Beyond C4M
John Ward
If men, women, children, and taxpayers are put into a recipe, the
result may be distasteful or even indigestible to some. There are too
many ways to end up with results that are emotionally or financially
damaging to one or more parties.
This article attempts to describe a recipe with fewer chances for
reasonable people to be damaged in such ways. It is an "aiming point"
for the future. Some ingredients exist now, some will almost inevitably
exist within a number of years, while some will have to be fought hard
for if they are ever to exist.
This is an (evolving) outline recipe. It is not complete, unambiguous,
or consistent. It is intended to suggest a possible future which people
can judge by saying, "Yes, I could live like that" or "Yuck!"
VALUES:
There are 3 main values here:
1: RIGHTS. Both men & women have a full range of life-options which
will not be denied them unless they screw-up. These include the rights
to reasonable actions without adverse consequences and the rights of
relationships with their children. [1]
2: RESPONSIBILITIES. Both men & women are assumed to be (reasonably)
adult and don't act unless they are prepared for the possible
consequences. (Some means of avoiding consequences from rash actions
are also provided). Given their options to avoid adverse consequences,
when they DO incur adverse consequences they must be compliant. [2]
3: RESPECT. Where alternative proposals are available, the one favoured
by adults who display respect to the other adults & children concerned
is chosen. [3]
SUMMARY OF THE RECIPE:
This is intended to be a concise readable summary. There are lots of
footnotes for clarification. Legalistic precision is not intended.
A: PRE-SEX:
Both men & women can control their own fertility using high-quality
contraception. So each can veto pregnancy by choices not just
immediately before sex, but well before the heat of the moment. [4]
If there are any remaining deficiencies in the contraception, financial
services such as insurance can smooth the risk across all the users if
the person chooses to pay for the service. [5]
B: DURING PREGNANCY:
Both men & women can carry embryos/babies to term. [6]
Whoever is carrying an embryo/baby to term has sole control over
whether it is aborted. [7]
C: FOLLOWING BIRTH:
A child has a man & woman with rights & responsibilities for it
wherever possible. [8]
By default, these are the genetic parents. Since they had the means of
avoiding the pregnancy, they must be compliant in their
responsibilities once the child is born. [9]
This allocation of rights & responsibilities is overridden in defined
cases. There are processes for transferring the rights &
responsibilities to others, as long as all parties agree or there is
other due process. [10]
"Rights" include contact & care. Such rights for both parents are
strongly enforced with due process. [11]
"Responsibilities" include providing support, including money. Such
responsibilities for both parents are strongly enforced with due
process. [12]
Child Support (see "responsibility") is based on the researched
expenditure on goods & services for children. Where care is shared, the
formula is symmetrical, with each parent being considered to be the
resident parent part-time & the absent parent part-time. [13]
D: SPECIAL CASES:
Where there is an unnatural process leading to the child, the principle
is to favour the person with respect for other adults & children. [14]
A person cannot become pregnant by artificial means unless there is a
person who would share responsibility for the child, and that person
agrees. [15]
Pre-pregnancy formal agreements are favoured as long as the child will
have a man & women with rights & responsibilities for it. [16]
WINNERS & LOSERS
The winners in this future will be the people who respect partners &
children, and take responsibility for their actions (or don't act!)
The losers are those who are careless or play games or act selfishly.
They may be men who lie or are careless, or women who want to have
children despite a man's wishes. In the latter case, the man's control
of his fertility will thwart the woman's aims, and there will be no
child.
Since shared care is a right in this future, women will need to take
into account the possibility that they will not have exclusive control
of any children, and may indeed share the payment of Child Support.
This should make women more considerate pre-sex & during pregnancy.
FOOTNOTES:
[1] One "right" is: "A person can have consensual sex without the risk
of the emotional or financial consequences of a child resulting from
that sex".
It isn't written into the constitution or laws. It is actually a
desirable feature of the future (wishful thinking) rather than a right.
But it is a good aiming point, for both men & women.
[2] One "responsibility" is: "A person who doesn't use the
contraceptives available becomes compliant in the support of the child,
if any".
An aim is to avoid children without 2 parents to support them, wherever
possible. Experience says that more supporting adults is better than
fewer supporting adults, and 2 is a good minimum to aim for. If
contraceptives are good enough, no sympathy need be wasted over those
who fail to use them.
[3] The aim is not to reward respect, or punish lack of respect. The
principle is simply to use respect or lack of it as a way of choosing
among alternatives.
For example, using a contraceptive to avoid paying Child Support is
more respectful to the partner & potential child & taxpayers than
opting-out of paying Child Support after NOT using a contraceptive.
[4] It can be assumed that contraceptives for women will continue to
improve.
Contraceptives for men are likely to improve & proliferate to a massive
degree over the next decade or 2. Some of them will be unobtrusive.
Some, such as the use of super-glue in the vas deferentia, will enable
men to be infertile until they choose to reverse it. Reversal will be
pretty reliable.
The aim is to avoid children being born who were unwanted at the time
of sex. The "unwanted at the time of sex" qualification is important.
It is probably impossible to cater satisfactorily for men who change
their minds, or CLAIM to change their minds, after sex. ("When we had
sex without contraception I was willing to support a child. Now I've
changed my mind and you must have an abortion or bring it up on your
own". Ha!)
[5] Perhaps manufacturers of the next generation of contraceptives can
be persuaded to display confidence by offering insurance against the
failure of properly applied contraception.
[6] There is research in progress on this. There have even been news
items about cases. These are almost certainly false. It is probably a
decade or 2 away.
[7] But when it happens, the REAL male equivalent of Roe v Wade will be
to allow such men to abort. The impact of pregnancy on a person is such
that that person must be allowed to choice about whether to continue or
abort. If this is objectionable to the partner, that issue should have
been sorted out pre-sex. ("Pre-sex" is the time to sort out most
issues).
[8] This is close to the existing situation. But there are anomalies
that should be closed in future.
There are imperfections. Death causes a gap. So does absconding.
Sometimes ending up with just one parent is a result that has to be
accepted.
I don't know what to say about gay parents.
[9] There needs to be an unambiguous way of selecting the default
people (parents) with rights & responsibilities. Preferably they should
be the people who, had they not had sex, would have avoided the child
existing. DNA testing is a useful tool.
Apart from anything else, this will focus the minds of people before
they have sex! And with the sort of high quality contraceptives there
will be in future, this should not be a problem for sensible people.
[10] Adoption is an obvious process of transferral of rights &
responsibilities. It should involve all parties, or at least use due
process if one or more of the people already with rights &
responsibilities is to be overridden.
[11] This requires massive changes to existing practice, and possibly
to existing law. Shared care should be considered normal. Reasonable
people should be favoured over unreasonable people. Perhaps "parenting
plans", with moderate plans selected in preference to extreme plans,
are the tool:
Co-operative Parenting via Parenting Plans
John Ward 06/12/1999
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=488769747
Contact thwarters should be subjected to whatever penalties are needed
to ensure compliance, certainly including prison, probably including
transferring residence to the other parent.
[12] The target for Child Support compliance is 100%. There must be no
opt-outs.
With high quality contraception, there must no excuse for not using it.
This is out of respect to children, taxpayers, and partners.
[13] There are plenty of proposals around for improving Child support
formulae. The best proposals are symmetrical.
[14] Kass v Kass illustrated a case where the woman did not respect the
man (and possibly not the child). This is a pre-sex model.
[15] Some cases such as single-parent artificial insemination &
adoption are dubious, and should probably be banned. They are
disrespectful to the children and send the wrong messages about the
rights of children.
[16] Johnson v Calvert is an example.
--
John Ward
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
elco...@netzero.net
Whomever is carrying the embryo/fetus to term has sole control over
whether that embryo/fetus becomes a child that would need support.
Whomever causes the child to come into existence should be the one who
has the obligation of support.
>C: FOLLOWING BIRTH:
>
>A child has a man & woman with rights & responsibilities for it
>wherever possible. [8]
>
>By default, these are the genetic parents.
Maybe in Britian -- and I say *maybe* because no one has posted any
British Law that states this. In the U.S. the default parents are the
birth mother and her spouse.
> Since they had the means of
>avoiding the pregnancy, they must be compliant in their
>responsibilities once the child is born. [9]
Notice, no mention of "since they had the means of avoiding the child
coming into existence." Heaven forbid that the responsibility be laid
at the feet of the one person who created that responsibility.
>This allocation of rights & responsibilities is overridden in defined
>cases. There are processes for transferring the rights &
>responsibilities to others, as long as all parties agree or there is
>other due process. [10]
>
>"Rights" include contact & care. Such rights for both parents are
>strongly enforced with due process. [11]
>
>"Responsibilities" include providing support, including money. Such
>responsibilities for both parents are strongly enforced with due
>process. [12]
>
>Child Support (see "responsibility") is based on the researched
>expenditure on goods & services for children. Where care is shared, the
>formula is symmetrical, with each parent being considered to be the
>resident parent part-time & the absent parent part-time. [13]
>
>D: SPECIAL CASES:
>
>Where there is an unnatural process leading to the child, the principle
>is to favour the person with respect for other adults & children. [14]
>
>A person cannot become pregnant by artificial means unless there is a
>person who would share responsibility for the child, and that person
>agrees. [15]
>
>Pre-pregnancy formal agreements are favoured as long as the child will
>have a man & women with rights & responsibilities for it. [16]
Note: MARRIAGE is not considered *at all* as having any bearing on
any responsibility for children. One has to wonder about the message
the Brits are pushing here.
>WINNERS & LOSERS
>
>The winners in this future will be the people who respect partners &
>children....
Respect partners? Hell, you don't even acknowledge the existence of
any partnership agreement, i.e. marriage.
Society
news:3932d564...@news.nvbell.net...
>
> John Ward wrote:
> >
> >WINNERS & LOSERS
> >
> >The winners in this future will be the people who
> >respect partners & children....
>
> Respect partners? Hell, you don't even acknowledge
> the existence of any partnership agreement, i.e. marriage.
Well said, elcoyote.
There's always a big ol' flaw in a John Ward "analysis".
BTW, "respect partners and children" is just a
feminist code phrase for "obey the woman's whim
as she uses the sprogs she whelps as hostages
for her demands".
---
All excuses for feminism depend on lies.
John Ward
In article <3932d564...@news.nvbell.net>,
elco...@netzero.net wrote:
> On Mon, 29 May 2000 19:15:13 GMT, John Ward
> <John...@iclwebkit.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> >A child has a man & woman with rights & responsibilities for it
> >wherever possible. [8]
> >
> >By default, these are the genetic parents.
>
> Maybe in Britian -- and I say *maybe* because no one has posted any
> British Law that states this.
[snip]
I posted this in 13th May. I won't post it again because it was 28KB,
so see the URL below.
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=622999899
(And remember that this "Beyond C4M" article is a view of a possible
future - several ingredients don't exist at the moment. I predict that
the USA will move this way eventually).
John Ward
"Society" <soc...@feminism.is.invalid> wrote:
[snip]
> > John Ward wrote:
> > >
> > >WINNERS & LOSERS
> > >
> > >The winners in this future will be the people who
> > >respect partners & children....
> BTW, "respect partners and children" is just a
> feminist code phrase for "obey the woman's whim
> as she uses the sprogs she whelps as hostages
> for her demands".
Wow! You've got your hands on a feminist code book? They rarely come to
market. It must be worth a fortune at auction. Is it the edition with
the one-time-pad in dungaree blue?
OK, so what phrase should I use for the following principles?
- Both parents have a right to share the care of their children.
- Either parent who thwarts contact can be imprisoned and/or lose
amounts of contact/care.
- CS rules are symmetrical so that each parent is formally liable to
pay.
- CS is formally awarded to the child. ("Beyond C4M" Version 2).
- Parents are required to move back into employment with gradual
withdrawal of benefits as the children have less need for immediate
care.
(Or are these straight feminist "respect the child" principles?)
John Ward
<elco...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:3932d564...@news.nvbell.net...
> On Mon, 29 May 2000 19:15:13 GMT, John Ward
> <John...@iclwebkit.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> >Pre-pregnancy formal agreements are favoured as long as the child
> >will have a man & women with rights & responsibilities for it. [16]
>
> Note: MARRIAGE is not considered *at all* as having any bearing on
> any responsibility for children. One has to wonder about the
> message the Brits are pushing here.
Given what I said above about what "the child will have ..." should
marriage make any difference? (I am only talking here about the case
where the parents are no longer together. If they are together, we can
just let them get on with it).
One view says: "Yes - the (ex) married couple are the man & women with
rights & responsibilities for it". This is really the "presumption of
parentage" rule that causes so much upset. (If the parents agree to
this rule, that's fine. In the UK, the (ex) husband can challenge it
with a DNA test, but he doesn't have to if he wants to continue the
relationship with the child).
Another view says: "No - use the same rule as the never-married case".
Sort things out initially by genetic parentage, followed by other rules
such as adoption, etc. My proposed recipe uses this approach unless the
parents agree otherwise.
The problem is – if the children of (ex) married parents are better off
in law, then those of never-married parents must be worse off. The
recipe tries to avoid assigning this first-class or second-class status
to a child. If the parents’ relationship is considered wrong, then
punish them, not the child.
> >WINNERS & LOSERS
> >
> >The winners in this future will be the people who respect partners
> >& children....
>
> Respect partners? Hell, you don't even acknowledge the existence of
> any partnership agreement, i.e. marriage.
See above. I'm taking the view that marriage is more to do with how the
man and women treat each other than how they treat the child after
separation/divorce. (I know that in the UK many never-married fathers
get a shock at their lack of automatic rights after separation. I
favour remedying this).
elco...@netzero.net
<John...@iclwebkit.co.uk> wrote:
>(Reply 1).
>
>In article <3932d564...@news.nvbell.net>,
> elco...@netzero.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 May 2000 19:15:13 GMT, John Ward
>> <John...@iclwebkit.co.uk> wrote:
>[snip]
>> >A child has a man & woman with rights & responsibilities for it
>> >wherever possible. [8]
>> >
>> >By default, these are the genetic parents.
>>
>> Maybe in Britian -- and I say *maybe* because no one has posted any
>> British Law that states this.
>[snip]
>
>I posted this in 13th May. I won't post it again because it was 28KB,
>so see the URL below.
>http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=622999899
...
The only use of the word *genetic* in that post is your comments.
Please point out the *LAW(S)* that states that the default
responsibility towards the child rests upon the biological parents
(plural).
John Ward
news:3934042...@news.nvbell.net...
> On Tue, 30 May 2000 12:52:05 GMT, John Ward
> <John...@iclwebkit.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> >I posted this in 13th May. I won't post it again because it was
> >28KB, so see the URL below.
> >http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=622999899
>
So what? Try the following:
"DNA"
"DNA test"
"test"
"scientific test"
"blood"
Hint - "DNA tests" are "genetic tests". (Genes are made from
Deoxyribonucleic Acid - DNA). "Scientific tests" now mean "DNA tests"
which means "genetic tests". ("Blood tests" used to test for blood
groups, but now blood is used for "DNA tests" hence for "genetic
tests").
Stop playing silly word-games. Look for the REAL meaning behind those
words in the REAL world. The only point of doing a DNA test is to test
the genetic match. Are you REALLY one of the few people around who
doesn't know that a DNA test is a test for genetic match, and that when
a DNA test is used for CS purposes it is testing genetic parentage? Ye
Gods!
> Please point out the *LAW(S)* that states that the default
> responsibility towards the child rests upon the biological parents
> (plural).
The following URL describes and quotes from laws concerned with using
DNA tests, Scientific tests, and Blood tests to determine liability for
CS. Those tests are obviously testing for genetic parentage - there is
nothing else they can be doing.
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=622999899
But if you choose to ignore the evidence, I simply don’t care. What
difference can you make? I posted the information altruistically to
inform you, not because you could help me or hinder me.
Society
news:8h0j68$aau$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
>
>Society explained...
>>
>> > John Ward wrote:
>> >
>> >WINNERS & LOSERS
>> >
>> >The winners in this future will be the people who
>> >respect partners & children....
>>
>> feminist code phrase for "obey the woman's whim
>> as she uses the sprogs she whelps as hostages
>> for her demands".
>
> Wow! You've got your hands on a feminist code book?
No. I'm just intelligent enough to successfully
analyse your use of it.
---
All excuses for feminism depend on censorship
of reality to appear plausible.
John Ward
$bH5.1...@nntp1.onemain.com...[snip]
> > Wow! You've got your hands on a feminist code book?
>
> No. I'm just intelligent enough to successfully
> analyse your use of it.
I see no evidence so far that you have even read my article that
started this thread, let alone analysed it. (If you've posted such
evidence, in articles other than those I quote below, I apologise).
In my article
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=628702018
I described a future that involved men taking control of their own
fertility so that as far as possible they wanted any children they
fathered. I also described the sort of "father's rights" which should
accompany such a positive approach to fathering children.
I doubt if my article resembled mainline feminist thinking. (I know
little about feminism so I can't be sure). I suspect you had a knee-
jerk reaction - you disagree with some things I say, so you used your
worst insult!
"elcoyote" criticised my article for not discussing marriage in
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=628753522
and you appeared to support him in
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=628846419
yet what you appear to be supporting was something like
the "presumption of paternity" model instead of the "genetic father"
model I was favouring.
It is a matter of judgement which of these is best. But I don't think a
model which allows a wife to be unfaithful and have a child by someone
other than her husband, while the husband must support the child, is in
men's interests. Before we had DNA testing, it was the best we could
do, but I believe we have better options for the future.
I said in my article "The winners in this future will be the people who
respect partners & children". Your response was ""respect partners and
children" is just a feminist code phrase for "obey the woman's whim as
she uses the sprogs she whelps as hostages for her demands"".
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=628846419
"Just"? Does "respect partners & children" exist nowhere else? How sad!
If respect for partners and children exists nowhere else, then it
should. And if it does exist elsewhere, your statement "is just a
feminist code phrase" is wrong. I suspect the latter.
I have criticised your proposed scope of C4M "any case in which Choice
for Women exists in which post-coital refusal of parenthood of any of
her whelplings is possible."
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=628073657
One response of mine was "YOU appear to be so dominated by females that
you use their rights and choices as a yardstick for men".
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=628269962
Another was "You have defined C4M in terms of Choice for Women. Are
women to be the yardstick for men? Are men's rights to be just what
women choose/achieve for their rights? Are men's wants & choices to be
based on women's wants & choices?"
http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=628269971
You appear to be letting women, perhaps even feminists, define the
background for your agenda. You react to them instead of trying to
envisage a future based on a selected balance of rights and
responsibilities of men.
Perhaps that satisfies you. I think it is narrow, and puts men at the
mercy of changes to women's opportunities & constraints. I would prefer
to see men's rights & choices defined in terms of what suits men,
although constraints to respect the positions of women & children are
still necessary. (What if men believe they need extra rights? What if
there are some rights which men don’t need and would simply delay
things?)
elco...@netzero.net
<John...@iclwebkit.co.uk> wrote:
>(Reply 1).
>
>In article <3932d564...@news.nvbell.net>,
> elco...@netzero.net wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 May 2000 19:15:13 GMT, John Ward
>> <John...@iclwebkit.co.uk> wrote:
>[snip]
>> >A child has a man & woman with rights & responsibilities for it
>> >wherever possible. [8]
>> >
>> >By default, these are the genetic parents.
>>
>> Maybe in Britian -- and I say *maybe* because no one has posted any
>> British Law that states this.
>[snip]
>
>I posted this in 13th May. I won't post it again because it was 28KB,
>so see the URL below.
>http://www.deja.com/getdoc.xp?AN=622999899
>
>(And remember that this "Beyond C4M" article is a view of a possible
>future - several ingredients don't exist at the moment. I predict that
>the USA will move this way eventually).
And the crap you post shows that the default legal parenthood in the
UK is the same as in the US -- marriage. Any claim to parenthood that
challenges this has to be contested and proven in court.
elco...@netzero.net
<John...@iclwebkit.co.uk> wrote:
...
>The problem is – if the children of (ex) married parents are better off
>in law, then those of never-married parents must be worse off.
Well shit! The children of rich folks are better off than the
children of po' folks. I really am not concerned with whether or not
po' folks choose to have children that need support. If you are then
feel free to suport a socialist state that supports these po' children
-- but this is not justification for imposing financial slavery upon
men.
...
>The
>recipe tries to avoid assigning this first-class or second-class status
>to a child. If the parents’ relationship is considered wrong, then
>punish them, not the child.
Shall we punish poor families for the *crime* of having children?
...
> (I know that in the UK many never-married fathers
>get a shock at their lack of automatic rights after separation. I
>favour remedying this).
You want me to believe that common law marriage is not legal in the
UK? God, what a babraric place!
John Ward
news:3940e9b7...@news.nvbell.net...
[snip]
> And the crap you post shows that the default legal parenthood
> in the UK is the same as in the US -- marriage. Any claim to
> parenthood that challenges this has to be contested and
> proven in court.
In the USA can an ex-husband demand the use of a DNA test to determine
whether he is the genetic father of a child born while he was married?
If so, and the DNA test shows he is not the genetic father, will he be free
of any child support liability for that child?
This is the case in the UK. If it isn't the case in the USA, then it is
false to say "... the UK is the same as in the US ...".
What is the corresponding rule in NZ, Australia, Canada?
--
John Ward
John Ward
news:3940eab7...@news.nvbell.net...
> On Tue, 30 May 2000 16:58:56 GMT, John Ward
> <John...@iclwebkit.co.uk> wrote:
[snip]
> >The problem is - if the children of (ex) married parents are
> >better off in law, then those of never-married parents
> >must be worse off.
>
> Well shit! The children of rich folks are better off than
> the children of po' folks. I really am not concerned
> with whether or not po' folks choose to have children
> that need support
Who (apart from you!) was talking about rich or poor folks? I certainly
didn't even HINT at the topic of whether some folks were rich or poor! Go
read what I said!
I was talking about whether children were better off or worse off in law in
some situations, which is a totally different subject. YOU mentioned
marriage, as though it is significant to the fate of the children. But if it
is, then that presumably means that marriage makes some children better or
worse off. THAT is what I was arguing against.
Marriage may be relevant to the parents, post-separation/divorce. My recipe
tries to avoid assigning this first-class or second-class status to a child.
If the parents' relationship is considered wrong, then punish them, not the
child. That is why I ignore marriage when considering the fate of the
children post separation/divorce.
--
John Ward
Jim Rogers
...
> Shall we punish poor families for the *crime*
> of having children?
Right; let's "punish" only poor _women_ for that. The fathers,
after all, don't deserve notice.
Jim
elco...@netzero.net
<John...@iclwebkit.co.uk> wrote:
><elco...@netzero.net> wrote in message
>news:3940e9b7...@news.nvbell.net...
>[snip]
>> And the crap you post shows that the default legal parenthood
>> in the UK is the same as in the US -- marriage. Any claim to
>> parenthood that challenges this has to be contested and
>> proven in court.
>
>In the USA can an ex-husband demand the use of a DNA test to determine
>whether he is the genetic father of a child born while he was married?
>
>If so, and the DNA test shows he is not the genetic father, will he be free
>of any child support liability for that child?
>
>This is the case in the UK. If it isn't the case in the USA, then it is
>false to say "... the UK is the same as in the US ...".
Big fucking deal! The legal DEFAULT is marriage. You do not have to
demand tests and go to court to support a DEFAULT situation.
John Ward
news:39416341...@news.nvbell.net...
[snip]
> Big fucking deal! The legal DEFAULT is marriage. You do not
> have to demand tests and go to court to support a DEFAULT
> situation.
Says who? Have you just invented another rule?
Stop your obsession with your own interpretations of the word "default".
Look at the realities for people in the UK. The ex-husband of the birth
mother is NOT responsible for supporting the child unless he is the
genetic father, or he chooses to, or there is some other relevant
condition, for example he has chosen to claim Parental Responsibility
or has adopted the child.
He can:
- Request a DNA test, in which case it is up to "the state" to show
that he is the genetic father (else refund his costs for the DNA test).
- Even if he has been paying, and LATER shows by a DNA test that he is
not the genetic father, he can request a refund of the payments, and
should get it.
Not only is he NOT the legally responsible father unless one of those
conditions applies. There doesn't even have to be another father
identified. It isn't simply a matter of "you are the father unless we
can find someone else". It is a matter of "if you choose not to accept
that you are the father, we will have to prove you are, and if we
can't, you are NOT responsible even if we can't find who should be
responsible".
That is what it is like in the UK, shorn of pedantry about words. How
does THAT compare with the USA? NZ? Australia? Canada?
gerry
John Ward wrote:
>
> - Request a DNA test, in which case it is up to "the state" to show
> that he is the genetic father (else refund his costs for the DNA test).
>
> - Even if he has been paying, and LATER shows by a DNA test that he is
> not the genetic father, he can request a refund of the payments, and
> should get it.
>
> Not only is he NOT the legally responsible father unless one of those
> conditions applies. There doesn't even have to be another father
> identified. It isn't simply a matter of "you are the father unless we
> can find someone else". It is a matter of "if you choose not to accept
> that you are the father, we will have to prove you are, and if we
> can't, you are NOT responsible even if we can't find who should be
> responsible".
>
> That is what it is like in the UK, shorn of pedantry about words. How
> does THAT compare with the USA? NZ? Australia? Canada?
>
It isn't the situation in the US. In the vast majority of states, if not
all of them, a woman's husband is the default father of her children.
(I can, if you wish, cite the California statute on this). If he has
been acting as father under the impression that we was the genetic
parent, and later discovers the children are not biologically his, he is
still liable for child support.
Oddly enough, the reason given for this is that it's a presumption of
English common law, which leads me to believe that if England now does
things differently , it must have changed by statute. Do you know when
the law was chenged?