Who's yer daddy? No daddy; no check

[jillian]

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.

so you're for abortion?

or are you saying there should *be* forced abortion?

just wondering.

women don't generally get pregnant to "support themselves". i am wondering where the incentive is for the men to keep their pants zipped.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

In which case you've also just foreclosed any possibility the father can ever assert his rights and take responsibility, or else have made an adoption that is potentially revocable at any time if he chooses to do so. The solution isn't cutting off all parental rights for both parents and farming out the child to the foster system, either. If you think a welfare check is expensive take a look at foster care, and both availability and quality are a crapshoot.

Besides which, think about this objectively for a moment. Why do you want the State to have the power to take a child of any age from his or her parent based solely on economic status? Because that's what it would be. Wealthier parents who never need assistance would be allowed to keep their children. Only those who apply for benefits would be affected. Once you strike the protection against losing parental rights on the basis of economic status, you're opening the door for a lot of abuses. No mas.

 

[Si modo]

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.

In which case you've also just foreclosed any possibility the father can ever assert his rights and take responsibility, or else have made an adoption that is potentially revokable at any time if he chooses to do so. The solution isn't cutting off all parental rights for both parents and farming out the child to the foster system, either. If you think a welfare check is expensive take a look at foster care, and both availability and quality are a crapshoot.

Besides which, think about this objectively for a moment. Why do you want the State to have the power to take a child of any age from his or her parent based solely on economic status? Because that's what it would be. Wealthier parents who never need assistance would be allowed to keep their children. Only those who apply for benefits would be affected. Once you strike the protection against losing parental rights on the basis of economic status, you're opening the door for a lot of abuses. No mas.

Yeah, I do know that the idea is wrong on many levels in our system. However, I do think many children would be better off being adopted out (not through our foster care system, either). If there was some way to shake all this mess of family courts up and make it sensible in really keeping the child's best interest in mind while keeping it fiscally reasonable, I would be all for it.

 

[mudwhistle]

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.

As I pointed out earlier it's never cut and dried.

There are always cases where a woman just tries to hook a man.

A friend of mine paid child support for a kid for 2 years that wasn't his. DNA proved he wasn't the father. The mother knew who the father was. She just didn't like him as much as my buddy.

 

[goldcatt]

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.

In which case you've also just foreclosed any possibility the father can ever assert his rights and take responsibility, or else have made an adoption that is potentially revokable at any time if he chooses to do so. The solution isn't cutting off all parental rights for both parents and farming out the child to the foster system, either. If you think a welfare check is expensive take a look at foster care, and both availability and quality are a crapshoot.

Besides which, think about this objectively for a moment. Why do you want the State to have the power to take a child of any age from his or her parent based solely on economic status? Because that's what it would be. Wealthier parents who never need assistance would be allowed to keep their children. Only those who apply for benefits would be affected. Once you strike the protection against losing parental rights on the basis of economic status, you're opening the door for a lot of abuses. No mas.

Yeah, I do know that the idea is wrong on many levels in our system. However, I do think many children would be better off being adopted out (not through our foster care system, either). If there was some way to shake all this mess of family courts up and make it sensible in really keeping the child's best interest in mind while keeping it fiscally reasonable, I would be all for it.

It can be a real complicated mess, can't it?

Who should determine what's best? What judgment of what is best for that child in that family and that set of circumstances can the system provide and what does it have to leave up to the parents, fallible as all parents are in their own way? Even if the system "can" provide judgment, should it? These are big, fundamental questions that go far beyond money and to the heart of the relationship between the State and the family.

 

[editec]

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?

Gonna generate a LOT of paternaty suits, I'll wager.

 

[Si modo]

In which case you've also just foreclosed any possibility the father can ever assert his rights and take responsibility, or else have made an adoption that is potentially revokable at any time if he chooses to do so. The solution isn't cutting off all parental rights for both parents and farming out the child to the foster system, either. If you think a welfare check is expensive take a look at foster care, and both availability and quality are a crapshoot.

Besides which, think about this objectively for a moment. Why do you want the State to have the power to take a child of any age from his or her parent based solely on economic status? Because that's what it would be. Wealthier parents who never need assistance would be allowed to keep their children. Only those who apply for benefits would be affected. Once you strike the protection against losing parental rights on the basis of economic status, you're opening the door for a lot of abuses. No mas.

Yeah, I do know that the idea is wrong on many levels in our system. However, I do think many children would be better off being adopted out (not through our foster care system, either). If there was some way to shake all this mess of family courts up and make it sensible in really keeping the child's best interest in mind while keeping it fiscally reasonable, I would be all for it.

It can be a real complicated mess, can't it?

Who should determine what's best? What judgment of what is best for that child in that family and that set of circumstances can the system provide and what does it have to leave up to the parents, fallible as all parents are in their own way? Even if the system "can" provide judgment, should it? These are big, fundamental questions that go far beyond money and to the heart of the relationship between the State and the family.

It really is a mess. I had no idea how very unfair (and seemingly unconstitutional at times) it can be until I got involved with someone who has kids from a previous marriage. I know I'm biased about his case, but before he and I were involved even as friends, I knew some of the details and I still thought it was a crazy mess.

 

[Ravi]

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.

It isn't a good plan. It is punishing the child even more by depriving the child of its mother.

 

[Cuyo]

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.

And taking the kid away from her is not "Picking up the tab?" Who's giving free child care?

 

[goldcatt]

Yeah, I do know that the idea is wrong on many levels in our system. However, I do think many children would be better off being adopted out (not through our foster care system, either). If there was some way to shake all this mess of family courts up and make it sensible in really keeping the child's best interest in mind while keeping it fiscally reasonable, I would be all for it.

It can be a real complicated mess, can't it?

Who should determine what's best? What judgment of what is best for that child in that family and that set of circumstances can the system provide and what does it have to leave up to the parents, fallible as all parents are in their own way? Even if the system "can" provide judgment, should it? These are big, fundamental questions that go far beyond money and to the heart of the relationship between the State and the family.

It really is a mess. I had no idea how very unfair (and seemingly unconstitutional at times) it can be until I got involved with someone who has kids from a previous marriage. I know I'm biased about his case, but before he and I were involved even as friends, I knew some of the details and I still thought it was a crazy mess.

One thing is guaranteed in any family court proceeding: Someone, somewhere, is going to get the shaft. And unfortunately, that usually if not always ends up being the child.

I'm not a fan of the current family law system, and yet it's still infinitely better than the way things had been addressed in previous incarnations. There really isn't one answer, to any of the questions. It has to be a case by case determination. But OTOH there is a limit to the resources available to look at every detail individually and there have to be rules that apply to everybody. Those rules must preserve the constitutional parental rights of both parents as well as (hopefully) take into consideration the best interest of the child.

It's not an easy situation, even just taken at the court level. Now expand it to something like the benefits described in the OP, apply the larger constitutional framework of due process and equal protection and you can see just how ridiculous it is. Obviously the person proposing it has no real knowledge of the issues, the constitutional elements involved or how the system in general works. And who'll end up getting the shaft? Once again, the child.

 

[Sallow]

What nonsense.

And this might actually help to spike the rate of abortions.

Anyone who supports this is nuts.

 

[editec]

It can be a real complicated mess, can't it?

Who should determine what's best? What judgment of what is best for that child in that family and that set of circumstances can the system provide and what does it have to leave up to the parents, fallible as all parents are in their own way? Even if the system "can" provide judgment, should it? These are big, fundamental questions that go far beyond money and to the heart of the relationship between the State and the family.

It really is a mess. I had no idea how very unfair (and seemingly unconstitutional at times) it can be until I got involved with someone who has kids from a previous marriage. I know I'm biased about his case, but before he and I were involved even as friends, I knew some of the details and I still thought it was a crazy mess.

One thing is guaranteed in any family court proceeding: Someone, somewhere, is going to get the shaft. And unfortunately, that usually if not always ends up being the child.

I'm not a fan of the current family law system, and yet it's still infinitely better than the way things had been addressed in previous incarnations. There really isn't one answer, to any of the questions. It has to be a case by case determination. But OTOH there is a limit to the resources available to look at every detail individually and there have to be rules that apply to everybody. Those rules must preserve the constitutional parental rights of both parents as well as (hopefully) take into consideration the best interest of the child.

It's not an easy situation, even just taken at the court level. Now expand it to something like the benefits described in the OP, apply the larger constitutional framework of due process and equal protection and you can see just how ridiculous it is. Obviously the person proposing it has no real knowledge of the issues, the constitutional elements involved or how the system in general works. And who'll end up getting the shaft? Once again, the child.

Good post.

Balanced reasoning.

The tragedy is that society has to get involved with family issues like these to begin with.

But they certainly have little choice in many cases.

In almost every case I know of where a court was deciding the outcome of a family squabble, somebody (often the kids) ended up screwed.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

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.

Who gives a fuck what the woman wants! The children are the ones that suffer.

How in the hell does a woman NOT know who the father of their child is? Were they not around during conception?

Fucking idiot liberals!

 

[bodecea]

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.

More state interference...and where do you put that child now?

 

[Two Thumbs]

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?

Political spin points. He knows this won't go through, and is just trying to score "conservative family values" points with his base.

If he hasn't been accused of racism, he soon will be.

Beyond that, it's not a 'bad' idea, and can be used to clear deadbeats off of welfare. But I wouldn't start with the first bastard kid, I'd start with the 2nd. At that point the "mother" should have to prove that she's not trying to live off welfare by popping out kids when she needs more money.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

And give it to who?
Society will not be apying for foster care or orphanage care for the child?

And when she has another?
Are you for forced sterilization?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

How can you not know who the father is? You're screwing so many people you can't keep track? Worse yet, I'll reproduce with you but I don't want you around?

Who are these people?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

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.

And give it to who?
Society will not be apying for foster care or orphanage care for the child?

And when she has another?
Are you for forced sterilization?

Why not? We have politicians on record stating that we need to start deciding who gets what life saving treatments... but we can't tell a woman "ok, that's it, stop churning out children you can't afford"??

 

[Si modo]

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.

It isn't a good plan. It is punishing the child even more by depriving the child of its mother.

While I agree that it is not a good plan, I don't agree that is the reason.

I know plenty of adopted persons and all are quite happy that they were "deprived of [their] mother".

 

[uscitizen]

I actually only know of one adopted person.
The kid was from Guatamala because adopbing in the USA is such a hassle.
THAT is what needs to be changed first!

And average person cannot afford to adopt an american child.