Who's Yer Daddy?
According to a story in the Australian newspaper, The Age, an unnamed Australian man was tricked into a believing he was the biological father of his partner's baby; now an eight-year-old child:
He did not want a baby, but he raised his child with love. When the man's marriage ended, he paid thousands of dollars in child support.The man is seeking repayment of $75,000 in school fees and child support in the Federal Magistrates Court after learning in 2002 that he was not the child's biological father.
...the woman had also been sexually involved with another man, in early 1995. She now admits that the second man was the child's natural father but says she did not know that at the time.
A former friend of the child's mother told the court the woman had confided to her early in the pregnancy that she would tell the man he was the father because he had "more of a future" than the biological father.
The court was told the man had not wanted to become a father and had asked the woman to terminate the pregnancy.
Shouldn't a man get a refund on his child support if it turns out he wasn't the biological father of a baby? And, beyond that, why, in 2003, are men still expected to pay for children they made it clear they did not want to have?
Say there's a woman who wants a child, but can't afford to raise it, or would prefer to have somebody else pay to raise it. Say the man in her life (or the one she snags out of a club some night) isn't up for financing her dreams of mommyhood. Shouldn't it be up to her to take steps (and backup steps) to avoid becoming pregnant -- and/or be prepared to get an abortion or give up the baby after it's born? Why, so many ways for a woman to opt out of becoming a parent, are we still forcing men into "fatherhood" -- another name for our only societally-accepted form of paying protection money?
(The Age story via ifeminists.net)
He had sex too--why didn't he use a condom and insist on spermicide, since he didn't want to be a father? And why should society pay for this child ('give it away' just means make someone else responsible)? Men have as much of a role in the production of children as women do. The guy should get his money back and the woman either needs to eat it or go after the real father to see what kind of support she can get (in case he does want to be a father).
Either way, the kid is going to be one fucked up mess.
Peggy C at October 29, 2003 10:41 AM
Peggy, there are lines of couples standing outside fertility clinics and waiting to adopt. I put that in there for the anti-abortion types, but I, personally, would have an abortion if I got pregnant, but I take steps not to get to that point, because I find abortion troubling. I'm not suggesting the rest of us pay for it either -- but that babies don't belong with those who can't afford to support them unless they hijack somebody to help them. The cost of sex needn't be pregnancy -- and since the woman is the one whose body gets pregnant, I think it's the woman who should be the one who's responsible seeing that she doesn't. You can never really know that somebody else (the man) is behaving responsibly. But if you really, really care about not getting pregnant, you most likely will take enough care that you don't.
Amy Alkon at October 29, 2003 6:08 PM
Amy, you're the first woman I've heard express this POV.
Justice Ruth Ginsberg once wrote that the reason abortion should be legal is not, as in Roe vs. Wade, that a woman has a right to privacy, which gives here the right to control her body (Ginsberg agreed, at least at the time, with some conservative critics that this arguement is constitutionally invalid); rather, a woman has a right to an abortion because forcing a woman to have a baby when she doesn't want one introduces economic inquality -- that if a woman has an unwanted baby, her career choices are potentially more limited. Equal protection. (I'm badly paraphrasing from memory, here).
But that got me to thinking -- OK, if there is a right not to have a baby mess up your financial future -- what's good for the woman, is good for the man. A man who isn't financially able to support a child, or doing so would -- say -- keep him from completing college, has an equal protection right to opt-out of responsibility for that baby. Maybe?
Maybe a man should be able to say, "Look, I'm the father, but I'm not ready to be a father. Either you get an abortion, or you're on your own financially."?
I'm thinking, maybe, a pre-birth civil court filing ... a man could file legal documents saying he is economically and socially and parentally opting out of the child's life. If the woman has the baby, he has no financial obligation, but at the same time, he has no legal right to contact with the child, etc. If the child becomes the next Bill Gates, he's screwed. If the child becomes the next Jeffery Dahmer, he need never know.
As it stands now, the man has no legal say in whether a woman gets an abortion -- he can't stop it if he wants the child (especially with unmarried couples), and he can't force if he can't afford the financial burdern.
I've never had to face this question on any level, personally, but that just doesn't seem fair to me.
Yes, it takes two to tango, as I've heard a number of feminists argue over the years, but just as there's lots of ways a man can avoid a pregancy, so can a woman. The argument really gets you know where because it ignores the fact that no form of birth control short of abstinancy is 100 percent effective. I've even heard of clipped men and tube-tied woman finding out they were half of a baby-making pairing. So once a pregnancy comes along, it seems to me, the men should be on equal footing with the women when it comes to deciding what to do about it.
Howard Owens at October 29, 2003 11:24 PM
I agree that people shouldn't be 'hijacked' into paying for something that they didn't want. I am paying a spousal support order myself, just for the privilege of getting rid of the jerk I married. (No, I won't make that mistake again!)
And I think women SHOULD take steps to be certain they don't get pregnant (or get STD's). But I'm not willing to completely absolve men of their responsibility. If you don't want to be a father, take steps yourself to ensure you don't contribute the necessary piece of the puzzle.
Plus, people are waiting to adopt healthy (usually white) babies. There are tons of children to be adopted but who aren't as marketable. Try checking out the reams of papers from any foster parenting agency and see how many can't find permanent homes.
I think it's sad that at 8 years old this kid (who THOUGHT that guy was his dad) not only has to deal with that reality but now his mom might end up having to pay back scads of money that I'm sure she doesn't have. Where is that going to leave this kid? On public support, most likely.
Peggy C at October 29, 2003 11:32 PM
Howard Owens... "Maybe a man should be able to say, "Look, I'm the father, but I'm not ready to be a father. Either you get an abortion, or you're on your own financially."?
Nope. Sorry. If he wants to dance to the music, he needs to pay the piper. No form of birth control is 100% effective. Even if precautions are taken, there is a chance they could be in for a surprise. Yes, he should have a say as to what happens to the baby, but he doesn't have he right to ORDER her to have an abortion. If she chooses not to have one, then he needs to cough up the cash. Too bad, so sad. If he doesn't want to wrap it, he can keep it home and whack it or find a fulfilling relationship with Polly Urethane.
Equal footing, I agree with, but if the woman is dead-set against abortion for whatever reason, then they need to find another option, because forcing her to abort is not equal footing. Adoption is the option.
Patrick at October 30, 2003 7:43 AM
Amy? Amy A.? LOVE YOU, Dollface.
I think the important principle in this story is that it takes two to tango. Hornbone men have always been a problem, but at this point in human history, no one can pretend to be surprised. A huge amount of public policy and rhetoric is built around this elemental truth: Men are dogs.
As we continue to struggle with the problem of children raised in financial and emotional poverty, it's fair to ask what the female contribution to the problem is. I say it's 50%. But in the 21st century that 50% DOESN'T HAVE A NAME. Go to a woman on the street. Ask her what she needs to conquer in her own sexual nature to be a good person, and she'll look at you with befuddlement. But ask any boy over 13, and he'll KNOW what you're talking about.
(PS- I wrote this before reading HO's response. We are officially On To Something here.)
Crid at October 30, 2003 9:29 AM
I'm just glad that the only thing I have to worry about is HIV, syphyllis, gonorrhea, hepatitis, and various intestinal parasites. BUT NO CHILDREN!
Lena Cuisina at October 30, 2003 9:35 AM
Conventional wisdom seems to be along the lines of "you pays your money and takes your chances" but the legal rationale is that the child is the one who needs protection, not the mother. By definition the child cannot give consent or waive support and neither parent may waive such a right that the child holds.
This is such a strong argument that when a married mother gives birth both the wife and husband are financially responsible - even where the couple have long ceased having sex and the baby's father can be genetically proven not to be the husband. This seems quite unfair and so it is - but is there any "fair" solution?
doug at October 30, 2003 9:36 AM
I think Doug provides a better argument against my suggestion than Patrick.
Patrick is arguing for inquality, but I don't think he makes the case that inquality is justified. Both partners have a responsibility to ensure there is no pregnancy, if they want to avoid it, but what if pregnancy comes despite the best efforts of both sides. Why is the woman the only one with a say in whether the baby is born or not?
Of course, it seems to me, that Doug's position, about the rights of the child, is an argument against legalized abortion. If neither partner can surrender responsibility for the child, how can either partner surrender the child's life -- if the child has such strong legal rights?
Howard Owens at October 30, 2003 10:33 PM