Whose kid is this, anyway?

Submitted by anthony on Sun, 2009-10-04 22:36

Article here. Excerpt:

'Let us examine the dynamics of having a child out of wedlock by beginning at birth. With all the medical professionals to witness the beautiful mess of birthing, pinpointing the mother is easy - she's the one lying on the table screaming for an epidural. Unless the old switcheroo is played at the hospital, that person goes on the birth certificate as "mother" and half of the parenting team is established.

There's also a place on the birth certificate for the father. Whoever signs up at the hospital is presumptively the father whether or not he knew the mother under Old Testament guidelines. A legal presumption is something that is assumed true but not considered firmly established. Legal presumptions can be subsequently disproven.

When a non-marital relationship goes bad, men are often surprised to find that, even after a few years of cohabitation and with their name on a birth certificate, they suddenly have no right whatsoever to see the child...
...
That's one right a father has without his paternity being legally established - the right to pay child support. The birth certificate is enough for the Child Support Enforcement Agency to establish a support order, although a presumptive father can immediately demand testing to unburden himself.

If the father does not want anything to do with the child, he better hope the mother finds a guy who does. An adoption terminates the previous father's rights, meaning, no more support. Only an adoption can so terminate a natural father's, or natural mother's, obligations.*'

* Not in Alabama anymore, anyway. See story just posted.

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Ahhh, yes, the legal "right" to pay child support, but those give you nothing in the way of actually letting you be a father to your child. No visitation, no custody, no nothing. To actually have a legally sanctioned role, you have to file an expensive case just to even get visitation rights to see your own child.

The presumption in Missouri is that the father's of children born out of wedlock have no rights other than to be an ATM machine & health insurance provider under penalty of jail, passport revocation, license suspension, and about 20 other nasty things they can (and do) do to NCP's.

These issues are not separate to most fathers, and should really be decided with a presumption of involvement rather than the other way around. Plenty of good dad's wont even get the chance to have a real relationship with their kids because of the financial and legal hurdles to securing even the most basic of rights. Its all well and good to say "They can do that later when they get a bit more money" yadda, but there is the issue of "continuity of environment", and the courts here will actually use you not seeing your kids (because you don't have a visitation order) as a reason not to "grant you" visitation with your own kids.

I find the whole thing completely obscene. Some punk in a black robe decides whether I can see my own child? Gives me, a father, *permission* to see my own flesh and blood? And the legislature is so arrogant to assume rights well beyond anything God intended that they are in a position to deny this automatically, and turn a God given right into a privilege???

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by SacredNaCl on Sun, 2009-10-11 11:55