Who's yer daddy? No daddy; no check

[Soggy in NOLA]

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".

I was raised by two adoptive parents from age 2. They were Mom and Dad in every respect.

Donating sperm and giving birth doesn't make you a Mom or a Dad.

 

[Misty]

Giving a mother welfare doesn't guarantee she will spend it on her child. If a person is selfish enough to have a child they can't afford they are probably selfish enough to spend the money on themselves not the child.

The child is a pawn.

I've seen it first hand. Most of these people are scum and their children grow up to be scum. The welfare does not help them. It hurts them.

Workfare on the other hand, is a better way to go. Make people work for welfare.

 

[uscitizen]

Giving a mother welfare doesn't guarantee she will spend it on her child. If a person is selfish enough to have a child they can't afford they are probably selfish enough to spend the money on themselves not the child.

The child is a pawn.

I've seen it first hand. Most of these people are scum and their children grow up to be scum. The welfare does not help them. It hurts them.

Workfare on the other hand, is a better way to go. Make people work for welfare.

Yeah well we first need jobs for those actively seeking jobs.

 

[Ravi]

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".

That is a bit different than the government deciding you aren't being parented properly.

 

[Newby]

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?

What I've bolded is the problem with every welfare program we currently have, yet that doesn't seem to stop them, actually they just keep getting bigger.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

Agree

Right now there is no incentive for a woman to name the father. If she tries, the useless breeder pressures her not to name names. With paternity tests now, it is simple enough to round up the potential fathers and find out who the daddy is.

While I would not cut off benefits to the family without a father being named, I would pay a significantly lower rate and offer less desirable housing until a father is named

 

[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.

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?

Yep, that about covers some of the situations. But many, many others? No.

There are men who ask not to be named, who don't want or care about rights and the women oblige them for a multitude of reasons. There are private contractual agreements between parties that down the road are broken and cannot be enforced in court without money she doesn't have. There are women who leave an abuser when they become pregnant and fear for their safety and that of their child if he is notified of her location, let alone the child. It's not that simple, there are as many fact patterns as there are individuals.

If a man is serious about wanting to be a parent, he can pursue his rights (and take on his responsibility) whether she puts him on a birth certificate or not. That's what putative father registries are for, and it can be done at any time.

As I said in the post to which you replied, it runs the gamut. Some men get screwed, some women get screwed, but the child is ultimately the one being punished. You have some serious constitutional issues here as well, but in the end it boils down to common sense and what's in that child's interests.

 

[uscitizen]

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.

Agree

Right now there is no incentive for a woman to name the father. If she tries, the useless breeder pressures her not to name names. With paternity tests now, it is simple enough to round up the potential fathers and find out who the daddy is.

While I would not cut off benefits to the family without a father being named, I would pay a significantly lower rate and offer less desirable housing until a father is named

And we could name it the Maury law.

Maury could be the Paternity Czar.

 

[rightwinger]

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?

Yep, that about covers some of the situations. But many, many others? No.

There are men who ask not to be named, who don't want or care about rights and the women oblige them for a multitude of reasons. There are private contractual agreements between parties that down the road are broken and cannot be enforced in court without money she doesn't have. There are women who leave an abuser when they become pregnant and fear for their safety and that of their child if he is notified of her location, let alone the child. It's not that simple, there are as many fact patterns as there are individuals.

If a man is serious about wanting to be a parent, he can pursue his rights (and take on his responsibility) whether she puts him on a birth certificate or not. That's what putative father registries are for, and it can be done at any time.

As I said in the post to which you replied, it runs the gamut. Some men get screwed, some women get screwed, but the child is ultimately the one being punished. You have some serious constitutional issues here as well, but in the end it boils down to common sense and what's in that child's interests.

Bottom line...if it is your baby, you take care of it

Of course these fathers do not want to assume responsibility. It is money out of their pocket. If a mother identifies you as the father on the birth certificate and you are not the father, it is simple enough to prove.
If you are the father, garnishment of wages, denial of a drivers license and denial of any government services are in order

 

[goldcatt]

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?

Yep, that about covers some of the situations. But many, many others? No.

There are men who ask not to be named, who don't want or care about rights and the women oblige them for a multitude of reasons. There are private contractual agreements between parties that down the road are broken and cannot be enforced in court without money she doesn't have. There are women who leave an abuser when they become pregnant and fear for their safety and that of their child if he is notified of her location, let alone the child. It's not that simple, there are as many fact patterns as there are individuals.

If a man is serious about wanting to be a parent, he can pursue his rights (and take on his responsibility) whether she puts him on a birth certificate or not. That's what putative father registries are for, and it can be done at any time.

As I said in the post to which you replied, it runs the gamut. Some men get screwed, some women get screwed, but the child is ultimately the one being punished. You have some serious constitutional issues here as well, but in the end it boils down to common sense and what's in that child's interests.

Bottom line...if it is your baby, you take care of it

Of course these fathers do not want to assume responsibility. It is money out of their pocket. If a mother identifies you as the father on the birth certificate and you are not the father, it is simple enough to prove.
If you are the father, garnishment of wages, denial of a drivers license and denial of any government services are in order

All of which costs money and man hours, and is already done along with much, much more. And per the OP we still have $5 billion in uncollected accrued support in one state alone.

So how exactly does spending billions to take away from one hand solve the problem of spending billions with no results in the other? And how exactly does the child benefit?

ETA: I agree wholeheartedly with the premise that if it's your child, you take care of it. But the fact is, that's not reality. If a man is serious about not taking care of his child, he won't and once he goes underground he can't be forced no matter how much money you throw at trying to make him do it. I would include noncustodial women there too, but under the OP it's difficult for a woman not to be named on a birth certificate. We have to deal in reality, fiscally, constitutionally and pragmatically. Dealing in fantasy and what "should" happen isn't going to get results.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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?

Here's a "yikes" moment

Eugenics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The modern field and term were first formulated by Sir Francis Galton in 1883,[11] drawing on the recent work of his half-cousin Charles Darwin.[12][13] At its peak of popularity eugenics was supported by prominent people, including Margaret Sanger,[14][15] Marie Stopes, H. G. Wells, Woodrow Wilson, Theodore Roosevelt, Emile Zola, George Bernard Shaw, John Maynard Keynes, John Harvey Kellogg, Linus Pauling[16] and Sidney Webb.[17][18][19] Its most infamous proponent and practitioner was, however, Adolf Hitler who praised and incorporated eugenic ideas in Mein Kampf and emulated Eugenic legislation for the sterilization of "defectives" that had been pioneered in the United States.[20]

Feel free to check that link out, there's plenty more insanity. I had to stop, it got a little dark for me.

 

[Two Thumbs]

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.

Agree

Right now there is no incentive for a woman to name the father. If she tries, the useless breeder pressures her not to name names. With paternity tests now, it is simple enough to round up the potential fathers and find out who the daddy is.

While I would not cut off benefits to the family without a father being named, I would pay a significantly lower rate and offer less desirable housing until a father is named

The opposite it true now. W/o a father around they get more money.

 

[rightwinger]

Yep, that about covers some of the situations. But many, many others? No.

There are men who ask not to be named, who don't want or care about rights and the women oblige them for a multitude of reasons. There are private contractual agreements between parties that down the road are broken and cannot be enforced in court without money she doesn't have. There are women who leave an abuser when they become pregnant and fear for their safety and that of their child if he is notified of her location, let alone the child. It's not that simple, there are as many fact patterns as there are individuals.

If a man is serious about wanting to be a parent, he can pursue his rights (and take on his responsibility) whether she puts him on a birth certificate or not. That's what putative father registries are for, and it can be done at any time.

As I said in the post to which you replied, it runs the gamut. Some men get screwed, some women get screwed, but the child is ultimately the one being punished. You have some serious constitutional issues here as well, but in the end it boils down to common sense and what's in that child's interests.

Bottom line...if it is your baby, you take care of it

Of course these fathers do not want to assume responsibility. It is money out of their pocket. If a mother identifies you as the father on the birth certificate and you are not the father, it is simple enough to prove.
If you are the father, garnishment of wages, denial of a drivers license and denial of any government services are in order

All of which costs money and man hours, and is already done along with much, much more. And per the OP we still have $5 billion in uncollected accrued support in one state alone.

So how exactly does spending billions to take away from one hand solve the problem of spending billions with no results in the other? And how exactly does the child benefit?

ETA: I agree wholeheartedly with the premise that if it's your child, you take care of it. But the fact is, that's not reality. If a man is serious about not taking care of his child, he won't and once he goes underground he can't be forced no matter how much money you throw at trying to make him do it. I would include noncustodial women there too, but under the OP it's difficult for a woman not to be named on a birth certificate. We have to deal in reality, fiscally, constitutionally and pragmatically. Dealing in fantasy and what "should" happen isn't going to get results.

There will always be men who refuse to pay once they are identified as fathers. It does not mean we should stop trying to identify them. Once the woman names the father, she is off the hook. It is up to the state to track him down. If they don't get any money out of him, it is not under the mothers control

Identifying your babies daddy is under their control

 

[goldcatt]

Bottom line...if it is your baby, you take care of it

Of course these fathers do not want to assume responsibility. It is money out of their pocket. If a mother identifies you as the father on the birth certificate and you are not the father, it is simple enough to prove.
If you are the father, garnishment of wages, denial of a drivers license and denial of any government services are in order

All of which costs money and man hours, and is already done along with much, much more. And per the OP we still have $5 billion in uncollected accrued support in one state alone.

So how exactly does spending billions to take away from one hand solve the problem of spending billions with no results in the other? And how exactly does the child benefit?

ETA: I agree wholeheartedly with the premise that if it's your child, you take care of it. But the fact is, that's not reality. If a man is serious about not taking care of his child, he won't and once he goes underground he can't be forced no matter how much money you throw at trying to make him do it. I would include noncustodial women there too, but under the OP it's difficult for a woman not to be named on a birth certificate. We have to deal in reality, fiscally, constitutionally and pragmatically. Dealing in fantasy and what "should" happen isn't going to get results.

There will always be men who refuse to pay once they are identified as fathers. It does not mean we should stop trying to identify them. Once the woman names the father, she is off the hook. It is up to the state to track him down. If they don't get any money out of him, it is not under the mothers control

Identifying your babies daddy is under their control

So as long as the State is on the hook to pay out time and money to locate, identify, adjudicate and coerce the father, protect the mother and child from harm when needed, supply continuing services and support to resolve whatever issues led the mother to not put the father on the BC and enforce whatever ruling it determines appropriate in perpetuity through the inevitable bouncebacks from two unwilling parents, all while protecting the constitutional rights of both parents, juggling a court docket full of whiners and somewhere along the line hopefully remembering to think about the BIOC, THEN it's okay to spend the additional cash to hand out some food stamps?

The entire measure was proposed as a cost cutting device and a means of forcing deadbeats to be involved in their kids' lives.

 

[Granny]

Yes, it is the children who suffer in many ways. Let's face it, any program that is state or government funded IS "one size fits all." I think the councilman is onto something - it may need some tweaking - but it might work. These support enforcement agencies from coast to coast are pretty much a joke - they all work just as the councilman described - nothing or too little, too late.

My youngest daughter is supposed to get her child support through DCSE. Early on, the only way she got it was to put in a personal appearance and raise holy hell to get the employees up off their asses. She got an order for the support to be taken right off the top of his paycheck. Right now her ex is some $40,000 in arrears and DCSE has finally taken action to get him to court. My daughter doesn't have to be in court, but she will be - and it's going to be the same circus she's always had. Her ex is going to ask for all three of his continuations before the case is ever actually heard. In the meantime, her ex got the boss's daughter pregnant on a one-night-stand. He's in arrears to her as well. He wouldn't go back to work for the boss - and the boss would welcome him back - but the ex knew the boss would deduct every penny of child support for both children.

Solution: don't work at all or work for yourself because you won't subtract any support from your own paycheck.

The boss's daughter has now married and her husband wants to adopt her child. She asked my daughter's ex to sign away his parental rights (he never sees the child anyway).

Solution: I'll sign away my rights if you pay off my child support arrears.

AND he and his girlfriend and her two children live off all the welfare benefits she can get for herself and her children. That's how that works. Guess who is paying for this.

Tweaks to the basic idea could be: don't know the father's name? tubal ligation; raped? produce police report AND ER record of the assault; quits job? go to jail - gives a chance for some thinking things over - no pay, no freedom. There are lots of ways that could be considered to undo the "one-size-fits-all" situation.

 

[Luissa]

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?

So the only one who will really pay the price is the child. Do you really think a dead beat dad cares about what the child is getting?
It took me eight months to get the state to put my son's father on his birth certificate. Plus his name on the certificate didn't push his dad to be more involved. If they are going to be an absent father, this will do nothing to change it.
This is is a pretty dumb idea, and I love how Chanel is for more government involvement in SOMEONE else life.

 

[uscitizen]

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 are against marriage for stay at home moms?

 

[Luissa]

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

So, any mother that can't get the father take responsibility is a hoe?

 

[goldcatt]

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?

So the only one who will really pay the price is the child. Do you really think a dead beat dad cares about what the child is getting?
It took me eight months to get the state to put my son's father on his birth certificate. Plus his name on the certificate didn't push his dad to be more involved. If they are going to be an absent father, this will do nothing to change it.
This is is a pretty dumb idea, and I love how Chanel is for more government involvement in SOMEONE else life.

Yep. My ex walked out before my twins were born. He actually had me served with papers demanding I NOT put his name on their birth certificates and asking for a private contractual agreement in place of the State support system because he did not consent to having two children at the same time and didn't think it was fair to have the usual law apply to him "under the circumstances". What a fucking dumbass, but still they were eight months old before it was all worked out and his name added to their BC's. It was two years before I saw a penny of support, and five before he had a job with a paycheck that could be garnished.

Like I said, there are all kinds of fact patterns and reasons for no father to be named. In those circumstances, a lot of mothers would easily have been cowed or simply said "screw you". *shrug*

 

[xotoxi]

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.

Agreed...but wouldn't society still be picking up the tab if we take the kid away from her?