Who wrote this law?

[smallvoice]

At the expense of the woman's choices. But what does that have to do with the here & now?

I'd say in conjunction with the woman's choice, and it is the here and now. If they want to give up ever asking for child support, then the field will be level.

 

[Gordy327]

I'd say in conjunction with the woman's choice, and it is the here and now. If they want to give up ever asking for child support, then the field will be level.

Child support is a matter of child rearing, which is a separate issue and separate laws than pregnancy, which is child bearing.

 

[smallvoice]

Child support is a matter of child rearing, which is a separate issue and separate laws than pregnancy, which is child bearing.

Yes, but that does not negate the man's role in the pregnancy, good and bad. When she makes the choice either way, he should be involved, especially if she "needs help" in rearing the child. It's part of the package.

 

[minnie616]

Yes, but that does not negate the man's role in the pregnancy, good and bad. When she makes the choice either way, he should be involved, especially if she "needs help" in rearing the child. It's part of the package.

Your opinion is noted but it did not hold up in Corut.

Child support is for the child.
Both parents are held responsible to help support the child.

In fact in 2006 there was a mens right case that was nicknamed a Roe v Wade case for men.

Look up the Dubay v Wells court case :

By the way he lost the case.

But critics point out that equal reproductive rights for men and women are simply not realistic.

As the judges in Dubay's case concluded, a woman's right to abortion and a man's right to reject fatherhood are not quite analogous.

With abortion, a woman decides whether or not to bring a child into existence.

The right of the child to a legal relationship with his or her father—and in particular, the right to financial support to help with the child's upbringing—should trump the right of a man to opt out.

Plus, at the end of the day, both parents were responsible for the conception of the child, so both should take responsibility for the child, should that child be born.

 

[smallvoice]

Child support is a matter of child rearing, which is a separate issue and separate laws than pregnancy, which is child bearing.

Your opinion is noted but it did not hold up in Corut.

Child support is for the child.
Both parents are held responsible to help support the child.

In fact in 2006 there was a mens right case that was nicknamed a Roe v Wade case for men.

Look up the Dubay v Wells court case :

By the way he lost the case.

But critics point out that equal reproductive rights for men and women are simply not realistic.

As the judges in Dubay's case concluded, a woman's right to abortion and a man's right to reject fatherhood are not quite analogous.

With abortion, a woman decides whether or not to bring a child into existence.

The right of the child to a legal relationship with his or her father—and in particular, the right to financial support to help with the child's upbringing—should trump the right of a man to opt out.

Plus, at the end of the day, both parents were responsible for the conception of the child, so both should take responsibility for the child, should that child be born.

You didn't make your case.

Also, don't hang your hat on Roe v Wade.

 

[Gordy327]

Yes, but that does not negate the man's role in the pregnancy, good and bad. When she makes the choice either way, he should be involved, especially if she "needs help" in rearing the child. It's part of the package.

No, it's two separate packages. The man's involvement in pregnancy is brief and limited. He doesn't have to deal with all the issues or problems of pregnancy nor is he the pregnant party. Therefore, he has no say in childbearing matters. But they do share equal responsibility foe child rearing.

 

[Gordy327]

You didn't make your case.

Also, don't hang your hat on Roe v Wade.

You didn't make a case either. You say the man should have equal say in pregnancy. But how can he have a say when he's not the one who's pregnant and doesn't have to make choices regarding pregnancy? The woman as an individual has legal, recognized, personal autonomy. So she is capable of choosing for herself. On what legal basis does the man have a say, not to mention possibly overriding her choices?

 

[minnie616]

You didn't make your case.

Also, don't hang your hat on Roe v Wade.

There were several right to privacy precedents that Roe was based on.

It will interesting to see how the Supreme Court could overturn Roe without also for example overturning parental rights.

The following cases could become dismantled if Roe v Wade were overturned.



Weems v. United States (1910)
In a case from the Philippines, the Supreme Court finds that the definition of "cruel and unusual punishment" is not limited to what the authors of the Constitution understood under that concept.

Meyer v. Nebraska (1923)
A case ruling that parents may decide for themselves if and when their children may learn a foreign language, based upon a fundamental liberty interest individuals have in the family unit.

Pierce v. Society of Sisters (1925)
A case deciding that parents may not be forced to send their children to public rather than private schools, based on the idea that, once again, parents have a fundamental liberty in deciding what happens to their children.

Olmstead v. United States (1928)
The court decides that wire tapping is legal, no matter what the reason or motivation, because it is not expressly prohibited in the Constitution. Justice Brandeis' dissent, however, lays the groundwork for future understandings of privacy.

Skinner v. Oklahoma (1942)
An Oklahoma law providing for the sterilization of people found to be "habitual criminals" is struck down, based on idea that all people have a fundamental right to make their own choices about marriage and procreation.

Tileston v. Ullman (1943) & Poe v. Ullman (1961)
The Court refuses to hear a case on Connecticut laws prohibiting the sale of contraceptives because no one can demonstrate they have been harmed. Harlan's dissent in Poe, however, explains why the case should be reviewed and why fundamental privacy interests are at stake.

Griswold v. Connecticut (1965)
Connecticut's laws against distribution of contraceptives and contraceptive information to married couples are struck down, with the Court relying on earlier precedent involving the rights of people to make decisions about their families and procreation as a legitimate sphere of privacy.

Loving v. Virginia (1967)
Virginia law against interracial marriages is struck down, with the Court once again declaring that marriage is a "fundamental civil right" and that decisions in this arena are not those with which the State can interefere unless they have good cause.

Eisenstadt v. Baird (1972)
The right of people to have and know about contraceptives is expanded to unmarried couples, because the right of people to make such decisions exists due not simply to the nature of the marriage relationship. Instead, it is also due to the fact that it is individuals making these decisions, and as such the government has no business making it for them, regardless of their marital status.

Roe v. Wade (1973)
The landmark decision which established that women have a basic right to have an abortion, this was based in many ways upon the earlier decisions above. Through the above cases, the Supreme Court developed the idea that the Constitution protects a person's to privacy, particularly when it comes to matters involving children and procreation.

 

[Lursa]

You didn't make your case.

Also, don't hang your hat on Roe v Wade.

OK, here's the actual laws then, since you 'didnt like' explanation of the laws Previously posted:

People should note that there is no distinction between male and female here...this applies to both equally.​

​

Child Support is, a statutory right that actually belongs to the child. Neither the egg donor nor the sperm donor can "contract out" of their liability under the laws that grant the statutory right to child support. (This isnt my explanation)​

​

So anything 'pre-conception' or 'pre-birth' is useless...if there's a child, their statutory right supersedes some 'contract.'​

--and--

It means the fantasy opt-out hinges on the child's rights...and once there is a child, the opt-out contract cannot supersede that right. Laws arent going to override it, there's zero benefit to society, it harms kids and tax payers for starters.​

​

The fact that the custodial parent has a high income does not itself justify deviation from the guidelines, because under the law children have the right to benefit from both parents' incomes."​

​

​

https://www.findlaw.com/family/child-support/child-support-basics.html​

--and--

Cannot waive child support​

​

Can You Waive Child Support? | Law Office of Heath L. Baker

Can you waive child support in Riverside? If you want an experienced family law attorney on your side, contact Heath Baker Law. Call us for a FREE consult!

heathbakerlaw.com

​

A child’s right to receive parental support is inherent and cannot be waived by either party. Regardless of the parents’ relationship with one another (whether married, divorced, separated, or never married), as long as paternity has been established, both parents are on the hook for child support. Regardless of any arrangement—such as “trading” spousal support for child support—both parents still have a legal obligation to support the child.​

​

The Issue With Waiving Child Support​

The issue of waiving child support payments came up in Marriage of Ayo (1987), which further established the parents’ obligation to pay child support. In this case, the court established that the legal obligation to pay child support is much more than a normal debt; it goes beyond a simple “good-faith” obligation to pay and therefore cannot be overruled by the individual parties. (If they could be overruled, that would mean that California law and the ruling of the courts could be thwarted by a simple provision in a contract, i.e. parenting plan.)​

​

An Agreement To Waive​

An agreement to waive child support cannot be legally binding, and in fact, it could have a negative effect on your family law case. For example, say John and Denise are getting a divorce and have a 5-year-old son together. Denise says she will waive her right to child support if John does not seek custody of their son. John agrees, but the judge finds out about the arrangement and takes it as evidence that John is trying to get out of his legal obligations as a father. Now John’s agreement with Denise—which would not have held up in court anyway—is useless and has become a liability in his divorce arguments.​

​

Now do you understand? Do you "accept" the actual laws and rights to protect the child?

 

[Gordy327]

@minnie616 & @Lursa

Bravo & well said. I salute you.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Stop telling lies then.

Minnie doesn't lie.