Men's Rights Group Eyes Child Support Stay

wow thats a ballsy case to bring to trial. I don't think this should really be the man's roe-vs-wade since roe-vs-wade deals with fetus's while this deals with a child that actually enters the world.

it does raise some interesting questions though. however, I disagree with the plaintiffs lawyer when he keeps throwing adoption out there as a viable option. Just because a person didn't want a child before they had one doesn't mean they can so easilly let the child go once it is born. Holding your baby for that first moment is a powerful thing and I imagine the carrying and delivering of the child is even more powerful. To suggest it is easy to put the baby up for adoption really trivializes the emtional tie between a parent and a baby.

I had no idea their were men's rights activists, but yeah it's lame when the women lies to you about taking the pill then tries to force you into being with her by getting pregnant. It's like putting a gun to your head.

well i don't know if it is eqivlent to putting a gun to your head. you still do have the choice of wearning a condom regardless of her words of assurance. The pill is not infallable anyway - though it is nearly so.

In the end the man is still responsible for his decision to not wear protection and along with that responsibility can come consequences. However, since he has zero say from that moment on it is interesting that this case is being pursued. Perhaps it will open the door for more involvement of the father in decisions regarding abortion (though using it for birth control is exceptionally lame) and the general direction of the child's rearing once they are born.

If nothing I do hope this opens dialog concerning the fathers lack of voice in these types of relationships.

Is a man entitled to monetary damages if he knowingly has sex with a women with AIDS and contracts HIV from her?

No?

Why then should a woman who gets pregnant be entitled to money when she has all the choices?

The current law is very sexist.

Being able to wear a condom is not comperable to abortive rights. Having the opportuntity to take the pill is equivalent to wearing a condom. Men just don't have the out that women do after the conception has occurred.

"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government — literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want,"

$500 x 12 months x 18 years is not so personal, but a pretty serious intrusion too. Hundred and eight grand if I'm not mistaken. That's a lot to be forced to pay when you have no say whatsoever. There is no mechanism to even ensure that the money is spent on the child. A friend of mine pays $1500 a month in child support and his ex is going back to school and working part time while he eats pot pies for dinner. The kids are older and she knows the gravy train is going to stop rolling soon. He doesn't have half the options she has even 15 years later.

I am glad this is getting thrown out there... I see it as good, whichever side people land on. On one hand, if we say that men have no say in whether they must continue to support the child, then to provide equal protection, we must remove women's say in whether they must continue to support the child. On the other hand, if (as I think will happen) pro-abortion activists and women's advocates come out to say that women must maintain their control over their degree of responsibility for an unwanted child (including abortion), then to provide equal protection, we must say that men also have that control, which mostly comprises financial support.

It is unfortunate that probably the result will be what the article expresses: "We're sorry, we didn't really mean equal protection under the law."

I'm not sure what to say regarding this, except that I look forward to seeing how it pans out.

My parents were married for a great many years, but I was still baffled at how incredibly unfair the child support system was, when they divorced and he was sending her a good chunk of money every month so that she could sit on her ass.

This is the result of `men` not taking responsibility and being real men. Why don't these guys start by keeping it in their pants and exercising some self-control?

This is fascinating and I'm honestly surprised we haven't had more suits like this before now.

Child support for the unexpected/unwanted offspring, particularly for a dating couple is not the same thing in my mind (nor probably in a legal context) as child support as the result of a divorce involving the children of your marriage. I'm not saying the child support system in general doesn't need an overhaul, just that in this context we're talking about a slightly different issue.

That being said, the heart of the dialog here is completely legit. This is going to be a very interesting political and social conversation to go hand-in-hand with all the other conversations surrounding marriage, family and children in this nation right now.

"Roe is based on an extreme intrusion by the government — literally to force a woman to continue a pregnancy she doesn't want," Brown said. "There's nothing equivalent for men.

I would disagree with this statement as well. My father paid over $67,000 dollars in child support for me and my sister while we were under 18 and fortunately my dad didn't make a big deal about it because he cared for us and was able to stay in close touch with us. I went to school with several people whose parent's divorce turned out real nasty and one friend of mine did not see her father for over 7 years but at the same time her mother was receiving around $900/month if I recall correctly. I can see how that could be construed as an extreme intrusion by the government when the mother won't even let the father see the kids.

If you are man enough to do the crime then be man enough the do the time .......
It's your baby dude not mine. I should not have to pay for your kids unless of course you'd like to sent a few bucks my way for the expense of my children.

it takes 2 people to make a child. If the child is kept each person is 50% responsible for the child. There should be a relatively easy way to determine the cost of a child per year based on national averages. The person with custody of the child should receive money from the other (whether it be the mother or father) that is 50% of that average. Any other costs incurred are, at least from a legal standpoint, eaten by the parent with custody.

Obviously the parents should come to an agreement on if their child's needs far exceed the average but that shouldn't be required by law.

Yes, I certainly think it's worth making a distinction between a married couple who breaks up and the situation of the plaintiff in this case.

I really don't think they should have child support in situations other than marriage or at least cohabitation where you could say perhaps that there was some implied consent on the man's part regarding raising a kid.

As far as the "keep it in the pants" argument the same could apply to the woman. She just happens to have all the options.

Can we realistically say in our modern and "sexually liberated" society that having sex is the same as consenting to having a kid? I really think not. Especially when sodomy is illegal in most states. That could at least keep us out of trouble. That's what we need. More sodomy!

To clarify I'm not really arguing for more "ward of the state" children with single parents and no child support payments to help. I'm arguing for fewer babies. They're loud and they crap their pants anyway.

Men have rights?? F*ck yeah!

I'm a bit surprised that something like this hasn't some up before. The man has a point—he doesn't want to be a father. Unlike a woman in this situation he doesn't have any choice in the matter once conception has occured, it's all up to her. My only contention would be that if he's gonna opt out of fatherhood/child support that he does it all the way and sign a legal release of any parental rights.

If there was a male contraceptive that was easy to use (taken orally), I bet we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

But with the widespread accessibility to condoms, I have to wonder why more men don't take the responsibility to ensure that they don't have this problem to begin w/?

Pandemic, there's a good reason, and it's that condoms don't always work.

Sure, there may be plenty of cases where protectiong wasn't used (which, of course, is the problem of *BOTH* parties), but it's entirely possible, and not terribly uncommon for people to get pregnant despite using protection.

My second child was conceived while my wife was using birth control, and using it well...these things just don't work 100% of the time, condoms even less so than birth control.

No one has mentioned the baby in question. Can you imagine what she will feel like 15 years from now? So unwanted by her father that he felt the need to try and set a legal precedent to avoid any responsibility for her. When you are having sex with someone there is a possibility that pregnancy can happen, no matter what protection you are using and no matter what your partner tells you. Period. The guy needs to suck it up and get a good job.

This is interesting. While I'm all for men learning to keep it in their pants and providing child support if they don't, it *is* somewhat inconsistent.

The reason abortion works at all is because when you have have sex and conceive you don't create a baby, a human being. If you did, then it would be considered murder, right? Instead you make a zygote which at some point during the pregnancy turns into a human being worthy of rights. So if that's the case (using that logic), then the man doesn't create a child at all, and so shouldn't have to pay anything. It's the woman that chooses to grow it into a child, and so it is her decision.

At least that's my take on it. In order to be *fair*, I feel either abortion or child support has to go.

The child, in this case and in many others, is NOT wanted, in fact if not in appearance, by the father. I don't think saddling the father with a payment for a child he protested is really justified by talking about the kid's self-esteem.

In Michigan, where this case is, is very much a state that favors the woman in child custody matters. Basically the woman will always get the child as long as she isn't in jail. Even if she has serious substance abuse problems, as long as she enrolls in some kind of rehab program her problems are not even allowed to be taken into account when determining custody.

Basically the problem is that the man has absolutely no control over the situation. He is at the utter mercy of the courts and some bimbo he knocked up. One broken condom and he's in for 18 years of misery.

The reason abortion works at all is because when you have have sex and conceive you don't create a baby, a human being. If you did, then it would be considered murder, right? Instead you make a zygote which at some point during the pregnancy turns into a human being worthy of rights. So if that's the case (using that logic), then the man doesn't create a child at all, and so shouldn't have to pay anything. It's the woman that chooses to grow it into a child, and so it is her decision.

That's a damn good point.

Sorry about the double comment.

I have to say that this is a step forward. I don't know if it's a step in the right direction or not.

In my story I heard the same line "I can't get pregnant" from my ex-girlfriend. I heard it 14 years ago. Since that time I have never seen my daughter. I've tried, and I've tried, and I've tried. I lost two jobs in those early years because I was going to court so much, and had to take so much time off. I've gone through 6 lawyers in that time, including one "Men's Rights" lawyer. I've been told by a social worker, who was supposed to have set up a Daddy - Daughter meet, that I was the "World's Worst Father" because I admitted I had never seen my Daughter. Never mind the fact that I had been trying to see her, but her Mom just never followed through. After several years of trying, and lots of money, and lots of heart-break I gave up. I couldn't take it any more. The bills were mounting up, I was in danger of losing another job. You really can't imagine what it's like until it happens to you. I stopped paying child support, figuring that my Ex won't let me see my Daughter, why should I pay. Well, the state is much bigger than I am. In 2000 I was told to pay all the back child support, or go to jail. I caved, I paid. And have been paying every month since then, doing what they tell me too, when they tell me too. That is until this past Summer. At around 11 o'clock at night 2 Sheriffs Deputies come to my home and arrest me. Because, according to them, I had not paid my back child support. So I pay the bail, get out of jail the next day. Hired yet another lawyer, and headed off to court once again. This time, thought, I've got a paper trail. And I'm very upset of course. In the court room, I'm told that the judge does see that I paid the state several thousand dollars in 2000, in fact the exact amount that I'm in court about. But, here's the kicker, the state has no record of any agreement to pay, and the person I made the agreement with, is no longer working for the state. So I have to pay again, nothing my lawyer does or says sways the judge at all. So I did pay (again), and still do. You don't even want to know what happened when I petitioned to get the support lowered, for the first time in 14 years.

The system as we know it, is broken. Not a day goes by that I don't think of my Daughter, whom I have never met. Since this past summer, most of my thoughts are; what do I tell my daughter when she is old enough to leave home and seek my out? Do I tell her I've fought for you, but I was denied? Do I gloss things over? I don't want to lie, but I don't want speak ill of her Mother (well I do but know I shouldn't).

However there is one more thing that is a thorn in my side. In the past 14 years I have started and sold a successful business. I bought a 200 acre horse ranch. Helped my wife establish her business. And have been an all around good guy. Never arrested. Never ticketed. What has my Ex spent the past 14 years doing? Nothing. She dropped out of college, moved back in with her Mom and Dad, and works part-time in fast food (and I've been told, but have never seen proof, that she just works part time to stay on public assistance). Believe me, she can do more. Much more. I do know a bit about my Daughter. She plays the cello, and plays it well. She is a slightly above-average student. She likes Sci-Fi and Comedy. etc and so on. How do I know? Every couple of years I hire a private investigator to keep me up to date. I'd hire one more often, but I can't afford it.

So maybe, just maybe this is a step in the right direction. But after these past 14 years, I'm not going to hold my breath. And my story is not the worst I've heard. I've heard of guys paying child support for a dozen years while the is dead. I've heard of guys having to pay over $5,000 per month, for a single child. The system must change, and I hope that some day it does change.

I just wish Judge Judy would get a hold of this case. She would laugh them right out of court. She would say they have "some chutzpah".

Don't look now, but this might be another step towards outlawing abortion. The woman is allowed to have a say, the man wants the same thing... best solution... don't let them decide at all. It's kinda like when you were kids and you and your buddy wanted the same toy but your parents decide that if you are going to argue about it they'll take the toy away.