3 ms·

Birth records are public records, and if they aren't together, many states will require the father to pay child support once they figure out who he is. Sure, no

Birth records are public records, and if they aren't together, many states will require the father to pay child support once they figure out who he is. Sure, no one would have to know, but they can find out. If the non-pregnant partner carries the health insurance, they will probably want the pregnancy covered and the baby once it is born. An intelligent non-pregnant partner would change his tax exemptions to mirror their new family size (except in a few cases). The tax forms might be a key: Require everyone to be honest about their underage children, whether or not they are dependents, and give the option to claim fewer dependents on their tax forms. Yet another option is to handle it much like FMLA. The employer doesn't get the right to know exactly what is going on and the doctor can use medical codes instead of plain English. My ex's psychiatrist did this when he needed time off for a major mental illness (he later went on disability for said illness). The employer doesn't have to know, but he'll need similar notice.

to_bpr 8y ago
This is incredibly dystopian and would be massive government and corporate overreach. I would hope a reasonable person would never advocate for such intrusion.
- Broken_Hippo 8y ago
  Most of these are already in place and they already have your information about your family. Insurance providers, the IRS, and so on. Women already have absolutely no choice in people knowing they are expecting a child. For health reasons - both theirs and the baby's - they already need to take time off. It isn't like women can claim a back injury when they are pregnant. A few bad employers already put their hands in whether or not health insurance covers birth control. If this stuff is dystopian to you, you are already living in one. Birth records are already there. Most employers won't look unless law, and I agree this isn't the best way to do it. However, if some time off is mandatory, it'd be reasonable for the state to inform the father he's required to take time off after the baby. Following the law would be his responsibility: The employer would only be forced to comply if they knew. There are already regulations (either through law or company policies) about adding a child onto your health insurance. Most times, folks have to upgrade their health insurance to a family plan if it is their first child. For other children, they already have to report that to health insurance so the child is covered. A reminder from the insurance that the law requires parental leave as well as maternal leave would be prudent. These folks already are handling your information now. FMLA is already in place. These folks already handle health records, and as mentioned, the reason can stay hidden from employers to an extent.
  - chongli 8y ago
    Yeah, so what if the father is the sole income earner of his starting family and being forced to take leave (with its attendant pay cut) causes him to miss a rental payment and his family gets evicted? This is a draconian idea. Besides, employers don't want it! If they didn't want you coming to work, they would lay you off. Otherwise they're going to look the other way. Families living on the edge will do anything to avoid this problem, including leaving the father's name off the birth certificate, if it comes to that.

to_bpr 8y ago

This is incredibly dystopian and would be massive government and corporate overreach. I would hope a reasonable person would never advocate for such intrusion.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago
Most of these are already in place and they already have your information about your family. Insurance providers, the IRS, and so on. Women already have absolutely no choice in people knowing they are expecting a child. For health reasons - both theirs and the baby's - they already need to take time off. It isn't like women can claim a back injury when they are pregnant. A few bad employers already put their hands in whether or not health insurance covers birth control. If this stuff is dystopian to you, you are already living in one. Birth records are already there. Most employers won't look unless law, and I agree this isn't the best way to do it. However, if some time off is mandatory, it'd be reasonable for the state to inform the father he's required to take time off after the baby. Following the law would be his responsibility: The employer would only be forced to comply if they knew. There are already regulations (either through law or company policies) about adding a child onto your health insurance. Most times, folks have to upgrade their health insurance to a family plan if it is their first child. For other children, they already have to report that to health insurance so the child is covered. A reminder from the insurance that the law requires parental leave as well as maternal leave would be prudent. These folks already are handling your information now. FMLA is already in place. These folks already handle health records, and as mentioned, the reason can stay hidden from employers to an extent.
- chongli 8y ago
  Yeah, so what if the father is the sole income earner of his starting family and being forced to take leave (with its attendant pay cut) causes him to miss a rental payment and his family gets evicted? This is a draconian idea. Besides, employers don't want it! If they didn't want you coming to work, they would lay you off. Otherwise they're going to look the other way. Families living on the edge will do anything to avoid this problem, including leaving the father's name off the birth certificate, if it comes to that.