SamuelRSmith said:
I'm not usually one to "propose laws", but if you insist: 1) Let men absolve responsibilities if within a certain time frame, that time frame being less than the woman is allowed to abort within the jurisdiction. ie - If a woman is allowed to abort within first 20 weeks, men have right to absolve within first 12 weeks. Same restrictions apply as abortion, so if a woman needs to go through some kind of spiel as to why abortions are bad (as they do in some states, I believe) a man must do the same, and he can't say he's absolved, there needs to be some kind of legal document signed with the mother being informed prior to the granting of the document. This way, men can absolve, but there are hoops to jump through, and there's time afterwards to allow the mother to decide whether she wants to raise the baby without the father. 2) In cases of divorce or separation, the primary care giver should not be defaulted to either parent. If the children are old enough to decide, it should be their choice, secondly if one parent forgoes the primary caregiver role, the role goes to the other parent. Beyond those, it's a court case. 3) The primary caregiver should not be allowed to restrict access to secondary caregiver. Moreover, under a certain age, the secondary caregiver should have an obligation to see the children a certain number of days per month, refusal to do so will incur a higher financial burden on providing child support to primary caregiver. 4) If it is determined that the primary caregiver is abusing child support money, then the secondary caregiver should be allowed to place restrictions on the money, a bit like food stamps, where the money can only be spent on items like food, children's clothing, and education. Obviously, these laws apply to "normal cases", and will not handle situations like violent partners, underraged parents, issues like non-biological parents, etc. These laws would be far from perfect, but certainly much "fairer" than the current setup. |
I don't know how much experience you have with divorce but I do and it might not be in every state but 2 and 4 are part of the law. 3 is a little silly because it implies you pay more if you don't see your child by your own free will, which doesn't make much sense to me but "The primary caregiver should not be allowed to restrict access to secondary caregiver" is part of a lot of laws in many states.
Your first one is a good start, but it really plays into the hands of more likely a chance of abortion and adoption. Believe it or not your choice restricts her choice over her body.
If I was to make a fairer one it would be a more limited time of child support payments if you don't have visitation rights. If a man gives up parental rights to his child he would only be liable for a set amount of years such as 6 (enough time that she would be able to find a job and not have to be at home taking care of the child) or it would work like alimony does. Also the government would help single parents more. And of course this would work both ways for both parents. DNA testing would be a part of it too. SInce it would be easily documented that the child is the mothers, unless they both agree the child is both of theirs, the father would have to get DNA tested at both parties expense. Once determined he is not, he has a choice to be reimbured the expenses he paid so far or to legally adopt. Also the mother could be sued in such cases if it can be proved she knowingly knew he wasn't the father and hid information.
Most of what you think are laws are sexist bias not laws. Now there are states that do have such laws, but for the most part they concern unwed parents, which I think is really unfair. Paying support and no visitation rights is disgusting.
