Gays and having children

[lagokc]

I'm pretty sure if you can prove that the child is not yours, you don't have to pay.

It's kind of assumed that someone is the kid's male biological parent. And then there's things like this...

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0209/p01s01-usju.html

"Last week, the Florida justices ruled 7-0 against him. They said that Parker must continue to pay $1,200 a month in child support because he had missed the one-year postdivorce deadline for filing his lawsuit. His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child."

http://www.totaldivorce.com/news/articles/children/time-magazine-duped-dads.aspx

"The Time article examined a case in Colorado in which now 36-year-old Dylan Davis learned after his 2000 divorce that he was not the biological father of his 6-year-old twins. Davis had to give up partial child custody of the twins as a result of the negative paternity test. State law still requires Davis to pay $663 a month in Colorado child support even though he has had no contact with the girls since his ex-wife moved to another state. Davis has lobbied to the Colorado legislature to change the statute so that he and other "duped fathers" won't be held financially accountable for children who are proven not theirs in paternity suits."

There's a lot of cases like that actually. It seems a lot of courts prefer to do what they think is best for the child even if that is not what justice dictates.

 

[Yreka]

Not sure why you decided to make up a "one night stand" scenario. I guess you have to keep the scenario's crazy to make sure people are convinced that these folks are highly dysfunctional. :whiste:

Well Heart did make a song about it back in "the day"

 

[Texashiker]

Are you arguing against gay parenting or are you arguing against the concept of adoption? :hmm:

Neither.

Are you anti adoption? This is not specific to gay couples, so why even bring them into it?

No

Because....they're Gay, guys..

Negative.

What does this have to do with gays?

Did you read the article I linked to in the opening post?

~ EDIT ~

His court-ordered payments would total more than $200,000 over 15 years to support another man's child.

If you have three people bidding for a child, who has to pay child support?

 

[Oldgamer]

Sometimes I think straight people are worried that LGBTs will be better parents and spouses than they are.

Funny you say this, when my kids were growing up we had a gay couple, two women who lived on our street. They were raising a child that who was essentially a test tube baby. She gave birth to that child, and honestly.. I have never seen a more devoted couple to that child. That little girl was a stright A student, and was very well rounded emotionally. I was impressed how well they were as parents and I got to know one of the ladies, who gave me some good parenting advice for my kids. I do think gay couples are just like anybody else, any other heterosexual couple in that you have good parents and bad parents. These two ladies turned out to be really good mothers. In addition one of the ladies had an exective position at an IT company (can't remember if she was a manager or programmer, but they lived in an affluent area with a a very nice 2 story home. She did very well for herself and her family. I couldn't help noticing though that they were both attractive women. Not at all like the classic "butch" looking gay women you usually see.

 

[Darwin333]

This is not meant to be an anti-gay thread. I would like to have an honest discussion on a gay married couple where one person has to adopt the child.

This article got me to thinking - http://www.thedailybeast.com/witw/a...cost-my-family-3k-to-be-queer-this-month.html

For the sake of discussion lets say that gay marriage is legalized nation wide. And gay couples have the same rights as non-gay couples.

The couple in the linked article said they had to spend around $3,000 to adopt the child one lady of the couple gave birth to.

What I do not see mentioned anywhere in the article is the natural father.

Why should someone who is not biologically related to the child be given instant rights as a parent?

Lets say the biological mother had a one night stand with a guy. She gets knocked up, goes back to her wife, child is born a few months later,,, why should the second woman instantly receive parental rights to the child?

Dad decides he wants to be part of the childs life, the two women split up, who gets custody? Who has to pay child support? Does the dad and one of the women have to pay support to the one who has custody of the child?

Now we have a three way custody right with one parent having no biological relationship to the child.

If gays should receive instant rights, what about heterosexual couples? Jack and Jill get married, Jill has an affair with John, Jack and Jill get divorced.

Should Jack be financially responsible for the child? Should Jack receive instant parental rights even though it is not his child?

No the biological father from a one night stand does not lose any rights if he later finds out the child is his (very fucked up there is no law requiring the woman to inform the father though..). Actual adoption has all of your above concerns covered fairly well.

Truly, any issues that you find will still be issues if the adopting couple is a man/woman or gay couple.

Edit: The article didn't seem to give any details about who the father was or how she became pregnant. Yes it is expensive to remove parental rights from the father and give them to another person. There should be a common sense solution to this that any reasonably intelligent person could come up with. I am pretty sure this is very specific to the state your in as well, a friend of mine adopted his wifes child after the deadbeat father signed away his rights without any of that bullshit.

 

[Darwin333]

I'm not quite certain how the situation would arise?

Do you think of a situation where a friend donates the sperm? Then I would think that most would sign a legally binding contract before the arrangement.

Unfortunately "legally binding contracts" involving children aren't always legally binding.

 

[Darwin333]

I'm pretty sure if you can prove that the child is not yours, you don't have to pay.

You are pretty wrong. Some states force a husband whose wife was unfaithful to pay child support simply because he signed the birth certificate. Imagine telling your wife that you are going to wait for DNA testing before you sign the birth certificate hours/day after she gave birth.

 

[nehalem256]

You are pretty wrong. Some states force a husband whose wife was unfaithful to pay child support simply because he signed the birth certificate. Imagine telling your wife that you are going to wait for DNA testing before you sign the birth certificate hours/day after she gave birth.

Its like Todd Akin wrote the paternity laws

 

[lagokc]

Imagine telling your wife that you are going to wait for DNA testing before you sign the birth certificate hours/day after she gave birth.

What's so odd about that? It's the rational thing to do. Trusting a woman is never a good idea.

 

[brycejones]

What's so odd about that? It's the rational thing to do. Trusting a woman is never a good idea.

You don't date much do you?

 

[SheHateMe]

Imagine telling your wife that you are going to wait for DNA testing before you sign the birth certificate hours/day after she gave birth.

Okay? Are you saying a potential father wouldn't be able to do this? If I had any doubt the child was mine I would assert that I'd get that test before I sign anything.

There is nothing wrong with that.

 

[brycejones]

You are pretty wrong. Some states force a husband whose wife was unfaithful to pay child support simply because he signed the birth certificate. Imagine telling your wife that you are going to wait for DNA testing before you sign the birth certificate hours/day after she gave birth.

That is why you have the DNA testing done while the child is still in the womb, duh.

 

[Texashiker]

What does this have to do with gays? This happens with heterosexual couples more than homosexual couples, and, generally speaking, the court decides on a case-to-case basis based on what's deemed to be in the best interests of the child in question.

If someone can not be the biological parent should they be granted parental rights at birth?

With the example of the two gay women in the article, only one can be the biological parent.

What is the true definition of being a parent? Is it someone who is willing to take care of the child? Does the biological parent have more rights then someone who makes a promise?

 

[lagokc]

You don't date much do you?

How do you think I learned not to trust women :awe:

 

[SheHateMe]

If someone can not be the biological parent should they be granted parental rights at birth?

...um, the obvious answer to that question is yes. Again, why do you care what arrangment someone else has?

What is important that is that the child is cared for. Everything else is moot. I don't concern myself with how another family is living. If the child is happy, fed, and clothed...it is none of our business.

 

[lagokc]

With the example of the two gay women in the article, only one can be the biological parent.

Medical technology isn't all that far away from creating a child with two biological mothers.

 

[nehalem256]

Okay? Are you saying a potential father wouldn't be able to do this? If I had any doubt the child was mine I would assert that I'd get that test before I sign anything.

There is nothing wrong with that.

Well for obvious reasons you won't have any doubt if the child is yours.

But lets say after giving birth you tell you husband/bf that you want to do a dna test before you let him sign the birth certificate. You don't think that might cause trouble for your relationship?

 

[SheHateMe]

Well for obvious reasons you won't have any doubt if the child is yours.

Of course, it went over your heard that I was considering the situation as if I was a male. ^_^

But lets say after giving birth you tell you husband/bf that you want to do a dna test before you let him sign the birth certificate. You don't think that might cause trouble for your relationship?

Hmm. In my case, something like that would NEVER happen. I am not that type of person. But, hypothetically speaking if I were the type of woman to do something like that, at least I was honest and up front about what I'd done. Even if it was at the last possible second....at least I was giving him a choice to find out what relation if any he had to this child.

 

[Texashiker]

...um, the obvious answer to that question is yes. Again, why do you care what arrangment someone else has?

What is important that is that the child is cared for. Everything else is moot. I don't concern myself with how another family is living. If the child is happy, fed, and clothed...it is none of our business.

Thread is not about living arrangements, gay, straight, married, single,,, all of that is irrelevant.

Lets move forward with what you said.

A gay female couple has a child, or a gay male couple has a child through a surrogate, they are not married, so the state attorney general goes after the non-custodial parent for child support.

Other person says forget this I aint paying child support for 18 years. The child is not technically theirs. There is no legal binding contract that says they are going to care for the child.

Why should being at the birth, raising their hand and saying "I am the other parent" carry more legal weight than a binding contract through the courts?

 

[lagokc]

Well for obvious reasons you won't have any doubt if the child is yours.

But lets say after giving birth you tell you husband/bf that you want to do a dna test before you let him sign the birth certificate. You don't think that might cause trouble for your relationship?

I'm kind of curious what the effects would be if a law were passed requiring paternity testing for all children in order to give them an accurate medical history from both parents. Would the sudden realization that ~30% of children don't know who their real father is destroy a lot of families?

 

[Capt Caveman]

If the OP is against gays adopting a child, why doesn't he have a problem with a hetero couple adopting a child?

 

[SheHateMe]

If the OP is against gays adopting a child, why doesn't he have a problem with a hetero couple adopting a child?

Apparently, the OP isn't about being against gays...its about some faux outrage about a non-biological parent haven't parental rights or something.

 

[Texashiker]

If the OP is against gays adopting a child, why doesn't he have a problem with a hetero couple adopting a child?

No problem here.

Apparently, the OP isn't about being against gays...its about some faux outrage about a non-biological parent haven't parental rights or something.

Why dont you answer my questions?

 

[brycejones]

Thread is not about living arrangements, gay, straight, married, single,,, all of that is irrelevant.

Lets move forward with what you said.

A gay female couple has a child, or a gay male couple has a child through a surrogate, they are not married, so the state attorney general goes after the non-custodial parent for child support.

Other person says forget this I aint paying child support for 18 years. The child is not technically theirs. There is no legal binding contract that says they are going to care for the child.

Why should being at the birth, raising their hand and saying "I am the other parent" carry more legal weight than a binding contract through the courts?

It isn't about gays....yet you carry on about gays.

 

[Texashiker]

It isn't about gays....yet you carry on about gays.

When a man and woman have a child together there is a biological commitment. Both of the parents contributed to the making of that child.

Why should being present at birth, saying you are the other parent be a legal and binding contract?