Child Support for Surrogate Mother who backed out...

If you think the entitlement society is bad here, you should see England. What she did is not that uncommon there, apart from the agreement and artificial insemination. Get pregnant, collect welfare, demand child support, profit! If a woman over there doesn't want to get a job, they just have a baby and they're set for life. Socialism at its finest.
 
First thing's first: I'm pretty sure you're no champion of gay rights and adoption/reproduction, so I'm dying to know which right-wing rag you pulled this out of.

Secondly, being the staunch personal responsibilities type of guy you are, I'd think that you'd be ok with the ruling since he DID GIVE AWAY FULL PARENTAL RIGHTS and it IS HIS KID. So why the surprise when the court orders him to pay child support?
 
[quote name='dafoomie']If you think the entitlement society is bad here, you should see England. What she did is not that uncommon there, apart from the agreement and artificial insemination. Get pregnant, collect welfare, demand child support, profit! If a woman over there doesn't want to get a job, they just have a baby and they're set for life. Socialism at its finest.[/QUOTE]
Better to let them starve to death on the streets amirite!:roll:
 
This is why anyone going in for something like this now days should have an iron tight contract. A lot of stuff with surrogates or adoptions are just oral agreements and end up horribly.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']This is why anyone going in for something like this now days should have an iron tight contract. A lot of stuff with surrogates or adoptions are just oral agreements and end up horribly.[/QUOTE]

Surrogacy contracts aren't enforceable everywhere (the consideration is a baby, after all). In short, best be sure the surrogate lives in California, too.
 
The guy should attempt to earn joint custody. It may be screwed up having two families but at least he will be able to have the child sometimes. Or is the court system in england that bias against men in terms of children that he wouldn't have a chance with that? I know they forfeit their contact rights but the father at the very least should be able to change that if he wants.

If he doesn't want that arrangement then he can't really do much but support the child. It is his responsibility.
 
If you're going to use a surrogate, at least do it in a state/country where you can make sure they have no further rights after birth via contract or via statute.

I understand people want to raise their own DNA, but at a certain point you have to think adopting a baby has got to be more logical and less of a hassle than dealing with a 3rd party as your surrogate.
 
Oh...this was in England.

My comment for this thread will be: ellipses in a thread title are bullshit especially when they are intentionally misleading. I'd expect nothing less from you Bob!
 
At least it wasn't in Germany.

I think that's the country where a man separated with his wife, payed alimony to her, continued to pay alimony to her after she remarried, and then STILL had to pay alimony to the widower after his wife died.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']Surrogacy contracts aren't enforceable everywhere (the consideration is a baby, after all). In short, best be sure the surrogate lives in California, too.[/QUOTE]

I wonder though if you could argue that the consideration is actually the service of carrying the child to full term and not the child itself.
 
[quote name='dohdough']First thing's first: I'm pretty sure you're no champion of gay rights and adoption/reproduction, so I'm dying to know which right-wing rag you pulled this out of.[/quote]

Wow... talk about issue staying on topic. While I'm no "champion" of 'gay rights', I feel I've made my opinion on the subject pretty clear on these forums.

[quote name='cochesecochese']Oh...this was in England.

My comment for this thread will be: ellipses in a thread title are bullshit especially when they are intentionally misleading. I'd expect nothing less from you Bob![/QUOTE]

I'm not sure what you feel is so misleading about this topic title. Care to share?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Wow... talk about issue staying on topic. While I'm no "champion" of 'gay rights', I feel I've made my opinion on the subject pretty clear on these forums.[/QUOTE]
See, this is what happens when you don't check the source of your articles. And actually, you haven't, but feel free to make it known here; considering you sourced an article from a wesite that promotes LGBT adoptions, IVF, etc. Or you could just be honest and use the original source you got it from.

[quote name='PrideAngel About Us page']
Pride Angel is a UK limited company founded by professional scientists Erika and Karen. With personal experience of donor conception and raising children within a lesbian relationship, together they are committed to helping single, lesbian, gay and infertile couples become parents through donor conception and co-parenting. Pride Angel is dedicated to matching sperm donors, egg donors and co-parents worldwide[/quote]

And if you read the blogs, it makes you look even more stupid for making the asusmption I'm off-topic.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Better to let them starve to death on the streets amirite!:roll:[/QUOTE]

Encouraging reproduction for the wrong reason is a problem. People shouldn't get a free card just because they popped a kid out. I can show you a fuckton of unfit parents around here that are unemployed and make more abusing the system than many working childless couples. Having a kid just to get money/because you're an idiot versus actually wanting a kid and raising it properly are different. People need to stop being rewarded for bad choices.
 
[quote name='dohdough']And if you read the blogs, it makes you look even more stupid for making the asusmption I'm off-topic.[/QUOTE]

You're absolutely right. New forum rule - whenever anyone links to an article on a website, that thread is now free game for every single topic covered in every other article within that website.

And you are correct! I did not pull the original link from the site posted above. It was posted on another forum (a local, community forum) and I went to the original source article from there. Sorry if it offends you that I'm not against same-sex couples adopting or something.
 
[quote name='georox']Encouraging reproduction for the wrong reason is a problem. People shouldn't get a free card just because they popped a kid out. I can show you a fuckton of unfit parents around here that are unemployed and make more abusing the system than many working childless couples. Having a kid just to get money/because you're an idiot versus actually wanting a kid and raising it properly are different. People need to stop being rewarded for bad choices.[/QUOTE]
In other words: let them starve. Obviously, it was the child's choice to be born.:roll:
 
[quote name='dohdough']In other words: let them starve. Obviously, it was the child's choice to be born.:roll:[/QUOTE]

Why are the only options support the family for the life of the child or kill the child?

It's as if there's no middle ground of possibilities.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']You're absolutely right. New forum rule - whenever anyone links to an article on a website, that thread is now free game for every single topic covered in every other article within that website.[/quote]
This wouldn't be a problem if you were honest about where you got the article from. The veracity of the source IS important. Which leads to...

And you are correct! I did not pull the original link from the site posted above. It was posted on another forum (a local, community forum) and I went to the original source article from there. Sorry if it offends you that I'm not against same-sex couples adopting or something.
Click to expand...
Now I'm curious about what community forum you pulled this out of. As for the same-sex adoption thing, you're barking up the wrong tree.
 
The article I linked to is the original source for where this story came from before getting to me.

Read it on a forum, then clicked the link through to an article -submitted by and sourced by- the article I linked to.

And you'll have to forgive my reluctance to post anything regarding other forums I frequent. Last time a forum I posted on was dug up by someone on CAG, a member here went there and started calling everyone "$$$$$$s".
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Why are the only options support the family for the life of the child or kill the child?

It's as if there's no middle ground of possibilities.[/QUOTE]
You tell me. I'm not the one equating social services as encouragement for poor people to have children.
 
There's not a lot of middle ground options. Group homes for unwanted kids tend to be pretty bad environments, and foster families are a mixed bag.

Adoption isn't the panacea many people against this kind of thing (or abortion) think it is as it's not like there's an unlimited number of people who want to adopt out there. Especially who want to adopt anything other than infants, not to mention more difficulties with minority children etc.

There's always going to be a need for social support for poor children unless society can live with just letting them starve, not get medical care etc. Can it be reduced through other options? Probably. But not eliminated.
 
Even with these social support programs in place, children are dying in the streets - thus we have only reduced - not eliminated - via this particular option.

There needs to be some kind of penalty in play for parents who have children that they cannot afford. Perhaps requiring community service hours from them in exchange for benefits?
 
That's impractical if the kids are below school age though. Otherwise, who's watching a single mother's kid(s) while she's doing community service?

What people need to realize, is while it sucks to have tax dollars going to help others with mistakes (like kids they can't afford), the alternative of doing nothing would lead to much more social harm. Be it more kids in the streets, more crime as poor families have to steal and rob to get by etc.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's impractical if the kids are below school age though. Otherwise, who's watching a single mother's kid(s) while she's doing community service?[/QUOTE]

Community Service Day Care. A few good parents who honestly need support could easily watch a handful of children each - as part of their required community service, of course.

Also, I wouldn't be against deferred hours - i.e.: Support Now, (More) Community Service Hours Later (when the child is of an age where the parent/parents don't need to be around).
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Community Service Day Care. A few good parents who honestly need support could easily watch a handful of children each - as part of their required community service, of course.

Also, I wouldn't be against deferred hours - i.e.: Support Now, (More) Community Service Hours Later (when the child is of an age where the parent/parents don't need to be around).[/QUOTE]

I hear from parents that daycare is so expensive, I'm sure many would be glad to do community service in exchange for it.

Because I know you don't know how to 'read between the lines': in other words your policy ideas are ridiculously absurd and you would be laughed out of my city for the fool that you are.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']That's impractical if the kids are below school age though. Otherwise, who's watching a single mother's kid(s) while she's doing community service?

What people need to realize, is while it sucks to have tax dollars going to help others with mistakes (like kids they can't afford), the alternative of doing nothing would lead to much more social harm. Be it more kids in the streets, more crime as poor families have to steal and rob to get by etc.[/QUOTE]

The problem that people have with these programs is not that they are helping someone out, but that these programs are only growing. It is supposed to be a hand up, not a hand out.

As for there being no middle ground, I think that if the father has an obligation to support the child, then he should be able to at the very least have joint custody. I am not sure why agreeing to have no contact voids this right.
 
[quote name='Knoell']As for there being no middle ground, I think that if the father has an obligation to support the child, then he should be able to at the very least have joint custody. I am not sure why agreeing to have no contact voids this right.[/QUOTE]

Though I'd agree on this point in general, approaching this kind of problem from the perspective of what the father deserves is fundamentally backward.
 
[quote name='camoor']I hear from parents that daycare is so expensive, I'm sure many would be glad to do community service in exchange for it.[/QUOTE]

You think people, en masse, would do community service to get free day care that only covers the time while they're performing the community service?

I dunno... that sounds a lot like a win-win for the community.
 
[quote name='Magus8472']Though I'd agree on this point in general, approaching this kind of problem from the perspective of what the father deserves is fundamentally backward.[/QUOTE]

The whole thing is fundamentally backward, the courts seem to be thinking in terms of what the mother deserves, what about the father? Maybe I am just bias, my brother had a child, and he had to fight tooth and nail for custody despite having better living conditions, better support, better income, and the woman having dwis, no job, etc etc etc.

It really sickens me when the police tell my brother to "just give the kid to his mother" while he is showing them the court order that says he has custody.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I'm not sure what you feel is so misleading about this topic title. Care to share?[/QUOTE]

I thought there would be something interesting or entertaining inside.

It's my fault for not seeing who created the thread, really. I was just clicking through and didn't realize you had done the deed until I saw the eye of borus leering at me.

edit: SO sorry for the late reply.
 
I think this article is putting it's own spin on things, I'm from the UK and as far as I know if you're paying child support you have the right to see the child.
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']I thought there would be something interesting or entertaining inside.

It's my fault for not seeing who created the thread, really. I was just clicking through and didn't realize you had done the deed until I saw the eye of borus leering at me.

edit: SO sorry for the late reply.[/QUOTE]

Ah, okay then. Not so much that the title is misleading, but that you're not interested or amused by the subject matter. I mean, I can see how any reasonable, logical person can translate "This doesn't interest me" into "These ellipses are misleading, gripe, snipe, complain".
 
Indeed. It is rather annoying when people shit up threads with trolling comments that have, literally, nothing to do with the subject at hand and only serve to derail the thread into petty insults and boorish chaos.

I'm glad we can agree on that, Bob!
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']Indeed. It is rather annoying when people shit up threads with trolling comments that have, literally, nothing to do with the subject at hand and only serve to derail the thread into petty insults and boorish chaos.

I'm glad we can agree on that, Bob![/QUOTE]

We can't even agree on that. Because your initial post didn't turn the thread into petty insults, your initial post was petty insults.
 
Yes. I have the authority to tell anyone virtually whatever I want. Likewise, they have the authority to not listen to me. Welcome to America.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top