Why Do Mothers Get the Benefits of Marriage Without Being Married but Fathers Do Not

My question involves paternity law for the State of:all

i am asking this as all over this site mothers and women all give the same answer to unmarried fathers why they do not have rights to their children without going to court now i get that they have to establish paternity but why do they still get told they should have married the mother but here is the thing i do not get why should the mother get child surpport from the father without marriage as i could just say if you want the benefit of child surpport you should have married the father but the law dose not do that do they so i as why

Why do you believe that the child is not entitled to support from his or her father?

it is not that i was asking why should mothers get everything like automatic custody and rights without going to court but the father has too as he was not married to the mother so the way i see it the mother should only get child surpport if she was married the father

Quote:

---

Quoting epicman

---

My question involves paternity law for the State of:all

i am asking this as all over this site mothers and women all give the same answer to unmarried fathers why they do not have rights to their children without going to court now i get that they have to establish paternity but why do they still get told they should have married the mother but here is the thing i do not get why should the mother get child surpport from the father without marriage as i could just say if you want the benefit of child surpport you should have married the father but the law dose not do that do they so i as why

---

In general, when a man is married to the mother of a child at the time the child is born the law presumes the husband to be the father. Because of that presumption, the husband has all the rights of being a parent from the moment the child is born. He need not do anything else. It also means that he has the obligation to support the child from the moment the child is born as well. It’s a package deal, as it were. If the husband thinks he is not the father, he would have to take timely action to dispute his paternity and disestablish himself as the father.

When a woman who is not married gives birth, there is no legal presumption of who the father is. We know who the mother is, of course, because she gave birth. So at birth, there is a legal mother to the child but no legal father. That is why at birth the unmarried mother starts with all the rights to the child and all the obligation to support the child, too. In order for any man to end up as the legal father of that child, one of two things typically must happen:

1. The mother and the putative father voluntarily name the man as the father of the child on an acknowledgement of paternity form or on the birth certificate (exactly how the acknowledgement is done varies a bit from state to state) or
2. The mother or the putative father files a petition in court to get a court judgment establishing the man as the legal father of the child.

Once one of those two things are done, then the man is the legal father to the child and has all the rights and all the obligations of a father, including the obligation of support.

Of course, regardless of how the man becomes the legal father, if the parents cannot agree on issues of custody, visitation, or support then they’ll end up having to go to court to have a court decide those issues.

Again, why should the child be denied the support of it's co-creator?

cuz the mother did not married the father that is why

think of it this way the father has to get married to have any rights or say over his child right so for him to get the Benefits of Marriage he has to get married right but the mother does not she can have all her right plus money from the father without getting married so she can get the Benefits of Marriage without marriage

Child support is for the child. It's not a "benefit of marriage."

The child needs food, clothing and shelter, whether the parents were married or not.

Quote:

---

Quoting epicman

---

cuz the mother did not married the father that is why

think of it this way the father has to get married to have any rights or say over his child right so for him to get the Benefits of Marriage he has to get married right but the mother does not she can have all her right plus money from the father without getting married so she can get the Benefits of Marriage without marriage

---

The father of the child has the same rights and obligations with respect to the child regardless of whether the father is married to the mother. The only difference between the two, as I pointed out earlier, is that when the man is married to the mother at the time the child is born he is presumed the father so he doesn’t have to do anything else for the law to recognize him as the father. But when the mother is unmarried, there is no way to know who the father is without some extra step being taken to determine who the father is. So, in that situation either the parents do a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity or they resolve paternity in court.

Your premise that a man has to be married to the mother to have “any rights or say over his child” is simply wrong. The father must, of course, be recognized under the law as the father to have those rights — we don't give just any guy who comes along rights to children. And I’ve already explained how the man goes about getting recognized as the father. On the flip side, until a man is legally recognized as the father he has no obligation of support and the mother cannot force any support payments out of him. Married or unmarried, the basic process is the same: you do what the law requires to establish a man as the legal father and then from there that father has all the legal rights and obligations of a father. I don’t know what you have been reading, but it sounds like you misunderstand how things work.

Quote:

---

Quoting epicman

---

My question involves paternity law for the State of:all

i am asking this as all over this site mothers and women all give the same answer to unmarried fathers why they do not have rights to their children without going to court now i get that they have to establish paternity but why do they still get told they should have married the mother but here is the thing i do not get why should the mother get child surpport from the father without marriage as i could just say if you want the benefit of child surpport you should have married the father but the law dose not do that do they so i as why

---

YOu are kidding, right? We know from whom the child is removed. We do NOT know who is responsible for the sperm. Simple biology. Once paternity is established, the father MUST support the child. If a father wants custody, he needs to file immediately and prove his case.

Quote:

---

Quoting epicman

---

cuz the mother did not married the father that is why

think of it this way the father has to get married to have any rights or say over his child right so for him to get the Benefits of Marriage he has to get married right but the mother does not she can have all her right plus money from the father without getting married so she can get the Benefits of Marriage without marriage

---

That is not true. If not married, there is no presumption of paternity for the father. But the father can still obtain rights. Whose penis was injected that was responsible for making the child? This country states that a husband did PRESUMED to be the only penis. If not married, no presumption.

Quote:

---

Quoting Ohiogal

---

YOu are kidding, right? We know from whom the child is removed. We do NOT know who is responsible for the sperm. Simple biology. Once paternity is established, the father MUST support the child. If a father wants custody, he needs to file immediately and prove his case.



That is not true. If not married, there is no presumption of paternity for the father. But the father can still obtain rights. Whose penis was injected that was responsible for making the child? This country states that a husband did PRESUMED to be the only penis. If not married, no presumption.

---

Oh thank goodness. I really didn't want to have to explain the ABCs of what should be obvious!

;)

Quote:

---

Quoting epicman

---

it is not that i was asking why should mothers get everything like automatic custody and rights without going to court but the father has too as he was not married to the mother so the way i see it the mother should only get child surpport if she was married the father

---

So you're telling us that the children should pay the price?

Oh. Okay then.

Please don't breed.

OP must have been up past his bedtime. Hopefully he'll forget he was ever here after a nap and bottle.

Quote:

---

Quoting free9man

---

OP must have been up past his bedtime. Hopefully he'll forget he was ever here after a nap and bottle.

---

That's probably for the best. Some people's kids, I tell you.

Logic should have told you that child support is for the benefit of the child. Not the mother.

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Oh thank goodness. I really didn't want to have to explain the ABCs of what should be obvious!

;)



So you're telling us that the children should pay the price?

Oh. Okay then.

Please don't breed.

---

Every time I explain penis in vagina can equal pregnancy someone takes offense. Don't know why but whatever. The uterus belongs to ONE person. The penis that went in vagina -- we don't have a count on that and only a presumption. A married woman is presumed to be monogamous. A non married woman -- well we don't presume anything about who she was with. Or how many.


Am I in trouble yet again for this explanation?

*snorts* You know, I was <this> far from trying to find a really old post you made down the street, talking in very simple terms as you might explain to a 5 year old. It was pretty awesome :D ;)

If someone doesn't want to pay child support for their child, they should have a vasectomy and a sperm count regularly. Or not have sex that might result in a child being born.

I have seen so many men that think child support takes care of the mother and not the child. I remember one man that said he didn't want to pay child support because if the mother kept the electricity on, then the mother was benefitting. There is so much wrong with this way of thinking.

oh dear god you are all just not getting it have you ever stopped to think that yes child surrport is for the child yes but child surpport was set up so women did not have to get married but still have the father pay for the child without marrying him so yes they do get the Benefits of Marriage Without Being Married as you see in the old days women had to get married for the man to pay for the baby but know that there is child surpport women do not have to get married for the man to surpport the child but the man still have to get married if he wants any rights to his child

Quote:

---

Quoting epicman

---

oh dear god you are all just not getting it have you ever stopped to think that yes child surrport is for the child yes but child surpport was set up so women did not have to get married but still have the father pay for the child without marrying him so yes they do get the Benefits of Marriage Without Being Married as you see in the old days women had to get married for the man to pay for the baby but know that there is child surpport women do not have to get married for the man to surpport the child but the man still have to get married if he wants any rights to his child

---

Oh dear God, no, it is you that is having trouble getting it. You keep saying that a man has to get married to have any rights to his child. That’s flat out wrong. That is not the law now, nor has it ever been the law. An unmarried father has all the same rights with regard to his child as a married father does. The ONLY difference is that the unmarried father has to first do something to establish he is the father of the child because there is no way to know who the father is without some step being taken to identify the father. The mother might have had sex with any guy out there — so how are we to know which guy is the father until some formal step is taken to identify him? That is the only difference. Once the unmarried man is designated as the father of the child, he has all the same rights with respect to his child as the married father does. ALL THE SAME RIGHTS. There is no difference, whether married or unmarried. Do you get that now?

Quote:

---

Quoting epicman

---

oh dear god you are all just not getting it have you ever stopped to think that yes child surrport is for the child yes but child surpport was set up so women did not have to get married but still have the father pay for the child without marrying him so yes they do get the Benefits of Marriage Without Being Married as you see in the old days women had to get married for the man to pay for the baby but know that there is child surpport women do not have to get married for the man to surpport the child but the man still have to get married if he wants any rights to his child

---

Are you daft?

Never mind. That's a rhetorical question.

Quote:

---

Quoting epicman

---

oh dear god you are all just not getting it have you ever stopped to think that yes child surrport is for the child yes but child surpport was set up so women did not have to get married but still have the father pay for the child without marrying him so yes they do get the Benefits of Marriage Without Being Married as you see in the old days women had to get married for the man to pay for the baby but know that there is child surpport women do not have to get married for the man to surpport the child but the man still have to get married if he wants any rights to his child

---

Maybe the man should NOT have sex outside of marriage? If you are so concerned about this, then try abstinence until you are married. Easy.

And, no, the man does not NEED marriage to get any legal rights to custody or visitation. All marriage does is tend to establish paternity and, thus, equal rights to the child. I know plenty (sadly) of unmarried men who have custody of their children, or have significant visitation even absent marriage. Your singular focus on marriage as the foundation for a right to support is perplexing.

And this may come as a shocker to the OP but there are actually women that pay child support to men. Because those men stood up for their child and stepped in as primary parent which was determined to be in the best interest of the child. Also, i am sure this is shocking as well. But for most regular people, child support is not enough to live off of.

In this case, the mother was not the only one to create a child out of wedlock. She certainly didnt do it all by herself. When the man slept with her, he knew his genetic material was going to be present and available, and that he was doing his part of creating a baby. Unless she took an ovulation test or something she really had no idea if her genetic material was there or not. It doesnt take her off the hook for supporting the child her material did create though.

Op, the benefit of marriage has nothing to do with child support. It has to do with presumption of paternity when the baby is born. If a man is married at the time of the birth to the mother he is automatically deemed the father due to the benefit of marriage. An unwed father is not afforded that same right because he might not be the father. Not having that benefit of marriage allows him the option to get a paternity test to ensure he is the father. Once that happens, the father will have the same rights and OBLIGATIONS to the CHILD as a married fsther does.

Quote:

---

Quoting epicman

---

cuz the mother did not married the father that is why

think of it this way the father has to get married to have any rights or say over his child right so for him to get the Benefits of Marriage he has to get married right but the mother does not she can have all her right plus money from the father without getting married so she can get the Benefits of Marriage without marriage

---

Again, both of them have to go to court...dad to get his rights as a father, mother to establish child support. Child support is no more automatic for mom than parental rights are automatic for dad.

Quote:

---

Quoting epicman

---

oh dear god you are all just not getting it have you ever stopped to think that yes child surrport is for the child yes but child surpport was set up so women did not have to get married but still have the father pay for the child without marrying him

---

Also, child support was not set up for this purpose. It was set up to hold non-custodial parents financially responsible for the children that they had 50% part in creating.

Quote:

---

Quoting readytoleave

---

And this may come as a shocker to the OP but there are actually women that pay child support to men. Because those men stood up for their child and stepped in as primary parent which was determined to be in the best interest of the child. Also, i am sure this is shocking as well. But for most regular people, child support is not enough to live off of.

In this case, the mother was not the only one to create a child out of wedlock. She certainly didnt do it all by herself. When the man slept with her, he knew his genetic material was going to be present and available, and that he was doing his part of creating a baby. Unless she took an ovulation test or something she really had no idea if her genetic material was there or not. It doesnt take her off the hook for supporting the child her material did create though.

Op, the benefit of marriage has nothing to do with child support. It has to do with presumption of paternity when the baby is born. If a man is married at the time of the birth to the mother he is automatically deemed the father due to the benefit of marriage. An unwed father is not afforded that same right because he might not be the father. Not having that benefit of marriage allows him the option to get a paternity test to ensure he is the father. Once that happens, the father will have the same rights and OBLIGATIONS to the CHILD as a married fsther does.

---

Stop being so sensible and realistic!

;)

Quote:

---

Quoting cdwjava

---

If you are so concerned about this, then try abstinence until you are married. Easy.

---

Something tells me that this will never be a problem for epicman ...

Quote:

---

Quoting Dogmatique

---

Something tells me that this will never be a problem for epicman ...

---

Dogmatique, paying child support for all of his children may be a problem for epicman

oh for gods sake are you all so dumb that you do not get it wow you all must be for lets give women everything with without getting married but lets still make men get married wow ok then if you say men have to go to court to get rights then it should be free as the women gets them free so why not the man he should not have to pay to get something women get for free and another thing you all seem to be forgetting is that just cuz someone has a biological connection dose not give the child a right to the mans money as it that is true why not give the fathers sisters or borther the right to his money too as they have biological connections to him too but what you do not see it that way do you all you see is man pay women get everything so answer this then why should the women not have to go to court to get her rights to the child but the man has too cuz if we want everything equal maybe the child does not have a mother or father until they BOTH go to court to get rights

The mother carries the child and give birth to the child. The mother is the one that takes the child home from the hospital and cares for the child 24/7. If dad cares about the child, he can also be there. If not, where is he while mom is doing all the work ?

Quote:

---

Quoting epicman

---

oh for gods sake are you all so dumb that you do not get it wow you all must be for lets give women everything with without getting married but lets still make men get married wow ok then if you say men have to go to court to get rights then it should be free as the women gets them free so why not the man he should not have to pay to get something women get for free and another thing you all seem to be forgetting is that just cuz someone has a biological connection dose not give the child a right to the mans money as it that is true why not give the fathers sisters or borther the right to his money too as they have biological connections to him too but what you do not see it that way do you all you see is man pay women get everything so answer this then why should the women not have to go to court to get her rights to the child but the man has too cuz if we want everything equal maybe the child does not have a mother or father until they BOTH go to court to get rights

---

Please do not EVER breed. :jaded:

You clearly are not understanding what you are being told. Did you even read our posts? The child does actually have the right to be supported by both the people that created it. The reason a female doesnt have to go to court to establish maternity is because a dna test is not needed to determine she is the mother of the child. It came out of her. In addition, the CUSTODIAL parent, whether female or not, does not raise the child for free. It is quite expensive to raise a child actually, and the burden of that cost falls on BOTH parents. The reason that it falls on the parents of the child and not the aunts and uncles is because the aunts and uncles didnt create the child.

I sincerely hope that this is just a hypothetical rant and that you dont actually have a child. If you do, you are definitely in the running for the worlds worst dad. If you do have a child, grow up, seriously man up, and stop moaning about having to support the child you made. Heck if you could do that, and stop thinking so selfishly, you might find that having a child is the best thing that ever happened to you.

Quote:

---

Quoting epicman

---

oh for gods sake are you all so dumb

---

Well let's take a wee look at that statement, shall we?

There's you ... spouting off nonsense and making it painfully obvious that you're as dense as a brick (but, alas, not nearly so useful). Then, there's us. If we're all saying the same thing and you're ... well, you ... do you really think that WE are all wrong? Nope.

Quote:

---

that you do not get it wow you all must be for lets give women everything with without getting married

---

Er ... not quite. Child support is called "child support" because ... ERMERGERD. It's because it supports THE CHILD! I know, I know, that's a hard concept for you to grasp.
But try to keep up, okay?

(I'm starting to think you're a Bengals fan. You are, aren't you?)

Quote:

---

but lets still make men get married wow ok then if you say men have to go to court to get rights

---

Do you understand how babies are made?

(you're definitely a Bengals fan)

Quote:

---

then it should be free as the women gets them free so why not the man he should not have to pay to get something women get for free and another thing you all seem to be forgetting is that just cuz someone has a biological connection dose not give the child a right to the mans money as it that is true why not give the fathers sisters or borther the right to his money too as they have biological connections to him too but what you do not see it that way do you all you see is man pay women get everything so answer this then why should the women not have to go to court to get her rights to the child but the man has too cuz if we want everything equal maybe the child does not have a mother or father until they BOTH go to court to get rights

---

I'm so glad you are not female because you missed so many periods there you'd be just about ready to give birth and the thought of you being a parent is terrifying.

(I don't expect you to understand that little piece of humor)

(Bengals fan that you are, and all)

Quote:

---

Quoting epicman

---

oh for gods sake are you all so dumb that you do not get it wow you all must be for lets give women everything with without getting married but lets still make men get married wow ok then if you say men have to go to court to get rights then it should be free as the women gets them free so why not the man he should not have to pay to get something women get for free and another thing you all seem to be forgetting is that just cuz someone has a biological connection dose not give the child a right to the mans money as it that is true why not give the fathers sisters or borther the right to his money too as they have biological connections to him too but what you do not see it that way do you all you see is man pay women get everything so answer this then why should the women not have to go to court to get her rights to the child but the man has too cuz if we want everything equal maybe the child does not have a mother or father until they BOTH go to court to get rights

---

Nobody asked, but here is my two cents...i sincerely hope you go through the posts and read them again; several times it has been explained to you the why's and the how's of a father's rights and obligations (married or not) It's simple enough: us mothers give birth, so there is no doubt our children are ours...fathers, on the other hand, need to be proven as the child's father to have those rights and obligations, unless they are married... child support is supposed to be the non-custodial parent's (READ: parent who does not live with child, regardless of whether it is the father or the mother) share of the expenses of raising a child, and thus not enough for two people (mother and child) to live on... and it's only fair that if you contributed to create the child, you contribute to raise the child, not just financially but to the full extent of the word... I say try filing for full custody of the child (Oh God, no)...if you are successful, the mother will pay YOU child support (of course, a judge will decide if that is what's in the CHILD'S best interest...good luck with that!!!)

lol
Dogmatique but yes i am female i just used the name as it sounds cool and to everyone on here sorry if i sounded mad but i am just angery at what my bf's ex is doing to him and just needed to get it out somehow and Mercy&Grace carrying and giving birth does not mean that the child will go home with the mom as there are lots of single dads out there and the mother dose not have the right to have the baby with here 24/7 as the father has to see it sometime

Quote:

---

Quoting epicman

---

lol
Dogmatique but yes i am female i just used the name as it sounds cool

---

If you're mentally 12 years old yeah, I guess it does.

Quote:

---

and to everyone on here sorry if i sounded mad but i am just angery at what my bf's ex is doing to him

---

Oh please. Your "boyfriend" is responsible for his child and equally responsible for getting a court order to visit his child.

Quote:

---

and just needed to get it out somehow

---

It's none of your business, frankly. Or do you want to hurt your "boyfriend" even more, legally speaking? Keep doing what you're doing.

Quote:

---

and Mercy&Grace carrying and giving birth does not mean that the child will go home with the mom as there are lots of single dads out there and the mother dose not have the right to have the baby with here 24/7 as the father has to see it sometime

---

Uh ... couple of things.

1. It's up to the father to obtain an enforceable visitation order, or custody, and use the court to make sure it IS enforced.
2. Sometimes it is NOT best for the child to see both parents regularly.
3. You don't get to bitch and whine about a situation that is NONE of your business, legally speaking.

I honestly don't believe you are capable of understanding what I've just said, or why I've said it. All I can do is hope that you're just some naive, foolish 18 year old who is buying every bit of bs her boyfriend is feeding her.

You'll learn, hopefully.

With how rediculous you have been on this thread, and assuming your boyfriend is just as rediculous and immature, i can sincerely see why mom is trying to keep him away from the child. I dont necessarily agree with it, but i can definitely underatand it.

Think about it for a second. God forbid, (and I say that on behalf of the child that would have you two as parents) you get knocked up by your boyfriend. Dont you think your child deserves to be supported by both mom and dad? Dont you think you deserve to have some financial help raising that child? Stop being angry at her for going after what she is legally entitled to on behalf of her child. She is not the enemy. Your boyfriend screwed her and made a baby. He made the choice to have a child with her. Now he has to live with that choice for the rest of his life. Rest assured though, since you are so concerned about the money he is going to be ordered to pay for junior, that money can be spent on you again sometime around the time the child turns 18 in most states.

I suspect epic's man is not as epic as they seem to think.

I suspect we'll see epicman's little girlfriend back here in the not-too-distant future asking how she can terminate epicman's parental rights to their child because ... because.

As someone that also exploring what state presumption means for an unwed father, this is my understanding.

I became confused by this myself. But there are some parts that are easier to understand if explained well enough.

The confusion comes in where state statutes word for word create a presumption in favor of the mother but are silent on what it means for a father once he does establish paternity. It often gets construed that even when the father establishes paternity that he still is not entitled to the same rights given by default to the mother, but only a legal right to support his child. The courts though have said over and over again that the duty to support a child falls on both parents. Marriage has no bearing on a parents responsibility to support a child but depending on the state and the state law interpretation, it can have a bearing on matters of custody.

And its not like child support gets established immediately when the child is born. Someone has to initiate a proceeding in court, otherwise nothing happens.

And when support does become an issue, its important to realize that support obligations are calculated based on both parents, not just one, but obviously the parent that is actually taking care of the child is the one who receives the payments from the non-custodial parent.

Quote:

---

Quoting AmericanDadof5

---

As someone that also exploring what state presumption means for an unwed father, this is my understanding.

I became confused by this myself. But there are some parts that are easier to understand if explained well enough.

The confusion comes in where state statutes word for word create a presumption in favor of the mother but are silent on what it means for a father once he does establish paternity It often gets construed that even when the father establishes paternity that he still is not entitled to the same rights given by default to the mother, but only a legal right to support his child. The courts though have said over and over again that the duty to support a child falls on both parents.

---

In some states, establishing paternity is enough to confer the exact same parental rights as Mom absent a court order to the contrary. In some states, all it does is give the father standing to sue for custody/visitation/child support. While it is technically correct that both parents have a duty to support the child, we must bear in mind that in an unwed situation where paternity is not established, there is only one parent (and thus, one parent with the legal responsibility to support the child).

Quote:

---

And when support does become an issue, its important to realize that support obligations are calculated based on both parents, not just one, but obviously the parent that is actually taking care of the child is the one who receives the payments from the non-custodial parent.

---

This is just not accurate, for a couple of reasons. First, not every state uses the shared income model (which is what you're describing); some simply take a straight percentage of the NCP's income. The CP could marry Bill Gates and earn $10m per year, and it won't affect the NCP's obligation.

Second, it's possible (in shared income states) for the CP to end up paying the NCP some child support, if there's a gross disparity in income and/or time-sharing approaches a true 50/50 split.

ETA: NO state has a presumption in favor of the mother.

So maybe my understanding of presumption is off. This is similar to what I was discussing in the other sub forum. When a statute declares the unwed mother the Guardian entitled to custody and support, isn't that the presumption?

That's not say that the statute isn't beyond reproach but the statute in a way has already made a determination before anyone has gone to court

SMH.

Some of you folk completely slept through your biology and health classes, didn't you?