Who's yer daddy? No daddy; no check

[chanel]

City Councilman Peter Vallone Jr. wants to hold fathers responsible for their children's well-being. Vallone intends to introduce a resolution in the council urging the state to require a father's name on a child's birth certificate before a mother is eligible for public benefits.

Start with the fact that, as Vallone notes, "more than $5 billion in child support has gone uncollected" in New York.

Vallone says unmarried fathers "can get away with not including their names on birth certificates -- making it easier to stay completely out of their children's lives, especially financially. A mother is also eligible for state child-care benefits without ever acknowledging a father.

Even more important than the measure's financial impact is what it can do for kids. As President Obama himself observed two years ago: "Children who grow up without a father are five times more likely to live in poverty and commit crime, nine times more likely to drop out of schools and 20 times more likely to end up in prison.

Read more: Time to ensure dads are in kids' lives--Editorial - NYPOST.com



This should be a model for every state in the union. Comments?

 

[Douger]

murkinz

 

[goldcatt]

To the OP: Yes...and No.

Every situation is different. There are women who simply don't know who the father is. In extreme cases they may not have so much as a name.

There are women who know but just don't want him around, for reasons that run the gamut from them not wanting to share control of the child to the father's issues they believe would be harmful to the child if exposed to them. In that situation the father can press his rights through use of the courts and putative father registries, though. He always has recourse.

Then there are the men who abandon the mother and child and it's his choice not to have anything to do with the child. These men whether they're on a birth certificate or not aren't going to be involved and will fight taking responsibility.

Then there's the other extreme, the women who don't want or cannot supply a father's name on a birth certificate because it was a situation of incest, rape or abuse.

There are so many different situations out there it's difficult to come up with a one size fits all rule that addresses every one of them in a just manner. Which is why family laws are so complicated and the result (ideally at least) is always an individual determination. I would hesitate to apply either a one size fits all rule in this situation or allow an overworked, underpaid, cynical and most likely highly unqualified caseworker to make any kind of individual determination.

 

[California Girl]

To the OP: Yes...and No.

Every situation is different. There are women who simply don't know who the father is. In extreme cases they may not have so much as a name.

There are women who know but just don't want him around, for reasons that run the gamut from them not wanting to share control of the child to the father's issues they believe would be harmful to the child if exposed to them. In that situation the father can press his rights through use of the courts and putative father registries, though. He always has recourse.

Then there are the men who abandon the mother and child and it's his choice not to have anything to do with the child. These men whether they're on a birth certificate or not aren't going to be involved and will fight taking responsibility.

Then there's the other extreme, the women who don't want or cannot supply a father's name on a birth certificate because it was a situation of incest, rape or abuse.

There are so many different situations out there it's difficult to come up with a one size fits all rule that addresses every one of them in a just manner. Which is why family laws are so complicated and the result (ideally at least) is always an individual determination. I would hesitate to apply either a one size fits all rule in this situation or allow an overworked, underpaid, cynical and most likely highly unqualified caseworker to make any kind of individual determination.

If a woman does not know the name of the man who fathered her kid, why should I be held responsible? Perhaps women should take a tad more responsibility and find out such detail before they breed with a guy? Just an idea.

I think we're all intelligent enough to work out that this kind of law couldn't apply in certain circumstances.

There is never a 'one size fits all' solution to societies problems... that does not mean we shouldn't cover the majority with this kind of process.

 

[strollingbones]

why should the child suffer cause the mother is a ho? its not the mother you are punishing but the child.

 

[California Girl]

why should the child suffer cause the mother is a ho? its not the mother you are punishing but the child.

Why should society pick up the tab for irresponsible behavior? Take the kid away from her.

 

[chanel]

Give it up for adoption then. Why make the child suffer for 18 years because the mother's a ho?

And yes, there could be extraordinary cases of incest or rape, but like anything else, they could be dealth with case by case.

It would stop a lot of fraude and abuse, and might even make the daddies wear a condom. Win/win.

 

[mudwhistle]

why should the child suffer cause the mother is a ho? its not the mother you are punishing but the child.

You're punishing both.....but the child is the innocent one.

 

[william the wie]

Another unaddressed issue is that paternity can often be inferred by the child's DNA. The DNA banks are getting big enough to demonstrate that dad is the first cousin of a car thief from Waco. That process of better ID is going to cause and may be the cause of the current problem. Also notifying the dad that he is dad might lose mom her meal ticket.

 

[goldcatt]

To the OP: Yes...and No.

Every situation is different. There are women who simply don't know who the father is. In extreme cases they may not have so much as a name.

There are women who know but just don't want him around, for reasons that run the gamut from them not wanting to share control of the child to the father's issues they believe would be harmful to the child if exposed to them. In that situation the father can press his rights through use of the courts and putative father registries, though. He always has recourse.

Then there are the men who abandon the mother and child and it's his choice not to have anything to do with the child. These men whether they're on a birth certificate or not aren't going to be involved and will fight taking responsibility.

Then there's the other extreme, the women who don't want or cannot supply a father's name on a birth certificate because it was a situation of incest, rape or abuse.

There are so many different situations out there it's difficult to come up with a one size fits all rule that addresses every one of them in a just manner. Which is why family laws are so complicated and the result (ideally at least) is always an individual determination. I would hesitate to apply either a one size fits all rule in this situation or allow an overworked, underpaid, cynical and most likely highly unqualified caseworker to make any kind of individual determination.

If a woman does not know the name of the man who fathered her kid, why should I be held responsible? Perhaps women should take a tad more responsibility and find out such detail before they breed with a guy? Just an idea.

I think we're all intelligent enough to work out that this kind of law couldn't apply in certain circumstances.

There is never a 'one size fits all' solution to societies problems... that does not mean we shouldn't cover the majority with this kind of process.

The problem is this law WOULD apply in all circumstances, at least as proposed. And it doesn't adequately address those circumstances. Nor does it take into account the fact that pursuing a determined deadbeat can cost the State far, far more in money and manpower than a child care subsidy or some food stamps. So do supervised visitation programs for fathers with abuse or addiction problems. So do chronic bouncebacks in the court system. Why do you think that $5 billion in child support already accrued goes unpaid in the first place?

It's a bumper sticker feel good proposal to "solve" an incredibly complex situation that won't do jack to actually address the problem. Fathers who aren't on birth certificates have recourse in every State, if they want rights they can get them. Many don't. How will punishing the mothers force the dads to step up?

 

[California Girl]

To the OP: Yes...and No.

Every situation is different. There are women who simply don't know who the father is. In extreme cases they may not have so much as a name.

There are women who know but just don't want him around, for reasons that run the gamut from them not wanting to share control of the child to the father's issues they believe would be harmful to the child if exposed to them. In that situation the father can press his rights through use of the courts and putative father registries, though. He always has recourse.

Then there are the men who abandon the mother and child and it's his choice not to have anything to do with the child. These men whether they're on a birth certificate or not aren't going to be involved and will fight taking responsibility.

Then there's the other extreme, the women who don't want or cannot supply a father's name on a birth certificate because it was a situation of incest, rape or abuse.

There are so many different situations out there it's difficult to come up with a one size fits all rule that addresses every one of them in a just manner. Which is why family laws are so complicated and the result (ideally at least) is always an individual determination. I would hesitate to apply either a one size fits all rule in this situation or allow an overworked, underpaid, cynical and most likely highly unqualified caseworker to make any kind of individual determination.

If a woman does not know the name of the man who fathered her kid, why should I be held responsible? Perhaps women should take a tad more responsibility and find out such detail before they breed with a guy? Just an idea.

I think we're all intelligent enough to work out that this kind of law couldn't apply in certain circumstances.

There is never a 'one size fits all' solution to societies problems... that does not mean we shouldn't cover the majority with this kind of process.

The problem is this law WOULD apply in all circumstances, at least as proposed. And it doesn't adequately address those circumstances. Nor does it take into account the fact that pursuing a determined deadbeat can cost the State far, far more in money and manpower than a child care subsidy or some food stamps. So do supervised visitation programs for fathers with abuse or addiction problems. So do chronic bouncebacks in the court system. Why do you think that $5 billion in child support already accrued goes unpaid in the first place?

It's a bumper sticker feel good proposal to "solve" an incredibly complex situation that won't do jack to actually address the problem. Fathers who aren't on birth certificates have recourse in every State, if they want rights they can get them. Many don't. How will punishing the mothers force the dads to step up?

We can't go on paying for other people's fuck ups forever. If there is no consequence to the parents, why should they change their behavior? Governments 'nudge' society to get them to change behaviors that they deem detrimental to society. So why not 'nudge' irresponsible parents too? We have cities in the US telling private companies what food they can serve. If people's weight is the business of government, then so are their sex lives. You can't have it both ways. If governments get to be in our personal decisions - then let's have them all the way in.... not just the bits that they want to control.

 

[mudwhistle]

why should the child suffer cause the mother is a ho? its not the mother you are punishing but the child.

Why should society pick up the tab for irresponsible behavior? Take the kid away from her.

I think there are too many examples of kids that turned out to be really good for this country and mothers that were silly immature knott-heads that dropped their panties for a some butt-reaming scuzzbag. It happens way too often.

Ask anyone in the black community. Black women go nuts for any guy that seemingly has his shit together. In Atlanta the female to male ratio is 11-1. Course many of these girls could solve their problems if they simply married outside their race...but there seems to be too much racism for them to even consider that. Black men have too many options and they tend to take advantage of black women. Most of the time it's not a matter of being a ho....but just desperate. Course very few of them will ever admit this openly.....then again you never know. The result is that 70% of all blacks are born out of wedlock and automatically have a disadvantage. It may be even more because my nephew was brought into this world in those conditions and it's uncommon that you'll meet someone in a big city that still lives with both parents. Many were born into a traditional family but divorce, deaths, and incarceration are a constant theme in black families.

 

[goldcatt]

If a woman does not know the name of the man who fathered her kid, why should I be held responsible? Perhaps women should take a tad more responsibility and find out such detail before they breed with a guy? Just an idea.

I think we're all intelligent enough to work out that this kind of law couldn't apply in certain circumstances.

There is never a 'one size fits all' solution to societies problems... that does not mean we shouldn't cover the majority with this kind of process.

The problem is this law WOULD apply in all circumstances, at least as proposed. And it doesn't adequately address those circumstances. Nor does it take into account the fact that pursuing a determined deadbeat can cost the State far, far more in money and manpower than a child care subsidy or some food stamps. So do supervised visitation programs for fathers with abuse or addiction problems. So do chronic bouncebacks in the court system. Why do you think that $5 billion in child support already accrued goes unpaid in the first place?

It's a bumper sticker feel good proposal to "solve" an incredibly complex situation that won't do jack to actually address the problem. Fathers who aren't on birth certificates have recourse in every State, if they want rights they can get them. Many don't. How will punishing the mothers force the dads to step up?

We can't go on paying for other people's fuck ups forever. If there is no consequence to the parents, why should they change their behavior? Governments 'nudge' society to get them to change behaviors that they deem detrimental to society. So why not 'nudge' irresponsible parents too? We have cities in the US telling private companies what food they can serve. If people's weight is the business of government, then so are their sex lives. You can't have it both ways. If governments get to be in our personal decisions - then let's have them all the way in.... not just the bits that they want to control.

So to you the answer is to empower the government to take away children from their only parent, regardless of the situation, hand it down as a judgment on the mother and have the taxpayer support the child in perpetuity...in order to reduce the burden of a few bucks in food stamps or child care subsidies? Do you understand how crazy that is?

Your youth and inexperience is showing badly here, CG. I know you've posted many times that you dislike children, but even if you dislike them they are not commodities or weapons to use against people with whom you disagree.

 

[Si modo]

To the OP: Yes...and No.

Every situation is different. There are women who simply don't know who the father is. In extreme cases they may not have so much as a name.

There are women who know but just don't want him around, for reasons that run the gamut from them not wanting to share control of the child to the father's issues they believe would be harmful to the child if exposed to them. In that situation the father can press his rights through use of the courts and putative father registries, though. He always has recourse.

Then there are the men who abandon the mother and child and it's his choice not to have anything to do with the child. These men whether they're on a birth certificate or not aren't going to be involved and will fight taking responsibility.

Then there's the other extreme, the women who don't want or cannot supply a father's name on a birth certificate because it was a situation of incest, rape or abuse.

There are so many different situations out there it's difficult to come up with a one size fits all rule that addresses every one of them in a just manner. Which is why family laws are so complicated and the result (ideally at least) is always an individual determination. I would hesitate to apply either a one size fits all rule in this situation or allow an overworked, underpaid, cynical and most likely highly unqualified caseworker to make any kind of individual determination.

If a woman does not know the name of the man who fathered her kid, why should I be held responsible? Perhaps women should take a tad more responsibility and find out such detail before they breed with a guy? Just an idea.

I think we're all intelligent enough to work out that this kind of law couldn't apply in certain circumstances.

There is never a 'one size fits all' solution to societies problems... that does not mean we shouldn't cover the majority with this kind of process.

I'm leaning toward Goldie's position. Now, I don't have enough information about the details of this state regulation, but I am going to try to analyze the logistics involved in this.

If the state would actually pursue the named father for support, then they should shoulder the burden of proving the named man is the father. If they don't, a woman could name an ex who she knows has nothing to do with the child but one for whom she wants to cause financial and legal trouble out of vindictiveness. I don't see that as being very fair to men.

If the state does plan on shouldering the burden of proving the named man is the father; (1) that's going to be a pretty big cost to the state, and (2) I can see many men who know darn well that they are the father who was named telling the state to prove it in order to delay his having to pay support. And, I can't see the state being able to have much of a case for penalizing a man for doing so.

So, I'm wondering of the cost of such a regulation is more than the money that would be saved by having the biological father pay support. It seems like it might be and the point of the regulation is lost.

Additionally, a woman can name any man with whom she has had sex just to qualify for support. If the state expects the woman to pursue the named man for support before they provide state support, I doubt a woman who is requesting state aid for her child has the means to pursue the man in the courts for the support. So, I see a lot of women not getting child support from the state at all. Sure, it's a great savings to the public now, but at what cost in the long run? A kid that needs to be institutionalized at juvie then in prison later?

Just my original take on it.

 

[Ravi]

why should the child suffer cause the mother is a ho? its not the mother you are punishing but the child.

This.

 

[Si modo]

why should the child suffer cause the mother is a ho? its not the mother you are punishing but the child.

Why should society pick up the tab for irresponsible behavior? Take the kid away from her.

Now, that's a good plan, as long as the state does not raise the child in some sort of institution. Adopt the child out.

 

[goldcatt]

To the OP: Yes...and No.

Every situation is different. There are women who simply don't know who the father is. In extreme cases they may not have so much as a name.

There are women who know but just don't want him around, for reasons that run the gamut from them not wanting to share control of the child to the father's issues they believe would be harmful to the child if exposed to them. In that situation the father can press his rights through use of the courts and putative father registries, though. He always has recourse.

Then there are the men who abandon the mother and child and it's his choice not to have anything to do with the child. These men whether they're on a birth certificate or not aren't going to be involved and will fight taking responsibility.

Then there's the other extreme, the women who don't want or cannot supply a father's name on a birth certificate because it was a situation of incest, rape or abuse.

There are so many different situations out there it's difficult to come up with a one size fits all rule that addresses every one of them in a just manner. Which is why family laws are so complicated and the result (ideally at least) is always an individual determination. I would hesitate to apply either a one size fits all rule in this situation or allow an overworked, underpaid, cynical and most likely highly unqualified caseworker to make any kind of individual determination.

If a woman does not know the name of the man who fathered her kid, why should I be held responsible? Perhaps women should take a tad more responsibility and find out such detail before they breed with a guy? Just an idea.

I think we're all intelligent enough to work out that this kind of law couldn't apply in certain circumstances.

There is never a 'one size fits all' solution to societies problems... that does not mean we shouldn't cover the majority with this kind of process.

I'm leaning toward Goldie's position. Now, I don't have enough information about the details of this state regulation, but I am going to try to analyze the logistics involved in this.

If the state would actually pursue the named father for support, then they should shoulder the burden of proving the named man is the father. If they don't, a woman could name an ex who she knows has nothing to do with the child but one for whom she wants to cause financial and legal trouble out of vindictiveness. I don't see that as being very fair to men.

If the state does plan on shouldering the burden of proving the named man is the father; (1) that's going to be a pretty big cost to the state, and (2) I can see many men who know darn well that they are the father who was named telling the state to prove it in order to delay his having to pay support. And, I can't see the state being able to have much of a case for penalizing a man for doing so.

So, I'm wondering of the cost of such a regulation is more than the money that would be saved by having the biological father pay support. It seems like it might be and the point of the regulation is lost.

Additionally, a woman can name any man with whom she has had sex just to qualify for support. If the state expects the woman to pursue the named man for support before they provide state support, I doubt a woman who is requesting state aid for her child has the means to pursue the man in the courts for the support. So, I see a lot of women not getting child support from the state at all. Sure, it's a great savings to the public now, but at what cost in the long run? A kid that needs to be institutionalized at juvie then in prison later?

Just my original take on it.

You're absolutely right - in all of this. Plus the additional carry costs of collecting and distributing support, ongoing court bouncebacks, and a host of other issues and potential issues if a father or putative father is uncooperative.

It's actually a right of any father or putative father to have a DNA test to prove paternity when ordered to pay support or at any time that order is in force, at State expense. It's also the right of any father or putative father to pursue being recognized as the father, have his paternity proven and have his name added to a birth certificate - also at State expense.

The problem is extremely complex, this proposal isn't going to touch it.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Here comes the flame...

I would take it a step further.
Make it a crime to have a child without the ability to financially support it.
Obviously there are circumstances this would not apply to, but something has to deter the 100,000's of young girls from using their uterus as a means of supporting themselves.

 

[Si modo]

If a woman does not know the name of the man who fathered her kid, why should I be held responsible? Perhaps women should take a tad more responsibility and find out such detail before they breed with a guy? Just an idea.

I think we're all intelligent enough to work out that this kind of law couldn't apply in certain circumstances.

There is never a 'one size fits all' solution to societies problems... that does not mean we shouldn't cover the majority with this kind of process.

I'm leaning toward Goldie's position. Now, I don't have enough information about the details of this state regulation, but I am going to try to analyze the logistics involved in this.

If the state would actually pursue the named father for support, then they should shoulder the burden of proving the named man is the father. If they don't, a woman could name an ex who she knows has nothing to do with the child but one for whom she wants to cause financial and legal trouble out of vindictiveness. I don't see that as being very fair to men.

If the state does plan on shouldering the burden of proving the named man is the father; (1) that's going to be a pretty big cost to the state, and (2) I can see many men who know darn well that they are the father who was named telling the state to prove it in order to delay his having to pay support. And, I can't see the state being able to have much of a case for penalizing a man for doing so.

So, I'm wondering of the cost of such a regulation is more than the money that would be saved by having the biological father pay support. It seems like it might be and the point of the regulation is lost.

Additionally, a woman can name any man with whom she has had sex just to qualify for support. If the state expects the woman to pursue the named man for support before they provide state support, I doubt a woman who is requesting state aid for her child has the means to pursue the man in the courts for the support. So, I see a lot of women not getting child support from the state at all. Sure, it's a great savings to the public now, but at what cost in the long run? A kid that needs to be institutionalized at juvie then in prison later?

Just my original take on it.

You're absolutely right - in all of this. Plus the additional carry costs of collecting and distributing support, ongoing court bouncebacks, and a host of other issues and potential issues if a father or putative father is uncooperative.

It's actually a right of any father or putative father to have a DNA test to prove paternity when ordered to pay support or at any time that order is in force, at State expense. It's also the right of any father or putative father to pursue being recognized as the father, have his paternity proven and have his name added to a birth certificate - also at State expense.

The problem is extremely complex, this proposal isn't going to touch it.

I did not know that about fathers ordered to pay support. That's good that they have that right and that the state pays for it. Thanks. Good points about administrative costs, too.

 

[Si modo]

Here comes the flame...

I would take it a step further.
Make it a crime to have a child without the ability to financially support it.
Obviously there are circumstances this would not apply to, but something has to deter the 100,000's of young girls from using their uterus as a means of supporting themselves.

In Si-modo-as-benevolent-dictator-land, I agree with you, as long as a woman has Choice available to her, though.