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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.