Monday, January 25, 2016

Parents cannot settle support issues

According to USA law, a women has the unilateral right to opt out of parenthood by having an abortion at any time. A man has no such right, and can be forced into fatherhood. Furthermore, he can be forced into continuing involvement with the child, even if both parents agree to a financial settlement.

And when both parents agree to a settlement, both the judge and the press will blame the man.

The NY Post reports:
An Ivy League Lothario’s bid to get out of child support by giving his baby mama a one-time $150,000 payment was spanked by a Manhattan judge Thursday.

The 2013 Dartmouth grad offered the woman the pile of cash to “irrevocably terminate [his] parental rights” — because he was mad she refused to get an abortion and didn’t want to support the kid until he was 18.

The man, identified in court papers only as Avery G., 24, actually convinced the woman to take the lottery-style reduced-sum payout — which would be a lot of money up front but less than she would get from taking a monthly support check. ...

Avery G. will pay $832 a month for support, ...

Goldstein calls Avery’s bid both “unusual” and “extraordinary” and says there is no similar precedent for voluntarily signing away parental rights.

The mom, an $85,000-a-year marketing director, has sole legal and physical custody of the baby.
This anti-man, but it is also anti-woman, as the mom did not get the deal she wanted either.

I do not know how parents will ever get their rights back. Here both parents went to court with a settlement agreement, and the judge rejected the deal and insisted on supervising the child's upbringing for the next 18 years. And the newspaper agrees with the judge.

I don't know why the judge says that voluntarily signing away parental rights is so unusual. I have seen it in the local family court lots of times. Sometimes it happens just because a parent misses a couple of court appearances.

The same newspaper says Bernie Sanders is a communist.

In another attack on parental rights, the NY Times reports:
But anti-abortion groups argue that such cases should be decided according to the best interests of the embryos, the same legal standard used in child-custody disputes. In a friend-of-the-court brief filed last month in the Missouri dispute, they say an embryo’s most fundamental interest is to be born: “No other right is of any avail if a human being is not around to invoke it.”
The BIOTCh is called a legal standard, but it is not. Saying "best interests of the embryos" sounds like satire.

What would they do, appoint a court psychologist to evalate the embryo? That is not much more ridiculous than the family court does already.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Ad surely the best interests of an ovum is to get impregnated.