Anonymous wrote:If he is man enough to have sex and a child, he should be man enough to get a job and pay support and provide for his child.

Yes, but as a parent, I'm liable (morally, don't know about legally) for any obligations my child fails to meet. If my kid doesn't return a library book or breaks a window with a baseball, then it's my responsibility to make sure the debt is paid and then take steps to make sure my kid takes responsibility for it.

If my son has a baby then that baby needs to be taken care of. Yes, my son needs to get a job, and meet his obligation, but if for some reason, such as unemployment, that isn't happening then it's my responsibility to make sure that the baby still has a safe place to sleep, and food and diapers. I can't let that responsibility fall to someone else, such as the child's mother, or her parents, or the state. Now, my son may be on the hook to pay me back, but that's between me and him. His obligation to the child must still be met.

If he is man enough to have sex and a child, he should be man enough to get a job and pay support and provide for his child.

I think morally, as long as he is dependent on you financially, you are in part responsible.

Your position may not be legally defensable.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know the legal answer, but I know the moral answer and I suspect you do, too.

The moral answer? Are you saying the poster is morally liable to pay support to a girl who, along with her son, chose to have unprotected sex? The father of the child is liable for child support and a court will determine what amount he can pay. The other parent, the girl, is also liable for supporting her child. Neither of their parents forced them to have unprotected sex, so neither set of parents are liable for ANYTHING in regards to these two.

New poster. You have a rather convenient morality. Liability is not morality.

Convenient morality? Should my children ever get a girl pregnant or get pregnant as teenagers, I will emotionally support them, and provide as much support as I was able within reason. (Also not raising the kid for them or making life so cushy it's basically like they have a brother or sister instead of a child.) But I draw the line at covering my son's child support if he gets a girl pregnant or paying all my daughter's bills should she get pregnant. That's when they get to learn some personal responsibility and it has nothing to do with convenience or morality. But if they think they're adult enough to have sex, and don't bother using protection, fully knowing the potential consequences, then I guess they're adult enough to pay some child support or get a job to support their child.

Dunno, but your smugness level is now diminished.

Check out the Welfare Reform Act signed by Clinton. It requires parents of minors to provide child support if the mother seeks welfare. A number of states appear to require this as well until the boy/man is 18 years of age or emancipated. I am not sure what MD/VA/DC requires, but it doesn't appear to be as cut and dry as the previous posters have claimed. We need family law attorney to weigh in.

Are you considering encouraging your son to fight for custody? Full or partial?

Legally? Probably not. But this will be your grandchild, so probably in everyone's best interest that you provide the financial and emotional support that you're able.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I don't know the legal answer, but I know the moral answer and I suspect you do, too.

The moral answer? Are you saying the poster is morally liable to pay support to a girl who, along with her son, chose to have unprotected sex? The father of the child is liable for child support and a court will determine what amount he can pay. The other parent, the girl, is also liable for supporting her child. Neither of their parents forced them to have unprotected sex, so neither set of parents are liable for ANYTHING in regards to these two.

New poster. You have a rather convenient morality. Liability is not morality.

Anonymous wrote:I don't know the legal answer, but I know the moral answer and I suspect you do, too.

The moral answer? Are you saying the poster is morally liable to pay support to a girl who, along with her son, chose to have unprotected sex? The father of the child is liable for child support and a court will determine what amount he can pay. The other parent, the girl, is also liable for supporting her child. Neither of their parents forced them to have unprotected sex, so neither set of parents are liable for ANYTHING in regards to these two.

He should at least offer to pay half of the abortion, if she doesn't want to keep the baby.

Probably not, but he is so he may want to start looking for a job now.

I don't know the legal answer, but I know the moral answer and I suspect you do, too.

My son is under 18 and got a girl pregnant. Am I on the line for the baby's child support?