UK Abortion Act is not working as intended

[Riverwind]

As a society, are we prepared to release men from their financial responsibilities in order to level the playing field for reproductive rights of men and women? My opinion is no we should not. I am quite happy with the system of child support as it is, provided paternity has been definitely established.

So you have no problem with a woman collecting support from multiple fathers for the same child? The current system allows that if a woman has multiple relationships. Edited December 2, 2007 by Riverwind

[Drea]

You missed MDancer's post.. the woman will tell the man she is on birthcontrol and that he need not use condoms... and bingo! pregnancy.

I realize that pregnancy results in a cute, little baby that needs financial support. No, kids born in relationships are not "more deserving" than others -- quit trying to put words in my mouth.

Women have more control over the birth or lackthereof of their children. Men have NO control whatsover whether or not they become a parent.

The first choice (the choice to have sex) involves both the man and the woman. The woman then goes on to make that second choice. She chooses FOR HIM. He is just a bystander who has no leg to stand on during this decision making and he should not be forced to pay financially or emotionally for a decision he had no part in. (the first decision to have sex, had already been made)

Like I said, what options does a man have? Besides abstinence or sterilization? Shall we tell all men to get sterilized or don't have sex just in case? What if he is 22 and might want children later on? Should he sacrifice any future children because he just "might" be on the hook after a night of fun?

Regarding men's birth control... condoms fall off or break. Abstinence is no fun. Sterilization is a huge risk.

Regarding women's birth control... combine the pill with the sponge with a condom and then take the morning after pill.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Drea

[Guest American Woman]

I agree. But the problem here is created by women who choose to carry a baby to term even though the father wants nothing to do with the child. IMV - telling woman that the state will force the father to pay support simple encourages her to make irresponsible decisions.

The man who doesn't want the child also creates the problem by having sex with the woman choosing to carry the baby to term. So no, it's not a problem created "by the woman." It's a problem created by both of them. But if the father wants nothing to do with the child, then the woman is forced to raise the child alone. Providing his share of support is not much in comparison, so I don't understand how paying support would encourage a woman to make an irresponsible decision. If she were coming into a personal windfall then it might make sense, but the money is to help with the cost of raising the child, which isn't cheap by any means.

[Guest American Woman]

So you have no problem with a woman collecting support from multiple fathers for the same child? The current system allows that if a woman has multiple relationships.

I really don't know what you're referring to. Maybe things are different in Canada, but in the States the only man responsible for paying for child support in the biological father, and as I said, there are paternity tests to determine that. Are things different in Canada?

[Riverwind]

Providing his share of support is not much in comparison, so I don't understand how paying support would encourage a woman to make an irresponsible decision.

It really depends on the relative income of the man and the woman because support is calculated based on how much the man makes rather than what the child needs. But even a small amount of money can encourage irresponsible decisions on the part of the mother.

[Riverwind]

I really don't know what you're referring to. Maybe things are different in Canada, but in the States the only man responsible for paying for child support in the biological father, and as I said, there are paternity tests to determine that. Are things different in Canada?

The same is true in the states. A man still has to pay support if he acted in a 'father-like' role even if the kid is not his. This support is in addition to any support that the biological father has to pay for. The law allows for a woman to collect support from any number of 'step-dads' and none of the payers get any break because the support amounts are calculated based on his income rather than the child's need. Edited December 2, 2007 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

It really depends on the relative income of the man and the woman because support is calculated based on how much the man makes rather than what the child needs. But even a small amount of money can encourage irresponsible decisions on the part of the mother.

How can a small amount encourage irresponsible decisions on the part of the mother? It takes a large amount to raise a child, not to mention the time and emotional investment. As for the support being based on the man's salary rather than the child's needs, that's a different issue.

[Guest American Woman]

The same is true in the states. A man still has to pay support if he acted in a 'father-like' role even if the kid is not his. This support is in addition to any support that the biological father has to pay for. The law allows for a woman to collect support from any number of 'step-dads' and none of the payers get any break because the support amounts are calculated based on his income rather than the child's need.

No, it's not true in the States. Only the biological father has to pay support. A non-biological father only has to pay if he adopted the child, thus becoming the legal father, in which case the biological father no longer has to pay. Step-dads do not have to pay child support in the States.

Edited December 2, 2007 by American Woman

[Drea]

This is why little "football" groupies will try their damndest to get pregnant by a player. Because his finances dictate that she will never have to work or worry about money again.

[Riverwind]

No, it's not true in the States. Only the biological father has to pay support. A non-biological father only has to pay if he adopted the child, thus becoming the legal father. Step-dads do not have to pay child support in the States.

It may depend on the state. But I have seen American legal dramas where this was an issue. However, this example involved cheating mother and a man who raised a child believing it was his. This may have been equivalent to 'adopting' the child but it is still unfair.

In any case, court ordered support from multiple fathers is allowed in Canada and this legal absurdity exists because of people who think that the needs of the child should trump all other considerations. I take the position that some attempt at fairness is required and that the rights of fathers and mothers are at least as important as the rights of the child.

Edited December 2, 2007 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

It may depend on the state. But I have seen American legal dramas where this was an issue. However, this example involved cheating mother and a man who raised a child believing it was his. This may have been equivalent to 'adopting' the child but it is still unfair.

I'm not sure what you mean by "legal dramas," because it doesn't depend on the state. Even if a man raised a child believing it was his, if he later proves it isn't, he isn't responsible for paying support. If a man paid support believing the child to be his, and he didn't have a paternity test, he won't get that support back. But that's a different situation.

In any case, support from multiple fathers is allowed in Canada and exists because of people like you who think that the needs of the child should trump all other considerations.

No, it doesn't exist because of "people like me." Believing in personal responsiblity regarding a child who's on this earth because of their actions/decisions is quite different from forcing non-biological fathers to pay support. I in no way support forcing anyone other than a biological/adoptive father (or mother) to pay child support. In fact, I think it's ludicrous that a woman could collect support from a number of men for the same child.

I take the position that some attempt at fairness is required and that the rights of fathers and mothers are at least as important as the rights of the child.

I don't think the rights of the mother and father are as important as the rights of the child. Again, it's about choices and personal responsiblity. The child has made no choices and had no responsiblity regarding its existance.

Edited December 2, 2007 by American Woman

[capricorn]

So you have no problem with a woman collecting support from multiple fathers for the same child? The current system allows that if a woman has multiple relationships.

I never said that. My comments consistently referred to one woman and one offspring from a clearly identifiable single biological father.

In the scenario I present there are 2 clear choices.

1. The state supports the children (that is you and me), or

2. The biological father supports the children.

I pick number 2. In a previous post you suggested to a poster that she send 50% of her income to support these children. Therefore, I thought you would also select the second option. Did I misinterpret you?

[Guest American Woman]

I was once involved with a woman who wanted a child and wated to get married. I found out she had stopped taking the pill. She had got me to stop weqaring condoms and we were active for about a month before I found out. I was lucky.

If woman have control over their fertility, you can't blame the man if they get conned.

So no one could blame you for your decision to quit using condoms? Come on. You made a bad choice in trusting the woman, but the key word there is "choice." Ultimately you are the one who made the decision, and as such, would have been responsible for that decsion. Fact is, we're held accountable for our bad decsions too. Making a bad choice doesn't absolve us of responsiblity.

[Riverwind]

I never said that. My comments consistently referred to one woman and one offspring from a clearly identifiable single biological father.

The rational you used has been used to justify going after any man who can have the 'father' label slapped on him (biological or not). I realize that you may not have intended to argue for step father payments that but it is a logical consequence of your argument.

I pick number 2. In a previous post you suggested to a poster that she send 50% of her income to support these children. Therefore, I thought you would also select the second option. Did I misinterpret you?

I would rather see a system that actively discourages woman from having children if the father is absent or unwilling. I think the long term interests of society would be better served even if that does increase the welfare roles in the short term. Edited December 2, 2007 by Riverwind

[Riverwind]

I'm not sure what you mean by "legal dramas," because it doesn't depend on the state.

Judging Amy - about 2-3 years ago. The judge ruled that a non-biological father had to pay support because he acted like a father. I realize that television is fiction but I think it is reasonable to assume that these legal dramas have some connetion to reality.

No, it doesn't exist because of "people like me."

I had removed that uncalled for personal jibe from my post after you started to compose your reply.

I in no way support forcing anyone other than a biological/adoptive father (or mother) to pay child support. In fact, I think it's ludicrous that a woman could collect support from a number of men for the same child.

I agree. But we have a legal system in Canada that allows that absurdity because well meaning people insist that the 'best interests of the child' are the only thing that is important. That I why I argue that a more flexible approach is required that recognizes the idea that the fathers deserve to be treated fairly. Edited December 2, 2007 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

Judging Amy - about 2-3 years ago. The judge ruled that a non-biological father had to pay support because he acted like a father. I realize that television is fiction but I think it is reasonable to assume that these legal dramas have some connetion to reality.

One would think they would have some connection to reality, but if that's true, I'm totally unaware of it-- and totally against it.

Edited to add: I've been trying to find some information on this, but I don't think non-biological parents have to pay support once it's established that they aren't the biological father. And they don't have to pay until they either acknowledge being the father or are proven to be the father in a paternity test.

I had removed that uncalled for personal jibe from my post after you started to compose your reply.

I appreciate that.

I agree. But we have a legal system in Canada that allows that absurdity because well meaning people insist that the 'best interests of the child' are the only thing that is important. That I why I argue that a more flexible approach is required that recognizes the idea that the fathers deserve to be treated fairly.

Of course fathers deserve to be treated fairly. I don't argue that at all.

Edited December 2, 2007 by American Woman

[Riverwind]

One would think they would have some connection to reality, but if that's true, I'm totally unaware of it-- and totally against it.

Here is an example of legal absurdities: http://www.karenselick.com/CL0507.html

In Ontario, that’s the coup de grace. The law says that if you have “demonstrated a settled intention to treat the child as a child of his or her family” then you’re a “parent”, with all the consequent support obligations.

This gives rise to some pretty bizarre results, such as the case of Brown v. Laurin [2004] O.J. No. 5233 where a step-father was ordered to pay support for two kids even after they had gone to live with their natural father. Or consider this: in Ontario, you can become liable for supporting step-children even if you haven’t cohabited long enough with their biological parent to make you responsible for supporting her.

This case is the logical conequence of the 'best interests of the child" argument. The only way to prevent this kind of injustice is to acknowledge that the best interests of the child are not always the most important factor and that common sense is a better guide.

[Guest American Woman]

Here is an example of legal absurdities: http://www.karenselick.com/CL0507.html

This case is the logical conequence of the 'best interests of the child" argument. The only way to prevent this kind of injustice is to acknowledge that the best interests of the child are not always the most important factor and that common sense is a better guide.

I think the cases you cite are ridiculous. "The best interest of the child" should only apply as far as the biological parents, who created them, are concerned. In other words, "best interest of the child" in regards to "personal responsiblity."

I have to wonder, does it work in reverse in Canada?-- If a woman lives with a man with children and assumes the mother-role, does she have to pay child support if/when they break up? If not, there's definitely a double standard going on.

[Riverwind]

I have to wonder, does it work in reverse in Canada?-- If a woman lives with a man with children and assumes the mother-role, does she have to pay child support if/when they break up? If not, there's definitely a double standard going on.

The law is applied equally to both sexes *if* the father can get custody. However, the rampant sexism in the courts makes it virtually impossible for a man to get custody unless if the mother is an unemployed crack head (even then the kids might still go to the mother if the father is anything less than perfect). I would imagine the step child rules would be applied equally, however, the step child rules only become an issue if one spouse demands it. I suspect most men would not dream of demanding support from an ex-step mother for his kids.

One of the reasons I think the biological father should be let off the hook in some situations is because there are situations where a step father should not be let off the hook. A ridgid rule that goes after all biological fathers and lets all step fathers off the hook simply creates other forms of injustice.

Edited December 3, 2007 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

There are differences between the States and Canada regarding divorce, support, and custody. It's one 'social issue' where I think the U.S. is ahead of Canada. I think for the most part things are a bit more even-handed here. Men do get custody, and joint custody seems to be more common here than it is there. With divorce rates so high and so many single women giving birth, it's something that really needs to be addressed.

I don't think biological fathers should be let off the hook though unless they gave up rights to the child in favor of a step-father. Then I think the step-father should be held responsible.

Edited December 3, 2007 by American Woman

[Riverwind]

It's one 'social issue' where I think the U.S. is ahead of Canada.

Ironically, the judges in the Canadian system believe it is extremely 'socially progressive'. Edited December 3, 2007 by Riverwind

[Guest American Woman]

Ironically, the judges in the Canadian system believe it is extremely 'socially progressive'.

Wow. I can't begin to understand how they could think that.

[Peter F]

Ironically, the judges in the Canadian system believe it is extremely 'socially progressive'.

As do I. One cannot be a father to a child then choose to walk out on it. No court in the land can force emotional commitment but they can and do force the financial commitment to continue...and rightly so.

But I think we have already had this argument before...

[Riverwind]

As do I. One cannot be a father to a child then choose to walk out on it. No court in the land can force emotional commitment but they can and do force the financial commitment to continue...and rightly so.

But I think we have already had this argument before...

Yes - and it seems you would be happy to see a father driven into bankruptcy to satify your concept of fairness.

Tyranny in the name of good intentions is still a tyranny.

Edited December 3, 2007 by Riverwind

[Peter F]

Chartier vs Chartier, SCC 1999

A determination of whether a person stands in the place of a parent must take into account all relevant factors, viewed objectively. The court must determine the nature of the relationship and do so by looking at a number of factors, including intention. Intention will not only be expressed formally. The court must also infer intention from actions and take into consideration that even expressed intentions may sometimes change. The actual fact of forming a new family is a key factor in drawing an inference that the step‑parent treats the child as a child of the marriage. Some of the relevant factors in defining the parental relationship are: whether the child participates in the extended family in the same way as would a biological child; whether the person provides financially for the child (depending on ability to pay); whether the person disciplines the child as a parent; whether the person represents to the child, the family, the world, either explicitly or implicitly, that he or she is responsible as a parent to the child; and, the nature or existence of the child’s relationship with the absent biological parent. The manifestation of the intention of the step‑parent cannot be qualified as to duration, or be otherwise made conditional or qualified, even if this intention is manifested expressly. Once it is shown that the child is to be considered, in fact, a child of the marriage, the obligations of the step‑parent towards him or her are the same as those relative to a child born of the marriage with regard to the application of the Divorce Act. The step‑parent, at this point, not only incur obligations. He or she also acquires certain rights, such as the right to apply eventually for custody or access. Not every adult‑child relationship will be determined to be one where the adult stands in the place of a parent. Every case must be determined on its own facts and from the evidence and it must be established that the adult acted so as to stand in the place of a parent to the child.

The concern that a child might collect support from both the biological parent and the step-parent was not a valid one. The contribution to be paid by the biological parent should be assessed independently of the obligations of the step‑parent. The obligation to support a child arises as soon as that child is determined to be “a child of the marriage”. The obligations of parents for a child are all joint and several. The issue of contribution is one between all of the parents who have obligations towards the child, whether they are biological parents or step‑parents; it should not affect the child. If a parent seeks contribution from another parent, he or she must, in the meantime, pay support for the child regardless of the obligations of the other parent.

Eminantly reasonable. I love the SCC!