Does a man have a right to know he fathered a child?

[RB TexLa]

Poll question: Does a man have a right to know he fathered a child?

This is not about not having or having a say in pregnancy. If a child is born does the biological father have a right to be informed that a child he biologically fathered was born?

I vote no, he has no such right.

[flvegan]

1. Prediction: this goes poorly.

[Gold Metal Flake]

6. Have some faith.

And popcorn.

[RB TexLa]

8. maybe, just wanted to see some opinions on it.

[Richardo]

133. Depends on your point of view

...Are you RGBolen or not?

[stevedeshazer]

2. Oh, boy.

:popcorn:

[Fox Mulder]

3. I say yes, he does.

Oh, and :popcorn:

[d_b]

7. woo

[robinlynne]

4. I recommend you rent a movie called "after the wedding". Fantastic movie,

then ask this question again.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

149. Excellent film and an excellent point!

[Hamlette]

242. it was an excellent movie but it doesn't change my opinion

spoiler alert (for a brilliant movie btw)

all were better off him not knowing...until he needed to know...as the movie unfolds.

[Mass]

5. Does the child has the right to know he has a father and to know him?\nt

[WiltedFlowerChild]

10. I've gave birth to three kids

And I told him every time. 31 years and going strong.

[SoCalDem]

58. Same here..and all three looked exactly like him.. whodathunkit? 35 years here n/t

[Wizard777]

104. Absolutely! It's devistating for a person to not even have a mental image of a parent.

I have a friend that has not so much as seen a picture of his father. That has eaten away at him his whole life. We've talked about it. One thing really stuck with me. He said, when I say father to you. You get mental image of your father. But if you say father to me. I get nothing. It's just darkness. He doesn't feel like a whole person without that mental image of his father. He said he feels like a three piece jigsaw puzzle with one piece missing. a picture of his father. He says not knowing him and having him around doesn't bother him any more. Like it did when he was a kid. But not knowing what he looks like is what bothers him most of all. He says that destroys him. The only thing that will fix that is seeing a picture of his father. He knows that will never happen.

[MillieJo]

169. I grew up with friends like that....

One friend invented a Dad and the reason he wasn't there. She was always terribly insecure.

[WernhamHogg]

179. It must be a "grass is greener" kinda thing...

I have kinda the opposite problem of your friend.
I know exactly who my father is and he hasn't wanted anything to do with
me since I was about 5 years old (I'm turning 30 next month). If I had never known him or anything about him, it would have been a much easier thing for me to deal with rather than the 25 years of repeated rejection he has imposed on me. Knowing him and knowing that if he had
ANY desire to have a relationship, if he made even the slightest effort to have some sort of relationship with me it would be possible, is something I still struggle with. I was 25 before I stopped blaming myself for his behavior.

[TexasObserver]

191. Yours is a poignant story that demonstrates how important it is.

Boys and girls who grow up without a father who cares about them and is a part of their life face an uphill battle emotionally. "Why am I not important enough to my father for him to be a part of my life?" That is the question so many of them live with.

That's why any father who wants to be a father to his kids should be given the chance and duty to do so. I'm in favor of fathers being responsible, and mothers, too. Neither one gets a free pass. If they're unfit, take the kids and let someone raise them who will give them love and a feeling of safety.

[lynettebro440]

221. I wished I had never met mine

he's a pedophile, creep. I walked away close to 30 years ago, good riddens. I would rather have no image then his image.

[TexasObserver]

230. that's terrible

Was this the man your mother chose to have children with?

Do you blame her for not protecting you from a man she surely knew was harming you?

Did she help you prosecute this monster?

I'm sorry for your experience. The duty to protect you lies with every adult who was around you, and they all surely failed.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

120. No, sperm donors should be allowed to remain anonyous.

Otherwise, many won't give sperm.

[raccoon]

123. I agree. Amazing. nt

[Donald Ian Rankin]

255. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

Whether you take that as referring to yourself or to me is your call... :-)

[Toucano]

9. I'm inclined to say the man does have a right to know.

But I am open to persuasive discussion.


Why to you think he does not have a right to know?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

75. If he is a danger to the mother or child.

Generally speaking, I'd say yes, but I can't say how that could be enforced without encroaching on the rights of the mother or child.

[TexasObserver]

88. the mother is addicted to meth, the father isn't

Who do you give custody of the child, the mother or the father?

The standard is the same for both parents. Who is better capable of being the child's primary caregiver, or making the medical and educational decisions for the child? Should they share the duties, or should one parent have exclusive rights?

[mrreowwr_kittty]

96. Of course the moral standards are the same.

But legally, it's a little stickier, because a woman knows that she's borne a child (barring something really crazy happening) while a man can be ignorant of the fact that he has fathered a child.

When it comes to custody, obviously a woman who is addicted to meth is clearly a riskier parent than a father who is not. But this is not what the OP is talking about. As others have pointed out on this thread, how do you enforce this? By forcing women to take out ads in the paper? By making them list every man they've had sex with around the time of conception and extracting DNA from them? By requiring rape victims who are impregnated to interact with their attackers on a regular basis?

[TexasObserver]

106. Ah-ha!!

I have not discussed any concept of enforcement, only whether there should be a duty.

In most cases, it will take care of itself, because if the mother gets any kind of benefits, she's going to have to identify the father, and upon doing so, the state will sue him for support. The man identified will be DNA tested, and if he's the father, he'll be ordered to pay support.

Do I favor a law making women hunt down find men they may not be able to remember? No.

Do I favor a law making women identify the father of the child, if they know or think they may know? Yes.

Enforcement? Benefits. Proper Birth Certificate.

As a society, we need to know the child's bio father. What if mom dies tomorrow? What if mom dies, grandmom takes the child, and the child needs bone marrow? What if the father has a genetic problem we should be looking for in the child? There are compelling reasons for fathers to be identified and few really good ones for them not to be identified.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

109. So this isn't about discussing the best interest of children, it's about gotcha games for you.

As for your scenario of children needing bone marrow or whatever, your argument fails. I'm an adoptee. I was born in 1968, and my adoption was a completely closed arrangement, which is still available today to those who choose it. I have no knowledge of my biological mother or father, and no legal standing to demand that the information be provided to me, for health reasons or otherwise. Even if I could compel my bio parents to reveal themselves, where is it written that they have to provide me with the assistance I need? Nowhere.

[TexasObserver]

116. Now you're just being silly.

I don't play gotcha games. I don't play games at all. I give my responses based upon law and logic.

As for identifying the bio parents of adopted persons, if you don't want to know, that's your business. If you do want to know, there are people who can help you find out. Many adoptees do want to know, and contrary to your misapprehension, they can find out who their bio parents are.

[Name removed]

174. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cleita]

11. I said yes, but

back in the fifties and early sixties, I knew about girls who got pregnant but the father did everything they could to make her look like a slut and like she slept with everyone. Some girls I knew kept it a secret and either got an abortion or went to an unwed mothers' home to give the baby up for adoption. In those cases the birth father didn't seem to care even if he knew. In some cases the parents were forced to marry. This was not a good situation either. I do think in our more enlightened times a father has a right to know that he is a father. I believe the child needs to know their genetics too.

[MadMaddie]

12. Sure..the man should be given the opportunity to decide if he

wants to be an active parent in that child's life. If he chooses not too the woman should get it in writing and be done with him. He loses the opportunity to participate in the childs life...

This happened to my sister. My nephew is 9 years old now...he met his father last year only because the rat bastard wanted a paternity test....Yea my nephew is his....you only had to look at the two of them and know...
anyways...my sister told my nephew that it would always be his choice if he wanted to see or be with his real father and.....(I must say my nephew who is very smart) told his mom....that it was obvious his dad wasn't interested in him....and that he (my nephew)wasn't interested in his dad....that was the end of the conversation.

There ya go....

[TomInTib]

13. I am one of those fathers.

And the mother never owned up to it.

Her husband was Italian, and that child has blond hair and blue eyes and looks just like me.

He is 34 years old and looks just like me.

He knows it.

I know it.

But she has never spoken a word of it.

[Quantess]

22. Wow. Just curious...

did anyone use the well, "ol' blue eyes" Frank Sinatra is Italian explanation?

[Mojambo]

14. In the vast majority of cases, yes.

I don't believe the right is absolute.

[Grey]

15. I say it all depends.....

Different circumstances call for different decisions, I am all for a Woman's right to choose.

[EFerrari]

16. I don't know. Is he a pain in the @ss?

:)

[rucky]

21. That is the correct answer!

Now if we can figure out a way to measure pain-in-the-assedness, we can come up with a legal definition.

[EFerrari]

27. LOL!

:hi:

[Midlodemocrat]

40. Or will he drink with said child?

A question for the ages.

[Leeny]

233. Right!

And are you doing him - and yourself! - a HUGE favor by keeping to yourself?

[frogmarch]

17. No. n/t

[undeterred]

18. A woman has a right to privacy

and that includes the information whether or not she is pregnant, and by whom.

Under the best of circumstances, that information will be shared. But the man does not have a "right" to know he has impregnated a woman.

[hughee99]

25. I was unclear on the question after reading this response...

Is the question about a father who has impregnated a woman, or a father of a child once born? A woman's right to privacy certainly relates to her and her own body, and I wouldn't argue that a woman has any responsibility to tell anyone that she's pregnant. Once the child is born, however, isn't it a different question?

[undeterred]

43. You're right, that is the question.

A man does have a right to know he has fathered a child who has been born.

[bonito]

19. Not specific enough to vote more info needed.n/t

[RB TexLa]

20. There is no specific information.

[Matariki]

23. Can you define the word 'right'?

Moral, legal, cosmically inherent?

[RB TexLa]

24. Legal

[Matariki]

29. Well then, it probably depends on the state.

Or do you mean what *should* be a legal right?

[uppityperson]

121. Too bad I didn't read this reply, voted yes for moral right, not legal.

[realisticphish]

26. of course

just as a biological father (imo) has the responsibility to help with the kid, he also has the right to know if he has a child. That kid is genetically half of himself, and AOTBE, he has a right to know. Furthermore, I can't see a reason to NOT tell him, unless for some reason harm would come to mother or child because of it.

In general, he absolutely has the right.


However, I put in AOTBE for a reason. If, for example, the mother was cheating on her husband/significant other and she got pregnant thereby, I can see it being a lot more complicated. Would it really be better for the marriage to be possibly destroyed, but the father informed, or would staying quiet be better? Same thing if the gender roles were reversed, but realistically it's harder for a woman to hide an out of wedlock pregnancy than a man, and thus is more complicated.

[Heddi]

28. I can't vote yes or no because I think it depends

I think it depends on many situations and stipulations

1) let's say he has the right---what if the woman doesn't know how to find him? It was a one-night stand or one month stand. How much effort would the woman have to go through to notify him? When I was young and foolish I had sex with people whose names I didn't know when I got in the sack with them, certainly didn't know their name or whereabout 9 months later. I was always careful to use multiple forms of protection (the pill and condoms, etc), but accidents happen. If I were to have gotten pregnant by one of these folks, I would have no way of tracking them down. Chances are, they didn't know my name either---and that was/is fine with me.

Would i have to put an ad in the paper asking everyone that had sex with me between January 15 and February 20th to come forward for paternity testing?

If I could not find the father, would I suffer some penalty?

2) What if it's not in the best interest of the child? A friend of mine dated for a while a sociopath. He was manipulative and emotionally/financially abusive. They broke up and she found out a while afterwards that she was pregnant. No question that it was his, but she had NO interest in having him a part of the child's life. He was a SOCIOPATH and I say this as someone who knew him, and saw him in action. Well, he found out and went to court to get paternity testing. Found out he was the father and this is what he did---just what she KNEW he would do. He had absolutely NO interest in seeing the child (which was fine by her). However, he used the child as a way to continue to control her. He refused to give up parental rights, even though he didn't pay child support, support the child in any way, didn't see the child. Stated outright that he had no INTEREST in the child.

So because of his asshole-ness, he refused to allow her to take the child more than 50 miles away from where he lived, which means she could not move to another state to get a better job and live a better life with her boyfriend. SHe had to consult him every time she wanted to get a haircut for the kid. It was hell. It is hell for her. THe kid is now 13 years old, has never seen his father in a meaningful way, and yet is still being held hostage by a parent who has no interest in him other than a way to control his long-ago ex-girlfriend.

---
In a perfect world, woman would only become impregnated when they wanted to by people they wanted to become impregnated by. Every woman who got pregnant would get pregnant at the perfect time, in the perfect situation. Every father/potential father would be an upstanding member of society who would care for, nurture, and enrich their child's life. Every child would be wanted, loved, and cared for in a compassionate and true way.

But that's not the case in every situation.

And because it's not the case, it's not a yes/no answer. It is dependent upon many situations that can never be enumerated. I think that choice has to be left to the woman who is pregnant/gave birth as to what is in the best interest of her child.

[Mojorabbit]

49. Perfect answer. nt

[Nevernose]

53. I take issue with your second point, Heddi

It's not up to the mother to decide what's in the best interests of her child. I realize that sounds harsh, but what I mean is that it's up to the parents, both of them, to decide. If they can't, then someone supposedly neutral -- the judicial system -- has to make that determination. In the case you mentioned, the father wasn't dangerous, just an asshole. There's no law against being an asshole. If there's a legitimate threat of violence, then it would be different. But, in the circumstance you described, your friend bears the same amount of responsibility for her child's poor situation as the child's father. She chose to perform an activity that would lead to baby-making.

I say this because my biggest regret is that I chose my kid's mother poorly. Change the gender of the pronouns, and your friend's story could be mine. The only difference is that my kid sees her mother two days a week, and begs both of us not to go. Her mom's even, on occasion, physically abusive. I'm held hostage in much the same way, geographically, financially, religiously, even the haircuts. The only reason her mother sees her at all is to exercise control. She, also, has stated outright that she has no interest in our child, yet if the courts hadn't intervened I would never see the child. It's a need for control; the power seeking behavior is practically textbook.

But she also has the right to see her kid, and I've got no one else to blame but me (and obviously her mother).

It also can't be left up to the mother as to what's in the best interests of the child because mothers don't always know or care what's in the best interest of their child. Sad but true, and my family is an example of that.

Clearly I disagree with your specific example and your statement that "the choice has to be left to the woman." However, I still agree with your overall point, that "it's not a yes/no answer. It is dependent upon many situations that can never be enumerated." What about the product of rape, molestation, and/or incest? What about a legitimate threat of violence against the mother? What about fathers who are flight risks? What about fathers who live in or have strong ties to countries with few rights for mothers (e.g. Syria or Iran)? What about fathers with a serious mental illness (not just being a total POS) and for whom fatherhood might be an unbearable burden? What about fathers who are incarcerated? So there are exceptions, but "makes a lousy father" isn't one of them.

[TexasObserver]

55. You make a number of good points.

As you note, we have a system where the parents have the ability to work things out between them regarding the child, but we impose on both parents certain legal duties whether they want it or not. If they cannot work it out, then we have a legal system that decides. That system is widely supported by child advocates, who know that it is wrong for one parent to deprive the child of the ability to see the other parent, unless it is judicially determined that such contact should not be allowed.

It has to be this way, because we cannot have each mother deciding on her own whether the father knows of the child, or whether the child knows of the father.

The guy that a woman might think of as a terrible guy might be a great father. As a society, we are not going to allow her to have sole decision making for the child, because the child is not her possession. The child has rights, and the most elementary of those is knowing who their father is.

[Heddi]

62. I think emotional abuse and manipulation is "abusive"

and leaves different scars than physical abuse or sexual abuse does, but it does leave scars nonetheless.

I don't know if people know TRULY what a Sociopathic Personality is like. What Borderline Personality Disorder is like, and what it is like to live with someone whose only joy in life is through the suffering of others. Killing family pets, sabotaging every relationship someone has, turning every situation on its head, manipulating everything---that was this guy, but 1000x's worse.

She did take responsibility for her actions by removing herself from that situation. It was down the road, a month or so after she left him, that she found out she was pregnant. I guarantee you she would have been held accountable for CHILD ABUSE if she allowed the child to be brought up in a situation that her ex was in. HE. WAS. A. BASTARD. Still is.

He has been given the chance to have a relationship with his son. He was given that chance when he petitioned for paternity. And he took that chance and flushed it down the commode. The ONLY time he has ever seen his child is when the three of them (her, child, him) appear for the every other month court hearing that HE brings against her. She got his hair cut without permission. She bought him pencils without his permission. She let him stay at a friend's house overnight without his permission. THAT is when he sees the child. He does not talk to him on the phone. He does not hold up his end of the co-custody and visitation applied by the court.

He takes her to court for not allowing him to see his child, not because he wants to see the kid---he refuses EVERY. SINGLE. TIME. IT. IS. OFFERED. But he knows that if he says "Oh, she won't let me see my kid" then he can take her to court, tie up more of her time and money and still control her life 13 years later.

He works "under the table" but he tells the courts he's Unemployed. Can't garnish wages that aren't declared.

He is worse than someone who would make a lousy father. He has no INTEREST in being a father other than the leverage it gives him with his ex girlfriend. The last time he was in court HE DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THE KIDS FUCKING NAME, okay?

Again, like any situation, it is very hard to convey the completely evil nature of this individual. He has been diagnosed BPD and Sociopathic. That is a diagnosis he got when he was in the military, and why he was dishonorably discharged. This isn't me trying to paint someone in a bad light. THis is a real mean fucking dude, and my friend did the absolute RIGHT THING by removing herself and by proxy, her child from the situation.

I should also add that she wasn't necessarily NOT TELLING him that he had a child--he had found out about her pregnancy through a mutual friend about 3 weeks after she had found out herself. Chances are she wouldn't have told him, but she was never given the chance because the day after he found out, he petitioned the court for paternity testing. Couldn't be done until the child was born (at that time) and the day the kid was born they took a blood sample and sent it in for DNA testing. Three weeks later he got the results that he was a happy papa of a beautiful baby boy, and has made that child's life fucking MISERABLE ever since. I tell you that my friend isn't the one who got the shit end of the stick in this situation---the KID is the one being held hostage. He fears his father, and hates that he can't even leave the state to live a better life with his mother because this asshole won't let him.

---
I still think, though, that it is a case-by-case basis, and were I not personally involved in my friend's case, I'd most likely react like most people...oh, there has to be more to the story, what about his side, what about her faults. But knowing what I know, I stand by my assertion that IN THIS CASE, IN THIS ONE SITUATION, he had no "right" to know about his child. Honestly, she was going to get an abortion but couldn't because of the pending paternity test. He said he'd have her arrested for murder, which most likely couldn't have happened, but she was scared of him, and didn't know WHAT he would do to her if she aborted.

[TexasObserver]

67. There are two sides to every story. That's why we let a court decide.

That's why we don't let the mother decide by herself. That would not be good for the child. There are bad mothers just as there are bad fathers.

[Heddi]

76. Of course there are bad parents

and courts aren't necessarily fair depending on where you live, or what kind of judge you get. I have friends male and female that have been screwed over by the family courts---males because they are seen as automatically being "less" capable of raising a child than the mother solely because of gender, and females because they are seen as being "more" capable of raising a child because of their gender, even when both sides are BEGGING the court to let the father have sole custody. Not every woman WANTS to be a mother, or has what it takes to be a mother.

No one has answered, though, what lengths the woman must go through to notify the father. What if she doesn't KNOW who the father is...not just as in "i fucked 8 people last month, so I don't know" but "i don't even know the name of the person I fucked so how in the hell can I notify them"?

What penalty will the mother suffer if she doesn't notify them. What if she THINKS she knows who the father is but finds out years later that someone else was the father instead. Is there a cut-off point for notification?

How would the woman go about finding someone whose name or address she doesn't know? Put an add in the paper seeking anyone who slept with Mary Jones between Aug 3 and Sept 15 to come forward for paternity testing? What if no one comes forward?

What penalty will she suffer if she refuses, or cannot find the father?

To give someone "rights" means that there are penalties for denying people "rights" as well. If a father has a "right" to know of a biological child, then there is a penalty for his NOT being notified as well. I will not say Agree or Disagree to giving this all-encompassing and no other details "right to know about a child" without knowing what the penalty would be as well.

[TexasObserver]

105. If she gets any kind of benefits, she will have to identify the father.

And he will likely be sued for support by some government attorney charged with doing so. He will have a right to be DNA tested, and if he is the father, he will be ordered to pay support of the child.

This is the way government forces fathers to be legally obligated for children they might otherwise deny.

[Nevernose]

86. Well hell, maybe you're right

We'll chalk that up to the "insanity" exemption.

Again, the similarities between your friend's life and my own are remarkable. I'm not exaggerating. During a custody hearing, my child's mother was ordered held for a three day psych evaluation because she wouldn't stop telling the judge what she would allow him to do.

• Push/pull hell of emotional abuse?
  
• Total inability to tell right from wrong?
  
• Warped perception of reality?
  
• Doesn't want anything to do with the child?
  
• Can't stick to the custody arrangement?
  
• Takes the kid purely for spite?
  
• Abusive to the kid in all possible ways?
  
• Not allowed to leave the county to visit sick grandparents?
  
• Abortion (or the lack thereof) in some way used as a weapon during the pregnancy?
  
• Unapproved haircuts?
  
• Failing to answer the phone a capital offense?
  
• Convicted of domestic violence?
  
• Severe damage to home and/or property?
  
• Interferes with school?
  
• Bizarre allegations made?
  
• CPS confirms reports of neglect and abuse?
  
• SWAT team called because she threatened us all with a gun?
  
• Such an accomplished liar that she could actually hold someone hostage at gunpoint, get caught doing it by the SWAT team, and lie her way out of it?

Check, check, check, and check. I'm not even making up the SWAT team part. Believe me, I know where your friend is coming from, and with the picture you paint I have a lot more sympathy for her. If I'd met your friend 13 years and 9 months ago, I would have told her that her child's father had a right to know. Then I would have given her gas money so she could get to Canada.

So what have we learned today?
1. I'm grateful that, with the help of money and lawyers, I've at least been able to go on vacation with my kid.
2. Don't have sex with someone unless you're willing to have a child with them.
3. There is such a thing as moral relativity.

Have a great evening, Heddi!

[Heddi]

89. I agree with every one of your points

even though I don't have a child and don't plan on having one in the near future (I think my bronzed uterus would make a fabulous book-end, but I'm hesitant about going that far at 32 years of age....too much extra space for my stomach to grow into :) )

I have friends who have 'baby daddy' and hate hate hate these low-lives that THEY CHOOSE TO FUCK UNPROTECTED, and then they have a baby, and voila! a baby daddy. and they're surprised that he doesn't pay child support, even though he was a high school drop out with the equivalent of a 4th grade education, mildly illiterate, and never held down a job for more than a week at a time. And you think that a baby is going to make him more responsible? hoookay.

My cousin is like this....can not STAND her baby daddy. I mean "ex boyfriend". But she liked him well enough to fuck him for 2 years on and off. And she didn't mind that he didn't have a job and sold reefer when she was getting it for free. And she didn't care that he didn't have a job then. And she didn't care that he was a louse then. But now she's got this baby and suddenly you'd have thought he was prince fucking charming 2 years ago and JUST AMAZINGLY BECAME A LOWLIFE THUG since the day the baby was born. Every time she bitches about him (which is every time I talk to her) I tell her "Honey, YOU chose him. YOU fucked him. YOU didn't take birth control. And now you're mad that he's the father of your child?"

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.


I do agree with you, and it sounds like your ex was my friends' ex's twin sister (I totally misused my apostrophes there, I know!). And here's the rub--Personally, I would never have sex with anyone that I wasn't prepared to be the father of my child. Easy to say that as a married 32 year old, and I sort of stuck by it when I was younger (hence the pill and the rubber), but if I had gotten pregnant in my wilder days, I personally would have told whoever the father was about their child (given that I knew their name and how to contact them).

I didn't encourage my friend to not tell the father about her pregnancy---and I didn't encourage her to, either. That was her decision. Would i have made that decision myself? Probably not. I don't know. I do know I wouldn't have had sex with THAT jerk under any circumstances, ever, ever ever. But she did, and now she and her child are living with the consequence of the actions of her and her ex.

I suppose that I believe that the people who would not tell the father now wouldn't tell them even if there was a law stating they had to. Just like the war on drugs doesn't stop someone who wants to hit a bong, or do crank.

The people who DO tell the fathers of the pregnancy/birth (which i would believe are the far great majority of women in this country) would continue to tell regardless of the law. Just like my father in law wouldn't smoke pot even if it were made legal.

Like many things in life, I support someone's right to do or not do something regardless of whether I think it's the best choice, or the choice I would make in that situation. I figger if a woman ain't gonna tell her baby daddy about said baby, she's either 1) got really good reason not to, or 2) has mental issues. Neither of those will be fixed by a law forcing her to tell.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

77. Your number 2 scenario is why I'd be hesitant to support a law requiring disclosure

It's kinda like minors getting abortions. The majority of the time, the parents should be informed, so they can support their daughter. But it's that minority of cases where parental notification laws are like signing a death warrant. Of course, studies show that most teenaged girls involve at least one parent in the abortion decision, just as most women involve the father in the birth of children. Therefore, it's probably best to leave it to the discretion of the mother. If a woman doesn't want to tell a man that she has borne a child he is the father of, there's probably a really good reason for it.

[Heddi]

82. exactly

I would think that regardless of a law that mandated that a father be notified, the numbers of women who DID NOT notify the fathers would be the exact same as it is now, even without a law.

I find it hard to believe that there are millions upon millions of women who are purposefully hiding the identity of the fathers of their children just so they can have some come-uppance later in life (as some posters here would have you believe). I think the number of women who don't tell someone they are a father are very very very few, and out of those very very very few, I would think that the majority of them have "good reason" to not disclose the pregnancy. Very very very very few of the already very very very few would be doing it for self-serving purposes, although for the life of me I can't figure out what that purpose would be. If you don't list a father on the birth certificate, you can't get child support from the father. And you can't get child support if you...duh..don't notify the father of the child.

Me thinks there are some very jaded people on this thread. They're not interested in the so-called "wellbeing of the child". They see it as another way to continue to control women and their choice regarding reproduction. And the fact that people are suggesting that NOT disclosing the name of the father would result in immediate removal of the child from the mother's custody and have the father given sole custody shows that there are people who DO see children as tools of control.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

84. Bingo.

Must maintain the patriarchal order, and the subordinate place of women and children in it, at all costs.

[TexasObserver]

87. No, it's about the best interests of the child.

The child is the equal responsibility of both its parents. Each parent has equal rights under the law, until a court rules otherwise. If either parent wishes to terminate the rights of the other, they can sue to do so, and we allow someone who is a family court judge, someone trained to understand custody issues better than either parent, to make the decisions. That judge uses guardians appointed for the child, child advocates, and child psychiatrists and psychologists to advise.

The Family Court system tends to favor mothers. It is anything by patriarchial. The family courts in America have large numbers of female judges, female attorneys, female guardians, and female child specialists. It is one area of the law where virtually all participants agree that women generally have an advantage.

A child needs both parents, and it is not the right of any mother to decide she will not tell the father, assuming she has some idea of who that may be. She may be the parent who unfit to have custody, not him.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

92. So in the case of Heddi's friend,

You think that the best interests of the child were served by forcing the mother to submit to the demands of the sociopathic father?

Really?

[TexasObserver]

95. I'll trust the judge more than I will a poster's version of what happened.

The fact that the court ruled against the mother is good evidence that the tale told may not be entirely accurate. Just because a poster gives her opinion of the players doesn't mean such opinion is in any way accurate. People often have one side they see, and they're blind to the other side.

The world is full of angry parents who think their ex is a nut job and should not be able to see the kids. Most of them are wrong and need to get over it.

[Heddi]

99. well my darling poster

The judge, at every hearing, has BEGGED the father to relinquish his parental rights because it is obviously clear that he has no interest in the child or his upbringing. However, a judge cannot force parental rights to be deleted in a case like this. The courts know he's full of shit and they know to expect him to bring a suit against her every month for something inconsequential. He has been told time and time again that he is wasting the court's time with such ridiculous arguments, but they cannot do anything about it. They cannot MAKE him relinquish his parental rights, and the judge has let it be known in many cases that he wishes the law were differently. Especially when he didn't even know the kid's name. The ex has said, jokingly but very seriously "why would I want to give up my parental rights? I can't keep her in line if I do that heh heh heh".

[TexasObserver]

101. If there were a legal basis to terminate the father's rights, the judge would.

If everything is as you state. Every state has laws that allow a judge to terminate the parental rights of either parent.

If the judge had any facts to support terminating the father's rights, he would do so.

I don't put any faith in the reports of participants in a child custody dispute. Whether it is the mother or the father doing the talking, everyone involved in the process is evil except them. The judge is out to get them. The judge favors the other side. People in custody fights are notoriously unreliable when it comes to accurately describing what has taken place.

I suspect your friend is less than an angel, herself, and her ex is less of a demon than you or she perceive him.

[The Stranger]

150. I actually laughed at this part:

"He was a SOCIOPATH and I say this as someone who knew him, and saw him in action."

Thank god it isn't up to "interested parties" to decide the best interests of the child.

[EFerrari]

30. I finally voted "yes" for reasons that may make no sense.

If I had a baby and the dad didn't know, I would feel like a liar.

Now, there may be perfectly good reasons to prefer feeling that way over telling that dad but, that's only how I would feel and what I would do as a recovering Catholic.

[GoneOffShore]

31. You needed a third choice there.

But I'll agree with you, no, he has no right.

IBTL

[LisaL]

32. Not always.

Like in a case of a sperm donor, for instance, he would have no right to know.

[SeattleGirl]

33. In most cases, I'd say yes.

Exceptions might include if the the bio father had raped the woman, if the bio father were abusive, things like that.

But otherwise, yes, I think he has a right to know.

[BlooInBloo]

34. This is going a lot better than I would have bet real money on it going.

[mmonk]

35. Hard question. Many think we're (males) not part of the process.

I would like to say yes based on human decency but I guess it depends on the situation. For example, if the father is a homicidal maniac, I would say no. But an ordinary man, the answer is harder.

[stray cat]

36. Does he have a right to know if the mother is having an abortion of his offspring?

[RB TexLa]

38. I gave my answer, I don't think he has a right to know either.

[Iggo]

37. Sure. Why not? (n/t)

[TexasObserver]

39. It's child abuse to deny a child the identity of his father.

And it's child abuse to deny a child the ability to see their parents, mother or father, unless such rights have been lawfully terminated.

[bemildred]

41. Yes, and he has a right to know, insofar as it is possible, if it's his.

Honesty is always the best policy, and honesty is owed to the children. They have a right to know who they are.

[alphafemale]

42. Once the child is born...yes.

Absolutely.

If a woman decides to terminate the pregnancy that's a different matter entirely.

But once another PERSON is here it's not about CHOICE anymore.

That is a person entirely separate from you.

Unless it's a case of rape or restraining order there is no humane reason to keep a child isolated from his or her Daddy.

Spite is not a good reason.

[realisticphish]

44. this

:thumbsup:

[TexasObserver]

52. Agreed.

There will be exceptions, but they should be supported by an appropriate action to terminate the parental rights of the father.

[karynnj]

45. No, Consider how weak his relationship with the woman

would have to be to not know. They are clearly not a committed couple.

[TexasObserver]

51. That matters not. He's the parent of the child.

He has the same legal rights as the mother. He might be a much better parent than the mother. Having a child doesn't make a person a good parent.

Society has an interest in each child knowing who its biological father is, and both the child and the father have an interest in having the father in the child's life, unless it is proven to a court of competent jurisdiction that his rights should be terminated.

The woman has a right to decide whether to have the child. The child does not belong to her. The child is not her personal property.

[Rage for Order]

71. Or perhaps she's not committed to him?

She may not be sure who the father is. I guess I can't say that though, because that would imply that the woman may somehow be at fault instead of the man.

[karynnj]

113. Ther point is that if they had ANY real ongoing relationship he would

see that she was pregnant. He would of course know that they had been intimate. I think he could put two and two together. The woman in a one night stand is NOT more at fault than the man. If he is around and cared, he could question the paternity - but that was not part of the poll.

[Blue_Tires]

46. depends...this isn't a yes/no answer in every case

i donated to a sperm bank for a couple years - do i care to know how many of my kids are running around? hell no!

in most other cases, i guess my vote is no..a father does not have an unshakable right to know if a kid was born...BUT I will say that said father should be legally free of ANY financial obligations if no one chose to notify him at all...

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

47. Fuck No.

Nor should a man have any say whatsoever in whether a sired fetus is brought to term, beyond whatever say the mother choses to grant him. If she says, "I've decided to have this baby bu to not consider you the father and grant you no paternal rights whatsoever," I believe that's her call to make.

But here's where the fight always breaks out. There is an unavoidable flip-side to that which is that no man should be held responsible for the future upkeep of a child he would prefer be aborted.

As with most ethical matters, there's a symmetry. If a man cannot force a woman to be a mother, a woman cannot force a man to be a father, except in biological terms. (Having the baby makes some man a biological father even if he doesn't know about it.)

This is a basic corollary to legalized abortion that really sets people's teeth on edge, but it's crazy to say a man should be required to support a child he doesn't want simply because some other person wants it, or thinks abortion is wrong, or whatever.

Every counter argument boils down to some diminution of autonomy for one sex or the other.

[kiranon]

48. Obligation on part of man to check back 9 months afterwards

Many states have a law that requires a man to not only check back 9 months later to see if he fathered a child but to find out if he helped out during the pregnancy and thereafter. This is taken into consideration when an adoption takes place and the father's rights are ended. Nothing is stopping a man from following up 9 months later or sooner. No one should have to tell him that a child may have been conceived. So, I voted "No."

[noamnety]

50. Nope (nt)

[1]

54. if the father would be financially responsible for the child's upbringing, then yes...

dude has the right to know because of the burden that would be placed on him.

outside of that i would leave that decision to the mother...



edit: i guess i might have misunderstood the op's question. i read this under the "dude finds out he's not really the father but courts decide he's responsible" stories i have seen of late. if this is not any sort of question of support then i totally defer to the mothers wishes.

[Lyric]

56. Pfft. I told my son's father, and he

denied it, called me a liar, and started making up insane lies about how I'd been screwing (insert other guy here) to justify his bullshit. None of it was true--but you know, people just assume that there must be SOME reason for him to think so. There wasn't. He knows my son is his. He's just THAT evil and vicious.

Of course, he did all of this AFTER he was safely out of the country, so there was no way I could haul his ass into court for a DNA test and show him up for the lying sack of shit that he is. The reason? He found out he was going to inherit a big hunk of cash from his grandparents' estate, and didn't want to pay child support. He's living the high life with his girlfriend down in Adelaide, Australia now, while we're in a broken-down 1970's model trailer in West Virginia, living on Food Stamps while I struggle to get through college.

There are days that I wish I hadn't even told him. It would be easier that way. It's hard to know that the father of your child is a man that's capable of that kind of selfish, thoughtless cruelty.

[mrs_p]

65. that is horrible

you really have no legal recourse?

[Lyric]

111. If I had a ton of money, I could hire an attorney in Australia

and take him to court *there*, but our State Dept. won't revoke his visa without a child support order, and I can't get a child support order without a DNA paternity test. I've gone to the Bureau of Child Support Enforcement here in my state, but they flat-out told me that there's really nothing they can do. *sigh*

It's so damned frustrating to have no way to Right this awful Wrong. I just keep telling myself, eventually karma is going to catch him. It's all that I *can* do. *sigh*

[Midlodemocrat]

171. Trust me, you and Oktoberkid are better off without him.

A man who would deny his child like that is not someone you want in your life. Would the extra money help? Sure it would. But it would come at a horrifically high price.

[SoCalDem]

57. Maybe , maybe not..

A one night stand, maybe not..

A relationship, maybe..

The baby is inside the female, and unless she wants to tell who the father is, barring DNA, it's kind of her decision..

If she's been unfaithful to her partner/husband, she may not want to know, and legally any child born of a marriage IS the husband's child.

If she's been promiscuous, she may not KNOW which man was the father..

If men want to know about every child they father, they need to stay in a monogamous, loving relationship or use a condom..every time..or remain celibate :evilgrin:

[TexasObserver]

59. It's not her right.

It's that simple. Motherhood does not equal ownership of the child.

The father has equal rights to the child in every state in America, unless it is shown in court his rights should be terminated or limited. And any man who thinks he might be the father can compel in court DNA testing to determine such.

It's in the best interest of the child to have a father in his or her life, and the mother's opinion is no greater or less than anyone else's.

[SoCalDem]

85. I think most mothers would tell them, but it's always going to be up to the individuals involved

These days, many young people are not "exclusive", so it may be difficult to actually know which guy was the "one".. If a young woman expects to collect support, I assume that most would do the DNA and insist that the guy she thinks is the dad, be tested too..

Some states require "a name" on every birth certificate just for that purpose.. keeps the state from having to pony up support money, when there's a "dad"..

Some guys are pretty promiscuous, and could end up with quite a family, if they were not careful..:evilgrin:

[TexasObserver]

118. It's not up to the individuals. It's up to society.

If she wants benefits, she'll have to come up with a name. And when she does that, the man will be DNA tested. If it's him, fine. If not, back to the woman for another name. If she lies or doesn't cooperate, she loses her benefits.

Every child should have their father identified. It's not for the mother. It's for the child and society. The child and society have a compelling need to have fathers identified. Just because some women think it is their right to keep that information from the child doesn't make it so.

[raccoon]

125. Thank you! nt

[bettyellen]

60. no. he'll most often find out of he's a good caring person and

the woman wants to keep him in her life. if not, all bets are off. you can;t force a woman into a relationship or obligation to someone she may have only spent a few hours with. jeeze, what if you have sex with a psycho and end up knocked up? fuck that. it ain't always his bidness, nope.

[TexasObserver]

61. Yes, you can force a woman to share parenting with a one night stand.

It happens all the time. The child is not her possession, and if she abuses the rights of the father or the child, she can have the child removed from her possession and control.

Being a mother doesn't make a person a good parent. It only means they performed the biological function of carrying the child until birth.

Fathers and mothers have equal rights vis-a-vis the child, unless and until a court rules otherwise.

[bettyellen]

66. if paternity can't be determined, who's she going to share parenting with?

i don't belive she's under obligation to go get him.

[TexasObserver]

72. Paternity can be determined with DNA testing.

If a woman gets pregnant, has no idea who the father is, and has the child, that's an unusual circumstance. She usually does know who the father is, or who belongs on the list of possible fathers.

She has a moral duty to the child to try to find out who the father is.

She has a legal duty to share parenting, and if she is ever found to have hidden the father's identity knowingly from the child, she could lose the child to the father.

Her right is to decide to have the child or not. Once the child is born, he or she has a right to know who their biological father is. The baby is not the mother's chattel. It has rights, and one of those rights is to know his or her father, and to know who its extended family on the father's side is, as well as knowing any siblings he or she might have.

[Heddi]

80. huh?

and if she is ever found to have hidden the father's identity knowingly from the child, she could lose the child to the father.

So the father gets automatic custody if she doesn't tell who the father is? What if the father doesn't WANT the kid? Then what? Is the child STILL Taken from the mother as "punishment" for not disclosing the name of the father? What purpose will that serve? Doesn't that, in turn, make the child "chattel" and "property" of the court, if it can willy-nilly give custody to one parent or another NOT because of who is more fit to be a parent to the child, but solely because the mother didn't disclose the name of the father when asked? Why does that make her a BAD ENOUGH PARENT to warrant losing custody of her child, especially if there are no other conditions that would make her an "unfit" parent to that child?

Here's an idea---Why don't we require MEN to PUBLICLY LIST all women THEY have had sex with, and when, and in what circumstances and what protection (if any) was used AND whether they would agree to be the father of any child that was conceived from such a relationship....whether that relationship began and ended in an alley, or went on for decades. Ever. Therefore, when the WOMAN gets pregnant, she can go to this PUBLIC DOCUMENT and find who it was that she had sex with, and when, and whether or not he wants to be notified of such child.

I think THAT makes as much sense as the idiotic notion that a woman would lose custody of her child if she didn't put a name on the fucking birth certificate.

[TexasObserver]

83. your point of view is based upon what is best for the woman

Your point of view is based upon what is best for the woman.

As a society, as evidenced in our child custody laws and courts, we are concerned about the child's well being and rights, not the mother's, which is the only thing that matters to you. You seem to be unwilling to acknowledge that having a baby doesn't vest the mother with any greater rights than the father.

Eventually, the child will want to know who their father is. Someone will likely know, and when the child learns he or she has been denied that knowledge, they will rightly scorn the mother who deprived them of that information.

As to the issue of losing custody of the child, if it is detemined that a mother hid the identity of the father for years, and did so to deny the father his rights, she could lose the child's custody. The reason is simple. Child advocates know that such vengeful mothers are not healthy for the child. It suggests a deep seated unhealthy emotional base of the mother, and she is therefore not considered the better parent for the child. This is assuming the father wants custody, is not a threat to the child, and it is otherwise in the best interests of the child.

Age and other factors play a role. If the child is 12 and he's a boy, if he decides he wants to find out who his father is, and he wants to move in with that father, it's probably going to happen whether the mother wants it or not.

[Heddi]

90. I notice you fail to address the more salient issues in my post

What if she DOES NOT KNOW WHO THE FATHER IS? What lengths is she required to go through to find the father? What happens if she cannot find him? What penalty does she face?

You seem to paint me as some pro-mother fanatic, which I am anything but. I'm anti-child, actually. Zero Population Growth. I think if people thought more about who they were fucking, and the consequences of said fucking, we'd have a lot fewer unwanted children in this world.

However, the blasse attitude of some people, coupled with inadequate access to comprehensive sex education and contraceptives will always ensure a steady line of unwanted, unwelcome, abused, neglected, unloved children.

However, I don't think that a woman is automatically a "vengeful mother" as you put it because she doesn't disclose the name of the father. As you state, family courts have a history of being skewed in the side of the mother, but more than that, they have an even longer history of being skewed in the side of the one with the most money and power. A rich father vs. a poor mother, no matter how good the mother is and how much of a bastard the father is, the father will ALWAYS get the better deal. Or I should say the RICHER and POWERFUL will always get the better deal.

But you still don't answer the questions I've posed in now 3 separate posts:

1) WHat lengths does the mother have to go through to find the father? What if she doesn't know the name of the father? No DNA database will be able to find him unless he's been convicted of certain crimes and already has DNA on file. I certainly don't want to live in a world where a comprehensive database of every citizens' DNA is on file for the relatively few cases of mothers not notifying fathers. A bit too Big Brotherish for me

2) Is there a cut off point? Does she have to try for 18 years of the child's life to find the father? Again, what if it was a nameless, drunken one night stand. I think his name was....steve? dan? ted? I honestly can't remember.


You say the penalty for being a "vengeful mother" would result in immediate revocation of custody of the child to the father unless the father didn't want the child or was proven to be a bad parent....so if that's the case, THEN what happens to the kid? Does she get to keep the child, even though she's been branded "vengeful" and therefore unfit (based on anonymous unstated proof) to be a parent....is the child then a ward of the state? foster care? orphanage? SURELY you could not let the child continue to live with such an unfit parent, right? So then the child becomes property of the state which is SO MUCH BETTER than growing up and continuing to live with your ONE biological parent who DOES want you and, for all other accounts and purposes, treats you well (aside from being "vengeful". I mean study after study shows that children who are forcibly taken from one parent and given to another, against their will, or taken from one parent and put in foster care system THRIVE compared to children who live in dysfunctional, yet loving homes. :eyes:

And I don't think a child "gives" anyone any rights. Having a child isn't about having rights. It's about accepting responsibility for the child, and yet you seem to see the child as a pawn between the poor downtrodden male--billions of whom are denied knowing their children, and the vengeful, hateful, greedy mothers who number in the hundreds of billions who laugh their way to the bank, denying their children from knowing their father.

You do know that you can't get child support if you don't claim a father, right? I fail to see what benefit the mother is getting by not notifying the father of his child. SHe won't get child support, that's for sure. If he's an asshole, chances are he won't be given custody anyways. I do not think that this is the CRIME OF THE CENTURY like you are painting it out to be. I'm sure that the far majority of fathers in this country are notified when they have a child. I do not think this is an epidemic of collective castration of the rights of fathers and their unknown children.

[TexasObserver]

93. I don't respond to your many points because I don't care to.

I choose to only address those things I wish to address.
I will respond on those points I wish to respond, and ignore the remainder.

[Heddi]

97. ah, so you can't answer

and come up with salient, logical points. Gotcha.

If you are willing to force a woman to notify the father of her child of the existence of the child, then there has to be SOME regulations associated with it. I asked questions regarding the logical regulations that would be attached to said law. You ignore them because you cannot answer them logically while still keeping in line with your "poor downtrodden men" vein you've been on throughout this thread.

I have no need to argue, and I am not arguing. I'm having a conversation and posing ideas that differ with yours. I'm sorry if you see that as "having an argument". To me, I'm having a "discussion" on this magical thing called a "discussion board". Amazing.

I have yet to see any evidence that there is such an epidemic of men not being notified of their offspring to make such a law necessary. Trust me...I'm looking for it online now. The only sites that DO talk about such an epidemic are anti-woman, pro-male sites that have an obvious skew towards male-rights and the unfortunate feminization of America and the emasculation of our young men.

I not come across a single study of any validity (other than the anecdotal "my friend had a baby and that bitch didn't tell him1!11!") that shows that there is any statistically significant number of men who are unaware of the children they have fathered, or the number of women who REFUSE to notify the male of any children they have fathered. None. If you have such studies or statistics, I'd be very open and interested in seeing them.

---
You continue to bring up this idea that women are seen as being better parents just because they're women, and that they have been given, or feel that they have more "rights" to the child than the father because they're women. You are the only one in this thread bringing that point up and arguing it. Not a single other post in this thread, besides yours, has brought forth this idea. So it seems that you are the one with the need to argue a moot point and it seems that you have some deep-seeded and very strong feelings about women in general, and mothers in particular.

Perhaps you'd get more supporters on your side if you would compose logical and coherent arguments in your favor. Generally speaking, when one is debating or putting forth ideas with others (again, known as a conversation to most people), if you propose a law for X, then you should also propose the consequences of breaking your law for X. Otherwise, people may think that you have incomplete ideas that are void of logic or facts.

[TexasObserver]

100. Here's the difference.

You're talking about how you personally wish things would be. I'm talking about how things are in our family law system in America.

I see no point in discussing your many issues, because experience has taught me that long, drawn out discussions go nowhere.

The vote in this poll is overwhelmingly against your point of view. Our society has rejected your point of view in every state. There isn't a family law court in America that would support your point of view.

[hunter]

63. Confess! You saw mamma mia and you liked it...

I know I did.

Meryl Streep rocks and watching Pierce Brosnan being tortured by people demanding he sing was a wicked pleasure.

[RB TexLa]

64. Huh?

[hunter]

74. Three guys, one daughter. None of them knew...

But there was a lot of singing and dancing and a happy ending.

[RB TexLa]

79. Must have missed that one.

[mrs_p]

69. haven't seen the movie

but love the musical. is it worth it?

[hunter]

78. I enjoyed it, but I'm easy.

If you take movies too seriously, you will be horrified.

If you think the food at the county fair is fabulous just once a year (deep fried twinkies, lemonade, and corn dogs, hooray!) you will be happy.

[mrs_p]

68. what if the woman

was the asshole? she was a drug addict, alchie, put the child in danger? what if the father would be the better parent for the child? what if she was mentally unstable and refused to tell him for punishment (i actually know a woman like this)? why shouldn't he get a chance to raise the child instead?

[Rowdyboy]

70. There's a difference in a "man" and a "sperm donor"...A "man" would want to know

At least the way I define the word "man".

[mrreowwr_kittty]

73. It depends.

If he has been legally declared a danger to the mother or child, then no. Otherwise, yes.

[TexasObserver]

98. We agree entirely on your statement in this post.

I've got no problem seeing bad fathers denied parental rights, but let's make sure they're really bad for the child, not just bad with the mother of the child. Two parents can despise each other and still love their child. In mom's eyes, the father may be unfit, but in the eyes of neutral observers, mom and dad are often seen as equally flawed but equally capable as parents.

[The Straight Story]

81. It takes two to tango, how much more clear can it be?

You create a life that takes two people to make and both should know about it.

Why the fear over telling someone they created a life?

We all know where babies come from.

[TexasObserver]

91. Thanks and agreed.

If there is any chance the father will want to be part of the child's life, if there is any chance there could be some good for the child, you have to take that chance. It's wrong to deny a child their father, unless that father is truly a danger to the child. And the same applies to mothers. Kids need to have two caring parents, and if they can have two, then we all benefit from it.

If the father is no good, it won't be difficult to limit his role in the child's life. Unfortunately, far too many men and women use kids as something to fight with the other parent over, and if that kind of misconduct is unique to one gender, it's not apparent in the battles over children. Kids want to have both their parents unless someone poisons their mind, or they experience something that causes them not to want that parent around.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

94. I say yes...

He contributed to the genetic load that created the child.

He has a right to know. Period.

I'll read the thread to see if you say he has no such right...

:shrug:

[defendandprotect]

102. I voted "NO" . . .

on the father having a "right" ---

Like everything else in these relationships, I think it depends on what's going on ---

MEANWHILE ... keep in mind that some men back when might have been told that they

were "fathers" and they weren't ---!!!

And many men were often busy trying to prove they weren't the fathers!

DNA has changed things a lot ---

Naturally, adopted children usually start with the mother because she's the obvious

one who had to be there --- but then, I note, they do have an interest - naturally --

in the father.

[defendandprotect]

108. ....and, btw, how would male enforce that "right" if he didn't know . . ???

[emilyg]

103. Not in all cases.

What if it was rape?

[TexasObserver]

107. Alleged or proven?

If a man is convicted of rape, his parental rights will be terminated quickly, and it should be done automatically upon such conviction.

Alleged? No. Too easy to allege something that isn't true, merely for the advantage in a custody dispute.

[MrSlayer]

110. No, not really.

If you are hiding the fact then there is probably a good reason. I can't see a woman in a committed, loving relationship hiding the fact that she has had her lover's child. I can see a woman who was raped or abused or any number of bad situations hiding it. It's not simply black or white.

[H2O Man]

112. Yes, of course.

The father is just as much the parent as is the mother. With that come the same level of both rights and responsibilities. Most important of all, the child has the right to a relationship with both parents, and neither parent has a right to deny the child the relationship with the other parent.

[TexasObserver]

117. Absolutely correct.

Both parents have full parental rights until altered by appropriate legal action by a court of competent jurisdiction. The notion that the baby is the property of the mother, to do with as she wishes, is without any basis in law, and is not the law in any of the 50 states.

[Political Heretic]

126. Why is this not the obvious answer to this question?

What is with the attitude toward men that they are somehow inhuman when it comes to procreation?

Just "sperm donors?" It seems really disgusting and insulting to me when people say that. Of course the same people who say that are also probably complaining about fathers who don't support their kids.

You can't have it both ways. You can treat the father of a child as insignificant and without any rights or privileges on one hand then demand that father support a child on the other.

[TexasObserver]

129. Agreed. And that is the almost universal view of everyone involved in child custody issues.

All the judges, all the advocates, all the child psychiatrists and psychologists agree that it is essential that birth fathers be identified and given an opportunity to be a part of the child's life. By law, we make every man co-equally responsible for the child, whether he knows about it or not. He has rights, the child has rights, and society has rights.

Pregnancy and abortion are the right of women, but once a child is born, she shares the duties, responsibilities, and rights with the father, unless and until she takes action to get a court to suspend those rights.

Parts of this thread remind me of the old SNL skit of a book by a pretend author: "MEN BAD, WOMEN GOOD." Nora Dunn as the author, I believe.

[H2O Man]

173. As so often happens

when this and related topics are discussed on DU, there are some people who allow emotions to trump their ability to engage in a rational discussion. Certainly, there are numerous examples of terrible parents -- including both mothers and fathers -- who add toxic elements into all of their interpersonal relationships. Most of us have known at least one such person in our extended family; some of us may have had a more direct relationship with this type of individual; and a few of us have had the experience of working in human services, and have become very familiar with the hell that they create for others.

However, these people can most appropriately be considered in a group separate from the more general discussion of the OP; as you said, family court (and sometimes criminal court) is the correct format for dealing with these extreme situations.

In the general context of childhood needs and parenting, both mothers and fathers have a lot to offer. And the simple truth is that a mother cannot be a father to a child, any more than a father can be a mother. Even the most talented and dedicated single parent comes to know this.

[TexasObserver]

182. All good and accurate comments.

As much as some want to make this "good mothers versus bad fathers," this is about doing all we can to make sure each child has a chance, just a chance, to have both a father and a mother who loves and cares for them. Many couples who cannot stand each other nonetheless manage to share parental duties for their children, after break up. The children benefit and the parents have to find a way to get along.

If we did not have such parental sharing mandated and preferred by law, we would have kids all over who are denied a second parent's involvement.

We can all agree that parents who are unsafe for the kids should have their rights limited to the level the local court determines are appropriate for that situation. I've learned that people in custody fights never see their misconduct, always exaggerate the conduct of the other person, and often have a whole group of friends who will swear that the OTHER parent is the terrible parent.

Children want two parents, even if those two parents are less than perfect.

A child is born. It has a mother and a father. It is in the best interest of the child to have the father determined at birth, and it is best for society, too. There will always be a percentage of people who are relating to some situation they know of, and that becomes the universe for their opinion on the topic. Even if the father is an SOB, even if he's no good, even if he was a one night stand, he's the father, and both he and the child have a right to know about each other.

[MiniMe]

114. If he was a sperm donor, I would say no

This is a complex question with a lot of variables.

[shadowknows69]

115. I voted yes but it's a complicated question

There are really too many different situations to be black or white. Coming from a broken home and being adpoted, I have to vote for a child being able to know both his/her parents if at all possible.

[malaise]

119. Yes he does n/t

[bryant69]

122. I would not say an absolute right - because there are children fathered by rape

But in general, all things being equal, yeah.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Political Heretic]

124. If you say a man has "no right to know" then he also has no obligation to support.

Fair's fair.

[DailyGrind51]

127. As an aging childless dude,

I wouldn't mind learning that the family does not die with me.

[SarahB]

128. Perhaps men need to take responsibility for whom they stick their penis into.

When you release your "seed" unprotected into a woman and then go off into the sunset, that's your choice. No one forces man to have uncommitted sex and leave. She's the one who as to go through all the changes in her life and ideally, the person who got her pregnant will be by her side. I don't believe in government mandated relationships though when people have no intention of being a parent.

[TexasObserver]

131. Fortunately, our laws are more sane than that.

Each parent has equal rights and duties as to the child born. The woman's monopoly ends at birth, as it should. If she never let the father know she was pregnant, that's more evidence she may not be the person we want raising that child.

[SarahB]

135. Yes, taking personal responsibility

Wacky stuff. :eyes:

[TexasObserver]

136. If she fails to identify the father, she's not being responsible.

Fortunately, the entirety of US custody law favors my position and considers yours harmful and wrongheaded.

[SarahB]

138. We can all take comfort in the fact

that men who have unprotected sex with women and then leave them have their parental rights intact. Glad all those oppressed men will be protected properly. :patriot:

[TexasObserver]

139. It's the child we want and have to protect, not the father or the mother.

Your point of view is 100% based upon what is best for the mother. She's just one parent of two, with no more rights than the other parent. By law. Every state.

Thank God we don't let every nut job who managed to birth a child raise the child they birthed. Some of them are bad parents, and the child must be protected from parents of either gender who are a danger to the child.

Any parent who tries to keep their child from knowing the other parent is unfit to have primary custody of the child, and many courts have so ruled.

[SarahB]

208. Unfortunately, for the many single mothers and children

live in or near poverty because of financial abandonment. It's not the bad mom keeping children from their fathers, it's father who choose to abandon their obligations to their children. Threads like these are misleading and not supported by demographics and reality.

[TexasObserver]

223. Deadbeat dads who don't support their kids must be pursued.

If you want to talk about no good fathers not supporting their families, the starting point is having the mother identify the fathers at birth. If they are getting any kind of benefits at all, the State will pursue the deadbeat dads.

However, paying support and having access to the child are two separate issues, and any parent who links seeing the child to paying support is violating the letter and spirit of the child custody order.

[lumberjack_jeff]

145. "I don't believe in government mandated relationships"

Then I trust you don't believe in court-ordered child support?

Dad is a parent. Mom has no unilateral right to sever that relationship. If mom wants a good parent for her child, she should pick more suitable sex partners.

In fact, if mom was so indiscriminate as to choose to have a child with such an unsuitable person, it calls into question her ability to provide an appropriate environment for her child given the poor choices she makes in the people she associates with.

[Scout]

187. how about the men pick more suitable sex partners?

In fact, if dad was so indiscriminate as to choose to father a child with such an unsuitable person, it calls into question his ability to provide an appropriate environment for his child given the poor choices he makes in the people he associates with.



oh, i know, only women are supposed to be able to choose that perfect sex partner who will make a perfect parent!

[lumberjack_jeff]

198. Perhaps. But this thread is not in response to the question: "Does mom have a right to be a parent?"

[snooper2]

190. Perhaps women need to take responsibility for whom they let in their vagina

easy huh...

[Scout]

192. it's not the women complaining.... n/t

[SarahB]

209. That's how society traditionally sees it. Isn't it?

That's my point.

[Zuiderelle]

130. Does a rabbit have the right to know he fathered a child?

[RB TexLa]

140. Good analogy

[lumberjack_jeff]

146. How so? n/t

[Zuiderelle]

152. For reference...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=105&topic_id=7990511&mesg_id=7990511

[RB TexLa]

154. What would that have to do with it?

[Zuiderelle]

155. Exactly.

[lumberjack_jeff]

199. Bunnies wearing pancakes? I don't get it. n/t

[Zuiderelle]

205. Me either. n/t

[Zuiderelle]

151. I thought you might approve.

[Richardo]

185. Only if you shin a light on his car.

[EstimatedProphet]

132. It's the RGBolen show!

Once again, here's RGBolen!

[SarahB]

134. lol

why I usually avoid these flamebait threads :argh:

[Odious justice]

137. IN a nutshell....

As a former esteemed employee of a government office that collected child support:

There is no legal duty to inform a man of his paternity.

A man can make a query himself and even have a court order a DNA test if he is so inclined.

If a state initiates a child support case on behalf of the mother, she must inform them who the father is, and the state must notify the alleged father. This is done when the state is paying benefits to the mother on behalf of the child.

If it is a sperm donor the procedure is similar to an adoption; there is no need to notify and in most instances it is impossible to notify the party.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

141. Certainly not an absolute one, but arguably failure to inform the father should lessen child support

I don't think that women should be forced to inform e.g. rapists that they have become pregnant by them.

But one could certainly make a case that a woman who knowingly conceals from a man that he has fathered a child should not then later be able to turn round and demand child support from him.

[treestar]

142. Impractical to enforce

Just impossible. If the woman really wants to hide the fact of who the father is, nothing can be done. maybe the repukes think torture is OK, but we don't.

I'm not too worried about men in these scenarios. They already have the advantage of not having to be the ones to deal with pregnancy on a physical level. Where they don't know, they probably wouldn't want to know. A man who is married and wants a child with a woman always knows. A man who a woman wouldn't tell about it either doesn't care or would have wanted to know just to control the woman.

[SidDithers]

143. Only after the child has been born...

he has no right to know that the mother is pregnant.

Sid

[Mushroom]

144. He has the free will

to use a condom so right wingers won't make more laws to further enslave women and children. He has free will to act responsibly and compassionately even if a woman doesn't like the feel of latex. Even if a woman is half-witted. Even if a woman is on drugs. Even if she's just a woman in love.

He has free will to think about how his absence or presence would affect his offspring. He has free will to be a good guy looking at the bigger picture, to do some introspection because wanting to be hated doesn't work for him anymore. It doesn't work for the people around him or not around him. No more moth-eaten excuses.

Wow, guys, you made a great batch of popcorn! It is really hitting the spot!

:popcorn:

[TexasObserver]

147. He also has equal rights to the child, by law.

And if he's some demon, like those dancing around in your mind, the court can limit the role he plays in the child's life. We don't let the mothers make that decision. It's not their decision to make.

[Name removed]

219. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TexasObserver]

224. deleted

[lumberjack_jeff]

148. Yes. Period.

Motherhood does not confer the right to invite someone to be the father. That right is already determined, by law and by biology.

Picking an unusuitable father happens. Nevertheless, no mulligans are allowed.

[Zuiderelle]

153. He's just trying to get a rise.

He's pretty good at it.

[RB TexLa]

158. No, I wanted honest opinions, and from most that is what is here. Apparently from you all anyone

gets is your smartass mouth.

[Zuiderelle]

160. Oh please, now where have I been smartass?

You're silly.

[lumberjack_jeff]

201. Indeed he is.

But this appears to be a subject perceived to be worthy of legitimate debate.

[Zuiderelle]

206. His questions often are.

He proclaims some outlandish position in the OP, then watches the reactions as his social experiment progresses. Never offers any explanation to his stance, but occasionally drops in to reiterate his "point."

[lumberjack_jeff]

207. I hate myself for hopping into the petri dish. I guess it's a compulsion. n/t

[Terran]

156. Too complicated an issue for "yes" or "no" answer

There are several scenarios where I'd say "no", and maybe one or two where I'd say "yes".

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

157. Does a man have an obligation to pay child support?

Well then he's not only got a right, but an obligation to know he's fathered a child.

[RB TexLa]

161. He only has that obligation if the mother identifies him and asks for child support

Of course if someone is paying child support they deserve to know where the money is going.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

164. A woman has the right to withhold child support payments?

Sounds like a despicable, deadbeat mom to me.

[RB TexLa]

165. No one has that right. But if a mother doesn't identify the father and request child support

then there is no obligation for child support to be paid. A man only has that obligation if he is identified by the mother, the allegation proven and a court orders it.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

166. That would be withholding child support.

:shrug:

[RB TexLa]

167. How exactly do you withhold child support to a child in your custody?

I guess if the mother didn't provide for the child. But I think that would be a different criminal charge.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

168. By preventing the father from paying it.

The rights of the mother to be an awful human being do not trump the best interests of the child.

[RB TexLa]

170. Oh, I see it's in the best interest of the child to have a man provide for it.

Thats a man's job, right? Just be silly to think a woman could provide financially for a child. I don't know what got in my head.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

196. So you're saying men should be able to withhold child support.

Interesting.

[RB TexLa]

200. No I didn't say that. I said a custodial parent does not have to ask for child support

I'm fairly certain you were able to read and understand that.

[TexasObserver]

226. the gender of the non custodial parent is irrelevant to the duty to pay child support

Which part of "the money is for the child" do you not understand?

What do you think the child would say if the next time he wants to have a new pair of shoes, his custodial mother tells him "well, you can't have any new shoes, because I decided not to make your father pay child support. If he paid that extra $10 a day, you'd be able to live a better life, but I'm arrogant and self centered, and I think it's better that you suffer, because it soothes my ego to do so."

Child support is the RIGHT of the child. His mother or his father are stealing from him (or her) when they fail to enforce child support laws. The duty to support is there.

[RB TexLa]

243. I know that is irrelevant, the person kept saying that a father has to pay

I guess because they think a mother can't provide. You seem to think if a custodial parent can provide and doesn't seek support they are somehow self centered.

Let me ask, you've compared a woman who doesn't inform someone that they have fathered a child to a kidnapper. Do you think a woman who doesn't inform the man that he fathered a child belongs in prison? For how long? Maybe a little longer if they are especially uppity about it?

[TexasObserver]

248. the rules are the same, no matter which gender you pick

Parents have equal rights and equal duties regarding their children, unless and until a court of competent jurisdiction orders otherwise.

You have mischaracterized my statements regarding kidnapping. I have discussed the parent who runs off with a child or children, depriving the other parent of contact with the child or children. Contrary to your inference and statement, I didn't refer to women, I referred to parents who kidnap.

Kidnapping of children who are under a court order is the matter I addressed. You have proposed something entirely differently. You have proposed that a woman who doesn't inform the man he fathered a child belongs in prison. That's an inference on your part that is completely lacking any basis in my posts, and therefore, a useless straw man. However, since you seem to think it has some relevance, I'll respond.

No, I don't think it should be an imprisonable offense when a woman fails to notify the father and hides his identity from the child, and keeps the child from having contact with his father. That child will grow up soon enough, and when they hate her for depriving them of a father, she'll have her punishment for her wrongdoing. When the 12 year old boy finds his birth father and tells a court he wants to go live with his dad, she'll have her punishment, and it will all be based upon the subterfuge and wrong she committed against the child and the father.

I cut no slack for lousy parents, no matter which gender. Good parenting is good parenting. It has zero to do with genitalia, which is why, by the way, gay parents are just fine, too. What matters most is two loving parents who are committed to the child.

[RB TexLa]

250. Sorry about that, someone else had compared them to kidnappers.

[TexasObserver]

252. I do not favor making it a crime

I am not one to favor imprisonment in any but the worst of cases. I simply don't believe in it. Only people who are a danger to others should be imprisoned. The rest can wear ankle bracelets and stay at home, or not be charged at all. Our prisons have twice as many prisoners as they should have, twice as many as they did have 25 years ago. We are the most incarceration happy nation on earth, and it is to our shame.

I want all children DNA tested at birth, and identifying the bio father asap thereafter. Even if society never allows the bio father to be a part of the child's life, it is still good to have that information done at birth.

I would make an exception for sperm donors - literally sperm donors - who had willfully waived any parental rights pursuant to a contract that meets the requirements of state law.

[debbierlus]

245. Naive. Most mothers DON'T voluntarily take child support as a means to protect the child

My daughter's father is dangerous and unbalanced.

She is about a zillion times better off without him. He knows if he ever comes back, he will owe about a zillion dollars in
back payment. He had a child support order years ago, but I never would try to collect. I wouldn't take a million dollars, if it meant he could creep back into her life.

I don't want his damn money. I want my daughter's well being.

He has been gone for seven years. And, believe me, it is worth every penny for him to STAY AWAY.

[Milo_Bloom]

159. Yes, unless...

There are specific circumstances that make it otherwise.

Father is a potential danger, cannot be accurately identified, etc..

[peanut2010]

162. Not only should he know,but DNA tests should be done on every baby born

[TexasObserver]

178. Absolutely! DNA on every child at birth.

That makes finding fathers much easier, and we need to identify, locate, and hold responsible every father. Requiring fathers to be there economically is a minimum. We hope they will be there emotionally, too, but that's more iffy.

[RB TexLa]

181. A custodial parent has to request child support, if they don't want it

they do not have to request it. Are you saying they should have no choice in that?

[TexasObserver]

195. Child support is for the CHILD, not the parent.

Each parent has a duty to provide one half of the child's support.

If a mother does not identify the father and hold him financially accountable, she is not meeting her duty to the child. Her duty is to the child. The child support is for the child, not the mother.

If a parent fails to get child support from the other parent, they're stealing money from their child. If a parent fails to pay child support they have due, they're stealing money from their child.

[RB TexLa]

203. And if a custodial parent feels she or he can provide well enough for the child they do not have

to ask for child support from the other parent. You seem to want to force them to do so. But you have made it clear you think a man has a right to force a woman to tell him if he is the father of her child.

[TexasObserver]

222. Like I said, the child support is for the child.

If you just want to hear yourself talk, you can do that without starting a thread. You can stand in your bathroom, in front of your mirror, and tell yourself what you want to hear. But if you want to know what the legal duty of a parent is, then you're going have to quit talking to yourself and ask someone who knows.

You have an opinion on this topic. It's shared by about 20% of the people who responded to your poll, and in the general population, it's not even 20%. Even so, it's the 20% who don't understand custody law and don't want to understand custody law.

Like I said, it's STEALING from the child to decide one isn't going to collect child support. Just because some selfish, self centered parent feels they can provide well enough for the child doesn't mean their OPINION on the topic prevails. If they don't want to use the money, then they can put it away in an account and save it until the child is 18, then we'll see if the child wants that money or not.

[peanut2010]

204. Exactly

When a man knows for sure he is the father from day one he can`t deny the kid everytime he gets mad or drunk.

[TexasObserver]

228. As you note, this would nail down the fathers from birth.

Society and the child have a vested interest in having the father known at birth. The mother also has that interest, because child rearing is more than a one person job, and the child support is almost always needed.

[Dora]

163. It's all contextual.

If there's a relationship, then yes.
If there's no relationship, then no.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

176. But even then, you have to look at the context of the relationship

If it's abusive and toxic, the man could use the child to control the woman.

[Dora]

186. I agree, as I did not intend my examples to be exclusive. nt

[Midlodemocrat]

172. I think he does.

But my perspective is probably skewed. I'm married to the man with whom I have three children. I can't imagine denying him that. He's a wonderful person and I love him deeply.

I know there are other scenarios, so my mind isn't closed to this.

[aikoaiko]

175. Except under extreme circumstance, yes. The father is financially liable the day the child is born

and should be notified immediately. If, at minimum, a father is financially responsible, then he should have the right to be notified of that responsibility. Its the woman's choice to bring the child into the world, but once she does, both parents are responible.

[Faygo Kid]

215. That's my point, too. He is legally responsible. Unless there is a husband.

Then there is a presumption of fatherhood by the husband.

And the whole thing is a big mess.

[Xithras]

177. In virtually all cases, YES.

Even if he is an abusive, sociopathic jerk.

Mothers have no more right to parent their children than fathers do. None. If the mother thinks the father is unfit, she should take it to court and prove it in a custody hearing.

Mothers who willfully hide the existence of children from the fathers should be charged with kidnapping and imprisoned as such. A mothers right to solely decide the fate of a child ENDS the moment she squeezes the child from her body. From that point on, it's an independent person with TWO parents who have EQUAL rights to the child, unless a court orders otherwise.

There are only a few cases in which I'd support anything else.

Now, if a woman honestly doesn't KNOW who the father is, she shouldn't be punished, but there have been numerous cases where mothers have hidden children from fathers simply because they decided that they didn't like the guy. That should never be morally acceptable or legally permissible.

This subject hits a bit close to home for me.

[TexasObserver]

184. Awesome post.

Stealing away a child, whether done by the father or the mother, is one of the most awful, most shameful actions a parent can do. It should be treated as kidnapping, and punished. Even with court orders in hand, there are many, many parents in America who spend their lives chasing after their kids, and the crazy mother (or father) who ran off with them.

False allegations of abuse in custody cases are an epidemic, already, and have become so standard that courts often look askance at such claims, and deservedly so. Many courts have responded by punishing the parent who makes up such allegations, and denying that parent primary caregiver status. It's child abuse to deny a child contact with the other parent.

[Xithras]

189. It's a form of vigilantism, and it's already illegal.

Every state in the U.S. has laws on the books granting parents de facto rights to their children. There is no legal basis for a mother (or father) to deny access to the other parent without a court order. She can decline to state the father on the birth certificate, but that's fraud and is already a prosecutable offense.

It's a form of vigilantism because the mother is denying the legal rights, and due process, to the father simply because she thinks it's "right". She's implementing her own brand of justice or "protection" based only on her own personal views and experiences. And if she's wrong? Tough luck. We have laws governing the establishment of child custody in this country, and you are required to abide by them the MOMENT you have a child. If a woman doesn't want to do that, she needs to abort. A child is not her personal property and cannot be treated or hoarded as such.

Women often get burned when they try anyway. It may be months or years later, but the fathers often do eventually learn that the child is theirs. If they sue for custody, the courts often take a very harsh stance against the mothers who "hid" the child, and in some cases have stripped them of custody entirely or limited them to supervised visitation. In many ways, courts already do equate it with kidnapping.

In nearly all cases, the both parents are usually better off if the mother simply declares paternity and deals with the fathers rights through the courts.

[TexasObserver]

193. Agreed. The kidnapping parent almost always loses custody when caught.

And that is as it should be. Often, the kidnapper makes up outlandish lies about the other parent, tells the child the other parent didn't want them, or abandoned them, anything to cause the child to hate the absentee parent and invest everything in the kidnapping parent.

[Nikki Stone1]

180. If he's a rapist, no.

If he is a husband, boyfriend, and even a non-violent one night stand, then I think he should be informed. Most women DO inform the bio-dad.

If the man is violent and could do harm to the child, then whatever rights he might have are superceded by the child's right to be safe.

[DevonRex]

183. I don't think he has an absolute right that overrides all other

considerations. In a perfect world, the man already knows he fathered a child and is involved in raising and supporting that child. But there are too many variables that could enter into the decision to inform the man that he fathered a child. And it may not even be possible to inform the father. Say it was a one-night stand, with no last names and phone numbers exchanged. And at the other side of the spectrum, what if the father is violent or even if the child is the result of rape? What if the father had already made it clear that he wanted nothing to do with children?

Not too long ago a man could simply deny paternity and walk away, leaving the mother to rear the child alone or put that child up for adoption. That happened to my sister. Now the son she gave away has found her and she is ecstatic. But that son has no intention of contacting the father, because he washed his hands of all responsibility in 1968. And luckily he can get medical information from his biological father's brother, who has always been open to the idea of having a relationship.

There are so many scenarios and gray areas that one would have to conclude that the right is not absolute. But I would sincerely hope that many, many more men are informed that they have a child than are not informed. Because in ordinary circumstances, it is simply the right thing to do.

[ismnotwasm]

188. No

Absolutely not using the word "right", as in a legal term, partly because without some pretty fucked up laws impinging even more on woman's bodies, it would be hard to enforce.

Women would have to be legally bound to provide DNA samples of any, and all children. Any law could very well have a effect on sperm and ova donations that lead to live births. The primary care giver of any child would have decision making ability impaired.

As far as an ethical right, after a bit of thought I'll have to say no as well. We all know where babies come from, and it's a man's responsibility to manage his own sperm. He uses it at his own risk. Once sperm has been delivered, so to speak, he loses his right manage it in any way.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

194. It's a slippery slope to banning abortion.

What's to stop them from passing a law requiring a woman to inform all possible fathers upon getting a positive pregnancy result?

[Xithras]

202. This has nothing even remotely to do with abortion.

A man does not become a father, and a bunch of cells don't become a child, simply because a woman is pregant. Women should never be under any sort of obligation to "report" a pregnancy to ANYONE. Once the pregnancy ends and a child is born, the obligation does appear. The womans right to choose is no longer an issue once the choice itself is made moot.

Women have, and always should have, the right to choose because it's her body. Nobody has any right to tell you what to do with your body. A child is a distinct human being once born, and the mothers body is no longer relevant to the discussion.

[mrreowwr_kittty]

210. Anti-choicers will seize upon anything to attack reproductive rights.

They've already tried to pass laws requiring women to inform their husbands of an abortion.

[Xithras]

213. But reproductive rights END once the reproduction ends.

Look, you and I both agree that the anti-choicers are assholes who want to see women as subservient to "their men". We also agree that proposals to limit abortion should be fought, violently if needed.

But again, this isn't about reproduction. The child has been created. The reproductive process has been completed. The womans natural right to exclusivity over the process has come to its normal, biological end. At that point, it's a person, not a pregnancy. The only "rights" involved after delivery are custody rights.

This has nothing to do with abortion.

[ismnotwasm]

214. I agree

In fact once I thought about it, I think the only reason that this concept hasn't been used by the forced birth mentality is because people are used to thinking in terms of "dead beat" dads, Fathers that know, but don't give a shit.

A man who has no clue he's become a father has spread some indiscriminate sperm. Woman aren't responsible for informing anybody what the results of that behavior was, they're only responsible for the choices they personally make. We need to be able to preserve autonomy and the human right of choice over our own bodies.

[BalancedGoat]

197. Absolutely.

Of course, exceptions could be made if the father is deemed to be a danger to the child, but that's something that would need to be handled through the courts.

If the choice to tell a father is left up to the mother then fathers truly would have no parental rights.

[Sparkly]

211. I voted "no." nt

[NashVegas]

212. Because Your Question Is So Broad As To Include Every Possible Scenario, I Voted "No."

There will always be some cases where a pregnant woman has the moral obligation to tell the father. There will always be cases where all would be better off with him unknowing.

[LWolf]

216. Yes. nt

[Howzit]

217. This poll is a trap

The question cannot be answered without a context, but no further information was given. So it depends...

You can add a few more such questions: If the woman elects not to inform the known father about the birth of her child, can she change her mind later and insist that he make up for missed child support payments? What about 17 years later?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

218. Hell Yeah He Absolutely Should!

I also think he should have some say in whether or not the child is aborted, if he truly wanted it to live and had the capabilities of raising it. But that's a separate issue. As for this one, absolutely the father should have the right.

[ZombieHorde]

220. I voted yes, he has such a right in most situations, perhaps all situations.

[Monk06]

225. No. If you are not particularily concerned where your sperm goes.

You have no right to have a say in the affairs
of any children that may result in your ....
careless ejaculation.

A woman's uterus is a man's property. But
to use a property analogy:

Someone can't claim ownership of your house
just because you invited them to visit.

[DaveJ]

229. I think you misread the question

It's just asking if the father has the right to know he has a child.

It says nothing about ownership of the child or control over the woman.

I think a lot of people misread the question, or at least I hope that's the reason there are so many no votes. Otherwise I would almost believe that the no votes are guys who don't want to have anything to do with the kids they've helped create.

[Monk06]

231. I didn't misread the question. The question presupposes that a man might

father a child without knowing it.

My opinion is that if you have
unprotected sex which may result
in the birth of a child it is your
responsibility to keep in touch with
the woman in question.

I see no special obligation on her
part to keep you informed if you show
no particular interest in the possibility
that a pregnancy results from your casual
sex.

I had two children in a marriage myself.
The divorce went badly and my visiting
rights were frustrated to the point that
I had only two choices: perpetual litigation
or walk away. I chose the latter in the interest
of the children.

So I sympathize but my answer to the question is
still no.

[TexasObserver]

232. Whether the man ever calls the woman after their sexual encounter is irrelevant.

The notion that the duty to identify the father or notify him should hinge on whether he ever called the woman back is incorrect. Even if this guy has indiscriminate sex every night, while drunk and in the midst of a black out does not change the fact that he is the father. The mother contributed an egg. She didn't contribute the sperm. The father did. He is the father, and if she didn't want to share a child with him, she shouldn't have had unprotected sex and refused to have gotten an abortion.

Her decision is whether to have the child. Once the child is born, getting the name of the father is a societal imperative, and it always has been, except now we have DNA that absolutely tells us who the father really is.

[Monk06]

235. I see no inherent right to fatherhood. It is a privilege earned......

I think your notion that a child having the
fathers name being a social imperative is
archaic. The same as a woman taking a man's
name in marriage is archaic.

These paternalistic practices find their extreme
expression in Prima Genture, which is a feudal
concept that establishes the nobleman's right
to first night procreation with any woman in his
domain.

Again in a modern world fatherhood is a privilege
not a right and society is best off for it.

[Sparkly]

236. Thank you. nt

[TexasObserver]

238. Contrary to your opinion, fatherhood is biological, and with it comes a host of LEGAL duties

Contrary to your opinion, fatherhood is biological, and with it comes a host of LEGAL duties, defined BY LAW. The social imperative to identify the father remains, and is part of the law. The first time any woman applies for benefits, she is required to identify the father. That is because we, as a society, want to have the fathers identified, so WE can require them to be responsible, even if the mother has other ideas or priorities.

[Monk06]

239. Contrary to your opinion, no law requires that a woman identify the father of her child.

And please feel free to quote the statute or
government policy that requires a woman to
say who the father of her child is.

There are many examples, that RWers like to quote,
of women (usually black) who either do not know
or claim not to know who the father of their child
is. Yet they still get benefits.

In BC in order to qualify for welfare you have to
first pursue child support from the father. If you
don't know who the father is or he cannot be found
then the women is entitled to benefits.

[TexasObserver]

241. That's not my opinion, and never has been. You have misstated my position.

I have said repeatedly that the instant she applies for benefits, she will have to identify the father, and once she does so, WE will hold him economically responsible, even though she has failed to protect the child's interest by failing to do so.

I have never said the law requires her to identify the father at birth, (although she might be required to do so as part of a legal case instituted by someone claiming he is the father, or it she is applying for benefits while still in the hospital). I have said the law should require her to do so, to facilitate identifying the father immediately.

[Monk06]

244. Fair ball. I should clarify that I think fathers have responsibilities as well

as rights. But their rights are conditional as
are the mother's on the right of the child to
be properly protected and cared for.

My only objection is paternity disputes brought
on be men who think their paternal rights are
absolute. If you are not interested in having
a relationship with the child or provide for its
financial support then your father-ship
'rights' are extinguished JMHO

[TexasObserver]

246. I agree that bad fathers should have their parental rights terminated.

I hold no quarter for bad fathers, I just don't want that decision resting exclusively in the hands of a woman who may have a set of priorities other than providing the child with access to the father. The mother may be a really bad substance abuser. She may have real emotional problems. She may be suffering from post partum depression, and that may present a danger to her and the child.

I have never advocated allowing fathers to have access to children if the father is determined through a legal process to be undeserving. I hold fathers fully accountable, from the birth of the child if the father is identified and does not question paternity at birth. If they deny, then get them a DNA test and find out.

Identifying fathers is a step. Determining what relationship the father should have with the child, if any, is a separate issue that follows. The economic responsibility should remain unless discharged by court order, terminating other parental rights. Even if that is done, it is still a good idea to know who the bio father is. Medical professionals always want to know what diseases your parents had, what they died from, what conditions may run in one's gene pool. Knowing the medical history of one's actual biological family is important to current medical treatment and assessment.

I start with a presumption that both parents will want to be a parent to their child, and that person should have such rights until a court has determined that is not a good idea, upon sufficient evidence or the admission of the parent that they do not wish to be a part of the child's life.

[Monk06]

251. In my own

marriage when we divorced my ex got all the
furniture, the house and five years of child
support in advance.

She still went to court to keep me from visiting
my kids.

Eventually I gave up fighting. So yeah some women
abuse their power regarding parental rights.

But when it comes to casual sex the man has less
right to make a claim on a women regarding paternity
rights. It is what it is.

Just the same I still don't think fathers have inherent
rights.

[TexasObserver]

253. ok, we'll have to agree to disagree on that last part

I believe all fathers have inherent rights unless and until they are judicially determined to have forfeited those rights by unacceptable conduct.

[Monk06]

254. A minor point by inherent rights, I mean the standard useage in philosophy

meaning absolute or inalienable. So we basically
agree.

[Zuiderelle]

227. KUDOS to you for getting such passionate responses.

Seriously though, what's the end game?

[yellowcanine]

234. It depends. If it is a loving committed relationship, yes.

Coerced or exploitative sex, including prostitution, no.

[Canuckistanian]

237. No, it shouldn't be a "right"

I refer you to the Canadian case of Tremblay v.Daigle.

From CBC News:

1989: The Supreme Court rules that a father has no legal right to veto a woman's abortion decision. The ruling comes after the boyfriend of Chantal Daigle obtained a court injunction preventing her from getting an abortion. By the time the case was settled, Daigle had secretly obtained a late-term abortion in the U.S. In Ontario, a similar injunction was granted against Barbara Dodd filed by her ex-boyfriend. She too has an abortion but later tells the public she regrets her decision.

If fathers had an absolute "right" to know of a pending pregnancy, cases like this would be in the THOUSANDS. And the woman's right to choose would be made irrelevant.

[Ramonna Villota]

240. All Men

Should have to pay a extra tax to help all single mothers. Too many skip out once the hard work starts

[Howzit]

247. Now there is an idea

Why don't you run for president?

[TexasObserver]

249. that's absurd

We need to know the father, so we can hold HIM responsible. Everyone else (men and women) already contributes to the money that is used to give single mother benefits.

[lumberjack_jeff]

256. I think all people with an IQ greater than their thermostat setting should pay a smart tax.

Stupid people can't pay for their DSL any other way.

[lumberjack_jeff]

257. Kudzu. n/t

[Nikia]

258. If he believes he may have fathered a child, it is his responsibility

To find out if there is a child and request testing if there is.
The mother does not and should not have responsibility to inform him unless she wishes to collect child support from him. In most circumstances, the mother will want the father to know. If she does not want to inform him, she probably has a good reason. If he wishes to prove her wrong and be part of his child's life, it is up to him.