1

Charlie Sheens are told to pay $50k a month for his child. What about before conceiving babies Charlie said, "Look, if I knocked you up, I would only spend $2k."

In theory, a girl may have to choose 2 options. $2k a month from a billionaire or a $1k a month from a welfare king. She may prefer the former and may agree to sign contract to get knocked up and get paid $2k a month child support. Say her next alternatives is picking much poorer man.

Is it legally binding?

  • 1
    There is also the alternative of not choosing either man. – user3851 Aug 21 '16 at 17:33
  • This issue is parodied at getrichbangbabes.com free e-book on story "A Mother Wannabe’s Difficult Choice." It may explains the dilemma more clearly – Sharen Eayrs Oct 2 '16 at 12:16
  • The problem is that it is physically impossible to make a deal with a child before it is conceived... and the support payments are for the child, not the mother. The mother is just often the guardian. If the child went to another guardian, the money would follow the child. – Ask About Monica Feb 5 at 21:33
  • However, the child would have gotten more money than if the girl choose poorer guys – user4951 Feb 17 at 16:01
5

In the US, no, courts would not enforce such a contract. It would be deemed not in the public interest, perhaps unconscionable. Of course, two willing adults could make and honor such an agreement but that would only work as long as the woman didn't change her mind. What is "fair" in a situation like this is a little tricky but, ultimately, any child's welfare is going to be a major consideration in any court decision.

|improve this answer|||||
  • You sure? what about other country? Well, that's one freedom I can enjoy in Indonesia. Free country ha? – user4951 Aug 21 '16 at 16:50
  • Child's best interest? Some kids would end up having poorer father due to prohibition. So it's legal for a poor man to offer small money but not legal for a rich man to offer same amount of money? – user4951 Aug 21 '16 at 16:51
  • @JimThio Comments aren't the best place to ask new questions. However, sure, each person can offer whatever they want to offer. Neither offer needs to be accepted, and the woman doesn't waive the ability to claim what is due to her. I don't understand your question about a free country or how it relates to your original question. – user3851 Aug 21 '16 at 17:32
  • @JimThio I didn't say I like it or agree with it, just that this is how I feel sure it would turn out. There may be other ways to protect your financial interests in that kind of situation but the potential mother cannot waive her hypothetical child's right to support from you or her ability to claim it on said child's behalf. It sounds amusing but perhaps an insurance policy could be obtained to protect you? An umbrella policy protects against judgments in lawsuits... child care is a judgment form a lawsuit... haha yeah that might work. – Patrick87 Aug 22 '16 at 2:50
  • @JimThio: It's obviously in the child's best interest if the mother accepts a low offer from the rich person, and then changes her mind and takes all his money. And the child's best interest is at stake here. – gnasher729 Aug 23 '16 at 10:47
1

First, the overriding concept in the US is the "child's best interest." Given that the court may override prior stipulations.

Second, most courts seek a level of benefit for the child, where there lifestyle would be similar to what it would be if the parents were together, raising the child. This is hard to implement, but radically disparate child support is unusual. (If you make allot, you are probably going to pay allot.)

In NY, when support is calculated, the worksheet will show what each parent's support would be if they were the custodial parent. It's on the table.

One more consideration, and this has happened, that the disinterested parent suddenly decides that they want to be everything in the child's life and they now want "full custody" which if there were unlimited funds for litigation, could serve to starve out the poorer parent and flip the table.

Choices based on greed may turn out very wrong for more than one party.

|improve this answer|||||

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.