• FuglyDuck
      link
      English
      208 months ago

      Established in the 1970s, the rule was intended to make sure men were financially accountable for the children they fathered.

      Some how I don’t think they thought that through. Idiots.

      • @surewhynotlem
        link
        158 months ago

        Well either they were stupid, or they knew exactly what they were doing.

        I used to think that you should never attribute to malice what’s easily explained by stupidity. And as I’ve grown up, I find a lot of malicious assholes hide behind stupidity.

        • FuglyDuck
          link
          English
          58 months ago

          Left to myself, I’m just gonna assume both. Malice and stupidity go hand in hand way too often

        • @RidcullyTheBrown
          link
          18 months ago

          What were they doing? I’m trying to figure out why you think this was stupid or malicious in the 70s

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        28 months ago

        There was no genetic testing for paternity back then. If you weren’t married you could contest paternity.

        • FuglyDuck
          link
          English
          2
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          ‘Cuz nobody back then ever cheated…

          Further the reality of parentage doesn’t change with a divorce. This is arbitrary bullshit.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            18 months ago

            People cheated for sure, but if you were married you were simply on the hook for the offspring even if it wasn’t yours.

            I’m not saying the law is good, I’m saying it made sense for the time it was passed in. Now that we have genetic testing to confirm paternity or should be repealed.

            • FuglyDuck
              link
              English
              08 months ago

              Or they could have just created the law that said “the child was conceived under wedlock, the husband is on the hook.”

              But details. There’s no reason to use birth, as the critical time. Because if they knew she was pregnant to hold the divorce…. Then they could just make the guy cough up support. (Including while pregnant.)

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                18 months ago

                Or they could have just created the law that said “the child was conceived under wedlock, the husband is on the hook.”

                To make someone the father they have to inform them of it. There’s nothing stopping the father from flying the coop once divorced. While the proceedings are in progress, the judge has the right to keep the father to be present. And this was more of a concern when you could disappear and start a new life by moving across town.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      168 months ago

      I live in Canada. I never cease to be flabbergasted by laws in the US. It’s like living next to a time warp.

      • @halcyoncmdr
        link
        English
        88 months ago

        A LOT of this country never left the 19th century, and they don’t care to. They feel safe in the old ways, they’re scared of change.

    • billwashere
      link
      English
      68 months ago

      Took the words right outta my mouth.