I'm putting my disclaimer right in the first line so as not to cause any commotion. I ADMIT I have not given much thought to this. I would like to throw it out there to see what other people think. I DO NOT have a preconceived answer in my head.
If a man were to say, I don't want to parent this child I created, we have laws in place to deal with them. Although not fool proof, the laws exist to send the message loud and clear that if you father a child you will support that child.
Now some one asked why in today's society are women allowed to make almost the exact same decision with no recourse. Here is the part of the post i am talking about.
I wonder why a woman (whether it's you or your pregnant friend), would think that refusing to provide care for their offspring was a woman's right. How is walking out on the family you have created a gender equality issue? Have women won the right to create children for whom they intend to bear no responsibility? I really don't like the implications of this.
I have to admit it gives cause for thought. Is this a double standard?
What do you think?
2009-05-28T15:41:33Z
ANNIE: My question is based off one of your answers not your question itself. I'm not referring to the people in your particular case but more in general.
monkeykitty832009-05-28T11:12:49Z
Favorite Answer
The law doesn't say that men have to provide child support no matter what. The legality is that the non-custodial parent pays when both parents retain parental rights. It's just that women are more often the custodial parent.
If the man doesn't want to parent and the woman does, he pays child support. If he wants to parent and she doesn't, SHE pays child support. Women pay child support too, it's just more rare that the woman is the non-custodial parent, so you hear less about it.
I do think there are double standards in the level of responsibility and expectation between the two genders. I think women are often forced to take an excess of responsibility, and the rights of fathers are often trampled on. Women are usually still favoured in custody battles. The courts are far from gender-blind in applying the law.
But as for what the law actually SAYS: if both parents relinquish their rights, the child can be adopted, and if one parent decides to raise the child, the other parent is on the hook for child support. Legally, there's no difference which parent raises the child and which parent pays maintenance.
There is a double standard, but only until the ink is dry on the relinquishment papers. Then the once selfless woman who made the "loving' choice is just as flawed as her male counterparts who wish to avoid their parental responsibilities.
What concerns me even more in the original question was the statement, "as soon as you place a child up for adoption people suddenly treat you like you are unable to make choices for yourself."
When 'you' become a parent, 'people' treat you as if you are making decisions for someone else. It's part of being a parent. And once a woman has given birth, whether or not she intends to keep her child, she is a parent. She makes the choice to relinquish as the parent of the child.
Surrendering a child for adoption is not a personal decision. It is a parental decision. It is a decision to terminate parenthood and legal parental responsibilities. Its affects are not limited to the mother, the father, or any other individual. For the person making this statement to interpret laws against coercion as a sign that society treats mothers as if they are children, then to extend that to a women's rights issue is completely incorrect.
These laws exist to protect families, and they should be strengthened. Placing a child for adoption has nothing to do with women's rights. And regulating adoption has nothing to do with treating women as if they are unable to make choices for themselves. They are, in fact, not making a decision for themselves. They are making a decision (presumably with the child's father) for themselves, their child, the child's extended family, the prospective adoptive parents, and society as a whole. There is no such thing as a fundamental right to give a child to another family.
Unfortunately, adoption is being sold to young women as a female choice of empowerment. In fact, it is quite the opposite.
I don't have too awful much to add to the discussion since so much has already been said but did want to give a little input.
There are laws in place, like some have mentioned, to deal with women who try to flake out but don't choose adoption. My aunt divorced when she had 4 children from 4 yrs to 12yrs old. She decided she didn't want the responsibility of the children and that their father would take custody. She did have to pay quite a bit in child support because of it. It happens less often that the father is the main care taker so you hear a lot less about women who pay child support but they are out there and it is enforced just as it is with men.
"If a man were to say, I don't want to parent this child I created...will support that child." -While it does take two to make a child, so too should BOTH parties be involved in the rearing/responsibility of the child's life; financial or otherwise. Message loud and clear? That is an arguable issue. Departments of Children Services wouldn't exist nationwide if 'fathers' were to bear the entire responsibility.
"Now some one asked why in today's society...post i am talking about." -If I am interpreting your point here correctly, you are referring to instances where a 'mother' vacates/abandons/leaves her situation and child (in the 'father's care). In this matter, there is no free pass. A negative stigma still applies and abandonment is abandonment; the 'mother' is equally responsible for the welfare of the child, financial or otherwise.
"I wonder why a woman...implications of this." -One thing consistent regarding the welfare of children is the responsibility of the upbringing of the child. By upbringing I refer to cost.The party/parent that stays with possession/custody of the child is the monetary recipient of the child. However, I will concede that there IS an inequitable distribution of responsibility by gender. And generally it is with a heavier imposition upon the male rather than the female that financial responsibility is imposed.
When it comes to the female walking out on the family, we make excuses. The most popular to date is 'Postpartum'. Understanding has been bestowed upon women that have utilized this claim for their actions. Some of these actions being simply heinous. But we (seem to) 'understand'. *sigh* There is no gender equality. Simply stated, there is only equal apathy, selfishness and indifference. The 'parents' only concern is to satisfy their own self serving interest. And these interest can run from a gamut of sex, drugs or whatever else they 'want'.
The right to create with no intention for responsibility? Hardly. It would only be a right in the eyes of like individuals; people just like them. But for the rest who see children as deserving and vulnerable, well, the laws will continue to be preserved and governed on the behalf of children. The only matter of rights that apply to this question are the rights of children.
I do have ONE question myself; this question makes no mention of adoption (even though it is in 'y/a adoptions' and it does refer to a question that did). So why is adoption addressed as part of the answers to this question? Adoption and 'leaving' a child in THAT case is very different to the context of 'leaving' a child as addressed here.
In situations such as divorce and he has custody and she's earning and income then yes she should be made to pay child support. (I think in Australia that happens if it goes to court and he wins custody.)
If you look into state laws you'll probably find there are clauses making it more equal in responsibility. But most people wouldn't think to do it because of social attitudes towards women and raising children. (Its easier to prove paternity with a female than it is for a male for obvious reasons.)
In adoption you know yourself that a mother signs away her rights and a court of law can do that for him if the father isn't involved. In that sense its equal. (Because in the case of abandonment in most western countries a court can do the same for the mother if she vanishes.)
Edit; in our case both of them consented to the adoption. And our childs god father is also a birth dad. (he calls himself that.) He wasn't asked just told at 16yrs old, yet he encouraged us to adopt and adopted a child himself years later. He not bitter about it, he thinks it was the best thing and respects his child's mother.