Surrendering parental rights

[AndyZ]

This is kind of a weird one and probably going to be easily answered.

Should we allow someone to just surrender all rights to a child, never have to pay child support and things like that?

We already allow those with uteri to abort fetuses, and every state in America has a "safe haven" law for giving a baby up to the state with no questions asked.  Nebraska has apparently set up the safe haven law for as late as 19 years old.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/22/nebrasks-safe-haven-law-a_n_120757.html

It seems odd to me that we would force someone into child support payments who doesn't want to pay them while simultaneously allowing others to be rid of their fetuses/babies without issue.

Granted that I don't know a lot about this issue yet and probably don't fully understand all the legal ramifications.

[Sethala]

I'm having trouble coming up with a very coherent argument on the issue, but I will say one reason I'm against just allowing it whenever either parent wants to give up custody is because raising a kid is expensive, especially if the parent is expected to not only work to provide stable financial support but also be available to raise the child.  Having someone who may not have very strong personal income suddenly going from relying on their partner to provide income to being a single parent is incredibly difficult.  A lot of this may come down to just how low our minimum wage is; if it were easier to find a job that actually paid enough to live off of, this might not be an issue at all.

However, I can also see a lot of cases where the payments are too harsh, and there's some completely insane rulings out there (something about a sperm donor being forced to pay child support because the mother inseminated herself without a physician was one story I saw in another thread), so... it's really a tough call.

[AndyZ]

Reminds me that I should clarify something about the CNN link I posted before: I'm not saying that the lesbians were bad people.  It seems to me like they made a deal with some random person and everything should have been fine, but the state came in and decided to nullify the agreement that had already been made between the consenting parties.

I'd equate that more with how it might be a good thing to give food to the homeless, but that doesn't always mean it's a good idea when the government gets involved.

It just seems odd to me that legally we accept the right to choose whether to be a parent for anyone with a uterus but not with testes.  If someone is pregnant and wants to have an abortion just because raising a kid is expensive, or give the kid up for adoption for the same reason, does it change your response?

[Sethala]

No, but the assumption there is that both parents consent to the abortion/adoption, that neither one wants to raise a child for whatever reason.  With child support, the assumption is that one parent wants to have the child and raise it, so abortion/adoption isn't a possible solution.

[AndyZ]

No, but the assumption there is that both parents consent to the abortion/adoption, that neither one wants to raise a child for whatever reason.  With child support, the assumption is that one parent wants to have the child and raise it, so abortion/adoption isn't a possible solution.

Assumptions are exactly that.  The mother is not required to prove that the father is okay with the abortion in any way, and if they disagree, it's entirely up to her.  Depending on the safe haven law, whoever currently has possession of the child can bring him/her in.

[AndyZ]

Well, someone with a penis can abort a fetus or give up a baby for adoption "without issue" too.  (I use quotes because depending on the State, there may be issues even if you have a vagina.)

And someone with a vagina can be forced to pay child support as well.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2569555/Man-30-charged-murder-lacing-pregnant-girlfriends-pancakes-abortion-inducing-drug.html

http://nypost.com/2013/05/16/man-who-allegedly-tricked-pregnant-girlfriend-into-taking-abortion-drug-charged-with-first-degree-murder-for-death-of-fetus/

I'm going to say that being charged with murder is not without issue.

Don't even get me started on how it's suddenly a life if the father does it and not if the mother does it.

[Sethala]

Assumptions are exactly that.  The mother is not required to prove that the father is okay with the abortion in any way, and if they disagree, it's entirely up to her.  Depending on the safe haven law, whoever currently has possession of the child can bring him/her in.

Abortion is weird because while both parents should have say over what happens to the child, the mother should have complete say over what happens to her own body, so I'm completely fine with saying that a woman can get an abortion even if the father of her child objects.

As for adoption however, I do agree that if one parent wants to raise the child, the other one shouldn't be allowed to put the child up for adoption (barring something like child services deciding that the other parent isn't fit to raise a child), and child support payments should be required, no matter which parent wants to raise the child.

[AndyZ]

Talking with Sethala outside the thread but I still leave this open for people to weigh in and all.

[Iniquitous]

This is kind of a weird one and probably going to be easily answered.

Should we allow someone to just surrender all rights to a child, never have to pay child support and things like that?

We already allow those with uteri to abort fetuses, and every state in America has a "safe haven" law for giving a baby up to the state with no questions asked.  Nebraska has apparently set up the safe haven law for as late as 19 years old.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/22/nebrasks-safe-haven-law-a_n_120757.html

It seems odd to me that we would force someone into child support payments who doesn't want to pay them while simultaneously allowing others to be rid of their fetuses/babies without issue.

Granted that I don't know a lot about this issue yet and probably don't fully understand all the legal ramifications.

If a person (male or female) is surrendering their rights to a child, then no, they should not have to pay child support. They have relinquished all rights to that child. They cannot see that child, they have no say in how that child is raised, etc. If the remaining parent of the child (re)marries, the child can be adopted by the new spouse.

If the law were to be changed to say that child support could be ordered from the biological mother/father that surrendered all rights to the child, then people who gave their children up for adoption would be looking at having to pay child support for a child they legally gave to another couple.

As for abortion - a man does not have to carry the fetus, does not have to give birth. In a perfect world such a decision would be decided by both, but this is not a perfect world. Nor would it be fair to force a woman to carry a child she does not want because the man wants her to. 

[DarknessBorne]

I honestly don't see a way for the State to involve itself in this issue in any way that won't create more problems than it solves (no matter how noble the intentions).

[AndyZ]

If a person (male or female) is surrendering their rights to a child, then no, they should not have to pay child support. They have relinquished all rights to that child. They cannot see that child, they have no say in how that child is raised, etc. If the remaining parent of the child (re)marries, the child can be adopted by the new spouse.

I didn't know you actually could surrender your rights to a child and get out of paying for child support that way.  If you can, that certainly handles the problem I perceived, though it makes me wonder why people who have this stuff come up don't just do that.  Thank you kindly.

[Zakharra]

  This is maybe a little off topic, but it kind of fits; when I saw this thread I immediately thought of something I'd seen/read about about a year or two ago. It was of some man that have donated sperm to a sperm bank, and the women that used their sperm to fertilize their eggs, sued the sperm-bank/fertility clinic to get the identity of the men so they would be sued to provide child support. I remember reading about the cases and I believe in one or two, the women won the cases and the men had to provide child support.  The cases struck me because I was always under the impression that sperm donors legally give up any parental rights, so they couldn't claim a child as theirs later down the road or be sued for child support later.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well, the case Andy seems to enjoy using is the one of the lesbian couple.  Keep in mind the couple found this person on Craigslist, he came over to give his sample and sign away his parental rights.  According to Kansas law the donation had to be to a physician who would then provide insemination.  The court has no actual way to determine if the man slept with the woman and then regretted getting her pregnant or if he showed up with turkey baster in hand.  So before this becomes sensationalized into man-hate, realize the man in this case completely went outside the law of donating his sperm to a physician in order to help this couple.  The couple avoided  a physician so they would not have to pay for fertility costs, this includes testing of the sperm and donor for genetic problems and disease.  Kansas state law does, very explicitly, state that a physician must perform the procedure.

A sperm donor can also become part of a child’s life even if anonymous.  Should the donor become known and take an interest in the child’s life, they may make a claim to parental rights.  Keep in mind that the shift in thought here is for the best interest of the child.  So far as the court is concerned, two parents and two incomes is better than one all things being equal. 

[AndyZ]

  This is maybe a little off topic, but it kind of fits; when I saw this thread I immediately thought of something I'd seen/read about about a year or two ago. It was of some man that have donated sperm to a sperm bank, and the women that used their sperm to fertilize their eggs, sued the sperm-bank/fertility clinic to get the identity of the men so they would be sued to provide child support. I remember reading about the cases and I believe in one or two, the women won the cases and the men had to provide child support.  The cases struck me because I was always under the impression that sperm donors legally give up any parental rights, so they couldn't claim a child as theirs later down the road or be sued for child support later.

If you know, how retroactive is it?  Can you sign something to that effect as soon as you find out you have a child somewhere and not have to worry about any sort of back payments or something like that?

Admittedly I don't know how it works.

Well, the case Andy seems to enjoy using is the one of the lesbian couple.  Keep in mind the couple found this person on Craigslist, he came over to give his sample and sign away his parental rights.  According to Kansas law the donation had to be to a physician who would then provide insemination.  The court has no actual way to determine if the man slept with the woman and then regretted getting her pregnant or if he showed up with turkey baster in hand.  So before this becomes sensationalized into man-hate, realize the man in this case completely went outside the law of donating his sperm to a physician in order to help this couple.  The couple avoided  a physician so they would not have to pay for fertility costs, this includes testing of the sperm and donor for genetic problems and disease.  Kansas state law does, very explicitly, state that a physician must perform the procedure.

A sperm donor can also become part of a child’s life even if anonymous.  Should the donor become known and take an interest in the child’s life, they may make a claim to parental rights.  Keep in mind that the shift in thought here is for the best interest of the child.  So far as the court is concerned, two parents and two incomes is better than one all things being equal. 

While we could blame the man because he didn't make certain that the women went to a doctor to get inseminated, I don't feel comfortable with the idea that we should make the man stick around and ensure that they take the sperm to a doctor so that he's off the hook.

We could also blame the lesbians for not going to a doctor, but I don't feel comfortable with that one either.  According to the article, a single attempt at artificial insemination can cost $3,000, and sometimes multiple attempts can be needed.  If they want to do it themselves, let them.

It makes a lot more sense to me that the two lesbians would be the legal parents than some guy who dropped off sperm and then left.

So, stupid law in my opinion.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well one could argue that a one-night stand does exactly that.  Man shows up, has sex and leaves behind his sperm inside a woman.  Once more the court is not able to verify the difference.  A physician performing a procedure has documentation. He violated the law and so did the lesbian couple.  In an attempt to circumvent the law to save money, they opened themselves up to this repercussion. 

[Zakharra]

If you know, how retroactive is it?  Can you sign something to that effect as soon as you find out you have a child somewhere and not have to worry about any sort of back payments or something like that?

Admittedly I don't know how it works.

As far as I know, when going through the clinics, the donors give up any parental rights (otherwise some men could be hit up for child support for dozens to possibly hundreds of children). It's to protect both sides (donor and mother).

From what I remember, at least one case was an insemination done through a clinic, it was done properly and legally. Yet the women sued, and successfully, that he should pay child support because he was the sperm donor.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

The two cases I could find regarding a woman suing a donor bank for identity were one in Massachusetts where the woman was denied her claim.  In this case the twin daughters born had a genetic problem and she wanted assistance in covering the costs.  The court ruled that she could not discover the donor’s identity, but the father may have to answer questions regarding genetic issues.  The other case I found involved the pair of women filing suit over being given the wrong sperm of an African-American male.  I do believe that case is still in litigation. 

Exact law regarding sperm donation does vary from state-to-state.  Anonymous sperm donation is the most protected form of donation, but each state does have restrictions and laws in this regard.  Cases that fall outside of the defined perimeters are at the whim of the court.

[AndyZ]

Well one could argue that a one-night stand does exactly that.  Man shows up, has sex and leaves behind his sperm inside a woman.  Once more the court is not able to verify the difference.  A physician performing a procedure has documentation. He violated the law and so did the lesbian couple.  In an attempt to circumvent the law to save money, they opened themselves up to this repercussion.

Why would the court need to verify the difference?

As far as I know, when going through the clinics, the donors give up any parental rights (otherwise some men could be hit up for child support for dozens to possibly hundreds of children). It's to protect both sides (donor and mother).

From what I remember, at least one case was an insemination done through a clinic, it was done properly and legally. Yet the women sued, and successfully, that he should pay child support because he was the sperm donor.

Thank you.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Because if a man can simply show up, deposit sperm and leave then there is no reason for any man to ever pay child support.  The court has to be able to determine whether the woman was using a sperm donor and as such the donor has all the legal rights and protections, or if this is some guy who had sex with them and is trying to get out of parental responsibility.

[AndyZ]

Let's flip this to check for gender bias.  Let's say that a woman, out of the kindness of her heart, accepts the sperm from a gay couple and carries a child to term for them.  They don't use a doctor, and similar situations happen as happened to the lesbian couple.  Should the woman be forced to pay child support?

[Oniya]

Like this case?

[AndyZ]

Slightly different, Oniya.  In this one, she actively wants to be in the lives of the children, whereas in the other, he didn't.  In either case, though, custody should be with the couple, not the donor/surrogate, at least as I see it.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well, for one flipping the situation does not check for gender bias.  When dealing with reproduction there is a great deal of difference in who does the work.  A woman that carries a baby to term does have the authority and ability to challenge for parenthood.  She is taking the risk, she is taking the inconvenience, and her participation in the child’s life is already displayed.  Keep in mind that one of the main determinations of custody is participation in the child’s life and an investment in their welfare.  A mother that carries a child has already shown both those qualifications in the eyes of the court.  So flipping the table does not highlight gender bias, but enter the argument into an entirely different realm of legal precedent and obligation.  Once more Andy you are forgetting the Court’s focus is not on punishing someone for having sex, but on providing for the child.

[AndyZ]

Wait, so even if everything is properly and contractually bound, and the gay couple give semen over to a woman as a surrogate, she can then decide to keep it and the gay couple has to fight in court to get their child?  That's really messed up.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

No, it's really not.

But at this point I am going to bow out.  Andy you are far more interested in crying victim than actually discussing anything about equality.  So just consider me out of these discussions.

[The Lovely Tsaritsa]

Should we allow someone to just surrender all rights to a child, never have to pay child support and things like that?

No.

My daughter, she's one year old this month. Her father never meets her, he doesn't want anything doing with her. If he got his wishes, he would give up all legal and financial responsibility, for her.

So if he gets what he wants, your saying all responsibilities for her have to being mine? Just because he feels like ignoring the child he helped create?

[Lustful Bride]

No.

My daughter, she's one year old this month. Her father never meets her, he doesn't want anything doing with her. If he got his wishes, he would give up all legal and financial responsibility, for her.

So if he gets what he wants, your saying all responsibilities for her have to being mine? Just because he feels like ignoring the child he helped create?

*applauds* (wish I had more words to say but this topic is one I know zip about)

[Beguile's Mistress]

Our cultural norms are changing every day and the legal system isn't keeping up with that.  If you are a single mother or about to become one go to your county government and find the people who can advise you of your rights and the responsibilities of the other parent in the relationship.  Get the information in writing and keep the child(ren) protected.  This also applies to men who are single parents or about to become such.

[amarxnthine]

I say yes. No one should be forced in to parenthood. There's more to being a father than sperm. Women get the easy out - they can abort or adopt out if they don't want it, it's their decision. But the father? He's virtually stuck with whatever she wants regardless of his opinions or wants. Either make the choice to raise it together or don't - either deal with the pregnancy, or deal with being a single parent. You had the option to prevent that in the first place.

Some dudes don't want to be with the mother but still want to see their kids, in which case they should be paying child support and overall being there for their kid. But if they don't even want that, they aren't a father, they're just a sperm donor. They shouldn't be obligated to care for something because someone forced them in to it.

(Apologize for gendered language here; it's easier to use he and she than the pregnant one and the sperm donor or something.)

[consortium11]

While I'm sure it's not your intention I don't think it's ever right to describe giving up a child for adoption, let alone abortion, as an "easy out".

Do I think there is something inherently unfair about the fact that a prospective father has no real legal or definitive say; if he wants a child and the woman doesn't then he cannot stop her, if he doesn't want a child and she does then he cannot stop her? Or in the fact that if he doesn't want a child and even if he took steps to prevent (or at least make it less likely) one will be conceived her can still be "on the hook" financially? Yes, I do.

But what's the alternative?

A woman who doesn't want a child being forced to carry one to term? A woman who does being forced to abort? A father who wants to disclaim responsibility being able to quite literally walk away without consequence while the woman either has to face abortion, giving a child up for adoption or the fact that her life will objectively get worse as she now has the extra financial and personal burden of looking after a child?

For me any unfairness a father may face... and I certainly do accept that it can seemingly be unfair... is dwarfed by the unfairness the mother would face.

[The Lovely Tsaritsa]

While I'm sure it's not your intention I don't think it's ever right to describe giving up a child for adoption, let alone abortion, as an "easy out".

The decision to keep my little girl, and not have abortion, or give her up in adoption, was most hard thing I ever needed making. It was anything, but "easy".

[amarxnthine]

You're right, I used the wrong terminology there. It's more they have the option available to them if they wanted to not be a parent, while men are considered useless if they don't want to be a parent. It's definitely not easy, and I was careless in my wording.

There is no legal situation in which a woman would be forced to carry to term or abort. Note: legal. You cannot legally force anyone in to either of those options, at least where I live. It's the mother's choice, and no one else's.

People should discuss opinions on reproducing before sex, not after. If you opinions on becoming parents are opposing, don't sleep with each other. Find someone who agrees, so that if accidents happen you will be on the same page. If you have sex with someone who doesn't want kids, get pregnant, and decide to keep the child, that's not the other parent's fault.

[Zakharra]

You're right, I used the wrong terminology there. It's more they have the option available to them if they wanted to not be a parent, while men are considered useless if they don't want to be a parent. It's definitely not easy, and I was careless in my wording.

There is no legal situation in which a woman would be forced to carry to term or abort. Note: legal. You cannot legally force anyone in to either of those options, at least where I live. It's the mother's choice, and no one else's.

People should discuss opinions on reproducing before sex, not after. If you opinions on becoming parents are opposing, don't sleep with each other. Find someone who agrees, so that if accidents happen you will be on the same page. If you have sex with someone who doesn't want kids, get pregnant, and decide to keep the child, that's not the other parent's fault.

The problem I see with the last part is it regulated sex only for those people who want to be parents. It requires everyone else to be celibate.

[Kythia]

The problem I see with the last part is it regulated sex only for those people who want to be parents. It requires everyone else to be celibate.

No, not at all.  I don't actually agree with it, but the way its worded its just "don't have sex with people who have differing views on becoming a parent to yourself"

[The Lovely Tsaritsa]

People should discuss opinions on reproducing before sex, not after. If you opinions on becoming parents are opposing, don't sleep with each other. Find someone who agrees, so that if accidents happen you will be on the same page. If you have sex with someone who doesn't want kids, get pregnant, and decide to keep the child, that's not the other parent's fault.

I wish always it's for being so simple!

When I'm first with my daughter's father, I tell him I'm not on the birth control. He tells me not for worrying, he's got the vasectomy, so we don't need it. I still don't know if he lies about that. He lies about many things, to me though. :P And maybe, I'm dumb for trusting him.

When I learn I'm pregnant, he tells me first for getting abortion, when I don't he says I must cheat on him, it's not his. I needed court DNA test, for proving he's her father.

He doesn't want being part of my daughters life, I'm ok, with that. But he does pay some child support. I needed going to court for that too though. If I could afford going with out financial help I would, but I can't.

But if some one creates a life, I don't think a parent can just walk away. Not unless someone else agrees for taking full responsibilities. Saying someone just gets walking away because they don't feel like dealing with responsibilities isn't fair to the child.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well, children are a possible result of having sex.  Birth control does not present itself as a perfect solution.  There is a great deal of human error that can play a role in the failure of birth control of many types.  People that choose to have sex need to understand that a child may be produced and has to be provided for by the parents.  This is not a promotion of celibacy, but simply a fact that children can be produced if engaging in sexual activity.  Short of incidents involving divine intervention, children do not result from not having sex.  If someone is going to have sex they need to understand those risks and come to terms with the fact that these situations can and do occur.

  Certainly a woman does have the ability to seek an abortion.  A woman can surrender a child for adoption, but a father that wants to keep the child can block that and claim the child so those rights are the same.  Men do seek child support payments and are awarded them quite regularly.  Let us keep in mind as well that typical child support payments are in the range of 500 a month and most people receiving them gain about half of what is owed to them.  So this is not exactly a life destroying thing.  Someone that owes child support can also file hardship and financial difficulty documentation to have the payments suspended. 

Please keep in mind that child support is not a punishment for having sex, but is meant to be in the best interests of the child and society as a whole.  Children do better with more resources available to them.  This is a means of the court forcing people to provide for the children they produce so that those children may have a better chance of success later in life.

Also, I do apologize for stepping away and then back.  The discussion seems to be a little more focused and on point now so I felt it safe to return.  If that is a problem for anyone, I will step away once more.

[Aethereal]

As for adoption however, I do agree that if one parent wants to raise the child, the other one shouldn't be allowed to put the child up for adoption (barring something like child services deciding that the other parent isn't fit to raise a child).

This. If there is one parent who wants to raise the child, giving them up for adoption should be impossible (and be punishable as harshly as kidnapping would be, should the parent who is doing the giving up try it without the consent of the other parent and lie about the other parent's status).

    Abortion is for the carrying female only - sadly, we cannot grow fetuses out of body, so bodily autonomy wins.

    Parental rights' surrender is a complex topic - I may come back to it once I'm more awake and have more time to reply coherently -, but I believe that yes, on certain conditions it should be possible.

[Caela]

Wait, so even if everything is properly and contractually bound, and the gay couple give semen over to a woman as a surrogate, she can then decide to keep it and the gay couple has to fight in court to get their child?  That's really messed up.

Didn't read the whole conversation but this caught my attention.

The truth is that very few states of many laws on the books concerning surrogacy so yes, the surrogate, in a lot of places, can say she carried the child and she wants to keep it and she will be viewed as the mother because she carried the child. There are a few exceptions (one of the couples I work with went to Chicago for their surrogate because it had better laws protecting the parents seeking the services of a surrogate) but in a lot of areas it's really undefined.

[Caela]

As for the option of parental surrendering of right. If the parent that wants to keep the child can afford to support them, and agrees to let the non-custodial parent sign off, then the parent that doesn't want to be involved she be allowed to sign off their rights. The caveat to that is, however, that with their rights goes any responsibility that the custodial parent might have had to try and allow them to be involved. If you don't want your responsibilities you have no rights either.

I am a single mother who can afford to raise her child on her own (thankfully) with just a bit of childcare help from my folks who live very nearby. The sperm donor didn't want to be a parent and I didn't want to have someone in my child's life who didn't actively WANT to be there but in my state he would have rights if I so much as acknowledged him on her birth certificate. I agreed to leave him out of our lives on the condition that he STAY GONE. If he tries to show up in 5-10 years all the sudden wanting to play "Daddy" I will make him pay out the rear for the court fees and testing to prove he's the father (there isn't a father listed on her birth certificate) and nail him for the back child support owed to HER for the years he chose not to be a part of her life. This isn't an option open to everyone, not everyone is in a situation to have a job that pays them well enough to support their child on their own but, as I watch parents battle over children on this issue, I am beyond grateful that I can just let him go without a second thought.

[Mikem]

Why can't men just man up and be fathers? If they were stupid enough to impregnate their partner then they walked themselves into the responsibility of parenthood. (In a perfect world...) A man, (or woman) shouldn't just be able to walk away from such an important thing. God if I accidentally impregnated my ex in the past I'd be scared shitless, but I wouldn't walk away from it. I'd get my ass in gear and make us a family. But then again the world is more full of douches than Mikems.

But about rights I do think the woman should hold the majority of it. She does in fact have to carry the child to term and then give birth to it. The man should have a say in the matter but the woman's word should carry more weight, considering all she has to go through. But then again I have strong feelings about Abortion being an option.

[Caela]

It's not just men. Women leave too. It would be nice if everyone that was a part of a pregnancy just grew the hell up and dealt with it, but that's not always a valid option and seriously, some people would make SHIT parents and sometimes the best thing they can do for a kid is to acknowledge that and not be there. I didn't sleep with my daughter's SD (sperm donor) with an eye to starting a family. I was sleeping with him because it was fun, not because I thought he'd be a good dad. He knows he wouldn't, I know he wouldn't, he stays out of my child's life instead of screwing her up by being a part of it.

[Aethereal]

If they were stupid enough to impregnate their partner then they walked themselves into the responsibility of parenthood.

Sperm stealing occasionally occurs. Females lying that they are on birth control or poking holes in condoms (horrifyingly, I've seen women suggesting other women to do that). Also female rapists getting their victims to pay child support by means of court. Just to point this out that it isn't even them consenting to as much as sex in the first place, and lying occurs.

[DesiArcy]

I think there's a false equivalency when it's argued that giving men the right to "surrender parental rights" is on par with upholding women's right to terminate a pregnancy. When you have a fetus, the mother bears sole responsibility for  that child because it's inside her body and she is the sole provider of care and nourishment for that baby. When you have a baby that has actually been born, both parents are equally responsible for that child and neither has the legal right to withhold support. That's not actually unequal.

A male "right to abandon" is not equivalent to a female "right to abort", because one case involves a baby that exists and has needs and the other case does not. If you want to propose a "right to abandon", it has to apply equally to both parents; you have to frame it that BOTH parents have the same right to abandon the child and leave it in the hands of the state. Except then you'd have to pony up funds for the state to care for abandoned babies on a much larger scale than it already does, and that sort of scaling up a system that is ALREADY horribly broken is the worst idea ever.

I wish always it's for being so simple!

When I'm first with my daughter's father, I tell him I'm not on the birth control. He tells me not for worrying, he's got the vasectomy, so we don't need it. I still don't know if he lies about that. He lies about many things, to me though. :P And maybe, I'm dumb for trusting him.

Men have a persistent belief that vasectomies are a perfect guarantee of no pregnancy. This is false; vasectomies have a documented long-term failure rate of about one in two thousand, and a much higher short-term failure rate due to lack of patient compliance with follow-up visits. (The short term failure is because the vasectomy ties off further sperm production but doesn't flush the sperm that has ALREADY passed down the vas deferens; the long term failure is because the vas deferens can potentially heal and reopen).

[Caela]

A man having the right to surrender his rights may not be equivalent to a woman's right to abort, but it is equivalent with her own right to abandon her child via either "Safe Haven" laws (which I am in favor of!) or by putting the baby up for adoption. To say one gender should be allowed entirely off the hook and the other can't be is just ridiculous.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Men have the right to leave their child at a "Safe Haven" just as a woman does.

[Caela]

Men have the right to leave their child at a "Safe Haven" just as a woman does.

That's debatable. If the woman doesn't want to give up the child and he tried that he's likely to get nailed with a lawsuit for child abandonment. Whereas in a lot of places, the mother can simply give up the child with NO input from the father whatsoever.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Keep in mind that the Courts are looking at who has the greatest investment in the child’s welfare.  A mother, by virtue of carrying the child to term, has already shown a great investment in the child’s care.  Now if the mother gives the child up for adoption and the father, up to that point, has shown an investment in the child’s future then he can claim the child.  A man showing up out of the blue with no actual ties to the child would have a hard time showing good intention, but even then the court may still grant custody.  There are accounts where grandparents, aunts and uncles or cousins have adopted a child from the mother or father.

[Caela]

I'm not talking about a father getting custody, but about him giving up his rights. The ability to do so is most definitely NOT equal. In general, a woman has every right to voluntarily give up her rights to a child, but a man has almost none unless the woman chooses to let him off the hook.

[DesiArcy]

A man having the right to surrender his rights may not be equivalent to a woman's right to abort, but it is equivalent with her own right to abandon her child via either "Safe Haven" laws (which I am in favor of!) or by putting the baby up for adoption. To say one gender should be allowed entirely off the hook and the other can't be is just ridiculous.

"Safe Haven" laws do not privilege women as you claim because they apply equally to both parents; indeed, the single biggest criticism of such laws is that they theoretically enable either parent to unilaterally and anonymously surrender a child without the other parent's knowledge. You're also wrong about adoption laws, which specifically require the written consent of both parents; that's the entire reason that Safe Haven laws were seen as a potential loophole.

[Caela]

"Safe Haven" laws do not privilege women as you claim because they apply equally to both parents; indeed, the single biggest criticism of such laws is that they theoretically enable either parent to unilaterally and anonymously surrender a child without the other parent's knowledge. You're also wrong about adoption laws, which specifically require the written consent of both parents; that's the entire reason that Safe Haven laws were seen as a potential loophole.

Laws vary from place to place to place. Here a woman can give her child up for adoption regardless of what the father may want unless the parents were married at some point. Marriage makes a lot of laws different. An unmarried woman, doesn't need the father's consent at all here though they are supposed to be able to show that they attempted to let him know of the adoption, usually via a short notice in a newspaper...which in general means a lot of guys never see them because most people these days (especially as the age of the possible parents gets younger) don't actually read the paper.

A father can try to challenge the adoption...but that assumes the mother told him about the child in the first place, much less the adoption.

And, again, this is all about a men retaining rights when I was speaking to his right to, voluntarily terminate them.

[Aethereal]

Laws vary from place to place to place.

This. A thousand times this. Let's never forget this.

      The loophole of marriage being a prerequisite for being recognized as father is pretty damn bad one. Marriage shouldn't matter at all. And how do you adequately measure contribution, anyway? What if the father wanted to contribute, but was repeatedly told to fuck off and never show his face again? Or the mother was only willing to accept money, which might not even have reached the child? (Let's be honest: monetary payments do not guarantee that the child ever gets anything from it, anyway - there was a nasty story of a mother throwing out the father, then demanding child support, getting it, and drinking it all away and nearly letting her child die not too long ago, for instance...) Or the mother never even informed him of the fact that she carried a pregnancy he did not know existed to term despite him very much wanting a child of his own and being well capable of caring for one? And again, there are cases where man will be struck with child support payments "out of blue" - it may not be terribly common, but it happens. Whether is it taking over the rights or surrendering them, in any case it is a bloody mess.
      Unless you have those people under constant surveillance, it often boils down to word against word, and both males and females are equally likely to lie or speak truth respectively.

[DesiArcy]

We already allow those with uteri to abort fetuses, and every state in America has a "safe haven" law for giving a baby up to the state with no questions asked.  Nebraska has apparently set up the safe haven law for as late as 19 years old.

Point of Correction: That was an unintended loophole in the Nebraska safe haven law; because lawmakers couldn't agree on a specific age limit, they wrote the law to simply apply to "children" and hoped common sense would prevail. This was quickly amended when the media highlighted numerous cases of parents abusing the "safe haven" provisions to abandon older children and teenagers (in most cases those with psychological issues), but a total of 35 older children were abandoned via the loophole during the three month gap (September 1 through November 21) when the original wording was in effect.

[The Lovely Tsaritsa]

Men have a persistent belief that vasectomies are a perfect guarantee of no pregnancy. This is false; vasectomies have a documented long-term failure rate of about one in two thousand, and a much higher short-term failure rate due to lack of patient compliance with follow-up visits. (The short term failure is because the vasectomy ties off further sperm production but doesn't flush the sperm that has ALREADY passed down the vas deferens; the long term failure is because the vas deferens can potentially heal and reopen).

That may be what happens, with me. If it is, it's my faults for thinking I can't get pregnant, either. I didn't know chances of failure were high, like that.

But I think my baby's father was lying anyway. I found out after I got pregnant that almost everything he told me was lies. He was the piece of work. ::) I think he just didn't want wearing a condom.

I'm glad he didn't want being in my daughters life. The one thing he's honest for being is that he wouldn't be the good father, for her. It's very hard, but I think she's better with me as single mom, even though I know I could be better.