Does legitimacy still matter?

[Lazarus52980]

My wife and I do foster care. We currently have two infants, and one five year old girl. When I was discussing foster care with someone with my oldest biological son nearby, someone referred to my five year old foster daughter as a "bastard child". I was forced later to explain to my son what the word "bastard" means (For those who do not know, it means your parents were not married when you were born/conceived).

My question is this: In 2014, does it make any difference at all if your parents were married when you were born? It seems to me like getting married first and then having children has become the exception, not the norm. I don't think we are at a reversal, where people may be ridiculed for being "legitimate" but I think it is common enough that no one notices anymore.


Can anyone think of a reason that child legitimacy still matters today?

 

[Carson Dyle]

My wife and I do foster care. We currently have two infants, and one five year old girl. When I was discussing foster care with someone with my oldest biological son nearby, someone referred to my five year old foster daughter as a "bastard child". I was forced later to explain to my son what the word "bastard" means (For those who do not know, it means your parents were not married when you were born/conceived).

I find it hard to imagine that anyone would say that in anything but a hostile manner.

\My question is this: In 2014, does it make any difference at all if your parents were married when you were born?

Did it ever? Are you quite honestly asking this question?

Can anyone think of a reason that child legitimacy still matters today?

I find it hard to believe that a foster parent would even ask that question of anyone. You don't exactly sound as though you have all your oars in the water. Maybe you need to rethink your role as a foster parent.

 

[Lazarus52980]

I find it hard to imagine that anyone would say that in anything but a hostile manner.



Did it ever? Are you quite honestly asking this question?



I find it hard to believe that a foster parent would even ask that question of anyone. You don't exactly sound as though you have all your oars in the water. Maybe you need to rethink your role as a foster parent.

Oh, there is no question that when it was said to me it was hostile.


Did it ever? Of course it did. For a long time there was/has been a legal and social stigma with regard to unwed parents. I heard children in school made fun of for this sort of thing when I was in elementary school, and I am only 33 years old.

Your last part confuses me. Do I somehow "not have all my oars in the water" simply because I asked the question? My personal feelings on the subject have no bearing on if it does not does not still matter...

 

[Murloc]

not having married parents is not the norm but it's not unusual either, usually nobody even cares. It's the family structure that matters.

Anyway since you are a foster parent (which means you adopted the kid right?) I don't see how the term bastard is relevant at all, maybe the kid came from a married family that was completely exterminated in a fire during a family reunion, so it's not a bastard, just an adopted orphan.

 

[Lazarus52980]

not having married parents is not the norm but it's not unusual either, usually nobody even cares. It's the family structure that matters.

Anyway since you are a foster parent (which means you adopted the kid right?) I don't see how the term bastard is relevant at all, maybe the kid came from a married family that was completely exterminated in a fire during a family reunion, so it's not a bastard, just an adopted orphan.

Unfortunately, I have not adopted them yet. Being in foster care means that the have been removed from the care of their parent(s) and no relatives are able/willing to care for them, so they are given to licensed homes to be cared for until the parents get their act back together and the kids can safely go home, or until parental rights are terminated and they are able to be adopted by someone else (In this case, hopefully me, but potentially some distant relative).

Depending on if you are going by the definition of not knowing who your father is (his name seems to be known) or if you are going by the "your parents were not married when you were born" definition, it is TECHNICALLY accurate. It's still really offensive, but I would assume a word like that is intended to be offensive.

 

[alzan]

Legitimacy/illegitimacy matters but for all the wrong reasons. Small-minded people use the terms bastard and illegitimate as words of hate and/or superiority. Even within the sub forums of Anandtech posters use the terms to shock other users and/or to generate responses.

Somewhat related are the problems with merged families, a la Brady Bunch, where the children use step- brother/sister in a derogatory manner ("you're not my real brother/sister"). My wife grew up in such a family and even though the siblings are now in their 50's and 60's there is still a division though not as pronounced as it was during childhood.

I don't really understand the reasoning behind someone using "bastard" as it relates to your situation; of course considering the incorrect usage of the word I doubt if there's any reasoning behind it.

 

[crashtestdummy]

I'd consider that incredibly mean-spirited and rude. Unfortunately, you can't stop people from being jackasses. What you can do, though, is be a positive influence to the boy by providing an example of how to respond. Make sure to rebuke the person firmly and conspicuously. Just knowing that you treat such language as completely unacceptable and horribly outdated will mean a lot to the boy, as will knowing that you have his back.

 

[PhatoseAlpha]

I don't think it matters in a meaningful way anymore. I find it hard to believe there's really people out there who would've otherwise been pleasant to a person, but become mean upon learning their parents weren't married when they were born.

That doesn't mean people won't use it against if you they're out to hurt you anyway - but lets be realistic, if they're going to use that against you, the fact is they would've found something to use against you and the intention is to hurt you for reasons completely unrelated to your parentage.

That said, I can't help but wonder if the example in the OP was inspired by a certain HBO program that's the hip thing as of late - one that just happens to toss around that word quite a bit.

 

[poofyhairguy]

The only reason it doesn't matter in America is because for a short window in human history your living standard isn't determined by who your parents are. That window seems to be closing...

 

[justoh]

What's the point of even asking this question? Can't really control what others think, and you shouldn't care if anyone might have an issue with "illegitimacy," since there's no reasonable basis to discriminate on this fact alone. Marriage is irrelevant.

 

[Moonbeam]

It matters to people who don't matter.

 

[Mursilis]

It "matters" in the sense that generally, a child born to a married couple is more likely to have a stable home and a stronger relationship with both parents than if the couple is not married. (Note that I said "generally" - there are of course unstable married couples and lots of unmarried couples that have been together for decades and successfully raised children). I have a relative who got pregnant by her boyfriend (who was cheating on her with another girl who he also got pregnant at about the same time), and he gradually disappeared. He probably hasn't seen his son more than a few times, and the child is 10 now.

 

[piasabird]

It use to make a big difference for people with an estate and who legally can inherit said estate. Nowadays no one gets married thinking the government will pay for their child's upbringing. I don't think the term Bastard was ever used in any favorable manner.

It mattered to me to be married before I had children. That is what family is all about. Maybe you don't care enough about your children if it does not matter to you. It is a matter of honor and responsibility and respect.

 

[justoh]

It use to make a big difference for people with an estate and who legally can inherit said estate. Nowadays no one gets married thinking the government will pay for their child's upbringing. I don't think the term Bastard was ever used in any favorable manner.

It mattered to me to be married before I had children. That is what family is all about. Maybe you don't care enough about your children if it does not matter to you. It is a matter of honor and responsibility and respect.

"because it matters to me, personally, it follows that it's a matter of honor, respect and responsibility for everyone, and people who don't think like me obviously don't care enough about their children." Maybe something a very stupid person would say.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It mattered to me to be married before I had children.

Why? How does a government issued piece of paper change your child rearing?

That is what family is all about.

No, it is not. Family is about people. We create family through choice. I have never been married, yet have a family. Not because I'm afraid I'll lose half my savings. Not because some government or church tells me I should. Because I care for those people, and want to participate in their life and look after their well being.

Maybe you don't care enough about your children if it does not matter to you.

Maybe you don't care enough about your children if you think that you need a piece of paper and the threat of losing your financial situation to hold you to them.

It is a matter of honor and responsibility and respect.

Those words would seem to have a very different meaning to you then to me. For me they have nothing to do with filling out forms.

 

[nickbits]

Why? How does a government issued piece of paper change your child rearing?

I'm pretty sure it affects custody if things go sour, at least for the father who I doubt has much chance at custody otherwise.

 

[SMOGZINN]

I'm pretty sure it affects custody if things go sour, at least for the father who I doubt has much chance at custody otherwise.

Not at all true. As long as the father was named on the birth certificate he has every right the mother has, regardless of the marriage status. My SO just 2 weeks ago lost her 11 year old son because the father, who she was never married to, sued for custody and the courts decided 'That a father that wants his son this bad should have him'. Never mind that what he really wanted was child support money.

 

[momeNt]

I find it hard to imagine that anyone would say that in anything but a hostile manner.



Did it ever? Are you quite honestly asking this question?



I find it hard to believe that a foster parent would even ask that question of anyone. You don't exactly sound as though you have all your oars in the water. Maybe you need to rethink your role as a foster parent.

You are confused about something. Not sure what exactly.

 

[Mursilis]

Why? How does a government issued piece of paper change your child rearing?


No, it is not. Family is about people. We create family through choice. I have never been married, yet have a family. Not because I'm afraid I'll lose half my savings. Not because some government or church tells me I should. Because I care for those people, and want to participate in their life and look after their well being.


Maybe you don't care enough about your children if you think that you need a piece of paper and the threat of losing your financial situation to hold you to them.


Those words would seem to have a very different meaning to you then to me. For me they have nothing to do with filling out forms.

If you "care for those people", you may want to think twice about that whole "I'm going to stick it to The Man and not get married" thing. Marriage isn't just a piece of paper - it's a grant of certain legal rights and benefits. In my work in federal law, I've seen many an unmarried "spouse" get denied property or thousands of dollars in monthly benefits because they never married the person they lived with in a non-marriage relationship. They'll usually write some sort of pleading letter, claiming they were together for XX years and didn't need some piece of paper to prove their love, because they knew in their hearts that they loved each other. That's all fine and good, but the gov't doesn't know what was in your hearts, and without that piece of paper, you were just random strangers to each other. If he'd have loved you, he'd have taken care of you after he was gone.

 

[justoh]

If you "care for those people", you may want to think twice about that whole "I'm going to stick it to The Man and not get married" thing. Marriage isn't just a piece of paper - it's a grant of certain legal rights and benefits. In my work in federal law, I've seen many an unmarried "spouse" get denied property or thousands of dollars in monthly benefits because they never married the person they lived with in a non-marriage relationship. They'll usually write some sort of pleading letter, claiming they were together for XX years and didn't need some piece of paper to prove their love, because they knew in their hearts that they loved each other. That's all fine and good, but the gov't doesn't know what was in your hearts, and without that piece of paper, you were just random strangers to each other. If he'd have loved you, he'd have taken care of you after he was gone.

Please help me understand how you would have encountered these situations during your "work in federal law."

 

[Mursilis]

Please help me understand how you would have encountered these situations during your "work in federal law."

I'll just give you an example. Read 38 USC 1310. Note how it defines a veteran's dependants, for compensation purposes, as "surviving spouse, children, or parents". Live-in non-spouses get nothing. That's just one federal benefit. There are many more.

 

[justoh]

I'll just give you an example. Read 38 USC 1310. Note how it defines a veteran's dependants, for compensation purposes, as "surviving spouse, children, or parents". Live-in non-spouses get nothing. That's just one federal benefit. There are many more.

guess that could be a problem, but wouldn't what they consider a "spouse" depend on state law, some of which recognize common-law marriages? so "live in [informal] spouses" wouldn't necessarily get nothing?

Wouldn't kids be eligible anyway, regardless of marriage/jdx?

Genuinely curious what other benefits might be implicated/affected by not bothering with traditional marriage, particularly with regard to "illegitimate children," to help decide whether "legitimacy" matters. Seems like it would be fundamentally unfair to penalize dem kids

 

[Mursilis]

guess that could be a problem, but wouldn't what they consider a "spouse" depend on state law, some of which recognize common-law marriages? so "live in [informal] spouses" wouldn't necessarily get nothing?

Wouldn't kids be eligible anyway, regardless of marriage/jdx?

Genuinely curious what other benefits might be implicated/affected by not bothering with traditional marriage, particularly with regard to "illegitimate children," to help decide whether "legitimacy" matters. Seems like it would be fundamentally unfair to penalize dem kids

As long as children are acknowledged by the father, or proven to be his, they're entitled to benefits, generally, regardless of whether the parents were married.

And yes, some states (it's a minority) recognize common-law marriages and most federal benefits define "spouse" as defined at the state level, so a non-married spouse could get benefits if he/she can establish a common-law marriage, but it can be burdensome to prove legally. It's just so much easier to simply present a marriage certificate.

Other areas where this is an issue are Social Security benefits and federal retiree benefits. Also, spouse/non-spouse status is a huge issue at the state level when a party dies intestate (without a will) or with an outdated will.

 

[justoh]

Can anyone think of a reason that child legitimacy still matters today?

As long as children are acknowledged by the father, or proven to be his, they're entitled to benefits, generally, regardless of whether the parents were married.

Ok, for would-be spouses, it could be problematic when it comes to veteran survivor benefits, and if your significant other forgets to make a will.

But we agree that child legitimacy doesn't matter?

 

[Mursilis]

Ok, for would-be spouses, it could be problematic when it comes to veteran survivor benefits, and if your significant other forgets to make a will.

But we agree that child legitimacy doesn't matter?

I never said otherwise. My response above was on the matter of the effects of non-marriage on non-spouses. And to some extent, it's easier to prove children born within a marriage are those of the father (it's generally presumed), so legitimacy does matter in some situations.