From: slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen)
Subject: Re: Right To Not Support
Organization: University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:18:51 GMT

In article <1992Sep10.210250.8262@gdr.bath.ac.uk> chpetk@gdr.bath.ac.uk (Toby Kelsey) writes:
>In article <1992Sep9.161039.23506@news.nd.edu> slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu (susan larsen) writes:
>	[...]
>>But this brings up what I consider fundamental ethical problems: does 
>>the child have a right to know her/his father?  Does the father have a right
>>to know (or be aware of) his biological children?  
>
>This depends on whether you believe fathers have legal
>responsibilities or rights towards their children. 
>Assuming you do, then the argument is simple:
>
>The justification for these legal responsibilities,
>including justifying pursuing NCPs for child support,
>is that this is on behalf of the child: The child
>deserves the financial support.
>
>But having parents to care for it and spend time with it is
>far more important for a child's upbringing and mental
>health that having an extra source of income.  Therefore
>logically there should be far greater penalties for
>preventing access to the parents (including not telling
>them about the child) than for failing to pay child support.

This is absolutely true.  The heavily funded and greatly 
politicized process by which our society pursues NCPs for 
child support reflects not so much the desire to "protect 
children's interests" as it does to protect taxpayers' 
interests.  A child's interest is best served by their 
parent's presence, love, affection, attention.  The state 
seems completely unwilling to recognize this fact.  All sorts 
of decrees and laws make a bow to the child's non-financial
interests, but when push comes to shove the state uses 
its money to chase the money.

>Of course the Law has nothing to do with logic.  It is not
>even a crime to fail to inform the father/potential father.
>(The crime should be commensurate with child kidnapping, since
>this is effectively what has been done.)
>
>>There are many very practical reasons for a child to know her/his father, 
>>not the least of which is medical history.   
>
>Do you really think the best reason for a child to know it's
>parents is 'medical history'?  Or is this just for fathers?
>
>>There are practical reasons for a father to have knowledge of his children, 
>>too.  These children could make claims against the father's estate, for 
>>example.
>
>My gast is truly flabbered.  Of all the reasons I would want to know
>my children, this is about number 2,592,734th on the list.

What I was trying to show, perhaps somewhat ineptly, is that  
while a mother (out of wedlock, of course) can conceal a child without 
ramifications, there exist solid, legal concerns involving the 
rights of the child and involving separate rights of the father wrt 
the child that are contravened when a woman chooses to conceal her 
child's paternity.  I'm not saying that my examples are the "best" 
reasons for children and fathers to know each other, I am saying 
that they are reasons.  I wanted to try to find examples that had 
not been raised here on the net.  Sigh.  I really can be quite 
sentimental, you know.

>Sue, what will(did) you say to your SO when you want(ed) children?
>
>Sue:	I would like to have children.
>SO:	Why do you want children?
>Sue:	I would like to have someone make a claim on my estate when I am dead.
>SO:	!?!?!?!?!
>
Think about how much legal ink is spilled on inheritance laws.  The 
history of the world is filled with blood shed over royal inheritance.
How often has the successful burgher longed for a son to "carry on the 
family business?"  Oh, estate claims are mighty important to many, 
many people.  Families have been devastated by unknown children popping 
up and challenging wills.  It is not romantic to think about it.  It 
is certainly not sentimental, but inheritance and estates are a driving 
force in human existence.  It is not something most folks take lightly.

Sue Larsen
slarsen@berlin.helios.nd.edu