Robert,
I'm pretty sure fathers who don't have custody of their kids get stung for child support once they earn over a certain amount, regardless of any informal arrangement they have with the mother.
A friend of mine has been paying 800 a month to the mother of his son since he was born, he offered it and she accepted and the situation was working just fine.
Then last year he had the good fortune to land a big project which netted him about 40,000 more than he'd earned previously, so he's now been pinged for nine grand from Child Support. I work with him a lot and between us we've had less than two weeks work since Christmas, so he's still had to make the cash payment, which the mother of his son doesn't declare to Centrelink as well as a huge chunk of his income on top. Now this child was not the result of any relationship they had a one night stand, she got pregnant and since she was from interstate he only found out about it via a third party when the child was nine months old but he stepped up and has regular contact with the boy who's now 17 years old.
Now is that "fair"? A man has no choice in whether he becomes a father or not, his reproductive rights are completely dependant upon the integrity of a thin latex membrane. If woman has the legal right to choose (within a certain time limit) whether to be a parent or not regardless of the wishes of the father shouldn't a man be able to legally reject paternity within that same time limit if he doesn't consent to the pregnancy?
Let's make things really equal, say within the first trimester either parent can legally opt out of the arrangement without requiring the consent of the other, how would that go down with the author?

Jay
It's heading in the right direction, but it doesn't go far enough.

Parental responsibility in its very nature is opt-in, not opt-out. A woman chooses whether to have sex, whether to use contraception, whether to abort, whether to adopt out, and whether or not to support it, and then having passed through all those decisions has the gall and the legal "right" [translation: immoral power] to force the father to pay whether he chooses to or not.

There is a simple ethical practical solution that does not require any policy response whatsoever. It freedom: remember that forgotten concept? Those who want to bring up any given child, do so; those who don't, don't. But if you choose to, you have no right to force anyone else to pay for your choices.

Talk about children starving is utter nonsense. There's far more people who want to adopt than there are children available for adoption. If a mother would rather her child starve rather than give it up to someone who is willing and able to care for it better than her, then that is a matter for child welfare, simple as that. She has no right to hold the child hostage for her political beliefs in treating the man as a money object.

The "whole of society" line is nonsense too. Human society doesn't stop at the border. Those who argue that line, never explain why the nation-state should be the deciding entity. Don't all the single mothers of Asia, Africa and South America have the equal "right" to the same handouts?

You need to justify the use of force to justify the use of policy. None of the supporters of child support do that. They simply reason that, because they want something, therefore they're justified in using force to get it: the moral reasoning of an infant.

What's actually wrong with a "sexual contract", assuming informed consent?

Jay despite my passion to see the nightmare that is the so called child support system discussed on OLO I'm trying to only touch on it on this thread where it seems to have some relevance to the original topic (see how I go with that).

I agree that as far as practical both parents should have a similar level of say about an ongoing responsibility for a child. I believe that the final say in regards to termination lies with the mother but at any point where she has the option of either terminating the pregnancy or giving the child up for adoption the father should have the option to opt out of further responsibility.

Its trickier for those in a relationship when the child is conceived, even if a wish to not have children or not yet had been made very clear and you had been assured that a partner was on contraception if they have decided they wanted a child anyway and stopped taking contraception then its a brave man who says no thanks at that point. Roll on reliable and reversible male contraception (that does not seriously diminish the experience) and that argument goes away.

As far as possible the choices and responsibilities which are part of being parents in an intact family should be available to parents when a relationship breaks down.

I suspect that a fair percentage of the "deadbeat dad" issue http://m.urbandictionary.com/#define?term=deadbeat%20dad is people getting their backs up at the extremes of a very unjust system. Not all, there are those who avoid their responsibilities to their children regardless of the say they had in the existence of those children.

R0bert

There's nothing wrong with a sexual contract, only the remedy of specific performance would not be available at law or in equity, so the remedy for breach would be damages, not sex.

There's nothing wrong with a reproductive contract either. If a couple enter an agreement to be liable for the care for any resulting offspring, then that should be enforceable, if all the elements of contract are present.

But that's not what Petra and her supporters are arguing. They're saying people should be forced into it when they *didn't* agree: specifically when there is no contract. All of a sudden, the need for consent and equal rights goes out the window, and they're explicitly arguing that women, because they are women, deserve special consideration backed up by unequal force to try to even up the inequality caused by nature. but all that proves is that the sexes are not equal!

The solution is to abolish any compulsion on anyone to pay for anyone else's child: the sole parents pension and family tax benefit, the Child Support Act (which was only brought in because of government's failure to fund the sole parents' pension), and the De Facto Relationships Act. This way the only people liable to pay would be those who had *actually* contracted.

This would make the whole field fairer and more equal.

Legitimacy of children was developed to protect *men's* human rights. The man has a right to choose which child should have the benefit of his contribution, and to receive valuable consideration because of it. Those who argue the higher social value of the child need to put their money where their mouth is.

Good lord. We are talking about people, when did everyone stop caring about others who exist beyond there own inner circle. We live in a community, our taxes pay for the roads and health care and so on and on.

I am personally disgusted by some of the attitudes here I have to say. You really think that single parents of children who are over the age of 8 should consider adopting them out? WT?

Urghhh.

Petra I thought you hit on a lot of really important points and I thank you for writing this.

And no, I'm not affected by the cuts. But you know what, I live in this community, this society and I'm not blind. I realise that the implication of these cuts will affect us all in the long term.