Thursday, March 13, 2014

Decisions, Decisions...

Recently a New Jersey judge ruled that an expectant father can be banned from the delivery room if the mother doesn't want him there. Here's what baffles me about this: They both decided to have sex. They both decided to have that sex without protection knowing full well what could happen. But once she becomes pregnant, the man is no longer included in the decision making process. First, she gets to choose whether or not she's going to go through with the pregnancy or terminate it. Then, if she decides to have the baby, she gets to decide whether or not he can be in the delivery room to see the child that they BOTH made. After that she gets to decide whether or not she's going to raise it herself or give it up for adoption. Next, she gets to decide the name of the child. Then, after she's made that decision, she gets to decide how involved in the child's life the father can be. Sure, he can go to court and have a judge decide how often he can see his child, but when have you ever seen a judge grant 24/7 visitation? He's not just going to grant custody, "just because". You have to damn near prove that the woman is the spawn of Satan for that to happen. She gets to decide what school the child goes to and whether or not the father can visit that school. She gets to decide which city and state the child lives in, thus effectively trumping any visitation rights the father was granted depending on the distance they live from him. She even gets to decide the father's financial future by filing for child support. Given the extreme amounts that judges are ordering men to pay these days, that could definitely become a financial obligation that he may not be able to shoulder. Add the pressure of going to jail or having licences suspended for failing to pay, now she's also making decisions regarding his emotional well being.

On top of all that, she gets to decide what the narrative will be. She gets to whine and complain when he misses milestones like the first day of school, birthdays, and graduations. But she never has to own up to her part for him not being involved in the child's life even though she's been shutting him out since the child's first day in the world. She gets to wear the "single mother" badge of strength and courage albeit a self-inflicted status.

Notice how his decision making powers stopped way back on Day 1 of the process, right after he decided not to pull out.

Inevitably people will say that there's no excuse for a man not to be involved in his child's life and that he should fight tooth and nail to be involved. To that I ask, why? Why should he HAVE to fight? Back on Day 1 they both made the decision to have unprotected sex and he didn't have to fight tooth and nail for it. Why should she be allowed to make him have to fight instead of being obligated to allow him to be a part of the life of the child that they produced together? If not for the father's benefit, but for the good of the child who deserves to have two loving parents involved in his/her life because they didn't ask nor decide to be here. Numerous studies show an enormous achievement gap between children of single parent homes and those from two parent homes. It is completely unfair how fathers are treated and often demonized because of the decisions that the mother has made.

Moral of the story: Wrap it up, B. If you don't and she gets pregnant, you can be punished if you DECIDE not to stay in a relationship her.

Well, that's The Green Chimp's take. What's yours?

No comments:

Post a Comment