Public assistance is a general term.... it's usually associated with welfare.. cash aid, food stamps, medicaid... but other things paid for by taxpayers that are income based are also 'assistance' such as student financial aid, WIC (not sure if it's still income based but it used to be), Earned Income Credit, Low Income utility assistance, Life Line phone service (or lower rate based on low income), HUD section 8 or other low income housing assistance, Head Start (again, it used to be income based & I don't know if it still is), school free/reduced lunch program, child care assistance programs and the list goes on...

Very few single parents by choice can or do raise the child for 18+ years without ANY income based assistance and if the single parent refuses to go after the other parent for support or name the other parent, should they be allowed to take advantage of any program that is government funded and based on low income?

I think most of those programs you mentioned ARE public assistance.

I used to student teach in an inner-city school and 98% of the kids were on free lunch. If you receive welfare (TANF, food stamps, etc.) in MO, your child is automatically eligible for free lunch. I don't think anyone would have a child on the free lunch program and NOT be on welfare. That IS welfare.

Anyway, I also consider section 8 to be public assistance, and also HeadStart, lifeline, any kind of utility assistance, etc.

The only thing you mentioned that I am not sure about is student financial aid. That really has nothing to do with a dad paying chil support or not. (I assume you are talking about a mother going back to school and getting grants/loans?)

I agree, but if a mother going back to school is getting financial aid, she can get more because she's a single mother and if it's based on her household income, she might get less aid if she were getting child support because it's based on the household income. I had many clients that were career students because they got so many benefits for being a student and they didn't have to work... (in CA, you have to work or be a student for welfare) and it's been five years since I left so things may have changed... but I can relate to what doodle says when I had clients that had perfect tans, hair & nails done, dressed in designer clothes with all the bling, driving a nicer car than me and most of my co-workers and going to college for an advanced degree, when I didn't have time or money to do that because I worked and had kids. and when they'd come into the office all fixed up and the kids are dirty & wearing raggedy clothes.... sure pisses me off as a taxpayer and worker. and there isn't a whole lot anyone can do to stop that from happening, except report it and it seems nothing is ever done to follow up those types of reports...

"Yes, but Doodle, Momof4 didn't get any form of public assistance. I don't think it's fair to lump her in that category."

I didn't mean Mom4's situation. I just was disagreeing with her ingeneral because alot of the parents my organization serves rides the system. One of the tricks they use is refusing to give the father's name.

I think I mentioned furtherdown in my post that if you don't want to name the father and don't apply for services that's cool. Mom4 would fall in that category. It's the ones who LIE and say they don't know and then take cash hand over fist from tax funded porgrams that piss me off. Mom4 didn't do that.

It said the first message was rejected but they are both showing up?????

Oh trust me, I am not arguing that there aren't those, MANY of them, that take advantage of the system.

BM is a classic example.

Actually, if you look her and her DH up on casenet there is currently a case filed against him from the state. They are *looking* for him for child suppport. BM collects TANF (temporary assistance) for her baby girl and even though they are now MARRIED, the state doesn't know that. They weren't married, just living together, when she originally filed for the benefits and she obviously told them she doesn't know where he is.

So while she is collecting $200-300/month from MO TAXPAYERS and probably foodstamps as well, and driving around in her LEXUS that my DH sold her at wholesale, the STATE is trying to locate her "baby daddy" to get back the money the state's been spending.

This is the SAME thing she did with my DH. He shelled out over $800/month for daycare for 5 years and helped her buy two cars and routinely paid for swim lessons, tumbling lessons, clothes, etc, all while having 50-50 custody.

Meanwhile, BM was collecting welfare benefits through the state for SS and wasn't cooperating with the state in terms of "finding" DH. So finally the state caught up with DH and he was like "WTH." So that's why my DH is now paying back $277/month and ALL of it goes to the state, not a dime goes to BM. It's all for the benefits she collected over the years. Thankfully, DH is only responsible for a portion of it, but I do wish the state would go after her for welfare fraud.

Sorry--this is totally off topic.

Anyway, I know what you are saying, Ima. I just don't see how DNA testing at birth would solve any problems. The moms that aren't going to or don't want to identify their baby's father aren't going to be any more inclined to be truthful if testing is mandatory.

All one would have to do to get out of it is say "I don't know who the dad is" and that would be that. The state can't test someone if the mother won't even name him.

Did you say some where you didn't recieve any Government assisstance in raising your child? Did I miss that? I tried to find where you made that statement but couldn't. If you didn't then I wouldn't group you in the same category and I apologize if my post came across as a personal attack:)

Doodle, are you asking me?

I have never received any kind of public assistance.

"The state can't test someone if the mother won't even name him."

But what you don't understand Love is if it was MANDATORY to recieve services they would all be clucking like a hen house full of chickens. They would give the name of the father, his address, his social, his blood type and his closest living relatives. If paternity was mandatory to get services they would rat out ole' dad faster than a jack rabbit on a date. LOL!

No love. I was asking MOM4 and apologizing if my post sounded attacky if she hadn't recieved any services:)

Sorry about the mix up.

"The state can't test someone if the mother won't even name him."

There are also other ways of matching a father through DNA. If he's been arrested and his DNA collected (I believe felons that are released from prison are already required to give up DNA as well as suspects in crimes... but if they were required to provide DNA to get a driver's license like CA requires fingerprints or they could require it when getting a passport.

Ashley, if the 16 year old had forced a DNA test in making him take responsibility, he would have probably willingly given up his rights so the dad of the 2nd kid could have adopted him. I can't really agree with sidestepping laws because the ends seem to justify the means. But, that's just my opinion...

Maybe just me, but there's a danger of too much reliance on DNA evidence and whilst in some cases it may prove the guilt or exonerate the innocence, it might also convict the innocent if it's looked upon as 100% reliable - it might be as simple as someone shedding a few skin cells in the wrong place.

The "I have nothing to hide" chestnut does not justify forcing such an idea (mandatory dna testing) on us. Once that frontier is crossed, it moves us much closer to the next. Freedom of the press is already seriously in danger in more countries than ever before, including the US. We don't really need to accelerate this process.

There's already issues with insurance companies wanting to use DNA testing to decide who they will and won't insure, and what sort of a premium they're going to pay. That is indeed a slippery slope.

DNA testing ought to be a lot more regulated too, at the moment, you can simply mail away for a kit. Who oversees these companies? What if samples are contaminated (there was a case recently) or switched accidentally? There's a lot of potential heartache. A genetic predisposition may mean there's an increased risk of something, but does not necessarily mean it'll happen. Genetic testing for mental illnesses, as the genome is charted, is another controversial area. Who gets to play god? I'm not totally against it, there are for example diseases that could be treated if found in time, and I'm not against gene therapy or even stem cell research, especially using a patient's own. But we need to tread warily and regulate it.

I understand there are a number of cases where a second spouse has her husband tested, to see if he really should be paying child support. Whilst the idea that a person who is NOT biologically the father might be forced to pay child support may be reprehensible, if he is really the only father the child knows, then what happens to the child? There might be parents who really do walk away from them. How devastating for the child.

I can see a number of good reasons for not naming a father on a birth certificate, if he is violent, say, and the mother wants nothing further to do with him, or what about incest or rape? Does a child need to know where they came from in such circumstances? I would think perhaps not.

To me it's a bit like the private eye issue - you are letting a genie out of the bottle, and you, or innocent parties, may not like what comes to light.

"Gattaga" is an interesting film that explores the slippery slope of DNA testing, well worth seeing.

Here is a link that might be useful: Gattaga

Based on everyone's arguments, it seems to me that more people would be in support of Welfare reform. It would make more since to me to limit public assistance to those who name the father of the child in addition to limiting the amount of children a person can have on public assistance than to have mandatory DNA testing for everyone.

If a person has one child on public assistance and then chooses to have another, the second child should be taken away and given up for adoption. It should not be up to the taxpayers to take care of the children if the parents continue to make bad decisions. These people use their children and the assistance they are given in order to live off of the system.

"There might be parents who really do walk away from them. How devastating for the child."

IMHO this is one of the top reasons it SHOULD be mandatory. Totally unfair for a tramp woman to LIE or withhold info from a man and pass a child of as his when she suspects it isn't. Even more wrong that the tramp of a woman who lied puts the child in that possible situation. I have NO SYMPATHY for women who sleeps around and then fails to mention the other guy to steady boy friend or husband when she turns up pregnant. It happens everyday. The woman is wrong wrong wrong for doing this and I think there should be legal consequences when this info is withheld.

Woman are given far to many "freedoms" when it comes to such matters IMHO. Because she is the one who carries the child she gets all kinds of "rights". These rights typically hurt everyone but the pregnant woman/mother. Case in point would be custody cases. Just because the woman is the mother she almost always gets custody. I think THAT is a travesty on our freedoms but it is allowed to go on anyway. It is sexism at it's best but because men arn't viewed as the minority no one complains.

Freedom only exists if you fall under cirtain criteria as things stand now. Laws like mandatory paternity testing would protect those whoes freedoms and rights are already getting screwed into the ground.

Raek, I agree with you in concept. NY supposedly requires mothers on AFDC to name dads, other than in the case or rape or incest, but I dont know how well it works.

I live a quiet little life -- I dont see why I should be intruded upon. Or my daughter.

"If a person has one child on public assistance and then chooses to have another, the second child should be taken away and given up for adoption"

Oh my. No, no, no. I can't agree with that.

I do think there is already a *cap* on how many children one can receive public assistance for (Ima, Doodle and others who have worked in this area might know for sure) and I do agree that the system should undergo a lot of reform.

But if this country started forcing poor people to give up their children, well, that is just a slippery slope I am not comfortable with. I'm not arguing that there ARE many people who abuse the system and have children for cash. But there are just as many, probably, that do NOT abuse the system, and who truly need a little help for awhile.

I know somebody who is on welfare and is now on child #3...(in MO by the way)...has done drugs, while pregnant, smokes, etc. etc. I also think there should definitely be mandatory drug testing for all welfare recipients.

I think they would start making better choices if they couldn't depend on the taxpayers to pay for every bad decision they make. If there are no consequences and they actually benefit from continuing the cycle, what's to stop them?

I'm not saying force poor people to give up their children. If they want to do what it takes to take care of their families, they should. If they want us to pick up the tab, well that's another story.

I meant she is on child #5. 3 different daddies.

I think the problem is, with anything, there is not a one-size-fits-all-answer.

The woman pregnant with her 5th child who refuses to work, does drugs, and keeps having more babies for cash? Yes, there is something gravely wrong and I see what you mean.

But what about the single mom with a couple kids who is working & going to school and trying to better herself and who happens to use childcare assistance programs or food stamps or any other number of public assistance options? Has she made poor choices in her life? Maybe. But if she is doing something about and trying to make her life better so she can get OFF welfare, I don't think it is fair to penalize her. In fact, penalizing her would hurt no one but the kids.

It's hard to regulate the welfare system and I do agree there are many, many flaws but there has to be a better way.

I don't think it punishes the existing kids to take a baby who is unknown to them out of the care of the parent. And if they were adopted out as children, I think they would have a better chance at having a better life. Of course there is no easy answer, but there are far too many people slipping through the cracks on the backs of the taxpayers. They should not get unlimited chances and the children of these parents who use the kids as a meal ticket are def. not better off in their care.

"Ashley, if the 16 year old had forced a DNA test in making him take responsibility, he would have probably willingly given up his rights so the dad of the 2nd kid could have adopted him. I can't really agree with sidestepping laws because the ends seem to justify the means. But, that's just my opinion..."

I'm surprised at this response from you, Ima. That's pretty high-and-mighty of you.

What good would it do anyone to track down this guy? He's a druggie on the run from the law. How would he "support" his child? Would they garnish the money he gets for his drugs? LOL! Seriously.......

Yeah! Let's start taking kids away and adopting them out if they are born on welfare! Heck, if you lose your job in this economy, your house is foreclosed on and you are struggling to feed your family... let's adopt out those kids too. That's the answer!!!!

Are you kidding me???

Yes, there are laws in my state regarding caps on welfare. The last I checked.. when I resigned in 2004... there is a 60 month limit on receiving welfare for the parents.. means the parents can get 60 months of aid, plus months they are exempted due to disability. (shocking, the number of people that became disabled when that law went into effect) and once their 60 months are up, the aid payment is lowered to just the amount for the kids. If the parents are felons or sanctioned for non cooperation, their aid payments are issued by vendor payments directly to the landlord & utility companies and any remainder is put on a gift card to Wal Mart or whatever store they want. They can continue to get aid until the children are 18 but only the children are aided. That means if mom & dad with two kids are on aid, after 60 months, mom and dad time out and no longer get aid so they will only get aid for two kids... four people living on aid intended for two. Hell, aid for four is not enough to live on and trying to stretch it to support four is ridiculous. Then of course they are forced to work under the table or illegal sources of income that are not reported. Anyone that thinks it's not a big problem needs to consider the numbers...

Also, if the family is on aid and the mother becomes pregnant, the only thing the new baby is eligible for is food stamps and medicaid.. no cash. So, again the family is forced to stretch the dollars to support everyone. The kids are the ones losing out because people continue having more kids while on welfare. It was interesting to see the number of women that became pregnant when the notices were sent out 10 months before the law was to be implemented. Talk about baby boom! and if the family goes off aid for 24 months, they can come back in and get aid for everyone... including the kids that were born on aid. Also, if they close their cash aid case for the month the baby is born... the baby is not born on aid so they can come back in the following month and get aid for that baby... yeah.. lots of tricks to working the system!

I was a worker. I worked in a county that had seven offices. In my office (as well as the others) there were about 3-4 units handling cash aid cases in my office. There were 5-7 workers in each unit... so let's say 15-32 workers handling cash assistance cases in each office. The standard case load is 200-300 cases per worker.. I never had the standard... it was usually around 325-350 cases. That is 325 families that I handled and multiply it by the number of workers and offices and you'll see that in just one county, there are literally thousands of families on aid. California has 58 counties... you do the math, it boggles MY mind. In our county, we had ONE welfare fraud investigator in each office. You get the picture???

When they implemented SFIS, the State wide fingerprinting Identification system.. mandatory fingerprinting to receive aid... new applications dropped dramatically. Prior to that, people could bounce from county to county, apply for aid and get aid in several places at once... overlapping and it would take a month or two to catch it online... sometimes several months. Then, by the time you catch it, they have moved on to new counties or another state... the state never recoups that money... the fraud in the welfare system is rampant and lying about who the baby daddy is.... is only the tip of the iceberg. Those are your tax dollars!

So, yeah I think requiring DNA at birth would probably impact the number of welfare fraud cases being committed and no, I don't think DNA taken in the hospital is as unreliable as transferring or shedding DNA in regard to a crime scene. If its taken by medical personnel in a hospital setting, there's less opportunity for error. Of course, no technology is perfect.

I am going to date myself with this post, but here goes...nearly 40 years ago, I took my first child psychology class. The professor pointed out the existing research at the time which indicated that adults who were abused as children were more likely to become abusers themselves. He then posed a rather provocative question to the class: If this research is accurate, in order to end child abuse should it not be the policy of the government to sterilize all individuals who had been abused as children?
I was horrified. How could the government be granted that power...the power to decide if individuals could have children, become parents? How could the government be granted the authority to invade people's privacy in such a profound and fundamental manner?

Fast forward 35 years...that's how long I have been toiling as a professional in the mental health field, most recently (after many hours of additional professional training) as the designated early childhood mental health consultant for the county in which I work. As such, I have provided mental health consultation to the local child advocacy center (these centers investigate child abuse --- sexual and physical) and also to early childhood education centers (including but not limited to Head Start). This is in addition to my practice in providing outpatient mental health counseling to adults.

This is now my stance: some people need to agree to voluntary sterilization...please feel free to engage in all the sex you want, with as many whomevers you want, doing whatever you want, as often as you want, using whatever substances you want to consume...but,

FOR GOD'S SAKE, DO NOT BRING CHILDREN INTO THIS WORLD YOU ARE NOT PREPARED TO CARE FOR....financially, emotionally spiritually....

Somedays I go home and feel like the child with their finger in the dyke...there are so many innocent kids out there who are suffering because the adults in their lives are selfish,irresponsible, and (more often than any of us would like to admit)abusive in horrendous and unimaginable ways...completely unprepared to be parents to the children they bring into the world.

I'd be willing to support a program that would pay people a stipend to have a vasectomy or get their tubes tied and NOT have children...

When I think about the cost to society...but even more, when I think about the suffering these kids are almost certainly doomed to endure, it breaks my heart.

I know this does not actually respond to the question of mandatory DNA testing, but my thought is if you offered folks the option of a stipend for agreeing to a voluntary snipping, maybe the need for DNA as a means to verify parentage would become a moot issue...and the number of defenseless children, kids at the mercy of selfish adults, lacking in the resources (both external and internal) and capacity to be parents...maybe the number of those kids would be greatly reduced...and more children in this world would be raised by people capable of loving them, making appropriate sacrifices for them, providing for them, helping them grow into healthy and happy adults.

IMHO.

""Ashley, if the 16 year old had forced a DNA test in making him take responsibility, he would have probably willingly given up his rights so the dad of the 2nd kid could have adopted him. I can't really agree with sidestepping laws because the ends seem to justify the means. But, that's just my opinion..."

I'm surprised at this response from you, Ima. That's pretty high-and-mighty of you.

What good would it do anyone to track down this guy? He's a druggie on the run from the law. How would he "support" his child? Would they garnish the money he gets for his drugs? LOL! Seriously......."

I'm not trying to be high and mighty. While I may not always agree with the laws, I have respect for them. The answer isn't self help and sidestepping laws, it's changing the laws if they are not good ones. What is a 'druggie' doing having sex with and impregnating a 16 year old? and to turn the other cheek and basically give him a free ride... no consequence? Who's protecting or standing up for the girl... the deadbeat druggie should be in jail (statutory rape?) as far as I'm concerned, but he gets to walk away, Scot free because he's a loser druggie? I can't agree with the other guy stepping in and laying claim. I think it's honorable to want to take on the legal responsibility but it's still a lie. What will the child be told? I wonder what the kids think of the parents' decisions when they grow up. My kids are old enough to make their own minds up over the stupid things I did as a young adult... it's hard as hell to face it and I never lied to my kids. From the day my son came home with a family tree project and wanted to know his father's name.. I told him the truth. When he was old enough to understand, he learned that I put the wrong name on his birth certificate and he was also told the reason why.. along with my 'reason' and my admission that I was wrong to do it... and my apology. The fact that I was always honest with my kids and I have done everything I can to correct my mistakes, may be the reason they believe me when my son's father tried to tell him that it was me that was responsible for his (my son's father) never acknowledging our son. and of course, my daughter is smart enough to figure out that her dad is a liar & deadbeat when she found her half brother that their dad had also abandoned and never saw or supported. Her dad has lied to her repeatedly, so much that she changed her last name to be rid of his... but these kids grow up and if they live with lies, who will they be able to trust?

If I had not put names on the birth certificates or never told my kids about their father's or never filed a court case and if I had always had an unlisted number, etc. and did things that might appear to support a father's claim that it was me that kept the child from him... I'd have a lot of explaining to do. If I allowed another man to sign on the dotted line for a child that wasn't his (well, I sort of did) but if I had lived the lie by not telling my kids the truth and then when they were 20 or 25, they learn it was all a lie... who would be hurt? My exBF found out when he was 22 and trying to get into the police academy that his mom misspelled his last name on the birth certificate because the father was married and she was TOW. She raised my exBF with HER last name while his birth certificate had a different last name.. so he didn't learn any of this until he was going into the police academy. It's no wonder he had issues trusting me... trusting women! His mom loved him and probably did it to protect him (and protect herself) but she lied to him all his life... he is now 45 and has issues trusting women.... and hard time in relationships.

I can't apologize enough to my kids for the heartache I caused with my stupid mistakes/decisions, but I sure don't think it's right to compound that with lies or pretending some loving stepfather is the bio father so they don't have to go through the legal channels of terminating the jerks rights and having the loving stepdad adopt the child. Who's to say the loving stepdad that signed the birth certificate won't someday demand a DNA test to prove it's not his kid if the marriage doesn't last and he decides to have another family and no longer wants to pay support? Fortunately, in CA if a man holds himself out as a father of a child... he cannot walk away from the financial aspect of raising the child, even if DNA proves he is not the bio father. and yes, in CA there is a declaration of paternity that is signed while in the hospital so a man can just come in and sign that he is the father without a DNA test. but that doesn't prevent him from walking out emotionally which is more devastating for the child.

"Yeah! Let's start taking kids away and adopting them out if they are born on welfare! Heck, if you lose your job in this economy, your house is foreclosed on and you are struggling to feed your family... let's adopt out those kids too. That's the answer!!!!"

...talk about twisting words. That is not AT ALL what I said. If you are on welfare, you should not continue to get pregnant. That point is pretty much supported by the rest of your rant, so I'm not really sure what you are getting at.

Of course if you lose your job, due to the economy, you will be able to get unemployment for some amount of time. That amount of time has been increased recently by the government and I am not opposed to that. I am opposed to people who continue to have kids, live off of the support they get from taxpayers for those kids, pay no attention to those kids (because they see those children as a paycheck rather than an innocent child) and the kids suffer for it. If a family is going through a rough patch and needs a little help, that is one thing...living on the system and continuing to have children while on the taxpayer's tab is something entirely different. And you are right about the disability thing. I know of people who are able to get disability for anxiety. What a load of crap! We all have anxiety, esp. when we have to get up every day and go to work and support our own families along with paying over 1/3 of our paycheck to take care of the families and deadbeats who have to much "anxiety" to do it themselves.

Well, I am not employed.. I am self employed. If my phone does not ring and customers cannot afford my service (which is why many businesses are failing), then my income is non existent. No, there is no unemployment for me. No, not everyone is in my boat and I chose to be self employed but if it got so bad that I had to go get assistance with a bunch of kids... would it be okay to make me feel bad about having that many kids? Would it make a difference if the kids were all from one father or several? In today's world of 60% divorce rate and remarriage... and the acceptance of living together... it's very possible to have several legitimate fathers for children without being a whore.

I get what you are saying and I agree that it's wrong what some people do... but I totally agree with wrychoice1 on the voluntary sterilization and encouraging preventing kids from being born into the situation... taking them away once they exist, well CPS already does that but by then the children are already suffering. How would anyone determine which children should be taken and which ones will be okay if left with the parent? and some parents get it together and some parents that have it together may fall apart down the road... who would decide?

No, when I had an 18 year old girl that was pregnant with her fifth child, living in a motel with two and relatives had the other two kids... and there were three assistance units... three checks being doled out for all these kids this little girl had had since she was 13 or 14... I was infuriated. I reported it to CPS. I notified the DA and law enforcement because no matter how you look at it, she was being sexually abused at 13... and nobody had stepped up to say 'this is wrong!' and there are now 5 kids (and her) suffering for it and she should have been sterilized and someone should have gone to jail... the guys that got her pregnant or her mother who didn't protect her or do anything about it... her mother had one of her kids and was collecting a check off that kid. But, because this is America and we have civil rights, nobody is going to force anyone to be sterilized and nobody is going to take kids away 'just because' the mom is popping 'em out to get a check. There aren't enough foster homes or adoptive families for all the kids in the system that would be better off...

so, I kinda agree but I don't think it's realistic.

I was self-employed for awhile too, but set up my payroll to pay into unemployment. If you choose not to, I think that is on you.

It may not be realistic, but it makes more since to me than the current system. It is stupid that we continue to reward those who make bad decisions by supporting them and we punish good decisions by taking income away from people who do what it takes to earn that money.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"...Karl Marx

"What good would it do anyone to track down this guy? He's a druggie on the run from the law. How would he "support" his child? Would they garnish the money he gets for his drugs? LOL! Seriously......."

They may not be able to get any money out of the pathetic waste of space but when he gets bustd his a$$ would be in the clink. At least while he's there he wouldn't be able to be slumming around and knocking up 16 year old kids anymore. That would be WELL worth it IMHO.

I don't think anyone not working in the area of Human Resources could get the picture. I think alot of ladies here are very good people. Very idealistic. That being said they are a little naive about how the system really works and what kindof people take advantage of it.

I very rarely see the woman who is honestly struggling her butt off walk through these doors. It is almost always Cleopatra with the hair and the nails and the six kids (and pregnant again) driving the Impala working the MINIMAL hours to get services who, miraculously, doesn't know who ANY of the children's fathers are.

Miss Cleo also gets nasty when you tell her she doesn't have the needed paperwork. She acts like it is a huge inconvienience to have proof of address. Why doesn't she have it? Because she is living with one of the kids FATHERS and isn't reporting it! His income would be factored in if we know they are living together you see. She'll get flat out Bi*chy if you tell her you can't refer her because she's missing pay stubs. Absolutly LIVID if her services get cancelled because she was too busy to show up to her appointment.

It is expected. People expect Uncle Sam to raise their children. There is something very very wrong with that. So many of women feel INTITLED to services. They are single mothers after all so it's on everyone else to raise their kids. Let me give you an example of someone who NEEDED services.

This very elderly black lady came in one day to apply for food stamps. She had no car and walked for an hour in the heat of summer to her appointment. She was such a tiny frail little thing how the heat didn't kill her I'll never know. This woman got approved for the stamps and was so excited. How excited was she? The next week this sweet little old lady made the hour long treck in the heat AGAIN to tell us about a roast she had bought. She was so excited. She went on and on about how tender it came out and even mpore exciting she had plenty to put in her freezer to eat later.

This woman needed services! She appreciated them from the bottom of her tired heart. I find it difficult to feel sorry for Miss Cleopatra when she can't even show up to her appointment after getting to know folks like this lady.

Doodle, you're right. I don't have a clue how it really works. I can look up how it is supposed to work -- but that is it.

Even people working amaze me. There is a woman who hs worked for my company as a receptioist and does next to nothing. We have had layoffs. I spoke to her. She has no documents. She has lost her birth certificate, SS card and never had a license. I told her take a vacation day and start getting this stuff. Yes it is annoying to wait in line. She says if she get layed off, she'll go on unemployment and get it then. I said, but then you wont be able to even interview for a job.

Doodle, you're right. I don't have a clue how it really works. I can look up how it is supposed to work -- but that is it.

Even people working amaze me. There is a woman who hs worked for my company as a receptioist and does next to nothing. We have had layoffs. I spoke to her. She has no documents. She has lost her birth certificate, SS card and never had a license. I told her take a vacation day and start getting this stuff. Yes it is annoying to wait in line. She says if she get layed off, she'll go on unemployment and get it then. I said, but then you wont be able to even interview for a job.

KKNY

It boggles the mind what people will do to try and get and get free handouts. I have had parents try and tell me their child has a developmental delay when they obviously DO NOT so they can get free daycare. It's sick.

I have had parents with children who DO have delays but the mother (no joke) the parent refused therapy because they don't want the child to improve since they might lose the dissability check. They want the kid to stay "dissabled" so they can comtinue to get the money!!!!

Okay, absolutely the system is hugely flawed (welfare) and no doubt there are huge amounts of people that are taking advantage of the system. But, forced adoption for those on welfare.... no way.

But, for arguments sake... if dd had wanted to find dear old dad later in life and he told her woppers of lies... and she blindly believed him... then I didnt do my job right for a long time... building a trusting open relationship with my daughter. And even if that did happen. I know the truth and I know that I did what was right. Just because I wanted to have the child does not make the sperm donor automatically responsible. It's not like he can go get the abort. or give the kid up for adoption... he at the whim of the female. Personally, I dont think that is right. Personally, I didnt think it was right to demand fatherhood and a pay check.

And to answer the questions re assistance: I did live at an income restricted apartment property (positively beautiful in a great area) But, cs or anything else wouldnt have counted anyways. I did get fs for about 3 maybe 4 months at one time. But, that is when I got laid off from my job... and long after dear old sperm donor had reappeared for about 6 months before taking his own life.

Ima - first of all, no one is lying to my neice. She is 9 and doesn't need all that information right now, especially since her "dad" is on deployment in Africa. Believe-it-or-not, she doesn't even ask. She says little thinsg like "when I met Daddy he had a tongue ring". LOL! But she doesn't care beyond that.

Secondly, she has a stable family that she never would've had if the government demanded DNA tests.

Thirdly, it wasn't statutory rape since he was a minor also.

Fourth, my parents could not afford to jump through all the hoops and continue paying an attorney just to get continuances because he wouldn't show or whatever. Just plain and simple. No funds. There were huge medical bills (my sister had toxemia and the baby had to be taken 6 weeks early resulting in a 2-week NICU stay), still supporting their daughter, now supporting a baby, and day-to-day life expenses. AND TRYING TO STAY OFF GOVERNMENT SUPPORT, which they wouldn't have been able to qualify for anyway since my father is a hard-working, tax-paying American who provides health insurance for his family. Believe-it-or-not, but the judge refused to hold his mother accountable for the CS and refused to order a DNA test. Their attorney was a high-profile person in the area we lived in and the judge was buddies with him.

Fifth, it's not our job to make someone get the punishment they deserve. That's God's job. If it would've been the right time for loser, druggie, a**hole to be held accountable, it would've been done with all the petitions and court appearances and blah, blah, blah that he was served with. Believe-it-or-not, but the judge refused to hold his mother accountable for the CS and refused to order a DNA test, basically because their attorney was a high-profile person in the area we lived in and the judge was buddies with him.

If it was God's plan that governments have control of such personal information, I'm sure it would've been done by now. Sure we have civil liberties and there are a lot of people who get away with things they shouldn't. But don't you think the problem is loss of moral values more than it is the government not doing enough? Look at these sleeze-bags that run things! They can't tell te truth to save their lives! And we want them to decide who is a good parent and who is not? Maybe we should teach our kids moral values instead of teaching them to rely on others to help them out.

I'm in no way saying that my sister is innocent. But she did what she felt like was the best thing for her daughter and now she is thriving in a loving home, instead of being forced to visit a man that doesn't want anything to do with her in the first place.

These arguments are so fascinating to me, I don't know if there will ever be a workable answer.

I tend to agree with PJB about DNA testing, I have nothing to hide but I certainly want big brother to mind their own business lol. Also, I don't really understand how it would work. The mother can still give a fake name and they would have no one to test the childs dna against. Or even if they were able to build up a database in 50 years or so, entire families would be scrutinized for matching so closely to the childs dna and I don't think that's right either. I don't know, I may be confused on how dna works though.

And I tend to agree with Raek concerning welfare. I'm not entirely sure on the adopting out, there's a lot of adoption reform going on right now because the adoptee's from the big push on single poor mothers back in the 60's and on are now adults reuniting with their birth mothers and believe they should've never been sold into the billion dollar adoption industry cause their mothers were young, single and poor.

So who knows what the right answer is? Obviously welfare needs to be rehauled but no matter what, I think certain people will always be able to get around the system and I don't know the answer to that.

Ashley, the lie is when the guy certified or declared on a legal document that he is the father of a child he knows is not his... It's not for me to judge whether your sister's situation is right or wrong, I have my opinion on it because I have personal experience and in my situation, I now know how my kids feel as adults. That doesn't mean every situation is comparable to mine... that's why I said, it's just my opinion. At 9 is not the same as 18 or 19. I can only offer what I've learned through what I've done in my life and share my experiences. That doesn't mean every situation is going to be the same... but I can share that I felt differently when my kids were young... they are now grown and if I could go back in time, I would do things differently because we cannot predict how a child will feel as they grow up and while WE may think we are doing the right thing for the child, nobody knows until the child grows up what the outcome of our decisions will be... and I was just offering my insight to give food for thought.

At this point in my life, I don't believe it's right for a woman to refuse to give the father's name and I don't think it's right to lie and say a child is yours if that's not true... unless you go through legal channels to make it true... adoption. That's just my opinion on those issues based on my life experience. It's not a personal attack on anyone's specific situation. Sorry if you took it that way.

I tend to agree with ashley. even though i support the law I think sometimes what benefits the children is more important. maybe by law this rapist, criminal who doesn't even want to acknowledge his daughter, should be her father but how would that benefit anyone? maybe it somehow would benefit this deadbeat father (maybe in old age he would rely on his daughter) but why putting these morons on pedestals?

as about the law. By law i believe, Ima, that your rapist had to serve sentence but he did not. he never received punishment that should be there by law. You probably had a reason (as ashley' sister had hers). then why do you talk about respect for the law?

and if ashley's niece's deadbeat father wanted to be a father he would contest it by now. we can of course ruin her life by dragging her to see that guy by force (he doesn't want her and she doesn't know him) but what for?

"You probably had a reason (as ashley' sister had hers). then why do you talk about respect for the law?"

In all honesty.. my rapist was not the same as a 'statutory' rapist and the law does not usually exempt a boy because he's a minor... the laws are usually written to say it is unlawful to have sex with a girl under 18, though I am not going to look up the laws in all states to see if minor boys are excused from the laws. I do believe that even if it is unlawful, boys are not always prosecuted for it... in the county where I worked, they would not prosecute if the boy was less than four years older than the girl... even if she was 16 and he was 19. IMO, that is wrong but that's not my call. and in both cases.. I was 17, her niece was 16... it's the parent's job to push for prosecution, not the minor's. But, comparing statutory rape to forcible rape is comparing apples to oranges. NOT the same thing.

Respect for the law? I talk about respect for the law because I have learned through my mistakes. I SHOULD have had the courage to report my rape.. at the time. My parent's SHOULD have asked more questions, had a better relationship with me and maybe it would have turned out differently. That does not mean I didn't respect the law.. then or now.

Regardless of what anyone says, we don't have the right to unilaterally decide what laws are good/bad or who has to follow them, we don't get to decide what parents are good/bad or who should have parental rights, unless we are God or a sitting Judge. We can all agree there are some people we would not want to have children with.. then don't have children with them. I didn't choose my son's father... but he was still given his parental rights. I didn't like it but my life was not ruined by it, neither was my son's. I think my son may have been better off without him in his life, but I didn't get to make that decision. My son is grown up now and he can decide for himself if he wants to have a relationship with his father.

I think you should check your facts. I don't think if a 15 Year Old Boy has sex with a 15 Year Old girl it would be considered Statutory Rape in any State. That would be completely sexist.

Section 261.5.
(a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor. For the purposes of this section, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an "adult" is a person who is at least 18 years of age.

(b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

(c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison.

(d) Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment in the state prison for two, three, or four years.

(e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an adult who engages in an act of sexual intercourse with a minor in violation of this section may be liable for civil penalties in the following amounts:

(A) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor less than two years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000).

(B) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at least two years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).

(C) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at least three years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).

(D) An adult over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 years of age is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).

*************************************************************************

Raek,

Yes it is illegal for a 15 year old boy and a 15 year old girl... even if it is sexist.

Technically, according to the law you sited, they would both be in violation of the law under section (a), not just the boy.

"I didn't choose my son's father... but he was still given his parental rights. I didn't like it but my life was not ruined by it, neither was my son's."

he was given his parental rights and unsupervised visitations only because you chose not to report the crime. If you would report it, you do not know what rights he would be given, maybe he would not have rights or maybe only supervised visitations etc. I am not sure why HIS rights are some important, why even worry about HIM? and who decided that he has parental rights? You? what about the law? or what about your son?

Your life was not ruined, it is true.

But ashley's sister life was not ruined either by the fact that her daughter has a normal father in her life instead of someone who doesn't even want it and never acknowledged her. as about your child choosing to have a relationship wiht his father, it is possible it only happens because information was withheld from him. Possibly knowing what really happened to you would alter his relationship with his father. Possibly he would never want that relationship. He was not given a choice.

If a child was conceieved as a result of assault and rape, i do not understand what parental rights are you talking about. Why would rape victim even worry about parental rights of a rapist. If courts give them that right, oh well, that sucks, but law is law. But other than that who cares about their rights? They have rights for a lawyer etc

I have a friend who was a victim of a group rape and was injured badly (thrown out the window), she did become pregnant and she kept the baby for number of reasons. Do all these men have parental rights or just the one who accidentally became sperm donor during rape? and should we worry that they recieve their parental rights? why? what for? and whose interest are protected here? the rapist's?

Wow, FD! That's a terrible story about your friend! I feel so bad for her, but I'm glad she decided to let the baby have a chance.

Ima - so then why don't the police arrest or ticket every underage mother that comes in to have a baby at the hospital? Or ticket the parents?

And, yes, it would've ben my parents responsibility to prosecute the boy, but then my sister would've been prosecuted as well by his parents and my neice would've suffered through that.

There's a difference in having "rights" and forcing something on someone. "Rights" are like gifts given to us. We can choose to accept them or not. Like we have the "right" to bear arms as citizens of the USA. I don't own a gun so I don't exercise that right. And no one is forcing me to own a gun just because I have rights.

This boy didn't want the "rights" to his child. So why force them on the men who don't want the "rights"? Seems more detrimental to the child.

My BIL didn't lie by putting his name on the birth certificate. Why go through all the legal channels and pay all the fees and put everyone through hell if it's that simple?

If the father ever wants to be recognized as her father, HE can spend the money and time that it will take. HE is the one that flaked out. HE can request DNA. My parents tried and ran out of funds. Why should they have spent more money trying to get a man to be responsible for a child he doesn't want when there's a man that DOES want the child to be his own and is fully prepared for the responsibility?

Oh, BTW, my neice's deadbeat sperm-donor's sister was just incarcerated for drug-dealing. Nice family, huh?

FD, she kept the baby???? wow...i know many woman who would have terminated it...but even as terrible of the ordeal she went through..i can also understand why she kept the baby....its not the babies fault it was conceived in that manner. BUt i would never tell my baby how they were concieved if that were the case for me. Never.
What would you do if they asked you????

"If the father ever wants to be recognized as her father, HE can spend the money and time that it will take. HE is the one that flaked out. HE can request DNA"

I absolutely agree.

Now-if we are talking about a woman who never tells the man she is pregnant (and I am excluding rape/violent scenarios here) then I do think that is perhaps not the best thing to do morally.

A man should at the least have the knowledge that he is a father and then he can decide what rights he wants to exercise. Likewise, if the woman needs/wants monetary assistance in raising the child, regardless of whether or not he is "involved,"she has the right to take whatever legal channels are available to make that happen.

But I just don't think it is ever the woman's responsibility to take all measures to force a dad to accept his rights. Why should that all be on her?

If he wants his rights/responsibilites, then HE can take the proper steps to make that happen.

LH, I agree -- other than a guy who ships off to the gulf after the child is conceived -- what excuse does a guy have for not taking any steps.

"If the father ever wants to be recognized as her father, HE can spend the money and time that it will take. HE is the one that flaked out. HE can request DNA"

I absolutely agree.

Now-if we are talking about a woman who never tells the man she is pregnant (and I am excluding rape/violent scenarios here) then I do think that is perhaps not the best thing to do morally.

A man should at the least have the knowledge that he is a father and then he can decide what rights he wants to exercise. Likewise, if the woman needs/wants monetary assistance in raising the child, regardless of whether or not he is "involved,"she has the right to take whatever legal channels are available to make that happen.

But I just don't think it is ever the woman's responsibility to take all measures to force a dad to accept his rights. Why should that all be on her?

If he wants his rights/responsibilites, then HE can take the proper steps to make that happen.

"There's a difference in having "rights" and forcing something on someone. "Rights" are like gifts given to us. We can choose to accept them or not."

That is true. But, whether you agree or not... it's not forcing his rights, he has the same rights as the mother on the day the child is born if he is the biological father. A man should not have to go to court to obtain his parental rights any more than a woman should have to. Sharing DNA gives him the same rights as the mother, the child gets his/her DNA from BOTH parents and both parents have equal rights... until a court says otherwise. That comes with an equal responsibility... to support and have a relationship and parent the child. If a parent does not want to exercise their rights or accept their responsibility, they need to have a court, legally terminate those rights/responsibilities. It is not the same as your right to bear arms or your right to vote... you can choose not to carry a gun or not to vote, you cannot (legally) turn your back on a child... until a court terminates that relationship legally.

BTW, It is the child's rights, not the parents. The child has the right to both parents and the answer isn't for some people to pick and choose which 'sperm donors' get the right to be a father or get a pass on their responsibility... otherwise, I know a few mothers that don't deserve that title.... deadbeat egg donors. But a guy can't make that decision, why should a woman get to decide if a man should be given the same rights she has the day the baby is born?

I'm sure a Judge may not give a drug dealing low life deadbeat very much in the way of rights, but if he doesn't want the responsibility, then he can terminate rights and responsibility since they go hand in hand. and if a good man wants to step up and be named the father, and take responsibility and rights of a father to a child that is not his biologically, he should adopt.. just like a woman should adopt a child that isn't hers biologically if she wants the same rights and responsibility as a bio parent.

I'm not preaching that deadbeats SHOULD have rights but it's not for US to decide. I sure would not like it if someone made me fight to get the rights that are mine... just because they didn't like me or the way I live my life. A court would be able to, and that's why we have courts.

"But I just don't think it is ever the woman's responsibility to take all measures to force a dad to accept his rights. Why should that all be on her?

If he wants his rights/responsibilities, then HE can take the proper steps to make that happen."

I agree. However, leaving a birth certificate blank (when you don't need to) or putting someone else on the birth certificate does force the father to jump through hoops (going to court) to get his rights. Why should he be forced to do that if the mother doesn't have to? If you put his name on the birth certificate, name him as the father.. he is automatically responsible and if he doesn't step up or take responsibility, she doesn't have to pursue it or force him to do anything in regard to the child.

We will have to just agree to disagree on this issue.

organic and ashley, she came form a horrible home (and she is not really a friend I just knew her when we were younger)- abusive controlling alchoholics. having a child meant for her that someone would love her and also maybe parents would back off, also I think she is fairly relgious, the other reason is she never ever had a date, she had this huge growth on her nose and other deformities, she felt she needed someone to love and be loved. at least that's what she told us. her DD actually was (I haven't seen them for like 12 years) the cutest girl.

Tha lady herself actually moved on nicely, she eventually did minor plastic surgery to remove those things from her face -like big moles, and overall last time i heard she is doing fine.

yes i always assumed women would never keep babies conceieved during such horrible events. Frankly i doubt I would, but apparently women do, and who would judge this woman?

Organic, you asked what would i do...Horrible thing to think about, knowing myself i think would not keep the baby. But i wonder what do women say to their children who the father is if it was a rape. It would be an awful thing to say. I agree. But i doubt I would want my daughter to hang out around rapist (if that would be the case) not knowing what he is capable off. If he assaulted a mother who knows maybe he would assault a daughter. I would worry about my child's safety. I think I would want my child to know to stay away from sex offenders. that's why withholding information could be dangerous, as painful as truth is.