Can I have that pearl necklace back now?

[Stapel]

Huh?!?

Whoa. I had no idea the US was so progressive in this area. Most European countries won't hold the father liable for child support unless he was married? Even if a paternity test confirms he's the father?

Well, I'd say it is very progressive that a woman has all rights or duties, and a man has no right nor duties.
Unless there is a legal contract between the two, sharing rights and duties.

Wow. That's really interesting, and very, very different from the US. Here, if it's your kid, you're almost certainly going to pay child support. The exceptions are very few and far between. Of course, since we have a relatively small welfare state, we're very interested in making sure the state doesn't have to shoulder much of the burden of child rearing, so maybe that's why we're willing to place the extra onus on dead beat dads.

Dutch law very clearly sais that the husband of a woman (assuming a standard marriage contract is used) that gives birth is the legal father. It has absolutely nothing to do with being the natural father.

If an unmarried woman gives birth, she can hope the natural father is so kind to 'accept' the baby, but she absolutely no right to it.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Well, I'd say it is very progressive that a woman has all rights or duties, and a man has no right nor duties.

I'm willing to bet a majority of westerners would disagree.

 

[Little Raven]

Dutch law very clearly sais that the husband of a woman (assuming a standard marriage contract is used) that gives birth is the legal father. It has absolutely nothing to do with being the natural father.

Am I reading this wrong then?

The father of a child both inside or outside marriage is legally obliged to support his child. Parents are encouraged to reach voluntary arrangements for child support. Where they are unable to agree, amounts of child support can be decided by the District Court. They do this using a set of tables, known as the TREMA tables, which contain complex formulae for the assessment of maintenance. A number of factors are taken into account in assessing the capacity to pay of both the resident and non-resident parent:

...

Because of all the complex factors which are taken into account, it is difficult to provide an illustrative example, however, £78 per child per month is a typical amount of maintenance.

 

[Ohwell]

Haha, at thread title.

 

[Kozmos]

Now people whats the lesson of this story?

Always take care of your "donated" fluids.

 

[Rik Meleet]

If a woman did this to me and I was forced to pay child support I'd not pay it, but instead put it on an account in the child's name to be released when the child reaches 18.

Little Raven: the pound sign (£) in your quoted article indicates is is from the UK. Stapel is dutch.

 

[The Last Conformist]

It's apparently a British article about the Netherlands. If you check the link, it says explicitly it's about the Netherlands.

 

[Little Raven]

Little Raven: the pound sign (£) in your quoted article indicates is is from the UK. Stapel is dutch.

But the article clearly is talking about the Netherlands. In fact The Clearinghouse on International Developments in Child, Youth and Family Policies has information on most of the Western European nation's child support laws, and I couldn't find a single one that simply allowed the father to walk away from a child born out of wedlock.

Do you have another link that clarifies Dutch law?

And is simply putting money is a trust fund until the kid is 18 an option in Europe? It certainly wouldn't fly over here. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of child support if there is no access to the money until the child is an adult.

 

[The Last Conformist]

And is simply putting money is a trust fund until the kid is 18 an option in Europe? It certainly wouldn't fly over here. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of child support if there is no access to the money until the child is an adult.

It's not an option here, at any rate. But in extreme cases action can be taken against the custodial parent if he/she demonstrably isn't using the money for the child's benefit.

 

[Little Raven]

But in extreme cases action can be taken against the custodial parent if he/she demonstrably isn't using the money for the child's benefit.

Yeah, it's the same over here.

 

[Rik Meleet]

But the article clearly is talking about the Netherlands. In fact The Clearinghouse on International Developments in Child, Youth and Family Policies has information on most of the Western European nation's child support laws, and I couldn't find a single one that simply allowed the father to walk away from a child born out of wedlock.

Do you have another link that clarifies Dutch law?

And is simply putting money is a trust fund until the kid is 18 an option in Europe? It certainly wouldn't fly over here. It kind of defeats the whole purpose of child support if there is no access to the money until the child is an adult.

Didn't read it; I just skimmed over your post and saw the pound sign and I took it as a UK article.

I'm no legal expert so I don't know if that is allowed. If I can't put it in a trust fund I'll find another way to pay the money to the child, but not to the mother. Perhaps spend the money on toys, babyfood, schoolbooks, children's clothes and send it to the child.
If I didn't mess with her, she certainly won't mess with me.
"mess" used instead of more explicit words...

 

[Stapel]

Am I reading this wrong then?

Yes, you are .

Legally, you are only a father if your wife gives birth, or if you accept the baby as your off-spring.

I guess the line in the article refers to children of divorced parents or children accepted by their natural fathers.

As long as you do NOT accept the kid as your kid, there is no law that can enforce you to pay.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Could you provide some reference for this being the state of affairs in most western countries? I'm finding that difficult to believe.

 

[Little Raven]

I don't know about 'most Western countries,' but expanded reading does seem to suggest that the Netherlands is particularly backward in this regard.

A little light reading.

That article is not completely on topic, but it does indicate that there is a substantial difference in how the law treats married and unmarried fathers. I'm still skeptical that under no circumstances can a man be held responsible, but I guess it's possible.

However, it also says that family law has been undergoing almost continual change since Human Rights Act 1998 passed, with legal reforms slowly lessening the distinction. So maybe the Netherlands will catch up to the rest of the West fairly soon.

 

[Stapel]

These lines from your articel show my point:

For a child that is born out of wedlock the situation has some differences, because a man who wants to have family ties with this child will first have to recognise the child or establish fatherhood by a court decision.

&

They do not possess the automatic parental responsibility which the married father has

I does not only apply to rights, but also to duties!

I must admit, that NL seems a bit out off line with other western countries, which surprise me.

And no, this is, imho, not a conservative thing. I still think it is a progressive thing. It's all relative:
We think women are perfectly suitable to be responsible human beings, without the care of a man around!
I really think that is the way you should regard this phenomenon.

I very much applaud our laws in this (from a legal pov, not from a moral pov). If a woman gets pregant, she, and she only, has 100% responsibility AND 100% rights over the baby, unless she agrees otherwise by signing a legal contract with another person (in Dutch law, this can of course be a man or a woman, and most defenitely does not per se require any natural link to the kid. All that is needed are 'family ties'.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Does the woman have the corresponding right to keep the (unmarried) father away from all contact with the child?

 

[Stapel]

Does the woman have the corresponding right to keep the (unmarried) natural[size=1added by Stapel[/size]father away from all contact with the child?

afaik, she indeed does.

It's even worse. A woman has quite some legal possibilities to keep the legal father away after a divorce.
Dutch law (like British law) simply sais that divorced couples should sort it out together. If the mother doesn't cooperate, the father has few legal possibilities to see his kids (hence the batmans on legal buildigs ).

 

[The Last Conformist]

afaik, she indeed does.

It's even worse. A woman has quite some legal possibilities to keep the legal father away after a divorce.
Dutch law (like British law) simply sais that divorced couples should sort it out together. If the mother doesn't cooperate, the father has few legal possibilities to see his kids (hence the batmans on legal buildigs ).

Here, in legal theory, mothers and fathers are treated the same in the case of divorce. However, courts tend to rule in the mother's favour, and a divorced father who is denied contact with his children can in practice expect little help from the state.

 

[Stapel]

Here, in legal theory, mothers and fathers are treated the same in the case of divorce. However, courts tend to rule in the mother's favour, and a divorced father who is denied contact with his children can in practice expect little help from the state.

Same here (if the father is a the legal father).

But that is different discussion. Sorry for bringing it in. I guess it only pollutes the thread .

 

[Sims2789]

Another excuse for the Feds to make it harder to sue insurance companies and corporations.