• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

A Father's Rights

Timequake

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Here on Debate Politics we often talk of issues like adoption and abortion but I notice that we have little or no debates or parental rights. Should the mother have more rights than the father? Why? Recently, my brother and his girlfriend had a baby boy. My brother was extremely overjoyed and could not wait to start his new journey as a father, but one thing stands in his way. When their baby arrived in July my brothers girlfriend refused to allow him to sign his name on the birth certificate and legally name him the father. In a country such has America how can one parents rights outweigh the other?

Her reasoning for not allowing him to sign the birth certificate are legitimate and respectable: his current job does not have benefits that would support her or the child, but what bothers me here is that she actually has the power to not allow him to sign the certificate and legally be named the baby’s father…. Does the sound constitutional?

Of course we protested this and requested a DNA testing so that we could overcome her decision but she and her family have requested that we wait 6 months and allow him to find a legit job with benefits before we make this a legal matter, but here is the catch, by the end of this 6 month period, she can claim abandonment on his part and thereby take sole custody of this child.

The question here is not what we can do about this specific situation (that is simple). The question is, how can our constitution permit this kind of situation to happen? One parent should not have more rights than the other. The fathers name should be on the certificate giving him legal rights to the child from birth until the child is 18, with or without the mother’s consent. How can a mother deny a father of their rights over the child without legal intervention or proof of legitimate cause of why the baby’s father should not be named? I’m sorry but lack of job benefits is not a legitimate cause, there are baby’s given to fathers who have no jobs everyday.
 

walrus

Member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
191
Reaction score
15
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I can understand a requirement of a DNA test before a man can claim fatherhood of a child. It is otherwise difficult to prove, wheras there is very rarely any doubt as to who the mother is.

But as to the larger issue, I believe that fathers do often get the short end of the stick in terms of their rights versus that of the woman. Until very recently, courts nearly always automatically awarded custody to the mother in disputes unless the father showed extraordinary circumstances. It is still unusual for a court to order child support to be payed by a mother to a custodial father unless her income dwarfs his. Most of these issues have come a long way in recent years, but there is still a ways to go.
 

Timequake

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
He is being denied his right as the father, how can she possibly have the power do this?
 

walrus

Member
Joined
May 10, 2005
Messages
191
Reaction score
15
Location
Georgia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
Timequake said:
He is being denied his right as the father, how can she possibly have the power do this?
From what you have said, he has not yet proven that he is the father. If he has proven to be the father, I would agree that she has no right to interfere in his rights to be a parent. However, just like any legal issue, he first must prove that his claim is valid. From what I understand (I am not an attorney) you do not have to wait until she allows a DNA test. He can have the court order her to cooperate in determining whether or not he is the father.
 

Timequake

Member
Joined
Aug 18, 2005
Messages
84
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Heres the thing, she does not deny that he is the father. She has stated that he is. After that does she still have the right to prevent him from signing?
 

AlbqOwl

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
22,769
Reaction score
11,834
Location
New Mexico
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Independent
I'm pretty old fashioned about this stuff. I adhere to the old school where people should be mature enough and self sufficient enough to support a family and there should be at the very least a ring and a date before they have sex. I know, I know, it just isn't done that way anymore. But it sure staved off a lot of messy problems when it was the norm instead of the exception.

But okay, this gal and dude didn't do it that way and now there's a baby. So second old fashioned notion: she should be required to name the father so that the child has a mother and a father on his/her birth certificate. It is the only honorable thing for the sake of the child.

The mother and father should each be required to pay at least one half of the child's support regardless of the relationship or lack thereof or who has custody. Unless there is proof the father is dangerous to her or the child, the father should have equal access to the child. If the father doesn't pony up, his rights to the child are severed.

Third old fashioned notion, if she refuses to name the father, she should be entitled to no government services of any kind and, if she is unable to adequately care for the child, the state can--the operative word is CAN, not MUST--take over, sever parental rights, and place the child in a good home.

I am getting sick of tired of this country losing whole generations of kids due to selfish, irresponsible people operating on the principle of if it feels good, do it and then not accepting the consequences of their choices.
 

Stinger

DP Veteran
Joined
May 3, 2005
Messages
15,097
Reaction score
537
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
AlbqOwl said:
I'm pretty old fashioned about this stuff. I adhere to the old school where people should be mature enough and self sufficient enough to support a family and there should be at the very least a ring and a date before they have sex. I know, I know, it just isn't done that way anymore. But it sure staved off a lot of messy problems when it was the norm instead of the exception.

But okay, this gal and dude didn't do it that way and now there's a baby. So second old fashioned notion: she should be required to name the father so that the child has a mother and a father on his/her birth certificate. It is the only honorable thing for the sake of the child.

The mother and father should each be required to pay at least one half of the child's support regardless of the relationship or lack thereof or who has custody. Unless there is proof the father is dangerous to her or the child, the father should have equal access to the child. If the father doesn't pony up, his rights to the child are severed.

Third old fashioned notion, if she refuses to name the father, she should be entitled to no government services of any kind and, if she is unable to adequately care for the child, the state can--the operative word is CAN, not MUST--take over, sever parental rights, and place the child in a good home.

I am getting sick of tired of this country losing whole generations of kids due to selfish, irresponsible people operating on the principle of if it feels good, do it and then not accepting the consequences of their choices.
BRAVO

Just so you know where I'm coming from I just watched our first grandchild be born a 7:44 this morning!

Just to secound a few points. ABSOLUTELY she should be REQUIRED BY LAW to name the father on the birth cirtificate NOW. And if it is not this fellow then the law should track the down who ever helped create this new life and force him to support the child else sign over his parental rights to someone who will.

The mere fact she has concocted this little ploy should render her an unfit mother and the child should be turned over to the father for custody until such time she can prove she has matured enough to be a mother.

Now off to see my new baby-Jack and his mother and father.
 

santini63

New member
Joined
Aug 22, 2005
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I currently work as a temp for the State of Texas, Child Support Division. At least from what I have seen she can not actually do that. Many times the man does not take a DNA test and signs papers at the childs berth saying that he is the father. Never do this! You do not know how many stories I have heard and witnessed since working here. DNA test should always be used. The woman can not stop your brother from having his name on the paper after a DNA test. That's all a woman could request in hopes of keeping his name off the brith certificate.

This idea that he doesnt have benefits is stupid. If she has a job the child can be placed on her insurance and he can pay for it. We do this all the time. If neither parent has insurance then the state issues medicare
 

ElGringo17

Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2005
Messages
246
Reaction score
0
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
The reason why the law works this way is because by virtue of superior electoral numbers, women decide what politician gets elected, whicbh is why ALL politicians must do the bidding of those that put them there-WOMEN....


And the democrats are even worse in this regard than the republicans...

Face it, we live in a gynocentric. matriarcahl society where women have all the power, and to keep and expand that power, they use their well oiled victim propaganda machine.
 
Top Bottom