• FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      7 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
        16
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        7 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
        ·
        7 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
          7 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
            ·
            7 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 Now that we have genetic testing to confirm paternity or should be repealed.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
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              7 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
                ·
                7 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.

    • swan_pr@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      7 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@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        7 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.