The only time a biological father should be relieved of the support obligation is when he is not married to the mother, and he has unequivocally told the mother that he does not want a child. Otherwise, it is always ethical to force the biological father to pay child support. Many deadbeat dads put their own interest above the interest of the child. Thus, creating a conflict between them and the court system because the latter is only concerned with the best interest of the child. These "fathers" ignore the fact that it takes a lot of money to raise a child. Why should the child be penalized for drawing the losing lottery of a "father" who skips out on an obligation as old as humanity itself? I'm referring to the obligation to provide for the support of a child. The amount of the obligation is a separate matter, and it can legitimately be argued that the court system has some inequity build in. However, that inequity is usually overstated. Those fathers who have been denied visitation often have a legitimate gripe. But, for the father who sincerely wants the company of his child(ren), the system provide him a remedy. Sadly, all too many father use deprived visitation as an excuse, rather than expending the effort to force the visitation issue. Some really don't want visitation. They just need to have a reason to avoid child support.
Wednesday, March 21, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
Very touchy subject that can be argued. I am in a toss up; the father has no right to the child during the pregnancy and usually after the birth if the mother would prefer it that way. Yet the father is obligated to pay a certain amount to me this seems hipocritical; if the father should be so liable as to have to pay whether or not he thinks the child should be kept or not shouldn't he have a say on whether the child is kept or placed for adoption or can this be at the sole discretion of the mother? Anyway good post you hit one of the most controversial subjects out there keep up the good posts.
Post a Comment