If child support were voluntary

[VAS1326]

Why should it be the fathers responisbility to pay for a child that he doesn't want, just because the mother can't provide for herself, yet refuses to have an abortion. She gets to choose to have the baby or not, regardless of her financial stability. Why shouldn't he be granted that same right?

Because the state don't want to pay for the kids. That's why you can't relinquish rights even if both parties agree unless there is another father waiting to adopt the child and pick up the financial burden. If father's just walked away or both parents agree'd to relinquish his rights and the mom went on welfare who the Hell they going to go after to pay it? My brother's kid was born on medicaid and he is with the mother though not married. You bet your sweet butt they came after him for part of the hospital bill (he signed affadavidt of paternity cause he knew the baby was his so no DNA test required ) His girlfriend never filed for child support or anything but the state knows who is who on medicaid and though it took over a year they came collecting. That's the same reason you cannot drop a child support case if you are getting benefits. Part of the child support goes to any money owed to the courts (fee's for testing, hearings ect) and to the state (medicaid ect)

The only other issue I see with men being allowed to opt out in early pregnancy is that what man in their right mind would not opt out in order to avoid child support? Especially those who are not emotionally invested in the mother. I got pregnant with my first at 16 years old. I dated her dad for 2 years before that. We broke up a week before I took a pregnancy test. I assure you if he had the option he would have opted out of paying support. We ended up back together and married years later but he wouldn't have paid a dime if he could have gotten away with it in the early years. He had a new sports car to pay for and I heard about that shit daily how he couldn't afford child support because of his new car payment (he lived with his parents for pete's sake).

No it's not fair a mother can abort even if the father doesn't want her too. I really don't know what the solution to that should be. On one hand I think if he wants his child she should have the baby and sign over her rights or be forced to pay support. On the other hand I don't think anyone should be forced to do something with their body they don't want to do. It's a hard dilema and I think you are right Obsolete it isn't ever going to change.

I do think they should change the law about married men being the assumed father. I think if he has any doubt at any time he should be allowed to ask for a dna test and appropriate action taken. It's not fair if the wife cheats and then the state automatically declares the man the father (even if he refuses to sign a birth certificate) Unwed father's have the choice of deciding whether or not to get a dna test and go through the courts to be added to the bc or sign an affidavid of paternity (however; those should be signed only if you know for sure because they wave your right to dna test)

[Kindly One]

Wedding plans... Oh no!
Pregnant? He runs, gets caught, pays:
New bike for me. Whee!

[Obsolete]

Because the state don't want to pay for the kids. That's why you can't relinquish rights even if both parties agree unless there is another father waiting to adopt the child and pick up the financial burden. If father's just walked away or both parents agree'd to relinquish his rights and the mom went on welfare who the Hell they going to go after to pay it?

What are you talking about? Women do have the right to relinquish parental rights as soon as the baby is born. They can sign it over for adoption, or drop it off at a safe haven location.

[VAS1326]

What are you talking about? Women do have the right to relinquish parental rights as soon as the baby is born. They can sign it over for adoption, or drop it off at a safe haven location.

I wasn't referring to women in my response. I'm referring to father's. A father cannot relinquish his parental rights even if both he and the mother agree (at least not in Michigan where I live). The only way a father can relinquish his rights is if mom has another man lined up to adopt.

I know women can put the baby up for adoption as soon as he/she is born but the question you asked is why can't dad's relinquish their rights like the mother can. My answer was because the state don't want to pay for the child. That is why they won't let a father relinquish rights unless another man is willing to pay for the kid. Even if mom hates the father and wants him out of the kids life once he's on that b/c she cannot relinquish his rights even if he agree's. She would have to find another man willing to take on the financial burden of the child through adoption. It's about money for the state. They want to be able to go after a father if the said woman claims welfare for her child. It's all about the dollars. I doubt it will change either fair or not.

[biteme]

I refused child support and my ex got pissed, took me to court for not letting her contribute

[Obsolete]

I wasn't referring to women in my response. I'm referring to father's. A father cannot relinquish his parental rights even if both he and the mother agree (at least not in Michigan where I live). The only way a father can relinquish his rights is if mom has another man lined up to adopt.

I know women can put the baby up for adoption as soon as he/she is born but the question you asked is why can't dad's relinquish their rights like the mother can. My answer was because the state don't want to pay for the child. That is why they won't let a father relinquish rights unless another man is willing to pay for the kid. Even if mom hates the father and wants him out of the kids life once he's on that b/c she cannot relinquish his rights even if he agree's. She would have to find another man willing to take on the financial burden of the child through adoption. It's about money for the state. They want to be able to go after a father if the said woman claims welfare for her child. It's all about the dollars. I doubt it will change either fair or not.

In Oregon a couple can decide to place their child up for adoption, in addition a father AND mother can take a baby to a save haven location and drop it off together.

I just looked up safe haven laws for Michigan and it states "A parent may surrender the child. ''Surrender'' means to leave a newborn with an emergency service provider without expressing an intent to return for the newborn." Parent meaning father or mother. Isn't that giving him the right to relinquish his rights? I didn't realize men could drop their children off at safe havens,

In addition I found this link http://mare.org/Info/AdoptInMI.html which explains the adoption laws in Michigan. It states that both mother and father can sign their child over for adoption to DHS and DHS will then place the child in an agency, or temporary home until a suitable adoptive family is found. There is nothing stating a man has to have another man lined up ready to take responsibility for the child.

From the link:
D. TYPES OF ADOPTIONS IN MICHIGAN
Michigan law allows for many different types of adoptions. The most common adoptions are infant adoptions, state and court ward adoptions, relative adoptions, step-parent adoptions, intercountry and interstate adoption, and adult adoptions.

1.Infant Adoption - Infants placed in adoption by child placing agencies or by the parent through direct placement.

Agency adoption - In agency adoptions, the parent releases the adoptee to a child placing agency. The child placing agency selects the prospective adoptive parent from among its applicants and consents to the adoption. In many child placing agencies it is possible for the adoptee's parent to participate in the selection of the prospective adoptive parent. The sharing of identifying information between the child's parent and adoptive parent is permitted as well as an agreement for continued contact. Agencies can place a child with a prospective adoptive parent before formal placement through a temporary placement (See Section E, Temporary Placement Prior to Adoption) or by licensing the prospective adoptive parent as a foster parent.

NOTE: Reference throughout this pamphlet will be to the parent (singular) of the child, but in general, both parents must be involved even though the parents are not married, or are not married to each other. Likewise, the prospective adopting parent is used in the singular but refers to an adoption by a single person or married couple.

[biteme]

In Oregon a couple can decide to place their child up for adoption, in addition a father AND mother can take a baby to a save haven location and drop it off together.

I just looked up safe haven laws for Michigan and it states "A parent may surrender the child. ''Surrender'' means to leave a newborn with an emergency service provider without expressing an intent to return for the newborn." Parent meaning father or mother. Isn't that giving him the right to relinquish his rights? I didn't realize men could drop their children off at safe havens,

In addition I found this link http://mare.org/Info/AdoptInMI.html which explains the adoption laws in Michigan. It states that both mother and father can sign their child over for adoption to DHS and DHS will then place the child in an agency, or temporary home until a suitable adoptive family is found. There is nothing stating a man has to have another man lined up ready to take responsibility for the child.

In all of this the father still can NOT choose to give up his rights, only the mother can

[gee]

I just looked up safe haven laws for Michigan and it states "A parent may surrender the child. ''Surrender'' means to leave a newborn with an emergency service provider without expressing an intent to return for the newborn." Parent meaning father or mother. Isn't that giving him the right to relinquish his rights? I didn't realize men could drop their children off at safe havens,

This is rather disturbing! How would they know that the father didn't just take the child from the mother and drop off to a safe haven for surrender? That would not seem right!

[Obsolete]

In all of this the father still can NOT choose to give up his rights, only the mother can

You're wrong. Read the link, it says

7.Placement of a child for adoption can be done only by the parent of the adoptee, a child placing agency, the DHS, or a court that has the legal and physical custody of the adoptee.

9.Before a formal placement the rights of both parents must be terminated.

If a father has full custody of a child, he can give that child up for adoption. If he doesn't have full custody, both custodial parents have to sign away their rights.

[Obsolete]

This is rather disturbing! How would they know that the father didn't just take the child from the mother and drop off to a safe haven for surrender? That would not seem right!

How do they know the woman dropping her child off at a safe haven is actually the childs mother? Same thing applies. Without questioning the person dropping off the child (male or female) they don't really know who the person is.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

I know women can put the baby up for adoption as soon as he/she is born but the question you asked is why can't dad's relinquish their rights like the mother can.

Father's have the right to object to the adoption. They are usually not successful because our judicial system views a two parent adoption as better in the child's interest than a single parent. If a man is truly interested in parenting a child, he needs to protect his rights from the second he learns of the pregnancy. In the case of a mother giving a child up for adoption, this includes monetary, physical, and emotional interest in the child as well as legal representation and establishing paterenaty ASAP. Many states also have a "Putative Father Registry" and laws protecting their rights in adoption cases.

The U.S. Supreme Court has protected a putative father's right to constitutional protection of his parental rights when he has established a substantial relationship with his child. The Court defined a substantial relationship as the existence of a biological link between the child and putative father, and the father's commitment to the responsibilities of parenthood by participating in the child's upbringing.

Several critical concerns, however, have been unresolved by the Court. For instance, when an infant is placed for adoption at birth, the putative father can have no more than a biological link to his child; he never received an opportunity to develop a substantial relationship with his child. The Court has yet to rule on what this putative father must do to protect his parental rights. Consequently, there is a lack of uniformity among States as to the level of protection available to unwed fathers

http://laws.adoption.com/statutes/pu...fathers-2.html

In many cases, a man who wishes to raise his child that the woman wants to adopt out has a hard row to hoe. It really isn't fair but has a basis in law geared towards "the best interest of the kid" that may not make sense in all situations. He has to be diligent, vigilant, and aggressive in his pursuit of the matter. I'm not sure how often men take this route. I suspect that it is not as often as men who wish nothing to do with the child.

Yes, there are horror stories where kids are adopted out from under perfectly willing and able fathers and the legal nightmares that ensue. Mothers may not inform fathers of a pregnancy or disappear before a birth or a host of other shenanigans. But they are often just ways of the MOTHER avoiding paying child support... the same thing many men are accused of doing.

[Obsolete]

In all of this the father still can NOT choose to give up his rights, only the mother can

I just called the Judson Center in Michigan, The woman I spoke to confirmed that a single father with full custody, a single mother with full custody, or if custody is shared the mother and father can jointly place a child up for adoption. The child will either be place in a state ran agency until a suitable adoptive parent can be located, or placed in a temporary home while the state investigates the family that the parent(s) have chosen to adopt their child, usually a relative or friend). A father does not have to have a replacement father lined up.

[biteme]

I just called the Judson Center in Michigan, The woman I spoke to confirmed that a single father with full custody, a single mother with full custody, or if custody is shared the mother and father can jointly place a child up for adoption. The child will either be place in a state ran agency until a suitable adoptive parent can be located, or placed in a temporary home while the state investigates the family that the parent(s) have chosen to adopt their child, usually a relative or friend). A father does not have to have a replacement father lined up.

Yeah you twist and turn until you're right
But court appointed custody wasn't what she was talking about
here's the point as I understood it

A pregnant woman has choices, the man can't make them for her was her point
if he wants the child it's not his choice, if he doesn't want the child not his choice and he will pay child support was her point

[Obsolete]

Yeah you twist and turn until you're right
But court appointed custody wasn't what she was talking about
here's the point as I understood it

A pregnant woman has choices, the man can't make them for her was her point
if he wants the child it's not his choice, if he doesn't want the child not his choice and he will pay child support was her point

Um no... she said

A father cannot relinquish his parental rights even if both he and the mother agree (at least not in Michigan where I live). The only way a father can relinquish his rights is if mom has another man lined up to adopt.

Per the State of Michigan, a father CAN relinquish his rights whether he has another father lined up or not.

Did you even read her post or are you "twisting and turning" until it suits you?

[Dakota Valkyrie]

Um no... she said

Per the State of Michigan, a father CAN relinquish his rights whether he has another father lined up or not.

I think the reference was to if the mother is retaining custody. Most states do not allow the father to relinquish custody if there is not a step-parent waiting in the wings to adopt. Adoption outside of the bio parents is a different situation.

[Obsolete]

I think the reference was to if the mother is retaining custody. Most states do not allow the father to relinquish custody if there is not a step-parent waiting in the wings to adopt. Adoption outside of the bio parents is a different situation.

That makes sense.

[VAS1326]

Um no... she said

Per the State of Michigan, a father CAN relinquish his rights whether he has another father lined up or not.

Did you even read her post or are you "twisting and turning" until it suits you?

No you misunderstood me. Of course if both parents wish to give the child up they can do so. What I meant by that is if the mother choses to keep the child and wishes for the father to have rights removed and he agree's the state will not allow it. Even if the mother and father want his rights gone the only way the state will do that is if the mother has been married for a year and her new husband wishes to adopt. The only other way for a fathe to lose rights in Michigan is under the criminal conduct code which does not apply to this discussion. Therefore the only way for a father to "give up" his rights while the mother retains custody of the child is if an adoptive step parent is present. This is true in the reverse as well.

So I don't know what you are talking about. Of course the parents can give the baby up in entirety if they both chose too but if mom holds out and wants to keep the kid dad is going to be stuck paying. He cannot chose to walk away and I believe this is so the state can hold him financially responsible especially if the child goes on state aid. They don't like to part with their money and are going to make damn sure someone pays.

[VAS1326]

I think the reference was to if the mother is retaining custody. Most states do not allow the father to relinquish custody if there is not a step-parent waiting in the wings to adopt. Adoption outside of the bio parents is a different situation.

Yes that is exactly what I referring too. Thank you for clearing that up since I may not have been very clear in my post.

[Obsolete]

You're right, I misread it. It makes sense now.

[Dakota Valkyrie]

I think it's been decided that the system is unfair to fathers but it is an evolving situation. The main point, for me, is that is fair for the KIDS. In the "olden days" when fathers could relinquish rights (and thus child support) quite easily, many children suffered from the poverty that occurred.

Yes, there are situations where a single mom is far more economically capable than the father BUT everyone knows that that situation does not always remain such. A simple job loss or health problems can put someone on assistance or in a position where the child support is vital. Protecting the interest of the children is the main and foremost importance.

Taxpayers - you and I - foot the bill for public assistance. Recouping some of the costs doesn't seem that unreasonable. Seems hardly fair that totally unrelated people should have to pay for it just because some guy couldn't keep his pecker in his pants. It's not like most folks don't know where babies come from.

[VAS1326]

Sorry for the confusion. Sometimes I type real fast and don't always filter brain to keyboard so I may have been unclear.

[Obsolete]

Sorry for the confusion. Sometimes I type real fast and don't always filter brain to keyboard so I may have been unclear.

No, your post was clear, I just read too fast. Everyone else seemed to understand it just fine.