• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    20
    ·
    8 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@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      8 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.

    • mwguy@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      8 months ago

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

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        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.

        • mwguy@infosec.pub
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          8 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 Now that we have genetic testing to confirm paternity or should be repealed.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@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            8 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.)

            • mwguy@infosec.pub
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 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.