NaBloPoMo #7: Child Support

The U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals rejected the case of a man who tried to get out of paying child support. The crux of the argument is that the ex-girlfriend said she was physically incapable of getting pregnant. Whether it’s something she had been told by a doctor, or was just something she was saying, is not covered in the article.

The National Center for Men sponsored the case. If you look at the homepage, you can see that they have admirable goals: helping men with divorces and custody, men who are abuse victims, men who have dealt with discrimination, and so on. They do, however, fail completely on the second point: “[Y]ou are being forced into paternity and/or an unfair child support obligation against your wishes.”

No, see, this is how it works. If you have sex and don’t want a child, you use protection. Condoms exist for a reason. Or there’s this surgery called a vasectomy, which nearly always results in male sterility. There is a failure rate of about 1%, but that’s better than condoms, which have a breakage and slippage rate of about 3%. Either way, those are steps that men can take to prevent pregnancy and therefore child support payments.

In an earlier article, the man in question did say he expected to lose the case. He takes it as, “That’s not fair, but that’s the way it is.” In the same article, a law professor points out that it’s a societal responsibility.

Here’s what it boils down to. If you have sex, you are responsible for the outcome. If you do not want that sort of outcome, you use protection. Simple.

I do think they have a decent point, however. A man should have a certain amount of time post-conception to opt out of paying child support. In this opt out, though, they must forfeit all parental rights. They do not get to see the child, they do not get to expect the child to have their last name, they do not get any of the perks if they are not willing to pay or take responsibility.

In conclusion: No glove, no love if you want no kids.