could have done that (apologies on associating you with age of consent -folks, and the media/government cracks), but it usually is the responsibility of the one making a claim to provide the evidence, so I figured out if there is better evidence you will dig them up (as you have, thanks).
I don’t think such situations are all that common, and therefore I think there maybe ought to be special laws regarding such cases, or exemption of child support in such cases, but I get the feeling you are using those incredible rare cases as sort of a guideline for more normal cases, as in “because some very rare men become fathers against their will, we should always assume that a man is unwilling to become a father” and rework the whole system on basis of that, on giving him choice to be left out of the equation against the needs of the child (which basically child support is all about).
This comment was written by Tuomas.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 8:15 am
Here’s an anecdote about a man getting non-violently raped for sperm–a woman who I’d met randomly told me that her husband didn’t want to have a child, but she did–so she got him drunk after the Super Bowl and had unprotected sex.
She told the story as somewhat humorous, with the punchline being that her son (then about 10) was a sports fan.
I’m not good at moral denunciation, so I just suggested tactfully that perhaps her husband wasn’t too pleased with all this. She looked unhappy, and said that it probably had something to do with the divorce.
I’m certainly not saying such things are at all common, but I also would be surprised if I’d heard of the only one.
This comment was written by Nancy Lebovitz.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 9:29 am
Nancy, in your example above, it doesn’t sound like it was the sex the husband objected to; only the child conceived from the sex. He wasn’t “raped” if he said yes to the sex, but no to the pregnancy, ok? He may have a legitimate beef, but it isn’t “rape”.
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 9:43 am
If he was drunk enough that he didn’t realise what he was saying yes to (unprotected rather than safe sex), doesn’t that render his consent meaningless?
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 9:46 am
Yep. He’s totally responsible for that child, and will be for at least the next 18 years.
Who said anything about totally? If I understand the law correctly, a father’s responsibility is limited to paying a proportion of his income in child support; the bulk of the responsibility still falls on the mother.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 9:51 am
Yeah, so here we go with another thread derailment. Thanks, Nancy; thanks Larry; just what we need. Let’s put aside the actual topic and discuss the exceptions so that you guys can feel better.
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 9:53 am
Nancy, your site contains copyrighted phrases from the work of someone I sort of know. Do you have her permission to use those phrases and make buttons and sell them?
This comment was written by ginmar.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 9:57 am
Who said anything about totally?
Me.
If I understand the law correctly, a father’s responsibility is limited to paying a proportion of his income in child support; the bulk of the responsibility still falls on the mother.
Damn the law. I am speaking of moral obligation.
The creators of new life bear responsibility for it. The responsibility is total until the new life becomes a sufficiently independent moral actor to take on its own agency. (With a muddled period of joint agency in there during the transition, which is one reason adolescence is such a bitch.)
In my view, acceptance of the first sentence of the above paragraph is a prerequisite for sexual adulthood; your ex is not a man, he is a boy.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 10:27 am
If he was drunk enough that he didn’t realise what he was saying yes to (unprotected rather than safe sex), doesn’t that render his consent meaningless
Nick, I just don’t want to see any more devolution of the term “rape”. I’ve seen too many of these conversations devolve into “but she told me she was on the Pill! I was raped! Financially raped!!”
This comment was written by La Lubu.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 10:29 am
You know I vaguely feel guilty when I come into these threads and point out that this struggle has shit to do with children and everything to do with the struggle for women’s equality vs. male dominance. That draws the whining MRAs out. Boo-hoo, boo-hoo I came in her doesn’t that mean I get to tell her what to do? It used to be that way, boo-hoo boo-hoo. Why couldn’t the world stay unjust until after my death?
This comment was written by Amanda.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 10:30 am
Larry, point well taken. If you want to pass a law making it clear that victims of rape (including statuatory rape) cannot be forced to take responsibilty for a resulting child, I’ll certainly support that. It’s unjust to make a victim of rape pay chid support - unjust enough, in my view, to even outweigh the right of the child to support from both parents.
However, if such a law existed, that wouldn’t establish that men who consent to sex, should have a right to cut and run from responsibilities towards the resulting child.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
July 30th, 2005 at 1:43 pm
Larry, for a long time, it was considered to be impossible for a man to be the victim of rape. Basically, the attitude was, “a guy should be so lucky.” So now we are enlightened enough to apply statutory rape principles to boys, a very good thing. What you are describing is a clear gap in the law that ought to be rectified. I honestly can’t tell you what parental rights a rapist has (I mean to a baby borne by a woman he raped), but I’ll try to look it up.
This comment was written by Barbara.