Should the unmarried parents of disabled children have to support them indefinately?

[Polly]

Now, personally, I think the answer is yes. Why? My trusty favorite-the equal protection clause, aka the 14th amendment. Here's a link to refresh that government course.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

If one parent has to do it, (unfortuantely, it's usually the mom) then both should have to pay. Of course, the other argument is that neither parent is responsible-leaving it up the state. Given how cheap most governments are, I doubt any court will decide to hand the financial care of more severely disabled people over to the state.

Here is the article that prompted it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/15/AR2007021501893.html

Oh, and for the record I think the father in the article is a schmuck. :soapbox

Polly

Aka "The Agitator" or "Her Evilness" :devious

[Jejune]

When people have a child, whatever the end result may be, I think both parents are equally responsible for supporting that child to the best of their abilities. Married or not, the commitment is to the child they are both the parents of. It doesn't matter whether a child was planned or wanted, either. Parents are parents.

[Jo]

Legally, if the courts find the current law unconstitutional via the 14th amendment, like in South Carolina, I would completely agree. I don't think marriage should be the deciding factor about responsibility. I am unclear though, does the current Maryland law hold her responsible? Also how is he classified legally? If she doesn't have to be a guardian, then I am unclear about what either parent's responsibilities are legally, married or not.

Emotionally, he should be held responsible. I do have a problem though with the idea that the father's non participation was not an issue until there was the huge financial burden due to medical expenses. The issue of paternity should have been settled years ago. But that is neither here nor there. The father ultimately should be responsible regardless of his son's age.

[Lori]

And this is why we should have national health care. Neither parent, in this case, should have to deal with enormous medical bills to cover care that their child needs.

Honestly, I'm not sure the father should have to be responsible in this case, in a legal sense. I'm not sure where the line would be drawn. If I'm 23 and have no health insurance and can't work because of an injury, are my parents legally responsible for paying for my medical care? Should they be? I'd hope they would, but I'm not sure I'd want to saddle people who may already really be struggling financially with huge medical bills.

Parents should care for their child in the best way possible throughout their lives. However, I'm not sure that a family's legal obligation to support their child economically should extend past 18, regardless of what they should do.

[Jo]

There are government benefits available for disabled adults. I would guess at the very least he is eligible for SSDI. Since he is an adult who probably cannot work, he should be able to qualify for other programs based on his non income level. It isn't the optimum situation but there are alternatives.

My concern is with the disabled adults who will always need a guardian. Should the biological parents be forced to assume that role legally? Normally most do it without hesitation. But for instance, lets assume this was a mentally retarded adult who will never be able to make decisions for himself. How should the laws reflect that type of situation?

[Lori]

My concern is with the disabled adults who will always need a guardian. Should the biological parents be forced to assume that role legally?

My concern in that case would be that a parent who didn't want to be their child's guardian probably wouldn't be a very good guardian, and possibly couldn't be counted on to make decisions that were in their child's best interest. If you force a parent to be their child's guardian, that seems like it could open to the door to a lot of potential abuse, and the parent making poor decisions.

[Jo]

I agree but it would also force him to fulfill his responsibilities financially. I think I am going to look up the MD code and the South Carolina decision because I want to know what the current law says and what exactly the other decision is based on.

[Val]

I didn't read the article because we see this every day in real life. Dh's brother has a disbility that will keep him from every being self sufficient, holding a job, or caring for himself. Their father doesn't help much because the court mandated support ended when each child turned 18. So insane to say that his duty to his child just magically ended at 18.