Replies

This wouldn't work. Two people cannot conspire to take away the rights of a third (the newborn). The child is entitled to financial support.

IMO, it should be the biological father and mother unless other arrangements are sanctioned by a judge (ie, adoption, foster parents, etc.).

Two people cannot conspire to take away the rights of a third (the newborn).

That's true. I guess it comes down to DNA testing if there is any question of who the father might be. If the mother is sleeping around, she's likely to choose the one with the highest salary instead of the one she knows is the father, if she's sleeping around a lot, she really may have no clue.

This wouldn't work. Two people cannot conspire to take away the rights of a third (the newborn). The child is entitled to financial support.

You know, I've heard this before - on these boards - and still don't quite get it. How exactly is the child "entitled" to support?

Now, let me interject first. I believe that any decent parents provide everything they can for their children (short of spoiling - lets not go into an argument of how much is too much...) I hate seeing deprived children, and give money to charities that help them - also right as far as I can tell.

But this idea that there is a "right" to support bothers me. Let's just look at a few specifics for a moment. First off, do all children possess this right to support? Thus, can a government agency come in and start examining your home, to be sure you're spending enough on your children, even absent any reports of abuse? Can children exercise this right, and demand support in a specific form, or access to your bank accounts? If not, then who gets to exercise that right on their behalf - the government? Assuming you answered "No, it's his parents, stupid," then I'd have to ask about which parent gets to exercise that right if there is a dispute. Can one parent do whatever they want if it's for that child? Etc.

Going further, here. If children have a right to support, and their parents are poor, on whom does the obligation fall? Are we as a society obligated to provide this support, and to what level? If this is a right, why should even well-off parents be the ones obligated to provide it? Can they simply expect the government to give them the money for their child? Why or why not?

At what age does this "right" end, and why?

Basically, if I haven't made my point, children do not have a "right" to support - at least, not in a legal sense.

Drew Garrett