Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

What I want to know is why it took her 2 years before contacting the father and why she contacted the father?

In my experience most of these cases are either started right at birth, or are motivated by either personal malice or by third parties. (In the cases that I was aware/involved in it was the good ole CSA who started it all. Guilty unless proven innocent!)

The OP doesn't make it very clear as to that.

Cheers

Andrew

 TheDraconicLord wrote:
I wouldn't exactly be jumping with joy with the idea of an "out of the blue" child, either. Those 800$ a month would certainly be my biggest worry too, I mean, wtf, he's being ripped off in such a shameless way, this is nuts.

Who said anything about being happy about it? Lots of things happen in life that people aren't happy about, and what decent people do is man up and make sure that their child gets a decent upbringing.

If one can sign away rights to a birth child , why in this case does the child having his DNA mean he has responsibility for it. The mother chose (by her method of conception) to be a single mother just as if she went to a sperm bank and got a donation. I fail to see how he is involved at all except that the kid has his DNA. In the age of sperm banks , turkey basters , 3rd party reproducing, adoptions from overseas , how important is DNA in determining who parents are?

In truth to me it sounds like she wanted a kid and took whatever (deceitful) action she wanted to to get it. A few years on someone whispered in her ear "you should get child support" and so she filed. She chose to be a single mother, leave the guy out of it, she can explain later to the child why s/he has no father.

Bullockist wrote:
If one can sign away rights to a birth child , why in this case does the child having his DNA mean he has responsibility for it. The mother chose (by her method of conception) to be a single mother just as if she went to a sperm bank and got a donation. I fail to see how he is involved at all except that the kid has his DNA. In the age of sperm banks , turkey basters , 3rd party reproducing, adoptions from overseas , how important is DNA in determining who parents are?

In truth to me it sounds like she wanted a kid and took whatever (deceitful) action she wanted to to get it. A few years on someone whispered in her ear "you should get child support" and so she filed. She chose to be a single mother, leave the guy out of it, she can explain later to the child why s/he has no father.

This is by far the most mature post in just about the entire thread. I think we're done here. He's right.

 sebster wrote:

 TheDraconicLord wrote:
I wouldn't exactly be jumping with joy with the idea of an "out of the blue" child, either. Those 800$ a month would certainly be my biggest worry too, I mean, wtf, he's being ripped off in such a shameless way, this is nuts.

Who said anything about being happy about it? Lots of things happen in life that people aren't happy about, and what decent people do is man up and make sure that their child gets a decent upbringing.

A decent upbringing that he was forced into by deceitful deception. He should have the option to place it up for adoption so that a loving family would prefer it.

trexmeyer wrote:
By any sane standards, how is he responsible for the child? Sperm is typically deposited in the mouth to avoid pregnancy. It is safe to assume that he had no intention of his gift being used to create a life that would ruin his own. The only morally acceptable and logical conclusion in this scenario is for the child's welfare to be taken over by CPS

It's his kid. It's his genetic offspring. If you don't understand why that matters, please return to your moon people. Your time here on earth is done, you can learn no more about humans and our ways.

To be fair, it means little to me either, but I at least appreciate the significance it means to others.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:
A decent upbringing that he was forced into by deceitful deception. He should have the option to place it up for adoption so that a loving family would prefer it.

Seriously, the moon people are among us.

It's a basic biological drive to care for a child you raised. Even when the woman completely lied about being on the pill, even from something as bizarre as harvesting sperm from a blowjob. When that doesn't happen, and the father just doesn't care, that's quite a rare thing, and something we should look at with interest.

Note that doesn't mean disputing child support, that happens all the time, but is a product of bitterness and a dispute over how the money is spent (and on whom it is spent), simply not caring if the child is looked after is not common at all. Nor does it mean almost everyone is a good parent, like everything in life there's a big difference between what we want to do, and what our lazy asses actually deliver day by day.

But there's just no denying that when a child comes in to the world, it's parents almost always love it and want it to be looked after. No matter how it got there.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bullockist wrote:
If one can sign away rights to a birth child , why in this case does the child having his DNA mean he has responsibility for it. The mother chose (by her method of conception) to be a single mother just as if she went to a sperm bank and got a donation. I fail to see how he is involved at all except that the kid has his DNA. In the age of sperm banks , turkey basters , 3rd party reproducing, adoptions from overseas , how important is DNA in determining who parents are?

While it depends on the specific jurisdiction, if one parent wants the child given up for adoption and the other does not, the parent who wanted it given up for adoption can still be expected to provide child support.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
To be fair, it means little to me either, but I at least appreciate the significance it means to others.

That's it exactly - a person can feel no obligation themselves and that's not completely bizarre, but to be completely unaware of the default state of most of humanity? That's moon people stuff.

It's a basic biological drive to care for a child you raised. Even when the woman completely lied about being on the pill, even from something as bizarre as harvesting sperm from a blowjob. When that doesn't happen, and the father just doesn't care, that's quite a rare thing, and something we should look at with interest.

I think you are overstating the rarity here. I mean, I see children who's fathers play absolutely no role in their life, if anybody even bothered to find out who the father was.

If the family actually needed the money I might think about it a little more, but again, the mother is a doctor, so money really shouldn't be an issue for her. The father is also a doctor, so really monsy should not be a big deal for him either. However by basically forcing this guy to accept responsibility for this child, you are trying to create a relationship that does not exist, nor should it unless he wants it to. This is not a child born from a loving relationship or even an accident, this is a child born from the most willful deceit. This isn't like lying about being on the pill, or anything else, this is a complete and utter abuse. To be reminded of that every time you write a check or see the child would just be devastating to me.

If it happened to me I'd be pissed, but I would also take the kid from an obviously crazy mother. But that's me. I don't think this guy should be forced to be responsible for a child he clearly played a minimal role in creating. I personally could not imagine the emotional strain that this issue would put me through. Could you imagine finding out 2 years later that some psycho stole your sperm to get herself pregnant. Now you have a child that is half you and half bat gak crazy woman. Awesome sauce!

 sebster wrote:

It's a basic biological drive to care for a child you raised.

Raised, yes. Fathered, not necessarily.

Certainly lots of men care about the children they father, but there are also lots of people who don't care about them. And I honestly think it would very difficult to conclusively establish that one side outnumbers the other, for the simple fact that there are factors other than the father's state of mind that enter in to why he would want to stay around, or why he would dispute child support.

Honestly, your argument seems to be grounded in the projection of your own sense of morality onto others, rather than in empirical evidence.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
I think you are overstating the rarity here. I mean, I see children who's fathers play absolutely no role in their life, if anybody even bothered to find out who the father was.

Such cases are by no means uncommon, but cases in which the reasons for the father's absence is indifference to the child's welfare? I'd say they are quite rare.

If the family actually needed the money I might think about it a little more, but again, the mother is a doctor, so money really shouldn't be an issue for her.

I agree with you there. It seems, to my completely non-legal eyes, that there is something of a loophole here.

I mean, it seems reasonable that if both parties played an equal role in the decisions that led to creating a child, then both parties are responsible to financially provide for the child, no matter if one parent could provide for the child by themselves. And it seems reasonable that even if the child was conceived through deceit, if the mother couldn't provide for the child by herself, then the father needs to contribute no matter if deceit or anything else was used to conceive the child - the welfare of the kid comes first, and any notion of fairness to either parent is secondary to that.

But in this case, where the child was conceived through deceit, and the mother (presumably) has the income to provide for the child by herself, well there doesn't seem any reason to justify him paying, beyond the law being written as it is without any regard for this combination of factors.

If it happened to me I'd be pissed, but I would also take the kid from an obviously crazy mother. But that's me. I don't think this guy should be forced to be responsible for a child he clearly played a minimal role in creating.

Should he be forced? I have no idea, and I don't even know how to begin answering the question - what kind of legal system are we talking about where a person can be legally required to look after a child? Not just pay for a child, but actually forced to raise it... that's a bit of a mind boggle.

My comment was purely on whether or not a person ought to feel a personal obligation towards a child they fathered, and what kind of a person would not.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 dogma wrote:
Raised, yes. Fathered, not necessarily.

Yeah, fair pick up on my loose wording. I should have said 'fathered'.

Certainly lots of men care about the children they father, but there are also lots of people who don't care about them. And I honestly think it would very difficult to conclusively establish that one side outnumbers the other, for the simple fact that there are factors other than the father's state of mind that enter in to why he would want to stay around, or why he would dispute child support.

Honestly, your argument seems to be grounded in the projection of your own sense of morality onto others, rather than in empirical evidence.

It is from observation, in two parts. The first is that where the relationship between parent and child is poor or non-existant, then where the cause is known I've never seen it explained as indifference. There is

The second part is that when you look at the way our legal system and our morality works

Now, it is entirely possible that my observation has been too limited, or coloured by personal bias. I doubt that, but then of course I would, or else I wouldn't have that opinion in the first place You are of course free to believe differently.

I've been on the fence between rebuilding my aquarium with African Cichlids again or getting an Arowana, and reading this thread has convinced me to get an Arowana.

 sebster wrote:

The first is that where the relationship between parent and child is poor or non-existant, then where the cause is known I've never seen it explained as indifference.

Right, because a parent who actually admitted to being indifferent would suffer horribly in any suit regarding child support.

 sebster wrote:

The second part is that when you look at the way our legal system and our morality works

And here I thought it was a "basic biological drive" for a man who fathered a child to want to care for that child. Now I'm discovering that the moral and legal systems of "our" come into play.

 dogma wrote:

 sebster wrote:

The second part is that when you look at the way our legal system and our morality works

And here I thought it was a "basic biological drive" for a man who fathered a child to want to care for that child. Now I'm discovering that the moral and legal systems of "our" come into play.

Is morality to some extent biologically driven? If it's been driven by upbringing, then by virtue of surviving beyond childhood, would you be able to tell the difference?

I don't know. I'm asking.

Bullockist wrote:
If one can sign away rights to a birth child , why in this case does the child having his DNA mean he has responsibility for it. The mother chose (by her method of conception) to be a single mother just as if she went to a sperm bank and got a donation. I fail to see how he is involved at all except that the kid has his DNA. In the age of sperm banks , turkey basters , 3rd party reproducing, adoptions from overseas , how important is DNA in determining who parents are?

In truth to me it sounds like she wanted a kid and took whatever (deceitful) action she wanted to to get it. A few years on someone whispered in her ear "you should get child support" and so she filed. She chose to be a single mother, leave the guy out of it, she can explain later to the child why s/he has no father.

You're not good with this whole "adults act like adults and stand up for their responsibilities" thing are you.
Your argument is the reason why the law is put in the place in the first place, to protect the child from worthless deadbeat dads.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:

trexmeyer wrote:
By any sane standards, how is he responsible for the child? Sperm is typically deposited in the mouth to avoid pregnancy. It is safe to assume that he had no intention of his gift being used to create a life that would ruin his own. The only morally acceptable and logical conclusion in this scenario is for the child's welfare to be taken over by CPS

It's his kid. It's his genetic offspring. If you don't understand why that matters, please return to your moon people. Your time here on earth is done, you can learn no more about humans and our ways.

When Sebster and Frazzled both vociferously agree, clearly counterarguments are...without merit.

So are we going to this party or what? I hear draigo is DJing.

 the shrouded lord wrote:
So are we going to this party or what? I hear draigo is DJing.

 Frazzled wrote:

 the shrouded lord wrote:
So are we going to this party or what? I hear draigo is DJing.

*wakes up next morning*
what happened?
Picks up video camera*


Frazzled? Frazzled? Where are you man?