Fathers gone AWOL

The government recently proposed that authorities be granted the power to confiscate both the passport and driving license of absent parents in order to force them to pay child support. There are obvious implementation problems posed by such a proposal, and many are sceptical that removing someone’s ability to get to work is the best way to make them cough up child support. However, I have a wider philosophical argument with the proposal, and in fact, the issue of child support in general.

Let us suppose that, as in the majority of cases, the absent parent is a male. What if the father genuinely did not want to have a child? Other than expressing his views to the mother of the ‘baby’, he is left with no other options. Fathers of unwanted ‘babies’ are powerless to terminate the pregnancy.

Clearly it is easier to feel sympathy for a man who experiences the accidental breaking of a condom, and then ends up in this position than for a man who takes no precautions. However, whether or not appropriate precautions have been taken, the fact remains that after the dirty deed is done the woman has sole control over whether she decides to terminate the pregnancy or not.

If a woman is pregnant, and makes the decision to have the baby against the express wishes of the father, she effectively ties him into a financial agreement without his consent. The father becomes liable to pay thousands of pounds in child support despite the fact he may have done everything within his power not to parent a child.

I would argue that there are very few situations in which we consider it appropriate to force others to pay high costs against their consent. I can only think of fines in criminal proceedings, and compensation claims. In both these cases, financial penalties are imposed to punish an individual for some acknowledged wrong-doing. Is there such wrong doing in the case of fathering an unwanted child? Perhaps the wrong-doing is the act of fathering the child itself, and the mother can be considered as the individual seeking ‘compensation’.

However, the woman had to consent to the ‘act’ of conceiving the child (I do not consider rape related incidents as the same issue). In addition, she was solely responsible for deciding to continue with the pregnancy, making her, if anything, more responsible for the existence of a child. Surely then she is in no position to claim compensation for the financial hardship imposed by the decision she herself made?

Clearly this is an entirely philosophical debate. I have not forgotten that the real victim in unpaid child support is the child, nor would I advocate any moves which worsened the financial situation of any children from single parent families. I am also entirely against placing limits on a woman’s ability to choose.

I appreciate that this argument applies only to a few cases, and must admit that I cannot think of a way of solving this particular problem. However, despite my feminist leanings, I believe that it’s important to recognise that absent fathers are not a homogenous group. Please, let us take a more considered view of the circumstances of some absent fathers before we entirely vilify them.