in middle of divorce and require husband's "permission"

[Anonymous]

Both involve seeking "permission" in the middle of the divorce for something that the male has no moral involvement. It's a legal "construction." If the woman is using a sperm donor she should not need "permission" from someone who is dragging on the divorce to keep her from being free to do this. It is absolutely ridiculous and patriarchal. And the stakes for her freedom are actually greater for her than the name change issue. So, yes, apples and oranges. It is far more egregious to affect her bodily autonomy for no good reason but to cause grief. A release would mean no presumption of paternity and indeed proof of no paternity. Why should permission from the man be the primary/sole method used to deal with this problem?

[Anonymous]

I understand that you're anxious to get the process started, but I really think you have to chill out and wait until you are actually divorced to move on. Seriously. It's probably only a few more months. You will need some patience and perspective when you're a parent - might want to start now.

(and I'm as feminist as they come, but when you decide to take marriage vows, there are downside risks to that, like having to take another person into account when you make decisions as long as you are legally bound to that person.)

[Anonymous]

It hasn't been a few months, and it will take longer than a few months to resolve. There are specific reasons why it is medically riskier for me to drag this out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It hasn't been a few months, and it will take longer than a few months to resolve. There are specific reasons why it is medically riskier for me to drag this out.

If you want it that badly then you'll agree to whatever terms he's "refusing" to negotiate on. Simple as that. You are 50% of speeding up this process, no?

[Anonymous]

That's the whole point. He's seeking to use this (and other consent requirements) as leverage to get things he is not entitled to receive in a divorce. If I say what it specifically involves I could out myself. I hope to receive a protective (privacy) order for the divorce itself, although that is hard to win in my state.

[Anonymous]

He is legally the father in many states so yes, you should wait. That is not fair to put him on the hook for your lifestyle choice. My son's birthfather tried to say in court that my son was not his child (we would be thrilled with that) and the judge said no since he was married to the mother (he also signed the BC and adoption paperwork) you are the legal biological father. (he refused a paternity test so he is most likely the biological father)

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Both involve seeking "permission" in the middle of the divorce for something that the male has no moral involvement. It's a legal "construction." If the woman is using a sperm donor she should not need "permission" from someone who is dragging on the divorce to keep her from being free to do this. It is absolutely ridiculous and patriarchal. And the stakes for her freedom are actually greater for her than the name change issue. So, yes, apples and oranges. It is far more egregious to affect her bodily autonomy for no good reason but to cause grief. A release would mean no presumption of paternity and indeed proof of no paternity. Why should permission from the man be the primary/sole method used to deal with this problem?

Because they are married. If you are married, you are deemed the legal father in less a judge/court says otherwise. She can easily go back to the court for child support and claim he is the legal father as they were married and get child support.

[Anonymous]

Given there are cases now where anonymous donors were ordered to pay child support, I would not sign any permissions if I were still a husband.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No

That is why the whole permission regardless is annoying. It has to do with presumptions re paternity when still married.

This is to protect the child, in case you can't care for him/her. The government has an interest in attaching two potential caregivers and earners to each child.

I'm a SAHM with no income, yet I'm still my child's mother and guardian.

This requirement is nothing more than a relic of patriarchal tradition that has no place in the modern legal system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why would you tell a fertility center your marital status? It's none of their business and they have no way to prove whether or not you are married.

Seriously. Just say you are single.

Ha, I did fertility treatments while single. The IVF mandate doesn't cover single people. Stay married until you're pregnant!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No

That is why the whole permission regardless is annoying. It has to do with presumptions re paternity when still married.

This is to protect the child, in case you can't care for him/her. The government has an interest in attaching two potential caregivers and earners to each child.

I'm a SAHM with no income, yet I'm still my child's mother and guardian.

This requirement is nothing more than a relic of patriarchal tradition that has no place in the modern legal system.

Yes, but as a SAHM you do have income and your husband to support you (or wife). It is set up to support kids if the custodial parent has no income or unable to afford the child's needs on their own. It is there to protect the child.

[Anonymous]

The soon-to-be-ex husband dragging out the divorce would not be "on the hook" for the child if there is a release confirming there is zero chance he could be the father and that a sperm donor is used for this process. The legal system could be set up that way rather than give a resentful ex power to delay and enjoy the power of "permission" in this context. It's a patriarchal vestige of the early twentieth century when paternity tests were rarer and there was a strong stigma against illegitimacy.

[Anonymous]

By this standard, he should have to get your permission before having sex with anyone since that may also result in a child born to one party in a (dissolving) marriage. And yes, I understand the laws around presumptions of parental responsibility in the context of a marriage, but the presumption can be easily overcome in this case. It's a retrograde and sexist law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:By this standard, he should have to get your permission before having sex with anyone since that may also result in a child born to one party in a (dissolving) marriage. And yes, I understand the laws around presumptions of parental responsibility in the context of a marriage, but the presumption can be easily overcome in this case. It's a retrograde and sexist law.

But she wouldn't be responsible for a baby he has with someone else. Poor analogy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No

That is why the whole permission regardless is annoying. It has to do with presumptions re paternity when still married.

This is to protect the child, in case you can't care for him/her. The government has an interest in attaching two potential caregivers and earners to each child.

I'm a SAHM with no income, yet I'm still my child's mother and guardian.

This requirement is nothing more than a relic of patriarchal tradition that has no place in the modern legal system.

Yes, but as a SAHM you do have income and your husband to support you (or wife). It is set up to support kids if the custodial parent has no income or unable to afford the child's needs on their own. It is there to protect the child.

More specifically, it is set up so to minimize the risk that the taxpayers end up footing the bill by giving the state two potential sources of reimbursement.