Some want unwed dads to pick up Medicaid’s birth costs

STL Today ^ | 07/25/2005 | Virginia Young

[Lorianne]

JEFFERSON CITY - Some Republican legislators want to charge unwed fathers thousands of dollars for hospital birth costs incurred by low-income mothers on Medicaid.

"But the last time I checked, it takes two people to make a baby. And there is some responsibility, not just for child support, but for the cost of bringing that child successfully into the world," said Shields, R-St. Joseph.

Medicaid pays for 43 percent of the births in Missouri. At an average cost of $3,286 a birth, the tab hit $120.6 million last year. Nearly two-thirds of the moms on Medicaid are unmarried.

Critics say mother and baby would suffer under Shields' proposal because some women would give up Medicaid and forgo prenatal care rather than cooperate in efforts to bill the father for hospital costs.

Studies in other states have concluded that birth recovery policies discourage fathers from voluntarily establishing paternity and take money that otherwise would help low-income fathers support their children. That is especially true in families where the unmarried parents live together as a family.

"In reality, there are a lot of fathers that just don't have the income," said Ruth Ehresman, policy director of Citizens for Missouri's Children.

[river rat]

Deadbeat "Dads" is hardly the correct label...
They're no more than good time charlie sperm donors..
Copulating and Populating..
In their case -- a proven 2 time loser -- should be permanently sterilized..
Their salary for LIFE, docked to support their bastards.

"Un-wed moms" is also a misnomer...
They have allowed themselves to be more vagina and womb, than mother...
Irresponsible at best......sluts at worse..
Here again -- 2 time losers should be permanently sterilized.

The more you subsidize something -- the more you'll get..
The increase in bastard births in this country -- proved that..

Children deserve better than that...
The REAL bastards in this case, are those that bring children into this world, without real and capable parents.


Semper Fi

[Terridan]

Is it just me or are these the most ignorant statements I have ever read...
..."Critics say mother and baby would suffer under Shields' proposal because some women would give up Medicaid and forgo prenatal care rather than cooperate in efforts to bill the father for hospital costs."

They sure didn't forgo the sexual experience.... and,

..."In reality, there are a lot of fathers that just don't have the income," said Ruth Ehresman, policy director of Citizens for Missouri's Children."

These so called "fathers" weren't worried about income when they were playing hide the cannolli.... (sorry 'bout the spelling)

[quietolong]

And how many of these woman wouldn’t even talk to a nerd or geek boy?

Ever watch the TV show Blind Date?

A number of woman say they want there “bad boy”. So they get want they want then complain.

[newzjunkey]

They should only be charged for 50% of the bill.

Why even that much? If it's the "woman's choice" to have the child in the first place according to the womb police, why should she be able to FORCE him to procreate? He should be able to concede all rights and have his responsibilities waved too. It's only FAIR in a nation that claims to have "reproductive freedom" and it would never happen because NOW, Planned Parenthood, NARAL, et al. are all about CONTROL and *not* about equality.

If she can't afford to support the child on her own and he were able to obtain a declaration that he didn't want the child, such children should be moved immediately into an adoption situation. No more single baby-mommas on the public dole.

[newzjunkey]

Good post. We need to end the "Baby Momma" chic social status.

[newzjunkey]

If these guys knew they would be liable,they would keep their pants zipped till they were 45 years old or get a vasectomy at the age of 16.....

I notice that you, "babe," are going after the MEN when if the women kept their legs closed and didn't "put out" at the drop of a hat there wouldn't be any of this. The woman demanded "control" over her body and "reproductive choice" so, pray tell, why is it the MAN's fault if she gives birth and not 50% (or more) her own? Only she can truly control whether conception, fetal development and birth happens.

[Moose4]

If you're man enough to stick it in, you're man enough to take responsibility for what comes out. End of discussion.

Virginia is actually running radio PSAs now reminding people that it's much healthier for children if the parents are actually married. The fact that simple common sense like this actually has to be trumpeted statewide on radio commercials like it's some sort of revolutionary new wisdom just makes me want to weep.

}:-)4

[kittymyrib]

Where in the Constitution does it say the taxpayer has to pay for bastards....other than in Congress, of course?

[XEHRpa]

Another example of the rights belonging to the Mom, the responsibilities belonging to the Dad way of thinking.

When will people wake up and return to traditional values that work?

[Jim Noble]

Let people figure out in advance how they will pay for a child

Prior to Gomez v. Perez (1973), this was the common law and the wise social policy of all fifty states.

Like Roe v. Wade, this revolutionary Supreme Court decision upended millenia of law formation, and, more than any other act of the period 1965-1973 ended marriage as we had come to know it.

In marriage prior to 1973, a woman promised a man that all children born to her during their marriage would be his, and the man promised her and the community that, this being so, that he would therefore support her and those children.

By making a single act of sexual intercourse equal to the marriage bond (for a man), the Supremes radically devalued the act of marriage.

[defal33]

Well the point is, if a man, any man, does not want to be responsible for a child and all that comes with having children, he has a choice. He is choosing to have sex and is choosing to use protection himself, or become a sperm donor by not protecting himself.

Low IQ and low social-status is just another excuse for bring children into the world. People that try to justify this to being the reason for the out of wedlock pregnancy is just adding to the problem.

Parts of our society need to quit making excuses and stop making it socially acceptable or even advantageous, and economically very advantageous.

By making sperm donors pay and or do not pay unwed mother until father or fathers names are given and proven through DNA. I bet the low IQ will go up real quick in a lot of these women and men.

Now the custody of a born child between two willing unmarried adults is another matte.

[defal33]

Was there a gun pointed at the man's head when the women "put out" at the drop of a hat, maybe something that took away the mans choice in this baby decision?

[MRMEAN]

Prior to Gomez v. Perez (1973), this was the common law and the wise social policy of all fifty states.

I didn't know that. Another case of the Supremes destroying the country.

U.S. Supreme Court

GOMEZ v. PEREZ, 409 U.S. 535 (1973)

409 U.S. 535

GOMEZ v. PEREZ
APPEAL FROM THE COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OF TEXAS, FOURTH SUPREME JUDICIAL
DISTRICT
No. 71-575.

Argued December 6, 1972
Decided January 17, 1973

Texas law denying right of paternal support to illegitimate children while granting it to legitimate children violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 ; Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164 .

466 S. W. 2d 41, reversed and remanded.

Stanley Dalton Wright argued the cause for appellant. With him on the brief were Melvin N. Eichelbaum and Harry B. Adams III.

Joseph Jaworski, by invitation of the Court, 408 U.S. 942 , argued the cause and filed a brief as amicus curiae in support of the judgment below.

Norman Dorsen, Melvin L. Wulf, and Sanford Jay Rosen filed a brief for the American Civil Liberties Union as amicus curiae urging reversal.

Crawford C. Martin, Attorney General, Nola White, First Assistant Attorney General, Alfred Walker, Executive Assistant Attorney General, and J. C. Davis and Pat Bailey, Assistant Attorneys General, filed a brief for the State of Texas as amicus curiae urging affirmance.

PER CURIAM.

The issue presented by this appeal is whether the laws of Texas may constitutionally grant legitimate children a judicially enforceable right to support from their natural fathers and at the same time deny that right to illegitimate children.

In 1969, appellant filed a petition in Texas District Court seeking support from appellee on behalf of her [409 U.S. 535, 536]   minor child. After a hearing, the state trial judge found that appellee is "the biological father" of the child, and that the child "needs the support and maintenance of her father," but concluded that because the child was illegitimate "there is no legal obligation to support the child and the Plaintiff take nothing." The Court of Civil Appeals affirmed this ruling over the objection that this illegitimate child was being denied equal protection of law. 466 S. W. 2d 41. The Texas Supreme Court refused application for a writ of error, finding no "reversible error." We noted probable jurisdiction. 408 U.S. 920 .

In Texas, both at common law and under the statutes of the State, the natural father has a continuing and primary duty to support his legitimate children. See Lane v. Phillips, 69 Tex. 240, 243, 6 S. W. 610, 611 (1887); Tex. Fam. Code 4.02 (1970) (husband's duty). 1 That duty extends even beyond dissolution of the marriage, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat., Art. 4639a (Supp. 1972-1973); Hooten v. Hooten, 15 S. W. 2d 141 (Tex. Ct. Civ. App. 1929), and is enforceable on the child's behalf in civil proceedings and, further, is the subject of criminal sanctions. Tex. Penal Code 602. The duty to support exists despite the fact that the father may not have custody of the child. Hooten v. Hooten, supra. The Court of Civil Appeals has held in this case that nowhere in this elaborate statutory scheme does the State recognize any enforceable duty on the part of the biological father to support his illegitimate children and that, absent a statutory duty to support, the controlling law is the [409 U.S. 535, 537]   Texas common-law rule that illegitimate children, unlike legitimate children, have no legal right to support from their fathers. See also Home of the Holy Infancy v. Kaska, 397 S. W. 2d 208 (Tex. 1965); Lane v. Phillips, supra, at 243, 6 S. W., at 611; Bjorgo v. Bjorgo, 391 S. W. 2d 528 (Tex. Ct. Civ. App. 1965). It is also true that fathers may set up illegitimacy as a defense to prosecutions for criminal nonsupport of their children. See Curtin v. State, 155 Tex. Cr. R. 625, 238 S. W. 2d 187 (1950); Beaver v. State, 96 Tex. Cr. R. 179, 256 S. W. 929 (1923).

In this context, appellant's claim on behalf of her daughter that the child has been denied equal protection of the law is unmistakably presented. Indeed, at argument here, the attorney for the State of Texas, appearing as amicus curiae, conceded that but for the fact that this child is illegitimate she would be entitled to support from appellee under the laws of Texas. 2  

We have held that under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment a State may not create a right of action in favor of children for the wrongful [409 U.S. 535, 538]   death of a parent and exclude illegitimate children from the benefit of such a right. Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 (1968). Similarly, we have held that illegitimate children may not be excluded from sharing equally with other children in the recovery of workmen's compensation benefits for the death of their parent. Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164 (1972). 3 Under these decisions, a State may not invidiously discriminate against illegitimate children by denying them substantial benefits accorded children generally. We therefore hold that once a State posits a judicially enforceable right on behalf of children to needed support from their natural fathers there is no constitutionally sufficient justification for denying such an essential right to a child simply because its natural father has not married its mother. For a State to do so is "illogical and unjust." Id., at 175. We recognize the lurking problems with respect to proof of paternity. Those problems are not to be lightly brushed aside, but neither can they be made into an impenetrable barrier that works to shield otherwise invidious discrimination. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U.S. 645, 656 -657 (1972); Carrington v. Rash, 380 U.S. 89 (1965).

The judgment is reversed and the case remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.

It is so ordered.

Footnotes

[ Footnote 1 ] Section 4.02 became effective after the commencement of appellant's suit, but the provision is identical (except for punctuation) to its predecessor, Tex. Rev. Civ. Stat., Husband and Wife, Art. 4614, in 1 Tex. Laws, c. 309, p. 736 (60th Legislature, Reg. Sess. 1967). Section 4.02 was enacted as part of a codification of Texas family law.

[ Footnote 2 ] Tr. of Oral Arg. 24. There was some question at argument whether the statutory scheme relating to paternal support of children was properly drawn into question in the state courts. In the circumstances of this case, we need not resolve the question. First, the State of Texas asserts no prejudice from appellant's apparent failure to explicitly draw attention to the individual statutes that make up the so-called Texas rule regarding support of legitimate and illegitimate children. On the contrary, the State asserted here that it was prepared to meet appellant's constitutional attack on its statutes on the merits. Tr. of Oral Arg. 28. Second, under our cases, "the unrestricted notation of probable jurisdiction of the appeal is to be understood as a grant of the writ" of certiorari on "nonappealable" issues presented in the case. Mishkin v. New York, 383 U.S. 502, 512 (1966). Appellant's federal claim, which was rejected in the state courts, that her child was being denied equal protection of laws is, therefore, properly before us in any event.

[ Footnote 3 ] See also Davis v. Richardson, 342 F. Supp. 588 (Conn.), aff'd, post, p. 1069 (1972); Griffin v. Richardson, 346 F. Supp. 1226 (Md.), aff'd, post, p. 1069 (1972).

MR. JUSTICE STEWART, with whom MR. JUSTICE REHNQUIST joins, dissenting.

This case came here as an appeal, on the representation that the Texas courts had sustained the constitutionality of 4.02 of the Texas Family Code and [409 U.S. 535, 539]   Articles 602 and 602-A of the Texas Penal Code, over a challenge to those statutes under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We noted probable jurisdiction, 408 U.S. 920 , to consider whether the alleged discrimination between legitimate and illegitimate children, in terms of the support obligations of their biological fathers, denied equal protection to illegitimate children under the principles of Weber v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 406 U.S. 164 ; Glona v. American Guarantee & Liability Insurance Co., 391 U.S. 73 ; and Levy v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 68 .

Upon the submission of briefs and oral argument, it became clear that neither statute had been the actual subject of litigation in the courts of Texas. Hence, this is not properly an appeal under 28 U.S.C. 1257 (2). I would, therefore, dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction, and treat "the papers whereon the appeal was taken" as a petition for writ of certiorari. 28 U.S.C. 2103.

The parties were not prepared to submit this case as one challenging the common-law treatment of illegitimates in Texas, and failed to provide this Court with a sufficient understanding of Texas law with respect to such matters as custodial versus noncustodial support obligations, legitimation, common-law marriage, and the effect of a Texas statute, 4.02 of the Family Code, which became law after this litigation had begun. With the issues so vaguely drawn and the alleged discriminations so imprecise, I would dismiss the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. [409 U.S. 535, 540]  

---

Company | Privacy Policy Disclaimer

Copyright © 1994-2004FindLaw

[Publius6961]

Critics say mother and baby would suffer under Shields' proposal because some women would give up Medicaid and forgo prenatal care rather than cooperate in efforts to bill the father for hospital costs.

And the downside to that is...?

Beggars not only can't be choosers, but even letting them think that they can make the rules adds insult to injury.

Reward pathological behavior, and the only certain thing is you'll get more of it.

[WildTurkey]

How can women keep pumping out kids with no reasonable means to support them?

Welcome to the land of welfare. The more kids you have, the more money you get.

[Publius6961]

How can women keep pumping out kids with no reasonable means to support them?

Why shouldn't they? 99% of them absolutely view it as a right for the public to pay.

We live in a Kafkaesque world where the mantra is "it's for the children!", while thousands are killed, alone, in the dark, faceless and nameless, while thousand of others are agonized over because their rutting-sow mothers can't give them Gameboys or Cable TV!

[Publius6961]

Why not get the man to think twice about his half of the deal?

I'm all ears.

How?

[Publius6961]

Men need to be taught that condoms and the pill are very ineffective.

OK. We tried that for fifty years and it hasn't worked. What's your alternative plan?

Do you recall what is the definition of "insanity"?

[Publius6961]

Dare I say first the mother has to know just which guy is the father.

Well, brace yourself. The number of sluts who claim otherwise will put you into permanent shock.

[Publius6961]

So, we have ... murder, or murder. Lovely choice. Perhaps it would be more effective just to say that Medicaid will only pay for the birth of children who are given up for adoption within one month of birth.

That would be unfair to the sluts. What would they live on?