Any thoughts??
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Any thoughts??
Let me first say that I put this here because I am not sure what kind of responses it might get. I could see people being on two different sides of this.
Let me also say that I haven't thought much about this until lately. I don't mean to hurt any feelings by this. I am going to ask about this because I am LOOKING for different way of looking at it.
I have a cousin who is 22 years old. She went to college for a year, but basically partied too much and quit before she flunked out is the impression I get. She just had a baby and is living at home with her parents and was working part time at McDonalds before she had him. My aunt told me that she does know who the father is, but she hasn't contacted him and didn't list him on the birth certificate. How can that be an option for her? Why doesn't she have to contact him? She of course is on public assistance and got the doctor visits and delivery paid for and now the baby has some kind of state medical card. How can she be able to get all this assistance and the father has ZERO financial responsibility? Why does she have the option of not listing the father and getting all this financial aid? I am not faulting the father, how can he pay for things and step up if she hasn't told him?
I guess I think the way it should work is this: If you want assistance, you have to list the father. He has to be contacted and provide his fair share of support, medical care if he is working and it is available etc for the child. No father listed, no financial assistance. If AFTER all that, public assistance is needed, I don't have a problem with her getting it.
It just burns me to no end that she had the option of listing no father and now gets all this. It just doesn't jive in my head. I also don't think it is fair to the father to not be told he has a child. I don't think it is fair to the child to not know his father.
What am I missing? What am I not considering?
As to why she is getting welfare and medical assistance, she probably just lied and said she doesn't know who the father is. Do I think lying is OK, in this or any other circumstance? No. Do I think she should tell the welfare department who the child's father is? Yes. Do I think the child should not receive medical assistance coverage, the special program that pays for food for pregnant women and young children (I think it's "WIC"), and other public (tax supported) benefits for children? No. That would, imo, serve no purpose except to have yet another child going to the emergency room when seriously ill but not receiving preventive care - a whole lot more costly to the taxpayers in the long run.
Why your aunt and uncle put up with this is another question, of course. As the parent of a child who spent a lot of time messing up his life and only started getting his life together in the past 10 years, I can understand it. Would I nag my child to be honest with the system? Yes. Would I go to the system and tell them if my child didn't - probably not.
My guess is that when welfare runs out (it's only 5 years now and then job training and get a full-time job because there are no cash benefits after that) she may decide to name the father.
And in the meantime your aunt and uncle are probably actually the primary caregivers for this child.
All in all, a really sad situation, and your aunt and uncle and the child are and will be paying the price.
I completely see your point Vicki, and also agree with Ginny. I've worked with and around hundreds of women who are young, give birth to multiple children from different fathers, are going no where in life, and are on welfare assistance. The dads are not involved financially usually and only sometimes physically. They continue to birth kids with nameless fathers and continue to receive the aid.
I think naming the father to get assistance is a wonderful idea in theory, but the likely reality is that it would end up causing more hang-ups in the legal system (we've got to go get John Q because he's the legal father and he has to pay support) or cause more dads simply to give up their legal rights to avoid support or as Ginny said, we can't turn down assistance when it comes to feeding children so really it wouldn't serve it's point. I agree completely, but it just wouldn't work.
The big enablers are the aunt/uncle, but when it comes to a child, someone has to step up for that child and that's what they're doing. They're doing it for the baby and not for her, no? And when she's irresponsible and has another one, they'll do it for that one as well. It just goes on and I don't know how to stop it. I've worked with hundreds of women over the years in the exact same situation. They are so immature that partying/sex/"love"/irresponsibility are all they know and all of that usually equals baby, and dad(s) are nowhere to be found and may not even know for sure if a child is really theirs or not, and the mothers continue to get assistance.
Ginny, you mention the 5 year deal on welfare assistance, but I never see this enforced. Is it really enforced? When I taught I had lots of whole families come through my classroom over the years. I was required to make home visits and every year that I had students (over several years) the family lived in the same assisted housing and the parents did the same thing - sit around and play Playstation games, smoke pot, and let someone else foot the bill. I just personally don't see this welfare limit being put into action so I don't understand that change in the system. It doesn't seem like it's really happening.
Vicki-rereading your post...no it's not fair at all. I totally agree. It's not fair to anyone involved and I've seen firsthand what it's doing to our children by not having any sort of a family direction...who are my parents, do I see them, are they part of my life, are they in and out, etc. It's part of the overall problem.
When we had Natalie 3 years ago, I was appalled at the treatment of my DH in the hospital on more than one occasion. He was snubbed when he adamantly requested more than once no pacis or bottles while I was out for a full day from complications. Apparently he's an idiot because he's the dad. UH NO..he's an involved parent who knew all about it. When we discharged, we were both there and no one looked at him or asked him a question - it was like he wasn't there. We had to identify everything about me and compare it to the child...tags, codes, names, questions. I was required to sign, sign, sign while my DH stood by like the cab driver. It really was insulting to responsible parents and I remember thinking then that I felt that I was being treated the same way my clients/former student parents are after they have each child with an unnamed father. It's not like he wasn't there - he spent ALL 4 nights with me and rarely left during the day!
It's ridiculous, but will probably never change.
They enforce the 5-year rule, in WI.
Deanna, yes, my DH was treated the same in the hospital when Lara was born, now I am understanding. We recently had Lara into ER on a weekend for a bladder infection. We were there three hours and of course by the end, Lara was going stir crazy in the little examining room. We had done the test, spoken to the physician and were done except getting her prescriptions from the nurse. I took Lara out to the ER waiting room to stretch her legs and wait. Dan waited in the exam room for the nurse to return. When the nurse found only my DH there, she was basically rude to him and demanded to see me. She refused to give him the paperwork and of course I had to sign. This all seems so odd to me. DH was offended, and I didn't blame him.
I agree with you, Vicki. This isn't right, but like has been said, too many hang ups and the children need the assistance.
Vicki, do you have any info at all on the father?
The only reasons she may not have listed him could be that he may be a dangerous or violent person, or he may be married and therefore may have the upper hand with custody. Those are the only reasons I can think of for her not naming the father. I'm not saying it's right, but just the fact that those could be the reasons.
Deanna, I don't have personal information about enforcement of the 5 year limit but I've read a lot about it being enforced, and even shorter limits, so that, for example, if a mother is trying to go to college so she can get a decent job, she is told she has to get a job right now (including McDonalds' type jobs) and not go to school. It's a federal rule and many states have been trying to work around it so that people can go to school and seriously get off welfare (instead of just getting off cash assistance but still needing housing assistance, food stamps, Medicaid, etc.), but the feds appear to be making the rules tighter and tighter each year. One of the real frustrations for mothers who are trying to be responsible is a combination of work requirement and cutbacks in childcare subsidies and/or the absence of or waiting lists for things like Headstart.
Yes, I do think some people try to game the system, which is why the new laws were passed in the Clinton administration, but what appears to have resulted is a one-size-fits-all system that hardly fits anyone and makes it next to impossible for a mother who wants to get out of poverty to get the education/training to get her into something other than a poverty-level job.
All of which takes us far away from Vicki's original post, of course, but good questions often do that.
I don't have any information on the father at all other than she dated him for a bit. I never met him. My other aunt did though and my cousin seemed to really like him, so I dont' think it is a matter of him being violent or dangerous. Honestly, I don't think she wants him to have any rights to the baby. From what I gather, and this is from other family members that I have talked to, she really liked him and was very mad/upset that he dumped her. This was well before she found out she was pregnant. She didn't find out until she was almost 3 months along. So now, she is not telling him as a way to keep control and get back at him for lack of a better word. Again, this isn't from her or her mother, but other family members. So I don't know it to be fact, but I could see her thinking something like that......
When I lived in central WI, I worked with 2 nurses, who had been on assistance to help pay for school and help with childcare. They both got their education and got off the dole, and supported themselves. The rules all changed, after they became nurses and like Ginny said, it just doesn't work, the way it did for the 2 women I know. They can barely get child care and are supposed to work, so going to school is nearly impossible.
Well I have a really good friend who got herself into a sticky situation. The short story is she got pg while not technically divorced. It was a bad choice on her birthday after drinking too much. Well in tx you can't legally divorce while pg, so the divorce was put off yet again, at court she had to name the dead beat loser she was with, who she had told, but he didn't believe her and needed a paternity test. Well she did all that through the courts (because she had to for the divorce). He has never paid her child support on a regular basis, once a year to keep himself out of jail. But he all the sudden wants visitation (the child is 8) and you know what, legally he gets it. She is fighting in court yet again that he only get supervised visits and she is in contempt by dening his visitation right now, because she refused to leave her daughter with a strange man. Last time he saw her she was under a year. His excuse for not coming by "he was in prison". Well turns out she had a background check run on him and he was not in prison...what type of loser would lie about where he has been and thinks prison is a better choice?
Anyway, my whole point, my friend has done done everything right (okay cept the onenighter..lol) and it is costing her a fortune. If she had the option to say I don't know who the father is, she would of been so much better off.
So My point is, maybe it isn't fair to the father, but some men don't deserve to be in the loop. Just like some women don't deserve to have kids, but they do have to go through quite a bit to get there.
My hubby was treated well in the hospital, with my second son, we were in a small hospital and there were 5 babies born in the two days, we were the only "couple" there, it was very sad.
Just to respond to Ginny, yes there are those who game the system like I mentioned in my experience. I do know many who aren't trying to get a free ride though, but welfare can be a trap, with no way out without means of education, training, and childcare. It can be a sad trap. There are people on both sides, so I definitely see that.
Nicki-Doesn't surprise me about your ER visit. I bet we would encounter the exact same thing here with Natalie in the same situation. It's sad.
Vicki- If that's the case, she's doing something terrible to the father just to make herself feel better. Isn't that sad? And he could be one of the decent guys from the sounds of it.
I have one thing to add. If you have to list the father, then you will have many more complications. The father can always deny being the father. Then you have to do paternity testing - another expense to the state.
The mom is the mom - even in the hospital when a child is born, it has no seperate legal designation. It is considered and extension of the MOTHER, which is why the mother only has to sign a bunch of paperwork - at least that's the way it is in NY.
So, do I think it's fair - not really. Do I think all women of child bearing age who date men and may have sex have a responsibility to do everything they can NOT to get pregnant? Absolutely.
Again, it all comes down to personal responsibility.
Ame
Why should the state have to pay for the testing? Why can't the father pay for it if he wants it done? If it turns out he isn't the father, the mother should have to pay for giving false information.
That wouldn't work. could you imagine all the girls out there who jus tput down any guy's name just to get the benefits? Then the state would have to pay litigation costs, plus the testing.
If they tried to make the girl pay if the guy turned out not to be the father, my guess is the state would not see the money and would be sued by the father for the money.
Ame
I don't think women should have to list a father to get benefits for the children. I think it would complicate things too much and ultimately the children would be the ones to suffer. It is also possible for someone to mature and be a good mother even if she used to party and not know who the dad is.
We were discussing welfare and the preconceived notions people have in my sociology class the other day. Sure, there are people who abuse it, there are people to abuse everything. I think when it comes to medical cards or whatever they do more good than harm and for most people it is temporary. I don't see how anyone would want to live off the system. I've never gotten a welfare check, like cash but we have gotten food stamps. The people talked to me like I must have no education whatsoever and were very surprised my husband was the dad of all my kids, like only ignorant tramps might need assistance which is hardly the case. Even in other settings like hospitals or whatever people seem almost suspicious of my husband being an involved dad. It is so hard to get ahead if you start out or end up behind. A friend of mine got a grant to go to school. She did very well and was doing work study. She got a scholarship which wasn't enough to cover all her education expenses but the grant would fill in the gap. They took the grant away because they said she no longer had financial need since she had the scholarship! She had to take off a semester because of the time it takes to forfeit a scholarship and prove it and all that. I think there should be more opportunities for people who want to improve their situation by getting an education, since it should lead to a better paying job thus the perosn not having to rely on social programs anymore. I also don't think in any case children should suffer because they are born into poverty.
I don't have much to add, just that it is a shame that so little value is placed on intact homes and fathers in our society today.
Very well said Cocoabutter.
|
Members
