As pointed out by Jim Noble on this thread, at one time the law took a more balanced approach, which was overturned by the Supreme Court in 1973. ( GOMEZ v. PEREZ ). The "equal protection" logic no doubt was driven by egalitarianism, the "civil rights" agenda, and feminism. Texas has a version of the "Equal Rights Amendment" in its constitution. An unwed father argued that since women had a right to avoid unwanted motherhood through abortion [or adoption], "equal protection" for men would allow them to avoid unwanted fatherhood by disclaiming paternity. The Texas court denied him by saying, (1) Women have the liberty go give birth, and (2) GOMEZ v. PEREZ gave illegitimate children the right to paternal child support.
Tennessee also decided that a father has no 14 Amendment "equal protection" to avoid the responsibilities of paternity, stating, Our own Tennessee Supreme Court has stated, the right of procreational autonomy is composed of two rights of equal significance -- the right to procreate and the right to avoid procreation. Davis v. Davis, 842 S.W.2d 588 (Tenn. 1992). Procreational autonomy, however, is irrelevant to paternity actions.
Tennessee approvingly cited a New York decision,
For example, in L. Pamela P. v. Frank S., 449 N.E.2d 713 (N.Y. 1983), a paternity suit was brought against a putative father by a mother who had deliberately misrepresented her use of contraception. 449 N.E.2d at 714. The father asserted that the paternity suit, with its imposition of a support obligation, constituted state infringement upon his constitutional right to decide whether to father a child. Id. at 715. The court, however, reasoned the following:
Clearly, [the father] has a constitutionally protected right to decide for himself whether to father a child. This right is deemed so fundamental that governmental interference in this area of decision-making may be justified only by compelling State interests. . . . . This aspect of the right to privacy has never been extended so far as to regulate the conduct of private actors as between themselves. . . . .
[The father seeks to] be relieved of his obligation to support a child he did not [deliberately] have. But [the father's] constitutional entitlement to avoid procreation does not encompass a right to avoid a child support obligation simply because another private person has not fully respected his desires in this regard. However unfairly [the father] may have been treated by [the mother's] failure to allow him an equal voice in the decision to conceive a child, such a wrong does not rise to the level of a constitutional violation.
The Supremes also in MICHAEL H. v. GERALD D., 491 U.S. 110 (1989) decided that a natural father had no right to establish paternity against a mother's wishes.
One aspect of forcing unwilling fathers to provide support to mothers is their ability to provide for wanted children. Typically support would be at 25% of gross income; and child support is not tax-deductable. The needs of the father's other children who live with him are not considered (no "equal protection" for them). On the other hand, an unmarried woman who has multiple children with different fathers (or names multiple fathers, especially those with higher incomes) can receive multiple streams of income, as well as public benefits.
Shouldn't Men Have a Choice, Too?
by Glenn Sacks (e-mail: GSacks@liberator.net) [February 20th, 2002]Jennifer was crushed when she was told that a baby was on the way. She wants to have children, but the right way--after she has found the right person and is married. But in Jennifer's country, she has no choice. "Jenn" cannot give the child up for adoption, and she cannot terminate the pregnancy. It is her burden to bear, for the next two decades, like it or not.
What country is it which compels a person to have a child they don't want? Afghanistan? Saudi Arabia?
“The courts force my husband and I to support a child he never agreed to...”
No, it's the United States--not for Jenn, but for Ken.
Ken Johnson, a 10 year veteran of the Seattle Fire Department, wanted to be a father, but with the right woman, and at the right time. Three years ago he and his wife separated after six years of marriage, and each began to date. Ken had a brief affair with "Cathy," which resulted in a pregnancy. Ken begged Cathy to put the child up for adoption or to terminate the pregnancy, but Cathy refused. Now Ken and his wife, who reconciled two and a half years ago, can't start a family of their own because almost half of Ken's net income goes to support the child he didn't want to have. He says:
"People tell me that Cathy should have the choice whether to keep the child or not because it's her body so it's her choice. I agree. But what about my body? I make my living rushing into burning buildings. I put my life and my safety on the line every time I go to work, and now I'm on the hook for 18 years. With the child support demands on me, there's no way I'll ever be able to quit. What about my choice?"
Johnson is part of a growing movement of men who bristle at being "coerced fathers," and who have enlisted in a "Choice for Men" movement whose goals are every bit as legitimate as the goals of the women's reproductive rights movement. They note that one million American women legally walk away from motherhood every year by either adoption, abortion, or abandonment, and demand that men, like women, be given reproductive options. They point out that, unlike women, men have no reliable contraception available to them, since the failure rate of condoms is substantial, and vasectomies are generally only worthwhile for older men who have already married and had children.
The Choice for Men movement seeks to give "coerced fathers" the right to relinquish their parental rights and responsibilities within a month of learning of a pregnancy, just as mothers do when they choose to give their children up for adoption. These men would be obligated to provide legitimate financial compensation to cover natal medical expenses, the mother's loss of income during pregnancy, etc. The right would only apply to pregnancies which occurred outside of marriage.
Some of those who fought for women's reproductive choices agree with choice for men. Karen DeCrow, former president of the National Organization for Women, writes:
"If a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring a pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support ... autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice."
To date, courts have refused to consider fathers' reproductive rights even in the most extreme cases, including: when child support is demanded from men who were as young as 12 when they were statutorily raped by older women; when women have taken the semen from a used condom and inserted it in themselves, including from condoms used only in oral sex; and when women concealed the pregnancy from the man (denying him the right to be a father) and then sued for back and current child support eight or ten years later.
"It doesn't make sense to me," Ken's wife Patti says. "The courts force my husband and I to support a child he never agreed to, but make it financially impossible for him to have a child with the woman he loves and married."
This is sickening. Creating new ways to classify human beings "unwanted" is utterly sickening.
Turning one's back on one's own flesh and blood offspring is immoral no matter how hard one tries to justify it.
Ken Johnson, a 10 year veteran of the Seattle Fire Department, wanted to be a father, but with the right woman, and at the right time…
should have put a rain coat on his "little fireman, if he was not ready for the responsibility of having a child.
"Choice for Men" Don’t let your dick ruin your life, Use a rubber, its quite effective when used.
Let's just get rid of welfare completely. Once it becomes economically stressful to have kids out of wedlock, it will stop.