Nov 11
29
Stolen Paternity
by Jason Stotts
This is one of those stories that makes you feel like you’re reading fiction: not just any fiction, but fiction by an author who is very clever and original. At least, I wish it were fiction. For the most part it’s a rather common story: boy meets girl, boy and girl have sex, girl gets knocked up, boy and girl break up, boy pays child support. The twist? The man, in this case Joe Pressil from Texas, did not impregnate the girl, Anetria Pressil. He didn’t originally think he did either and so made Anetria do a paternity test on the twins that were born. The test confirms that the twins are his. The twins are, in fact, his. The twist? Joe did not, in fact, impregnate Anetria. Confused? Apparently, Anetria saved the used condoms from when they were together and convinced an infertility clinic to impregnate her with the sperm. This was successful and she gave birth to twins, all without the knowledge or consent of Joe. She then convinced him they were his kids (and again they are, in fact, his kids) and when he wouldn’t take her back, got the court to force him to pay child support. (Houston Press)
It’s so crazy it has to be true.
This raises a lot of questions for me, like: should men always be legally obligated to pay for their genetic offspring? Should there be times when men are released from paternal responsibility?
I think that it depends on the context. There are at least three cases heres: 1. the case of the man who consented to sex and took no precaution against pregnancy, 2. the case of the man who consented to sex, but who took precaution against pregnancy, and 3. the man who did not consent to sex or to pregnancy. In the first case, I think that a man actively consents to having children with a woman if he has sex with her and does not use any form of birth control. This man should be obligated to be responsible for any offspring from that liaison, since he worked to actively impregnate the woman, even if impregnation was not his explicit end. In the second case, I think the situation is more variable. The man actively took precautions against pregnancy and, yet, pregnancy still occurred. Thus, the man cannot be held wholly responsible, since he took positive action to prevent the end that arose. Nevertheless, he did engage in actions that cause pregnancy and he knew the risks of so doing. I think this man should usually be held responsible for his offspring. However, I think that there should be a way for this man to opt out of this. I think that in order for the man to be properly held responsible, he must be informed of the pregnancy and be given the choice to help support the child or not. His choice must be binding and must occur at a point at which abortion is still a viable option. If so, then the woman then has a chance to keep the baby or abort it as she choices and she will know in advance whether she can rely on the man for support. In cases where the man is not informed until too late due only to ignorance on the part of the woman or the man being unavailable to give consent, then the man should be held responsible. In the third and last case, I think it is obvious that the man should not be held responsible.
The principle here is that in cases where the man did not actively consent to pregnancy (used protection or did not consent at all), he should be given a choice of whether he wants to support the child. In cases where he did consent to the child, then he is responsible for it until it is an adult.
A separate question is what we do in a case like this, where a woman is so corrupt that she would connive to impregnate herself with a man’s child just to tie herself to him, even if only financially. I think that this person should be tried for fraud and theft. Further, I think the man should have the option of raising the children and if he does not wish to do so, then they should be taken custody of by the state. Either way, this woman is a criminal and unfit to be a parent.
