http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-37215684 About time too. The proposed new law requires women in disputed paternity cases to name who they have actually slept with. It also males it easier for men who had been paying child support to sue and get money out of the actual biological fathers. This is a good thing all around. More truth and honesty with fewer honest men stuck holding the bag while biological fathers actually have to pay their due.
What if guys just used a rubber and perhaps other birth control methods that work on them? If a guy did everything in his power to keep from impersonating a woman during sex I would be all for letting him go without paying child support.
Now she has to admit in court who she slept with or face legal consequences. Also if he is they baby daddy he has to repay the poor sucker she tried to screw over. This is a good thing.
Then they took a comparatively small risk to produce a child, but they still took it. If they produced a child anyway, why should it not be their risk but someone else's? Vice versa, a woman who sees a partner use a condom (and is told about further birth control used on him --very rare, but since you mentioned it) has the same expectation of preventing a pregnancy as does he.
There is only one, 100% reliable form of birth control and that is a false name. Recent events in Europe confirm this.
Forcing men into fatherhood is as much of a mistake as forcing women to have abortions. I applaud this new laws. BTW, if you haven't read up on Vasalgel, take a look. I intend to get it as soon as it's been on the market a while and proven to be safe.
There you go. If this was available I would be ok with laws changing so men who get this can opt out of child support on the off chance something fails. It is an active way of showing you do not care to have children at this time.
The reason is that he cannot chose to terminate the pregnancy. If the man had sex while using a condom and having himself medically sterilized by whatever process he is making a decision that he does not want to have a child. If one is conceived despite the preventative actions of the man the pregnancy can still be terminated by the woman. We do not allow the man to force the woman to abort, nor should we. However we can respect the fact he made a decision before the event to say no to raising children. This should be part of her decision to keep the child.
I strongly disagree. He had a different choice open to him if he wanted to make sure he wasn't going to sire a child. What he chose instead was a somewhat safe way, and what that got him was being somewhat sure he wouldn't be a father.
Just forbid lying in these circumstances. Make a rule and Germans will obey it - it's just how they are.
The only thing that is always preventative is an abortion. Since that option is only available to the woman we have to look at the man's actions to determine he does not want a child. Taking an active step to prevent pregnancy like the injection and the use of a condom says the man is actively trying to prevent pregnancy. I do not feel that there is some sort of chance you have to take because you have sex. That is a stupid idea designed to trap people. A child should be a thought out choice not a surprise or punishment for having sex.
Have you noticed that when you aren't posting racist bile, you are able to post from more legitimate articles? Interesting that. This law has the potential to be effective, but in order to do so the parameters of assessment, particularly in respect of anonymity issues, must be carefully considered and proper guidance given to judges in this regard. Otherwise the whole excerise could be a huge clusterfuck which undermines parties unfairly.
Why aren't they using a blood test to find paternity? If the guy she's going after for child support isn't the biological father and isn't the adopted daddy, then once paternity was found to not be this guy shouldn't she then either have to give up another name or stop going after support? Why should she have to give all names of partners when DNA doesn't lie.
On the law: I am unclear on why we need this. If the mother actually has deceived the father, shouldn't he be able to get his money back from her -- while she can go after the real father, without having to tell the false father who that is?
It's relevant in circumstances where, for instance, the biological father might know or suspect that he was the father and was complicit in the cover up. The article implies that to do date there was no requirement in any case to reveal the identity of the possible birth father.
Help me along here -- why is it the false father's problem to go after the real father, rather than the go after the mother and let her get what she can from the real father?
Well, this presumes I am a fluent in German family law, which I am not, so I cannot comment on existing provisions, only speculate. But I would say that there may be circumstances where the biological father is liable to pay maintenance, the mother refuses to claim it from him and the mother is not financially solvent for it to be worth her to be pursued seperately, so therefore the "false" father is left up shit creek financially. Also, by shutting the false father out of any proceedings between the mother and biological father, the false father would have no control over submissions made to the court over which he obviously has a beneficial interest. What if the false father had an order against the mother for a certain amount and then the court orders a lesser amount between her and the biological father? She'll eiither refuse to pay the balance or ask for her own order to be re-examined by the court. That's just a handful of scenarios that immediately come to mind based on your hypothetical without even knowing the German law.
I gotta agree with Packard here. If the guy is proven to not be the father, why should he go after the dad? Let the mom deal with that. I do wonder, does this only apply to infants up to a certain age? Most states have laws saying that even if you're proven to not be the father after a certain age, he'd still be on the hook due to emotional attachment or something along that.
The law as suggested comes with a time limit of two years -- the idea is that if you haven't doubted your fathership until then, you're basically the Dad. This is similar to the current law.
