(02-25-2016 10:56 AM)Murray007 Wrote: Well this bill definitely puts the onus on the mothers. What's the current policy if a mother refuses to name the child's father?
As I understand it, there is no burden on the father to provide child support or anything else... which is the problem (dead-beat dads) that this is trying to solve. It doesn't put more burden on the moms, other than to not be complicit in what is arguably 'fraud'. She knows who the father is but puts that burden on the state rather than the father... and doesn't help the state try and get the money from the dad. If not fraud, certainly obstruction.
I don't know about not issuing a birth certificate because that has implications for the life of the child... but I certainly understand not giving additional benefits.
This is part of the game being played (and perpetuating the cycle of uneducated poor)... you get pregnant while in high school and you get money to live and daycare so you can finish... but of course once you finish you're a 'singe mom' with a high school diploma... not exactly a high demand employee... you don't name the dad so they aren't at 'risk'.... it's 'free money'... and it keeps you poor.
This sort of a law might actually encourage more contraception, plan B or even abortion... but in my opinion, these are the sort of times when that is likely appropriate. When the mother doesn't have the means to take care of the child themselves and doesn't want the father involved in any way, not even just to pay.
I suspect there are exceptions I haven't thought of, but there are also generally exceptions to rules like these. Name the father and move to have his rights terminated or something, including the right to be named on the certificate (if necessary for some reason).