Who's yer daddy? No daddy; no check

[California Girl]

To the OP: Yes...and No.

Every situation is different. There are women who simply don't know who the father is. In extreme cases they may not have so much as a name.

There are women who know but just don't want him around, for reasons that run the gamut from them not wanting to share control of the child to the father's issues they believe would be harmful to the child if exposed to them. In that situation the father can press his rights through use of the courts and putative father registries, though. He always has recourse.

Then there are the men who abandon the mother and child and it's his choice not to have anything to do with the child. These men whether they're on a birth certificate or not aren't going to be involved and will fight taking responsibility.

Then there's the other extreme, the women who don't want or cannot supply a father's name on a birth certificate because it was a situation of incest, rape or abuse.

There are so many different situations out there it's difficult to come up with a one size fits all rule that addresses every one of them in a just manner. Which is why family laws are so complicated and the result (ideally at least) is always an individual determination. I would hesitate to apply either a one size fits all rule in this situation or allow an overworked, underpaid, cynical and most likely highly unqualified caseworker to make any kind of individual determination.

If a woman does not know the name of the man who fathered her kid, why should I be held responsible? Perhaps women should take a tad more responsibility and find out such detail before they breed with a guy? Just an idea.

I think we're all intelligent enough to work out that this kind of law couldn't apply in certain circumstances.

There is never a 'one size fits all' solution to societies problems... that does not mean we shouldn't cover the majority with this kind of process.

Agree

Right now there is no incentive for a woman to name the father. If she tries, the useless breeder pressures her not to name names. With paternity tests now, it is simple enough to round up the potential fathers and find out who the daddy is.

While I would not cut off benefits to the family without a father being named, I would pay a significantly lower rate and offer less desirable housing until a father is named

People need to understand really basic shit. Having a child is not a right, it is a privilege. If we accept that women can produce children without having a way of privately paying for that child, the consequence of that is she is required to name the father so that he can pay. Having taxpayers constantly picking up the tab for irresponsible behavior is ridiculous. It doesn't work, it hasn't worked in any other country and it won't work in ours.

Name the fucking father or get nothing. Easy.

 

[Claudette]

While I'm sure that can happen I don't believe its that common. It certainly wouldn't account for all the births that welfare covers.

Believe me when I was a young thing I did my share of bed hopping. I always used birth control and never worried about an unwanted pregnancy.

I'm not sure I believe you. You are going to have to provide more details

I'm not the kind to kiss and tell RW.

Mayby someday I'll write a book.

You'll get the first copy. LOL

 

[Granny]

And give it to who?
Society will not be apying for foster care or orphanage care for the child?

And when she has another?
Are you for forced sterilization?

Society has been paying the costs of foster homes and orphanages for decades. The administrator of the orphanage I was in wrote a sugar coated book about the orphanage while I was there - early to mid 50s. There was a chapter about costs (a plea for more financial support). According to the book the cost was $28,000 per child per year. When I went back to the Home for the annual Homecoming in the '70s the cost had jumped to a six-figure number, per child, per year. God only knows how much it might cost today. Example: my mother paid the Home $25 per month for my care and support ... leaving the rest of the $28,000 to be paid by private donations and public assistance, child labor means, etc.

There was NEVER a time when I spent $28,000 per child, per year, to raise my children - let alone paying 6 figures per child. How many ordinary people actually make those kinds of expenditures?

It depends which costs you're factoring in. In a family home some of the overhead isn't apparent. For example, the parents aren't paid staff with salary and benefits. The mortgage or rent and property maintenance would be paid regardless for the parent to have a place to live. The home would be heated regardless. These are solely attributable to the child in an institutional facility. Don't forget every child in an institution or foster care being on medicaid, so all of their health care expenses are included. And so on. When all of those are directly and solely tied to the child's expenses and not those of the parents or family in general it adds up fast.

And give it to who?
Society will not be apying for foster care or orphanage care for the child?

And when she has another?
Are you for forced sterilization?

Society has been paying the costs of foster homes and orphanages for decades. The administrator of the orphanage I was in wrote a sugar coated book about the orphanage while I was there - early to mid 50s. There was a chapter about costs (a plea for more financial support). According to the book the cost was $28,000 per child per year. When I went back to the Home for the annual Homecoming in the '70s the cost had jumped to a six-figure number, per child, per year. God only knows how much it might cost today. Example: my mother paid the Home $25 per month for my care and support ... leaving the rest of the $28,000 to be paid by private donations and public assistance, child labor means, etc.

There was NEVER a time when I spent $28,000 per child, per year, to raise my children - let alone paying 6 figures per child. How many ordinary people actually make those kinds of expenditures?

It depends which costs you're factoring in. In a family home some of the overhead isn't apparent. For example, the parents aren't paid staff with salary and benefits. The mortgage or rent and property maintenance would be paid regardless for the parent to have a place to live. The home would be heated regardless. These are solely attributable to the child in an institutional facility. Don't forget every child in an institution or foster care being on medicaid, so all of their health care expenses are included. And so on. When all of those are directly and solely tied to the child's expenses and not those of the parents or family in general it adds up fast.

I'm well aware of those expenses - housing, utilities, medical, school, childcare, clothing ... parents have to pay all of those things themselves - and they don't lay out that kind of money doing it.

I can't speak for other orphanages, but this is how it was for the one I was in. It was a 350+/- farm with five 2-story houses for children and an administration building as the primary buildings and others that were used for purposes other than housing children. Buildings were added as needed one at a time with available funding. There were always 100 or more kids - 20 per building. Each bedroom had 3 to 5 children.

We grew the vast majority of our food and canned part of it for winter. The older girls sweated blood working in the on-site cannery. We had 32 milk cows, some pigs and chickens and we grew the fodder and kept it in on-site silos for winter food . The boys worked all that by hand, fed the pigs, milked the cows ... and got the shit beat out of them every day by whatever was handy - leather straps, wooden paddles with holes drilled into them (more painful), belts - whatever. The milk was given to a local dairy for pasteurization in exchange for all the milk we could drink for a day - the rest was bottled and sold by the dairy. No cost to the Home for milk.

Some boys were also farmed out up and down the Shenandoah Valley to pick apples, cherries, strawberries - whatever was in season. The farmers got free labor in exchange for all the fruit we could eat - the ones that wouldn't sell on the market. No cost to the Home. The older girls did the cooking and ran the commercial dishwasher and the younger girls cleared tables, dried all the dishes (barefoot in summer in pools of steaming hot water and using what passed for dishtowels, reset the tables, swept floors, etc. in the dining room.

The choirs - we had two choirs - one for the little boys and one for the little girls. We were shuttled around all over VA and West VA on alternating weekends to sing in various churches. The day we sang all the collection money was turned over "to the children." The boys choir tended to bring in more money than the girls choir because they had these angelic high pitched voices. Once their voice "cracked" and went into a deeper tone - they were of no further use to the choir and were kicked out.

We got clothes from "the storage room" - things discarded/donated by other people. We wore whatever fit us and when it no longer fit it was given to a younger/smaller child to wear - and that included shoes. At the end of winter clothing/shoes were returned to the storage room for redistribution and replaced by summer clothing - we usually went barefoot in summer except for shoes to go the church. There were no real clothing expenses to the Home.

There was no air conditioning then. In winter the main furnace was allowed to die out for the night and the next morning the boys were up early shoveling coal - I guess to heat water that was then pumped to the radiators. We didn't have lights on all over the house - only the room where we all were gathered. Lights could come on when it was bedtime and lights out was at 10:00 - just enough time for us to change clothes and get into bed.

Baths - no waste there. My house had one bathroom/tub downstairs and one bathroom/two tubs upstairs. Here's how that worked. We took baths once a week. Each tub was filled once, used by two girls at a time - the first girls got the clean, hot water and the last girls got the accumulative dirtier and much cooler water. THEN the water was drained out. And while I'm on the subject of bathrooms - we were supposed to use one square of toilet paper. Right. It's probably why I reel off toilet paper the way I do.

We never saw a doctor or dentist unless it was for something like a broken bone or severe injury. No yearly physicals or dental checkups for us. One heartbreaking example: there was a younger girl who was always skinny as a rail and sort of sickly looking. She got real sick one night and a doctor was finally called in. He said there was nothing wrong with her and she got the shit beat out of her for lying. In adulthood, she lost two children prematurely and one had to be taken from her because she had a life or death heart situation. THAT's when cardiac specialists found out she had a serious heart mummer as a child and that she would never be able to carry a child to full term.

It's the way it was - there's no way in hell that at the time I was there it cost $28,000 per child, per year. We children did a damned lot of work to pay for our keep.

 

[Si modo]

That is a bit different than the government deciding you aren't being parented properly.

Only, that's not what you said. I disagree with what you said, not what you are now saying.

See how that works?

I see that you're being an idiot if that's what you mean.

Ah, I see you're having trouble following simple concepts. Or, you just cannot accept having your deductive errors pointed out to you. I mean, it IS the internet so it's some pretty serious shit and you can't afford to have that happen. Either possibility is not too flattering, in case you hadn't guessed.

Make sure to have extra graham crackers with your milk this afternoon. It will help you get to sleep faster at nap time.

See, I was just telling another that I don't think you are as stupid as you come across. I suppose I need to revisit that conversation.

 

[Ravi]

Only, that's not what you said. I disagree with what you said, not what you are now saying.

See how that works?

I see that you're being an idiot if that's what you mean.

Ah, I see you're having trouble following simple concepts. Or, you just cannot accept having your deductive errors pointed out to you. Either possibility is not too flattering, in case you hadn't guessed.

Make sure to have extra graham crackers with your milk this afternoon. It will help you get to sleep faster at nap time.

See, I was just telling another that I don't think you are as stupid as you come across. I suppose I need to revisit that conversation.

It is a shame you cannot follow a thread for comprehension. I originally posted it was not a good idea, and what was not a good idea was what CG said that you replied to:

Why should society pick up the tab for irresponsible behavior? Take the kid away from her.

It is not a good idea for the government to take the kid away from her. If you want to pretend anything else was meant, then be my guest.

 

[Ravi]

If a woman does not know the name of the man who fathered her kid, why should I be held responsible? Perhaps women should take a tad more responsibility and find out such detail before they breed with a guy? Just an idea.

I think we're all intelligent enough to work out that this kind of law couldn't apply in certain circumstances.

There is never a 'one size fits all' solution to societies problems... that does not mean we shouldn't cover the majority with this kind of process.

Agree

Right now there is no incentive for a woman to name the father. If she tries, the useless breeder pressures her not to name names. With paternity tests now, it is simple enough to round up the potential fathers and find out who the daddy is.

While I would not cut off benefits to the family without a father being named, I would pay a significantly lower rate and offer less desirable housing until a father is named

People need to understand really basic shit. Having a child is not a right, it is a privilege. If we accept that women can produce children without having a way of privately paying for that child, the consequence of that is she is required to name the father so that he can pay. Having taxpayers constantly picking up the tab for irresponsible behavior is ridiculous. It doesn't work, it hasn't worked in any other country and it won't work in ours.

Name the fucking father or get nothing. Easy.

Having a child is a basic, human right.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Here comes the flame...

I would take it a step further.
Make it a crime to have a child without the ability to financially support it.
Obviously there are circumstances this would not apply to, but something has to deter the 100,000's of young girls from using their uterus as a means of supporting themselves.

so you're for abortion?

or are you saying there should *be* forced abortion?

just wondering.

women don't generally get pregnant to "support themselves". i am wondering where the incentive is for the men to keep their pants zipped.

uh...abortion?
I wasn't talking about abortion.
I am saying maybe there should be a law that penalizes the two if they have a child out-of-wedlock without the ability to support the child.

Of course women don't "generally" get pregnant to support themselves, however a helluva lot of inner city black young women certainly do.
I say if a young girl has a child, is already on welfare, already getting rental assistance, already getting food stamps, already on medicaid - by God both her and the boy should get arrested, fined and even spend some time in jail for getting pregnant again! It is outrageous for girls to have children by 4 different fathers, as well as outrageous for the 4 worthless pricks that got her pregnant.
These people create havoc on society and endanger children...their should be a penalty for that - not a freakin reward!!

 

[Si modo]

I see that you're being an idiot if that's what you mean.

Ah, I see you're having trouble following simple concepts. Or, you just cannot accept having your deductive errors pointed out to you. Either possibility is not too flattering, in case you hadn't guessed.

Make sure to have extra graham crackers with your milk this afternoon. It will help you get to sleep faster at nap time.

See, I was just telling another that I don't think you are as stupid as you come across. I suppose I need to revisit that conversation.

It is a shame you cannot follow a thread for comprehension. I originally posted it was not a good idea, and what was not a good idea was what CG said that you replied to:

Why should society pick up the tab for irresponsible behavior? Take the kid away from her.

It is not a good idea for the government to take the kid away from her. If you want to pretend anything else was meant, then be my guest.

Well, I did say to that person that I suspect that you are more dishonest than stupid. it's a hard call sometimes, though. But, this time, I'll go with a combination:

Why should society pick up the tab for irresponsible behavior? Take the kid away from her.

Now, that's a good plan, as long as the state does not raise the child in some sort of institution. Adopt the child out.

It isn't a good plan. It is punishing the child even more by depriving the child of its mother.

Let's try to keep it simple for you:

You replied to my post where I referred to a plan. "Plan" = no state, and adopt the child out.

Dumb...dishonest *making gesture of a measuring balance with my hands* ...hard call.

 

[cutter]

why should the child suffer cause the mother is a ho? its not the mother you are punishing but the child.

Why should I pay because the mother's a Ho?

 

[rightwinger]

Agree

Right now there is no incentive for a woman to name the father. If she tries, the useless breeder pressures her not to name names. With paternity tests now, it is simple enough to round up the potential fathers and find out who the daddy is.

While I would not cut off benefits to the family without a father being named, I would pay a significantly lower rate and offer less desirable housing until a father is named

People need to understand really basic shit. Having a child is not a right, it is a privilege. If we accept that women can produce children without having a way of privately paying for that child, the consequence of that is she is required to name the father so that he can pay. Having taxpayers constantly picking up the tab for irresponsible behavior is ridiculous. It doesn't work, it hasn't worked in any other country and it won't work in ours.

Name the fucking father or get nothing. Easy.

Having a child is a basic, human right.

But expecting public assistance to raise that child is not a right if there is an able bodied father available. The state should not have to foot the bill if the mother is protecting the father from meeting his responsibilities

 

[Ravi]

People need to understand really basic shit. Having a child is not a right, it is a privilege. If we accept that women can produce children without having a way of privately paying for that child, the consequence of that is she is required to name the father so that he can pay. Having taxpayers constantly picking up the tab for irresponsible behavior is ridiculous. It doesn't work, it hasn't worked in any other country and it won't work in ours.

Name the fucking father or get nothing. Easy.

Having a child is a basic, human right.

But expecting public assistance to raise that child is not a right if there is an able bodied father available. The state should not have to foot the bill if the mother is protecting the father from meeting his responsibilities

I didn't say it was...it just boggles my mind that someone thinks the government should decide who can and cannot give birth.

 

[chanel]

Who said that? People can fuck anyone they want. But actions have consequences. And not just for the female. It takes two to make a baby. And it takes two to raise one as well. I'd be curious to know how many women do this. My guess is a good percentage of those know. Which would mean they are lying and willfully committing fraud.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

...it just boggles my mind that someone thinks the government should decide who can and cannot give birth.

Well first in this country law enforcement is an extension of society. They are there to enforce laws as designed by by us.
At the same time, WTF are we supposed to do? Nothing?
Just keep paying their bills and don't ask questions?
Screw that.

 

[chanel]

why should the child suffer cause the mother is a ho? its not the mother you are punishing but the child.

Why should society pick up the tab for irresponsible behavior? Take the kid away from her.

Agreed...but wouldn't society still be picking up the tab if we take the kid away from her?

xotoxi - do you know how many people want to adopt newborns? Why do so many go to foreign countries? These babies would be placed in loving homes with people who can afford to care for them. How about gay couples? Don't you think they are desperate to adopt?

And as far as women naming the wrong father - they can do that now. Naming "unknown" no less a lie then naming someone who had a role at some point. If these fellas get off having unprotected sex with sleazy lying ho's, then they might find themselves having to take a paternity test. Tough balls.

 

[goldcatt]

Why should society pick up the tab for irresponsible behavior? Take the kid away from her.

Agreed...but wouldn't society still be picking up the tab if we take the kid away from her?

xotoxi - do you know how many people want to adopt newborns? Why do so many go to foreign countries? These babies would be placed in loving homes with people who can afford to care for them. How about gay couples? Don't you think they are desperate to adopt?

And as far as women naming the wrong father - they can do that now. Naming "unknown" no less a lie then naming someone who had a role at some point. If these fellas get off having unprotected sex with sleazy lying ho's, then they might find themselves having to take a paternity test. Tough balls.

Of course they want to adopt newborns. Lily white newborns from good families that are certified completely healthy, with no apparent or latent physical or mental defects and that physically resemble the parents. Those who can actually pass the standards for adopting an American newborn, that is.

But if you seriously believe this law and the people screaming these mothers should all lose their kids and/or be forcibly sterilized are targeting only perfect white newborns, you're wrong. What happens to the 2-year-olds, the 6-year-olds, the 10-year-olds, the 15-year-olds?

Oh, and the kids who aren't lily white, or are overweight, or have a medical condition, or mental or emotional problems? The ones that are guaranteed to never captain the football team or get into Harvard and are going to be as much work as reward for years, if not forever? Who's going to adopt them?

People need to read the actual proposal and think for themselves.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I knew a woman that had 4 kids by 3 different men.

She had a 3 bedroom house with a front and back yard, lr eat in kitchen. She had to pay $25/month for it.
She never worked, so the money came from welfare.

One day she announced that she was going to be rich! He oldest, a girl that just turned 12, was put in charge of the "daycare" she just opened in "her" home.

That's right, she put her kids to work babysitting in an illegal daycare that was operating illegally out of gubmit housing. She didn't do anything with any of the kids, but she collected lots of money for nothing and still paid $25/month in rent.

Yeah, that's the kind of people our money goes to. This brave single mom struggle to make it, is more myth than reality.

 

[jillian]

I knew a woman that had 4 kids by 3 different men.

She had a 3 bedroom house with a front and back yard, lr eat in kitchen. She had to pay $25/month for it.
She never worked, so the money came from welfare.

One day she announced that she was going to be rich! He oldest, a girl that just turned 12, was put in charge of the "daycare" she just opened in "her" home.

That's right, she put her kids to work babysitting in an illegal daycare that was operating illegally out of gubmit housing. She didn't do anything with any of the kids, but she collected lots of money for nothing and still paid $25/month in rent.

Yeah, that's the kind of people our money goes to. This brave single mom struggle to make it, is more myth than reality.

It is very easy to find anecdotal stories about abuses. And I have no doubt there are instances of abuse for which the perps should be prosecuted. But you can't punish needy people because some people are idiots.... same as you wouldn't punish every financial advisor because bernie madoff was.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

I knew a woman that had 4 kids by 3 different men.

She had a 3 bedroom house with a front and back yard, lr eat in kitchen. She had to pay $25/month for it.
She never worked, so the money came from welfare.

One day she announced that she was going to be rich! He oldest, a girl that just turned 12, was put in charge of the "daycare" she just opened in "her" home.

That's right, she put her kids to work babysitting in an illegal daycare that was operating illegally out of gubmit housing. She didn't do anything with any of the kids, but she collected lots of money for nothing and still paid $25/month in rent.

Yeah, that's the kind of people our money goes to. This brave single mom struggle to make it, is more myth than reality.

It is very easy to find anecdotal stories about abuses. And I have no doubt there are instances of abuse for which the perps should be prosecuted. But you can't punish needy people because some people are idiots.... same as you wouldn't punish every financial advisor because bernie madoff was.

Needy people my ass. If these s-called needy fucks would take responsibility for themselves and their actions then they wouldn't need us taxpayers supporting them. Truth is these needy pukes are nothing but a bunch of lazy bums that have no sense of pride or dignity.

Tell me counselor, how long would you pay a person for not working before you decided it was time for that person to find a job, any job!

 

[uscitizen]

I knew a woman that had 4 kids by 3 different men.

She had a 3 bedroom house with a front and back yard, lr eat in kitchen. She had to pay $25/month for it.
She never worked, so the money came from welfare.

One day she announced that she was going to be rich! He oldest, a girl that just turned 12, was put in charge of the "daycare" she just opened in "her" home.

That's right, she put her kids to work babysitting in an illegal daycare that was operating illegally out of gubmit housing. She didn't do anything with any of the kids, but she collected lots of money for nothing and still paid $25/month in rent.

Yeah, that's the kind of people our money goes to. This brave single mom struggle to make it, is more myth than reality.

Sounds like how my first wife turned out, but she collected child support from all of them/us.

 

[jillian]

I knew a woman that had 4 kids by 3 different men.

She had a 3 bedroom house with a front and back yard, lr eat in kitchen. She had to pay $25/month for it.
She never worked, so the money came from welfare.

One day she announced that she was going to be rich! He oldest, a girl that just turned 12, was put in charge of the "daycare" she just opened in "her" home.

That's right, she put her kids to work babysitting in an illegal daycare that was operating illegally out of gubmit housing. She didn't do anything with any of the kids, but she collected lots of money for nothing and still paid $25/month in rent.

Yeah, that's the kind of people our money goes to. This brave single mom struggle to make it, is more myth than reality.

It is very easy to find anecdotal stories about abuses. And I have no doubt there are instances of abuse for which the perps should be prosecuted. But you can't punish needy people because some people are idiots.... same as you wouldn't punish every financial advisor because bernie madoff was.

Needy people my ass. If these s-called needy fucks would take responsibility for themselves and their actions then they wouldn't need us taxpayers supporting them. Truth is these needy pukes are nothing but a bunch of lazy bums that have no sense of pride or dignity.

Tell me counselor, how long would you pay a person for not working before you decided it was time for that person to find a job, any job!

if we wanted them to work and get off welfare, we'd a) fund education/training programs for single mothers; while b) providing daycare; and c) not require them to pay the welfare back that they collected during the time period.

you can't tell someone they have to pay back welfare from a minimum wage job that won't sustain them.

as for "so called needy"... i'm not even going to address that because i think that attitude is a bunch of wingnuttery. but assuming it had any validity, what are you going to to to make daddy ante up some bucks? she didn't have her kids by mitosis.