Good story in the NYT today. Woman meets Olympic skier Bode Miller via "high-end" matchmaking service. They date for 1 1/2 months, conceive a child, which she decides to keep apparently against his wishes. She moves from California to NYC for school while pregnant, files for custody in New York. New York court refuses to take jurisdiction of the case from the California court, accuses her of forum-shopping (i.e. gaming the court system to find a place with preferential laws/judges). Miller and his new wife win temporary custody of the child, have had the baby for the first 9 months of its life.
So instead of what she no doubt expected to happen--custody of the child and a nice child-support check based on the income of an international ski star--she got her newborn jerked away from her. No word on whether she has been ordered to pay child support to Miller--I suppose that will have to wait on the permanent custody decision (the case is on appeal).
I'm not saying this woman is a terrible person, and don't doubt this is pretty miserable for her. But I am saying people respond to incentives. If girls knew there was a reasonable chance of this happening instead of their preferred scenario, they'd be less likely to cavalierly decide to get knocked up and keep the child against the father's wishes.
Personally I think violating a man's reproductive rights by bearing his child against his wishes should be crime, the same way forcing a woman to have an abortion would be. That's probably impractical, but at the very least she should have no right to financial support.
Of course the NYT's spin is that the case "Raises questions about the rights of women."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/us/cus...h_20131124
So instead of what she no doubt expected to happen--custody of the child and a nice child-support check based on the income of an international ski star--she got her newborn jerked away from her. No word on whether she has been ordered to pay child support to Miller--I suppose that will have to wait on the permanent custody decision (the case is on appeal).
I'm not saying this woman is a terrible person, and don't doubt this is pretty miserable for her. But I am saying people respond to incentives. If girls knew there was a reasonable chance of this happening instead of their preferred scenario, they'd be less likely to cavalierly decide to get knocked up and keep the child against the father's wishes.
Personally I think violating a man's reproductive rights by bearing his child against his wishes should be crime, the same way forcing a woman to have an abortion would be. That's probably impractical, but at the very least she should have no right to financial support.
Of course the NYT's spin is that the case "Raises questions about the rights of women."
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/24/us/cus...h_20131124