Matthew Dubay - Can The Court Force Him To Support This Child?
Matthew Dubay is a 25-year-old computer programmer in Saginaw, MI with some heavy emotional and financial responsibilities tied to a 7-month-old daughter. The court has ordered him to pay $500 per month child support and half of his daughter's health expenses. He admits the child is genetically his offspring. But, Dubay believes he should not be held responsible. He has filed a lawsuit, through the National Center For Men, to abdicate his parental responsibilities. Some are calling this legal matter Roe-v-Wade For Men.
Some background information is needed for clarification. His girlfriend at the time convinced him that she was unable to become pregnant because of a health complication, and that she was taking contraceptives as an added precaution. But when she became pregnant, she refused to have an abortion.
Dubay says, “I do feel I was blindsided by this woman. She is now making me pay for a child when she knew up front I was not ready to be a parent at that time.” Wells responds, “He chose that risk, and everybody knows where babies come from.”
ANALYSES AND QUESTIONS:
When a woman is faced with an unwanted/unplanned pregnancy, she has the ready availability of an abortion, including the morning-after pill. It is her right to do as she wishes with her body, is the basic argument for abortion. But, if a man is deceived into impregnating a woman against his will, should he be forced by her subsequent whim (her choice to give birth to the resultant child) to foot the bill?
Can a man be forced, by the law, to reproduce? ''Reproductive choice should be a fundamental human right, not just a woman's right," says Mel Feit, executive director of the National Center for Men.
I have answers/opinion about the issues raised with this important case, and intend to share them as we interact. What do you think- should Matthew Dubay be forced, by the law, to support this child?
04.14.06 (6:29 pm) [
edit]
posted by:
eraserhead667 (
reply)
post date:
04.14.06 (2:34 pm)
It's a crappy thing to have to consider, but the fact is, it's not the kid's fault. The mother may be an idiot, and that should be taken into consideration, possibly to make his part of the support lower because of what she did, but ultimately, if there's a kid and it's his, he better question A.) Why he didn't keep it in his pants, and B.) Why he'd want to deny care to his child just because the mother is a rotten excuse for a human being.
Of course, that's if all this is true and she actually did decieve him. But it's still not the kid's fault.
posted by:
mimi (
reply)
post date:
04.14.06 (3:14 pm)
no, it isn't the childs fault, but if what is being said is the truth, then the woman should be held completely responsible for her own choice and the man should not be held accountable for her decisions. She, after all, basically made a "contract" stating she could not conceive and that she was using preventative measures, additionally. Therefore, she broke contract and that is that. Too bad he didn't have her put in a "pre-intercourse" agreement. And, too bad he wasn't practicing "safe sex"...now he has this problem and could also be facing health issues for his own poor judgement.
posted by:
fairmoon (
reply)
post date:
04.14.06 (6:07 pm)
Yup. regradless of what the mom said, he knows that when he does the nasty with someone- there are certain possiblities.
The Child isn't at fault here. The mother seems slightly mental at best, so he needs to step up and be a dad. the kid's going to need it.
500$ isn't that much. Suck it up, be a man and do the right thing- regardless of how he got into the situation, or the fact that the mom is an idiot.
Fm
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
04.15.06 (3:04 am)
Reply to: eraserhead667
This case is still moving through the courts and will take a long time to be resolved. I do not see that the guy has much of a chance. When you choose to have sex with a woman of child-bearing age, then you do so knowing there is always the possibility of pregnancy- no matter her claims of being "safe". Also, interesting to me, if this guy is so determined not to father a child then why did he not take precautions?
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
04.15.06 (3:09 am)
Reply to: mimi
"pre-intercouse" agreement- now that would make for an interesting episode of Law & Order! Still, you have the resultant child. Can the woman, because of her deceptive behaviour, be forced to abort the child? Since the developing fetus is considered by the law to be part of her own body, then I doubt that she could be forced to have an abortion any more than she could be forced to have an appendectomy. And when the child is born, there will be financial responsibilities. And he is the biological father of an innocent little baby.
Matthew Dubay needs to step forward and be a man, stop whining, and pay his bills.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
04.15.06 (3:13 am)
Reply to: fairmoon
Good response. Looks like Matthew is the most foolish one in this matter. For thw sake of the pleasures of sex, and the convenience/ignorance of not using precautions, he has now helped to bring a new life into the world. Nobody forced him to copulate, without protection, with this particular poor-excuse-for-a-woman. Now he has a big-time bill to pay, and no one to blame but himself.
posted by:
bacardibreezer (
reply)
post date:
04.15.06 (6:47 am)
Yes. He should be forced to pay. My dad owes my mom a TON of money for child support, so let's hope that guy doesn't end up like my dad, just pathetic. Either way, the reason I say it's his fault is, even when someone is on birth control, its still possibly to get the woman pregnant - we all know this. If he was so worried about it, he should have been more careful. It is his fault.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
04.15.06 (6:51 am)
Yes. He should be forced to pay. Calling the case Roe v. Wade for men is nuts to me. Any time you put your dinky somewhere, you should know there may be complications. The risk had damn well better be worth the... uh... reward.
posted by:
FinalyFree (
reply)
post date:
04.15.06 (10:29 am)
Absolutely he should pay. Regardless of what the girlfriend told him--I'm not defending her, but if he had been this worried about the possibilities beforehand this silly case wouldn't be debated right now. I would think that 99 cent condom isn't looking like such a silly precaution to him right now!
posted by:
mimi (
reply)
post date:
04.15.06 (12:29 pm)
my dad was also a deadbeat dad...but my mother didn't make claims that she couldn't get pregnant and they were married at the time. i still say that she broke her "contract" by lying and she should be the only responsible party.
posted by:
surrogate (
reply)
post date:
04.16.06 (3:44 am)
Reply to: mimi
To me, that makes the kid suffer. Doesn't seem fair. Plus, the precedent is scary. Seems like an awful lot of men would start making similar claims, whether true or not. Sort of reminds me of the "But she said she was eighteen!" argument - which never works either.
posted by:
mimi (
reply)
post date:
04.16.06 (4:34 am)
Reply to: surrogate
perhaps i am incorrect, not having enough information and not really knowing the full story...i just thing that people, so called adults, should not lie and then not be held accountable for lying when they are caught. in regard to the child, certainly the child has done nothing wrong...but in many cases, of those i know of firsthand, the family of the mother always end up supporting the child and maybe moreso than if the father were in the picture. i just think we need to take back the accountability factor and perhaps the world might be a better place. blame shifting is a bad habit. xoxox
posted by:
(
reply)
post date:
04.16.06 (6:41 am)
Reply to: PastorDave
posted by:
cuz (
reply)
post date:
04.16.06 (6:47 am)
Only safe birth control is NOT having sex. Only a blockhead would believe...totally without papers, scars, and the paid medical receipts to prove otherwise...that somebody is sterile. Male or female that's the full of it, even with so call proof...skeptically, "You really gonna believe it?"
posted by:
mom's heart (
reply)
post date:
04.16.06 (7:01 am)
Beside the point: His case could set the rights of UNWED fathers back a century. Lose his case; he should. There are unwed dads that want to be "stand-up" dads. They willingly pay child support. They desire to have the right to know and spend time with their child.
In most circumstances they weren't looking to become a parent, but they accept it and do what's best for their child.
posted by:
fairmoon (
reply)
post date:
04.16.06 (10:36 am)
I find it funny ( not funny haha, but funny weird) that everyones focusing on the dad in this case. What about the mom? yes clearly she wanted to have a baby, but to go about it in such and underhanded way points to a possible unfit mom does it not? at least to me anyways. I would question HER as a parent not the dad.
And how is she going to explain the story to her child when the child is older and asks?
I think it's a horrible way to bring a child into the world and I'm more concerned for the life this kids going to have than anything else.
FM
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
04.16.06 (11:55 am)
Reply to: bacardibreezer
I think your mom should use legal means to force this man to provide proper child support. A lot of women do not because they are just glad the guy is out of the picture. I hope justice is served in this particular matter- your mom does not deserve such treatment.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
04.16.06 (11:57 am)
Reply to: surrogate
I'm trying to understand why they would call it "Roe-v-Wade For Men". I'm coming up blank. Too bad this guy didn't do the same.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
04.16.06 (11:58 am)
Reply to: FinalyFree
Even the Condom-Of-The-Month Club would have been a good investment for this guy.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
04.16.06 (12:00 pm)
Reply to: mimi
Yes, obviously she deceived the man. But he engaged in an activity that always involves a risk of producing a pregnancy. Thus, does he not share responsibility?
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
04.16.06 (12:03 pm)
Reply to: cuz
And you are right, cuz. This guy is at least guilty of being stupid. I like the way surrogate made this point, although more crudely, he states it well.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
04.16.06 (12:06 pm)
Reply to: mom's heart
i'm very glad you stopped by to visit, and elft a good comment. I admire a man who takes on his responsibility with integrity. A child will complicate a young man's life severly. Expenses, time, etc. The easy thing to do is to cop out. Lots of guys shirk this responsibility, and that is probably why the law comes down so obviously on the side of the mother.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
04.16.06 (12:08 pm)
Reply to: fairmoon
Good point. Maybe a wise judge will take her behaviour into consideration, and keep a close tab on her suitability for parenthood in the coming months. In the mean time, Dubay needs to pay.
posted by:
LeananSidhe (
reply)
post date:
04.17.06 (6:30 am)
This seems to be a common "problem" in today's society. Woman or man says their sterile, the opposite sex believes them (why?), they have unprotected sex (again, why?), and 9 months later there is a baby that one of the two doesn't want to be responsible for and who pays the ultimate price...the child.
Firstly, I don't understand why people are still having unprotected sex in this day and age of STD's and we all know where babies come from. Just because your partner tells you they cannot pro-create is no reason to take the chance...does everyone believe everything their told?
If the woman lied intentionally or not to trap this man or just to have herself a baby, is a low blow move in the first place. Should the man pay? I believe he should...that's the price for not wrapping his "willy" before diving in. If he doesn't want to be a part of his child's life, nor pay for the living expenses of that child then he should move to give up his rights to the child.
posted by:
hardtoimagine (
reply)
post date:
04.17.06 (10:27 am)
In my opinion, if he was not ready to father a child, then he should have taken his own precautions whether she said she was unable to become pregnant or not. You must be responsible for your own actions. He chose not to use other birth control methods, therefore he should help pay for the child's expenses.
posted by:
cuz (
reply)
post date:
04.17.06 (10:52 am)
Reply to: LeananSidhe
You said it well! If he wants to live debt free of this child, sign over his rights as father. It is a worry to think of what kind of life the little one will have with two such "upstanding" parents. Too bad PD isn't there...he could teach them.
posted by:
mom's heart (
reply)
post date:
04.17.06 (11:04 am)
Reply to: PastorDave
You are welcome for my comments. Though they might not always be what you would call good. I do think the girl/mom in this case could have been decieved as well. The information we were given doesn't tell us whether a doctor had advised her of an innability to conceive. There are numerous STD's to worry about contracting. She should still protect herself from those. So many people are walking around with them and sharing them that it scares a mom. Wish it would scare the participants enough to acutually use their brains and choose abstinance.
posted by:
HUMM (
reply)
post date:
04.17.06 (11:18 am)
Reply to:
Some background information is needed for clarification. His girlfriend at the time convinced him that she was unable to become pregnant because of a health complication, and that she was taking contraceptives as an added precaution. But when she became pregnant, she refused to have an abortion.
AT LEAST IT APPEARS SHE BELIEVES HER CHILD HAS THE RIGHT TO LIFE! IT ALSO READS LIKE SHE HERSELF THOUGHT SHE WOULDN'T GET PREGNANT. I'M GLAD SHE CHOSE TO HAVE HER CHILD AND THE GUY-HE'S GUILTY STRICTLY BECAUSE OF PARTICIPATION-NO MATTER WHAT HE THOUGHT. IT'S CALLED CONSEQUENCES! USE THE OTHER HEAD NEXT TIME. PREACHER WHAT IN THE WORLD ARE WE ALL DOING SITTING HERE IN JUDGEMENT? WHERE WOULD WE BE IF WE WERE WALKING IN THOSE SHOES? COULD WE ACTUALLY HANDLE THE SITUATION ANY BETTER?
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
04.17.06 (12:37 pm)
Reply to: LeananSidhe
In this day of readily available birth control, there is no excuse for pregnancy because of unprotected sex. If you ask me, there should be a stiff penalty imposed for any unwanted pregnancy resulting from unprotected sex. Call it the "Stupidity Penalty". Of course, the grandparents would be the ones left to pay it, just like they are usually the ones left to raise the child.
On a side note, I find funny the different euphamisms being shared by my fellow t-bloggers:
"it"
"dinky"
"willie"
I learn something everyday with t-blog!
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
04.17.06 (12:38 pm)
Reply to: hardtoimagine
Personal responsibility- seems to be lacking in much of our society. An ADULT steps up and does what is right.
posted by:
PastorDave (
reply)
post date:
04.17.06 (12:43 pm)
Reply to: HUMM
You have a point...an unexpected pregnancy is a great challenge. And when abortion is so readily available and socially acceptable, it does take intention to choose to keep the child. I applaud her for choosing LIFE.
But, she lied to this man. He is guilty of being stupid, boorish, etc. She did something very unfair- deceived this man, and now he will pay dearly. She deserves child support. She does not deserve respect.
posted by:
HUMM (
reply)
post date:
04.17.06 (6:00 pm)
NO RESPECT GONNA BE FOUND HERE FOR EITHER SO CALLED ADULT. JUST FOR THE BABY. DON'T FRETT, I'VE GOT MY HEAD ON STRAIGHT. BOTH.
posted by:
beer_n_chicks (
reply)
post date:
04.21.06 (12:14 pm)
I feel like the woman in this case probably didn't want to become a mother but she is doing the grown up thing and taking care of her responsibilites. I feel like Matthew is just being an idiot. you can't plan everyting that happens in life, some things just happen. I feel sorry for the little girl that will grow up knowing that her father is a fool who could never look past his own wants and love her.
posted by:
I'd rather not say (
reply)
post date:
04.21.06 (7:15 pm)
I'm in an EXTREMELY similar situation and I'd like to shed some light on it for all who will read this. I am a woman and I was on birth control. I became pregnant on birth control not once, but twice. The first time my boyfriend was so upset and hurt. I could have handled it, but he couldn't. Against my better judgement, I had an abortion. We vowed to never have unprotected sex again. We only stuck to it the two weeks it took to recover from the abortion. I take FULL responsibility for my actions in that situation. Unfortunately, he doesn't. I got pregnant again and because I refused to put my body through another abortion I have been accused of getting pregnant on purpose. I have been called all of the things that you all are calling the mother in this case. It isn't fair. My daughters father also wants nothing to do with her and if knows anything about this case he'll have a field day, I'm sure of it. He pays child support because it is the law and I believe that law is fair and just. Any PERSON that doesn't want to have a baby should take their OWN precautions! PERIOD! The only sure thing is abstinence. If you aren't practicing that, you are always (ALWAYS!) running the risk of having a child!
posted by:
Roe v Wades Sucks (
reply)
post date:
11.07.07 (6:25 pm)
What is good for the goose is good for the gander. If a woman can overrule an equal biological parent because it's her body, then a man should be able to overrule an equal biological parent because its his wallet. Equality's a hoot, isn't it? Might even result in more cautious sexual relations - there's a thought!
Then again, appeal this baby all the way to the SCOTUS. Overturn the assinine legal "interpretation" Roe vs. Wade, and let the people vote, state by state (democracy - another novel idea).
posted by:
TheSilentMale (
reply)
post date:
11.07.07 (9:19 pm)
A woman of child-bearing age who does not want to have a child can have sex with any man any time she wants. If she gets pregnant she can have an abortion and it doesn't matter what the man (or men) she slept with think about it.
This case proves that men and women DO NOT have equal rights. It proves that a woman can do anything (or anyone) she wants and she does not have to worry about the consequences. Meanwhile, men are supposed to be responsible from the beginning and NOT do anything that could result in something bad happening. That is absolutely screwed up. Women would be a whole lot less cavalier about sleeping with men and suing them if men had the same reproductive rights that they have.
