[anfilt]

It's not common, but there are cases like this:

Here a women took a use condom form the trash to get pregnate. https://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womanshour/2003_07_thu_01.shtml

Women Forged a signature of her ex-husband at an IVF clinic that had his sperm, and he still had to pay child support. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/8544783/Woman-had-tw...

There are numerous other cases like this, not common but it does happen. Lying about birth control is similar, but harder to prove, but even in these blatant examples men are still forced to pay child support. You can't argue this is even just?

Edit: also looking there are some cases just as blatant as those two that have happened in the US. Not common, but it does happen. This is why I think child support should take into account the circumstances. Edges cases are always a thing in real life. A hard rule of a man must always pay child support is not good public policy and unjust to those who are victims of such things.

While lying about birth control is more murky it still should not be something we condone, and if there is proof of it and not some she said he said battle I think family courts should to take that into account.

There also cases of sperm donors ending up on the hook, for child support, not common if the clinic is doing things correctly, but it does happen.

There also cases of underage boys who end up on the hook for child support, despite what happened being statutory rape. This is insane. For example: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/09/02/statut...

[klyrs]

Two anecdotes pales in comparison to the frequency of deadbeats: less than half of custodial parents* receive the full amount, and almost a third never receive a payment.

https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2018/cb18-tps...

But ultimately, the child is the most vulnerable party in question. Yes, our legal system is geared to protect them first. It's not the best outcome for either parent. But the kid comes first, because the kid is the most vulnerable and has the greatest potential for societal harm/benefit.

Those cases are bad, yes. Are they statistically significant? Citation please. Men lie about having had vasectomies, too, to have unprotected sex, resulting in unwanted pregnancies. Frequently? I don't know. Guys sneaking their condom off is pretty frequent in my experience, though.

* note the gender neutral term. There are quite a few deadbeat moms too. Single dads need child support too.

[anfilt]

I saying this happens and courts need to have legal discretion to handle the circumstances of the case. In cases like this it's insane a man should have to have shoulder responsibility. Discretion is important for edge cases. Further putting a the child above all else and causing unjust harm to people is wrong, and should not something we want courts doing. They should ensure things are just. Statistically significance should not matter this is matter of injustice in these cases.

I am not arguing against going after child support from dead beats. Although, the punishments some times go to far. Taking a driver license away for example and then they can't get a job/lose it ect... and even at times putting them in jail and forcing them to pay while in jail while unable to work makes it even worse. These are different issue than what we were talking about though. Let's not move the discussion to much.

As for lying about birth control I said it's more murky, but such blatant edge cases as pointed out above certainly should not be handled as they currently are.

[klyrs]

> Discretion is important for edge cases. Further putting a the child above all else and causing unjust harm to people is wrong, and should not something we want courts doing.

I'm taking a Utilitarian position on a Trolley Problem here. Of course you can change the equation by putting Hitler or Mother Theresa on the tracks. I've agreed that some edge cases have been handled badly; what is your desired outcome of this?

[anfilt]

I am saying courts should be allowed to use common sense in edge cases. Ideally in more murky situations the burden should be lessened.

An other statutory rape case: https://www.lawlink.com/research/cases/74059/county-of-san-l...

The victim should not be paying any child support in this case.

Similar, when sperm is taking with zero consent.

Maybe more murky things like lying about birth control if there is solid evidence of that the courts should be able to take that into account ect...In such murky situations I am not saying responsibility should be completly absolved. The child always first is just black and white thinking, and lacks nuance and common sense. That leads to injustice.

[anfilt]

Here is an other example of child rape victim forced to pay child support: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/talking-about-trauma...

Such a legal system is not just if it can't handle cases like this.

[klyrs]

The legal system is not just in all edge cases. This is known. The good news is that bad precedents can be overturned.

[anfilt]

This is problem with how current statues are written for child support. This would take legislative action at least it looks that way in the USA for most states with a cursory google.

Most statues allow courts to have some discretion to handle edge cases. This is not the case with child support. That's why I said it's bad public policy, and there will be more people victimized by these poorly written laws.

[klyrs]

Sure. Needs work. When you say you "hate this mentality" it sounds like you want to toss out the entire legal concept. In further discussion, you're hyperfocused on some edge cases. I agree, those edge cases need work... but you haven't convinced me that the entire concept is unworkable.