Teen Parent's Rights vs. the Rights of the Child

Alife Pattens's story is like a car accident - you'd like to look away, but yet you feel voyeuristically drawn to stare. Like, "what the heck happened here?!?" Granted this isn't the most scholarly story and probably finds itself more comfortable on an episode of Springer, it got me thinking about the rights that a teen parent has. I don't know the statistics but I would imagine teen fathers are not always the most involved. They probably continue living life like a young person, and I imagine many of the mother do too with the grandparents to pick up the slack.

Unless of course your Sarah Palin's child, and then you are forced to get married. Although it sounds like a viable solution, in reality very few of these couples pull this off. Believe me I have seen enough in my office to know. Though I am not denying the success stories, often these couples either break up as teens, or continue in a very difficult marriage.

As much as I want to respect these teen parent's lives, the gaping hole in this is what about the rights of the child? Don't their rights count for anything? I think these children have the right to grow up in a home where their parents have the level of maturity to take care of them. I wonder what would happen if we mandated that children born to teen parents under a certain age are adopted out. Would it make them think twice about having sex, or at the very least using a condom? Or would it make them think think their off the hook to have unlimited promiscuity.

Granted I don't see this happening any time soon. Grandparents would put up quite a fight to this. Interestingly it is the pregnant girl's mother that has the greatest influence on her daughters choice on whether to keep the baby or place the child for adoption. I have personally known children raised by teen parents, and although I love these kids I still have the nagging feeling of how much better the child's life would have been in a home with parents who are more ready and desperately trying to have a child of their own.

Restraining Orders as a Weapon

Although Glenn Sacks article is focused on why Joe Biden is bad (this article was written pre-election), his reasoning behind it is due to Biden's legislative support of certain domestic violence policies.  Sacks's opinion is that these policies have made it too easy to place restraining orders on men, putting these men at risk. 

I have worked with both victims and perpetrators of domestic violence.  I have to admit that there is some truth that this restraining process is too easy.  A wife can have her husband put in jail for a few days, unable to make any contact with his children for weeks, and have to attend a four month domestic course just as quickly as you can make a police report.  As a father, having no contact with my children would be devastating, especially if my wife was dishonest.  

However, I am not sure what the solution is.   Simply there are men that are abusive, and there needs to be a protection in place for the safety of these women and children.  I agree with Sacks that women can be abusers too.  Despite what some have speculated it is not always in self defense.  However, Sack's argument that half of abusers are women seems to be going a bit far - I love would love to see the study that found that.  I will also agree that the physical abuse can come from both parties.  But DV perpetrators always blame the victim and explain why the other person is just as guilty, or provoked it - "I wouldn't have done it, if they hadn't done what they did".  So you can see why it is sometimes difficult to identify a clear perpetrator and a victim acting in self defense.    

I do not think that softening the ability to get a restraining order is the solution.  Salt Lake City is in the process of setting up a court/judge specifically to deal with domestic violence.  I think that is a step in the right direction to have someone specifically trained to get to the bottom of things.  Overall I suppose these "easy" restraining orders are the price we have to pay for some peoples choice to be domestically violent.  

Deadbeat Dads

Ok, we can probably all agree deadbeat dads are a menace.  Unfortunately I can verify this from personal experience.  When I worked in county mental health in a low ses community it was frustrating to see the lack of responsibility taken up by these men.  I have another memory of working at a fast food restaurant when I was in high school and having a co-worker explain to me that he worked there to avoid making enough money to pay child support to his ex-wife.  Back then I didn't have the guts to tell him what a jerk he was, but I wouldn't mind telling him so now.  

The government would probably stay out of the matter if they were not the ones footing the bill to these dads (I know mom's are guilty of also being deadbeats, but I have chosen here to focus on fathers).    Although I do not like enabling, I also believe children should not be punished for their parent's misdeeds.  

With all that being said, I think most of us can agree that we all want to see these men ante up.  However, as the Cato Institute has pointed out that doing so can be a slippery slope to removing us of our individual freedoms.  I think there is a tendency for many of us to want to run in and fix things - which we have done repeatedly, but often we forget to consider the unintended consequences.  Too often when we create another law with the intent of punishing the bad guy, we often rob ourselves of yet another freedom.  The cure becomes worse than the disease.  After the price that has been paid repeatedly by the blood of our forebears to develop and maintain our freedom we should be careful to not trample on it too easily for the sake of civil order.  Maybe the place to start would be to make sure and tell that guy what a jerk he is next time I see him - rather than being afraid of offending him.  Perhaps we are expecting the government to do what we are afraid to do ourselves.  Another case of enabling. 

To Stay Home or Not to Stay Home

I have some married male friends for one reason or another have decided to stay home with their children while their wives go out to work.  Although I admire them for making this choice, there's a part of me (maybe the male ego part) that is like, wouldn't you rather be the one to work? Doesn't your wife resent you for having to do this?  According to a US News article some women do.  The idea of men being breadwinners made more sense when physical prowess was a necessary skill for doing so, but now that it isn't does it still make sense?  Women staying home with children also made sense since biologically since children come from their bodies and continue to nurse from them after birth, but now we do have the bottle that can be filled with formula (no matter how expensive that stuff is).  So is there any justification for my knee jerk response.  

Honestly, my one friend who stays home is very good at what he does and his wife is equally good at what she does.  However, I can see why a women might not respect her man as much if he cannot bring home the bacon.  I can also empathize with her frustration if both are working full time but what happens at home is not split up evenly, which is too often the case.  Is it because we men are biologically programmed to react this way, or are we just being lazy?