General Question

zenele's avatar

Do the rights of the father over his child actually begin with inception?

Asked by zenele (8242points) July 17th, 2010

It’s a week old story, so I’ll have to look for it. But the long and short of it is; this couple are married and have a kid. The mother is institutionalized for a while, and deemed unfit. The father is awarded custody of the (now 10-year-old) child.

They get back together, briefly, and she is once again with child.

The father claims she is still abusive and dangerous, and once again leaves her.

Now, in a court case precedent, he is claiming legal custody of the (still unborn) child. That is, he is saying he thinks the baby in the womb is already at danger from her mother – and wants her protected by means of custody – while still in the womb.

Interesting.

Observing members: 0 Composing members: 0

33 Answers

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

Well it’s half his genes. Although she’s the landlord. I say give him equal rights, but let her charge him rent while carrying the child.

UScitizen's avatar

Inception?

RealEyesRealizeRealLies's avatar

I’m sure it’s a Freudian slip in honor of the new movie

laureth's avatar

Since the father seems to have knocked her up again, I can’t say as he’s very good at preventing a child from getting into an allegedly abusive situation, either. He probably shouldn’t have custody at all.

zenele's avatar

I was going to flag it – but inception could have been a Freudian slip for conception, but also has another meaning, had you looked it up: commencement, beginning.

Edit: @realeyes – if you are going to try to be witty, and hijack every Q (mine only – or are you on a roll) I’ll flag you and more. Auggie and Andrew won’t tolerate this for long – especially not in General about a serious, legal matter. Get your f#*king act together already, sheesh – you used to be smart.

KatawaGrey's avatar

That depends. Would he still want custody if it turns out the fetus was biologically that of another man?

zenele's avatar

^ I dunno, Kate – but what about the question.

Seaofclouds's avatar

Considering he can’t take physical custody of the child, I think he is out of luck at this point. During gestation, the mother ultimately is the one that gets to make decisions regarding the child. If mother and father disagree, they can take it to court to try to get it settled.

jerv's avatar

It’s hard to say what will happen legally as it will probably set a precedent, but my feelings are that so long as he actually intends to be a father then he does have parental rights. Now, if he just knocked her up and never had any intention of being a part of the unborn child’s life then it’d be a different story as he would have effectively forfeited his rights, allowing her to do as she pleases (within the law).... though her questionable sanity may override that.

Of course, that is my take on it and not actually law, so we will have to let the professionals handle this one. Besides, there is likely more to this case than we Flutherites are aware of.

tinyfaery's avatar

Only if he carries it.

KatawaGrey's avatar

@zenele: Well, I think that if he was unwilling to take responsibility of the child if it turned out to not have half his genes, then he certainly does not have rights to the child at conception.

TexasDude's avatar

It’s in the woman’s body. Until it comes out, it is solely her choice of what to do with it. After that is negotiable.

jrpowell's avatar

^ What the bastard above said.

stranger_in_a_strange_land's avatar

Like @Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard says. My basic feminist indoctrination is telling me “her body, her choice”.

Response moderated (Off-Topic)
evandad's avatar

Of course paternal responsibility begins at conception. Especially if there are nutbar factors in the mix.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

As do the rights of the mother, though.

zenele's avatar

I’m gonna go with @evandad – especially as I know abit about the case. I can’t find the article – dammit. Maybe when it goes to court – or when there’s a ruling.

@Fiddle_Playing_Creole_Bastard seems to be onto something – and normally I’d agree – but in the details I included a fact – not an opinion – that she had been abusive and institutionalized. The father, a-hole or not, has had sole custody of their first child for over 10 years. That tells you something.

He is, apparently, genuinely concerned she could harm (perhaps abort?) the foetus. Thus – the lawsuit.

Edit: I used apparently instead of evidently intentionally.

Simone_De_Beauvoir's avatar

@zenele She has a right to abort it. If he feared this, he shouldn’t have had sex with her. And I’m one of those people that believes in father’s rights in these matters more than others.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@zenele It’s her body, if she wants to abort, it’s her decision. There aren’t many judges that would be willing to tell a women that she has to carry a baby to term just because the father wants her too. In situations where the couple is split, the father doesn’t have to start paying child support until after the child is born. So if we look at that as a an indication of what will come, it’s likely that he won’t have many options until after the baby is born. He can try to can an injunction to keep her from drinking or doing drugs while she is pregnant, but even that would be hard for a judge to enforce.

jazmina88's avatar

if it comes to whether or not to carry the baby, it’s up to the mother.

anything else, I would say he has equal rights. and can protect the baby.

filmfann's avatar

I wonder if he was worried that his dick might be in danger when he was making that baby…

If he claims she is still crazy, then he could be charged with rape, since she is not competent, and able to consent to sex.

If this woman is anything like my wife, her attitude will seriously degrade with a pregnancy. I knew when my wife was pregnant with my son by her rotten attitude. She practicially foamed at the mouth.

john65pennington's avatar

Good question. she is the oven and he is the baker or sort of. like the old saying goes, “it takes two to tango”. property rights in most states are 50–50 and so it should be with parental rights. this is an interesting situation, since the carrying mother is mentally unstable. the newborn child should be awarded to the father by the court. the wifes mental instability is playing a major part in the outcome and the father should become the caretaker of his own child,

LostInParadise's avatar

Traditionally, one of the reasons that the mother is given preference in custody matters has always been the lingering doubt as to who the father is. With DNA tests, this matter can be dispensed with. If he can prove his case about that the mother poses a danger for the child then I think he should be awarded custody.

rooeytoo's avatar

If he thinks she is unstable and abusive to the existing child, why the hell would he take the risk of creating a new life to be put into the same situation??? Maybe they are both a little not quite right.

zenele's avatar

^ That’s for sure.

zenele's avatar

UPDATE: The woman gave birth in a hospital – then ran off. The man was awarded custody of the baby and said too bad he hadn’t been listened to before that.

Seaofclouds's avatar

@zenele I can’t imagine running away from my child, but I know it happens. I’m glad he got custody. Hopefully he will not make any more children with her in the future.

zenele's avatar

They both sound like douche bags.

rooeytoo's avatar

I’m with you Zennie, hopefully neither one of them will make any more children.

zenele's avatar

Together or alone.

Answer this question

Login

or

Join

to answer.

This question is in the General Section. Responses must be helpful and on-topic.

Your answer will be saved while you login or join.

Have a question? Ask Fluther!

What do you know more about?
or
Knowledge Networking @ Fluther