Should a man that didn't want the baby pay maintenance

[dillydallybub]

So as the title says, should a man that didn't want a baby pay maintenance?
Please give me your thoughts and opinions

No this is ridiculous. Yes the child must be looked after but not by the victim of a crime. Not a boy who was groomed and sexually assaulted. This is when the state should be saying

'Paying'

A sperm donor donates sperm with the express agreement that that sperm will be used to create a baby and he will have no rights or responsibilities to any resulting babies. It's not a case of accidentally impregnating someone who has theoretically agreed to an abortion should she fall pregnant and is then faced with actually going through an abortion and feels differently.

I don't know where you get the idea that little girls aren't responsible for babies they give birth to- some have the baby adopted (which is an incredibly traumatic experience) but many end up bringing that baby up themselves.

It's pretty rare that someone gets pregnant and isn't able to contact the person that impregnated them, after all, it's pretty easy to track someone down nowadays.

If Timmy has been sexually assaulted then the person who sexually assaulted him should be prosecuted, meaning Timmy will get custody of the child and it would not be difficult to convince the court that the child should be adopted even if the mother objects if that is Timmy's wish. This is a situation so rare that it may have actually happened zero times though.

This thread is so depressing. No wonder men rule the world when women are falling over themselves to protect their right to consequence free, responsibility free sex. Never mind that women shoulder almost all of the burden of contraception and childcare, to say nothing of the effect of pregnancy and childbirth on their bodies and minds, and we have people fretting about 'forcing someone into fatherhood'. Fucks sake.

You would have thought, considering the number of women who bear and raise children they never intended to fall pregnant with, a man would think it was the bare minimum to just pay a monthly sum towards the upkeep of that child.

You would have thought that a man would be considered a complete embarrassment to himself and others if he had a child who he did not contribute anything to.

Yes, though he was 15. It was in the media last week, she was jailed for 6.5 years.

It's happened recently. I posted a link up thread.

There is nothing in the media about what has now happened regarding that baby. Maybe Boy B decided of his own accord to keep it. Maybe it was adopted. There is no possible scenario in which the baby stays with the convicted sex offender and Boy B pays monthly maintenance.

Sorry, I did find one article:
https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/uk-news/rebecca-joynes-victim-shares-innocent-29477253
Implying that Boy B has decided to bring up the child alone.

Yes, but if its father is also a child, one that is effectively a victim of rape?

Yes, and the protection of that child (the father) comes in the form of legally pursuing the conviction of the person that abused him. He either chooses to be a parent, in which case yes he needs to bear financial responsibility. If he chooses not to be, the baby would be taken into care, no maintenance is payable. If the mother isn't convicted while the father is underage, no maintenance is payable because they don't have a job, on account of being a child!

If a little girl is raped, finds out very late on, and the baby is born, should she also be legally forced to pay for the baby?

If a girl is raped, and decides to keep the child, then yes, she is responsible for it, presumably with family and certainly with state help. Child or no, you don't get to 'keep' the baby and parent it and also not be required to be financially responsible for it. If the girl cannot care and provide for her baby, then it is taken into care, she is no longer responsible.

I agree that we need to think of the baby, but forcing victims of sexual crime to pay for nearly mytwo decades for being a victim is abhorrent.

They aren't paying for being a victim. They are paying to support their child. The fact they are also a victim doesn't mean that a child must go without.

Should sperm donors also pay? At least they wanted to create a baby...

This is already a hugely contentious area, as seen by the changes in law around children conceived by donation being able to track their donors, and the whole thing is a much bigger area of discussion than just CMS. See also surrogacy and egg donation. I don't really want to derail the threat with that.

If CMS is SO essential for the wellbeing of a child, that it justifies being being paid for by vulnerable sexually abused children, then maybe there should be a legal requirement to swap contact details before casual sex?

Add it to the contract for consent while you're at it. It would be meaningless. People can lie, people can be coerced.

Otherwise why are we saying that poor 13 year old Timmy, who was groomed and abused, but brave enough to testify must pay for 18 years, meanwhile it doesn't matter in the case of Sarah and John who chose to have anonymous sex, and don't even know eachother names, let alone how to ever get in touch.

You're starting to sound ridiculous. 'Poor 13 year old Timmy' doesn't have a job, so can't be pursued for maintenance. Do you honestly think that in the rare case of a woman sexually abusing a child, then becoming pregnant by them, she is going to pursue maintenance when they are of an age to have a job? That's just formally accepting she's a child abuser, they report her, she is arrested, see top answer.

But it's not about prioritising the child, or there'd be more emphasis on Sarah and John, and not poor Timmy

Timmy has protection already. See above.

Stop trying to use child abuse as some sort of 'gotcha' to let feckless men off the hook for supporting the lives they help create, it's really quite vile.

He's said that they are forever joined together because is their shared child. Maybe he is bringing up the baby alone or with family, and he sounds like an amazing kid.

He is just one example though of the occasional circumstances where someone becomes a father against their consent. There might not be many, but for those few boys/men, there should be a way.

Men have had the balance of power for a very long time, no-one cedes power willingly.
We should not be surprised that they dont like it up 'em!

And there is, you can put your child up for adoption (exactly the same as Mum) and she would have very little chance of contesting it if she was in jail.

@GoBackToTheStart

They aren't paying for being a victim. They are paying to support their child. The fact they are also a victim doesn't mean that a child must go without.
But they ARE being forced to pay as a victim. They are being forced to be financially burdened due to a crime being committed against them against their will.

This is when the state should be responsible not the freaking child who was sexually abused and had his sperm stolen from him.

@letsgoooo

But they ARE being forced to pay as a victim. They are being forced to be financially burdened due to a crime being committed against them against their will.

What exactly is this non-existent child being pursued for maintenance paying with?! The mischief you are trying to correct simply doesn't exist!

If a woman has assaulted a child, and has a baby, there is no maintenance to seek because the father is a child, presumably has no job, and is not eligible for benefits!No income to garnish, no cms.

If the woman waits until the father is of an age where cms is a possibility, but confirms in a formal manner that they have committed that crime that by seeking maintenance payments, that woman isn't going to be parenting the baby for long. The woman will have given the entire case to CPS to prosecute her successfully and the baby is removed from her care, as it should be.

If the family then chooses to subsequently raise the baby, they become responsible for its costs. The child parent is not liable for maintenance to anyone, but is responsible for bringing up that child, which will require the help of their family. If they do not want to do that, or the family does not have the means, the child will be taken into care and the state will pay.

The assaulted child is not paying maintenance in either case!!

There may be an incredibly tiny, almost non-existent chance, of a woman assaulting a child, not being prosecuted for it, and forcing maintenance out of the father (by all means, if you have evidence of it, I'm open to reading) but even if that is the case, we cannot create a loophole which is so readily exploitable by the wider masses by stating that one parent does not have a financial responsibility to their child and the state or the other parent has to cover all of the costs, while the non-paying parent actually raises the child.

This is when the state should be responsible not the freaking child who was sexually abused and had his sperm stolen from him

Yes, and the state will be responsible by taking the resulting baby into the state's protection in care, or adoption.

Otherwise, what is the alternative? A child is assaulted, decides to keep and parent the baby rather than giving it up for adoption or into care, and...what? Obviously they can't be financially responsible themself because they are a child with no means, so...the state pays until the baby is 18? The state pays until the child parent has a job? The state pays unless another family member steps in to have responsibility? How much is the state paying per child born in this extraordinary circumstance? Is the state taking the role of the other parent? Are they going to share residence? It's absurd!

It's baffling that anyone could possibly think that creating a loophole for this incredibly niche instance, where a child is being pursued for maintenance or forced to keep and parent a baby against their will with no option to give the baby up for adoption or into care, is necessary.

Meanwhile, on a daily basis, men are using any excuse including suddenly working for themselves and refusing to declare income honestly, or even leaving the damned country, to avoid contributing to their children because they don't want to 'pay for the mothers hair cuts'.

Woman and children and being repeatedly and seriously damaged by non-payment of maintenance every single day, and yet you want to make it easier for that to happen to them, and potentially whack a spurious criminal claim against them on top? Baffling.

@GoBackToTheStart

It's baffling that anyone could possibly think that creating a loophole for this incredibly niche instance, where a child is being pursued for maintenance or forced to keep and parent a baby against their will with no option to give the baby up for adoption or into care, is necessary.
Loophole? Do you even know what a loophole is?

No one can use this 'loophole' as you'd have to be an underage boy who was sexually abused.

No 35 year old man impregnating a woman can use this 'loophole' ffs.

This isn't a loophole 🙄

@GoBackToTheStart
Added to which, it may seem rare here in the UK but it's not that rare in the USA. Many many legal cases.

If bots being abused resulting in babies happening there we can assume it happens everywhere. Teachers, babysitters, family members.

And these boys who were 12,14 at the time of being assaulted are pursued for maintenance.

Yes, he should. If staying childfree is essential to the man, whether for financial or other reasons, he should take responsibility for ensuring that that is what happens. I would go further and say that if he is not going to be involved in the upbringing of the child, he should pay for childcare so that the mother gets a break now and then.

@letsgoooo ,

I am not sure the extreme outliers are what this thread is about. Exceptions could always be made.

I do think circumstances affect whether the father should be obliged to pay.

I do think that sexual relationships have to be built on a degree of trust. And if two educated adults agree to have sex and that sex isn’t going to result in a baby (as neither of them want one) and they have both discussed that may mean, in the worst case, abortion, then that is what should happen.

That has nothing to do with body autonomy. You still have full autonomy, but the autonomy has consequences.

If the woman changes her mind, then that is pretty low behaviour but a decent man would still step up to being a father. But that doesn’t make it right or mean that he should be obliged to. He has been deceived in a very fundamental and important way.

No decent man would walk away from his child but no decent woman would deceive a man into having a child against his will and what they have both previously discussed and agreed. That is both equality and equity in the UK today.

Loophole? Do you even know what a loophole is?

No one can use this 'loophole' as you'd have to be an underage boy who was sexually abused.

Yes, I do, thanks. Forgive me, I appreciate I said "you" but you are just talking about children, so you may not be envisaging something that applies to adults too. However, given the thread is about adult men, and given the entire conversation about sexual assault started about adult men, I think it's fair to say that many people aren't envisaging an exemption for just children, but men that were assaulted too (which was posed earlier in the thread by other posters), and then we're back to the start; it would be a loophole that would incentivise false claims of sexual assault. Even if it's just children, having any sort of exemption for a child conceived through crime is a thin end of the wedge for that exemption being extended to adults in any event.

Regardless, I don't see how an exemption for boys would work in practice and am genuinely interested to know how you see the state 'being responsible' for it as you said earlier. Any exemption for having to 'pay' for a child couldn't just be for the father without being deeply misogynistic. The mother of a child conceived through rape is expected to provide for her own child, except in that scenario, it's assumed she's responsible for the parenting too. I don't think anyone would argue that happens a lot more frequently, but I haven't seen any threads demanding the state pays the equivalent of CMS for those girls and women to help with their costs where the rapist is imprisoned and can't pay CMS, or isn't known and can't be pursued.

As genuinely awful as it is, the origin of the baby is irrelevant to the fact that someone needs to pay for its needs, and we cannot have a situation in which the state is paying into the bank account of a child abuser either, even for the benefit of a baby, which is why the baby should be removed via the existing channels and the abuser should be appropriately punished. It's not in the public interest and there would be uproar. Don't get me wrong, I don't doubt that these processes can be more rigorous because we know the courts and SS can be completely ineffective where abuse is involved.

The law doesn't place a value judgement on the origin of a child, nor can it. A child has a reasonable expectation to be supported by both parents as a fundamental right and I don't think that can be changed. A child's right to be maintained by its parents has to be more important than a right for a parent not to pay, even if the conception is as a result of a crime. Children that are assaulted should also be protected, but that protection comes as legal cover for the crime that is actually committed against them.

You cannot pursue a 12 yo for maintenance in the UK. CMS works off a % of your income. A 12 yo boy does not have income. Furthermore, a parent in jail cannot claim maintenance.

The boy won't stay 12, and the mother will eventually come out of jail (and baby often wouldn't be adopted). The 'boy' with no income will be paying until he's 30.

Someone who has been convicted of sexually assaulting a child would not under any circumstances be permitted to have their child living with them, therefore they would have no claim for maintenance. Either the boy and his family would take on the baby or the baby would go into care, and a newborn baby going into care with no chance of being returned to his/her parents would almost certainly be adopted.

Actually I don't think this is true. I'm sure I read very recently that a woman is battling through the courts to remove her child's father's legal right to have contact with his child. Because under UK law, people convicted of sexual crimes against children are excluded from contact with all minors except their own biological children - these they still have legal right to contact with including, I believe, unsupervised visitation.

I've been interested by the amount of people saying the father should have worn a condom or stayed celibate etc because he knew sex could have resulted in a baby - but this sounds sinisterly close to anti-abortion rhetoric. The woman also shouldn't have had sex, or used contraception, but the same dogmatic response is not applied to her - she has a further choice whether to continue or not and whether to become a parent.

If a man signs away any and all legal rights before the legal limit for abortion then I don't see why he should be beholden.