• FuglyDuck
    link
    English
    209 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
      159 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
        59 months ago

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

      • @RidcullyTheBrown
        link
        19 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
      29 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
        9 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
          19 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 Now that we have genetic testing to confirm paternity or should be repealed.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
            09 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
              19 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.