|
The point I'm trying to make here is that of responsibility. A man should not be able to duck his responsibility just because he doesn't want the kid and the mother decides to keep it.
It all comes down to what you define as responsibility. Everybody's responsible for trying to have the best outcome for the child. I believe giving the child up for adoption is responsible, and forced money exchange in an already unstable household is not, because the latter will not lead to a better life for the child.
Personally, I wouldn't consider that the father had lived up to his responsibility in the fullest unless he and the mother could be civil and he was a very active part of the child's life, in which case no child support would be warranted because the child would be spending as much time with the father as he would with the mother. (In the case that equally split time didn't happen, as an active parent I would expect him to help support the child monetarily--preferably by directly paying the daycare agency or in grocery store gift cards or something, but that's not always feasible. But I digress...) HOWEVER, if the father wanted nothing to do with the child, then his responsibility is to give the child up for adoption. If the woman refuses, that's her prerogative, but then she can't complain that he got her into this mess, and she shouldn't expect him to support the child any more than a stranger on the street should: he is in effect no longer that child's parent. If the woman can support the child by herself, great. If not, it is also her responsibility to give the child up for adoption.
A woman should not be able to duck HER responsibility just because she wants the kid but she can't afford to raise it.
|