Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:tpOpe.28711$iU.23522@lakeread05...


Bob Whiteside wrote:

"Werebat" wrote in message
news:lDLpe.28704$iU.23146@lakeread05...


I'd be fine with that if the wording didn't imply that the father is the
only parent who is financially responsible for the child, and/or if Mom
also had some document she were required to sign in order to get her
name on the birth certificate -- a document that specifically required
ber to agree to be financially responsible for the child.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


You are overlooking one significant fact. The mother signed the child's
birth certificate at the hospital and her doctor signed it too as a

witness

to the birth. And by operation of state law as the documented parent of

the

child she has financial responsibility for the child, so no additional
declaration by her is necessary.

Then have the declaration of paternity reflect that, and not imply that
the father and the father alone is responsible for the child's financial
well-being. Come on -- this isn't rocket science, people.


Take a look at RI Statute 11-9-5 Cruelty or Neglect of Children. The
statute includes a long list of offenses against children. One of the
offenses is for the person with custody or control of a child to be charged
with failure to "pay the reasonable charges for support of the child." If
that is not a way of implying the need for financial responsibility from an
unmarried mother with custody for the well being of her child I'd sure don't
know what else it could mean.

Pay the reasonable charges for support of the child out of whose pocket?

Accepting financial responsibility and being required to pay the
reasonable charges for the support of the child are two very different
things when some are allowed to pay with money they never really earned.
Very little "responsibility" is required to pick someone else's pocket
and then pay your bills with the swag.

"Be responsible", we men are told over and over. And there, being
"responsible" means earning your own money and paying your own way, as
well as for the way of your minor kids. Which is fine -- I agree with
that definition of responsibility. What I do not agree with is having
two separate definitions of responsibility for two different classes of
people -- the CPs and the NCPs (read: women and men).

What I am hearing over and over is, "Signing this document is not a big
deal". But if it were not such a big deal, why would the state be so
insistent on my signing the document? If signing the birth certificate
is tantamount to agreeing to accept financial responsibility of the
child, then why force me to sign another document accepting financial
responsibility in order to get my name on the birth certificate? Why
not just let me sign the birth certificate and then let the same legal
route revealing responsibility for the mother reveal responsibility for me?

It's like forcing Black people to sign a document agreeing that they
won't steal things from the mall before they can be allowed in, and then
saying that it is OK because White people are also not allowed to steal
things from the mall. I'm sorry, it just isn't right.

Let me sign the birth certificate, and bypass the other sexist nonsense.
Or come clean and require the mother to sign another "extra" document
agreeing to accept financial responsibility.

And for God's sake, don't call a document "voluntary" if failing to sign
it deprives you of legal rights to your child. That's just wrong. It
sets a very frightening precedent.

- Ron ^*^