Support NeoGAF

[Azala]

There's one fact that's been overlooked (I think) so far here. Two technically, though one is more important than the other.

The important one being that for couples suffering from infertility who require donor sperm to conceive the law prevents them from having to adopt their own children, and prevents dads in these scenarios from getting off scot free down the road. But I'll agree it doesn't consider all scenarios effectively.

The less important fact is that if you are married and wish to leave the father off the birth certificate or state another man other than your husband you have to do a lot of legal hoops, sometimes as far as submitting DNA to prove he is not the father.

 

[levious]

It very well may be that way under current law; all I'm saying is that it shouldn't be that way.

I wasn't stating a personal opinion, just what I THINK is the current legal standard.

As for adoptive parents' rights, I don't think it's relevant really, due to the nature of the act (giving a child up for adoption).

A mother gives up a child for adoption, but what of the biological father's rights? It's always a potential for the situation to become very cloudy. When you define legally when and how a parental relationship begins and ends, it's going to affect every type, especially adoption situations.

"Eh, still think it should be done, though. "

I certainly don't disagree. Was just commenting on why it'd likely never be that way.

 

[borghe]

well, in that case I am standing in the moral ground... yes it would be hunky dory if the woman wouldn't cheat (and the men too, dead man talking), but speaking from experience, our children never asked for any of it, nor is it right to take it out on them.

yes it sucks for the dude who is a dad for 2 months only to find out he isn't the father and is now stuck paying for the next 18 years for a kid that he probably won't ever be able to bond with as a result, but at the same time such a blanket law prevents the dad of 10 years from taking out his anger for his ex-wife on his kids.

I would hope that the law could recognize such a distinction. Though I guess the real answer is to just start mandatory paternity tests, even if married.

 

[levious]

Oh, I wouldn't assume that 2 months would be enough. And I couldn't venture to estimate what would be, it will vary from one jurisidiction to another though. That magical word "reasonable" would come into play.

 

[McLesterolBeast]

I don't think this is the type of issue where you can legislate generalized content of what should and should not be done - if you're to give any weighting to the welfare of the child.

Child welfare aside, I'd place no obligation on either the biological or assumed father. With considering the welfare of the child, it's dificult to place obligation (and the requisite blame) on either. Under current laws that govern the rights of a man in the birth of a child, the biological father would have no say in whether the pregnancy was terminated, and so long as the woman carried the child to term, he would have that financial obligation regardless of the situation. Additionally, the assumed father has been paying for x number of years prior for a child that is not his. Since taking back money from the mother for what the assumed father already paid would be out of the question, I think the only justifiable route would be to impose the costs on the biological father. If the child is still particularly young, then there is time to reconcile the issue and possibly have the child live with him, if he so pleases. That option I would give the father in such a situation. If the child is older, then the necessary payments would be comparably small.

 

[Cubsfan23]

I once read that 10% of the world is raised by a man that isn't really their father, and they don't find out until they're grown-up or never at all.