mick at the movies@mickatthemovies

Seguir

Socio-affective parenthood courtroom debate

The part that gets me is the judge basically saying love can come with a bill attached. Guy opens his case by telling the court he can't be made to pay support for a kid that isn't his, arguing that Brazilian law doesn't turn every man who dates a woman into a parent by default. The judge comes back with a question about socio-affective parenthood under Brazilian legislation, and yeah, he's heard of it, Your Honor, but he never agreed to be anyone's father. He was dating the mom while she was pregnant, and in his view that doesn't make the child his daughter. She remembers it very differently. By her account he was beside her the whole pregnancy, hit the medical appointments, picked up things for the baby, and told people outright that he was the father. His side of it is that he did all of that out of love and was just trying to help, never expecting to end up in court years later with child support on the table. When the judge asks whether he was actually part of the child's life, she doesn't hold back: very much so, Your Honor. He carried the baby, fed her, took her to school, and everyone knew him as the father. Then he drops it, he found out he wasn't the biological dad. The judge wants to know if he kept showing up as the father after that, and he says he eventually pulled back, because he didn't feel obligated to keep playing a role that wasn't his. She fires back asking whether finding out the child isn't biologically his gives him the right to walk away after raising her. He insists he never said he stopped caring, only that he shouldn't be forced to support a kid who isn't his daughter. The judge explains that Brazilian law recognizes parenthood growing out of bonds beyond biology, and that a real, consolidated parental relationship can create legal duties. So the man asks the obvious thing, does loving a child turn into a financial obligation? The answer is yes if the requirements for socio-affective parenthood are proven, but the judge is clear they have to look at the evidence rather than assume he's on the hook just because he dated the mother. The woman grabs that thread, asking why he was fine with being called papa when things were good and only now, with money involved, is he suddenly not the father. His response is a joke about reading the fine print before you fall in love, and the judge snaps back that this is a court, not a subscription you cancel when the bill shows up. She thanks the judge, who tells her not to get ahead of herself, since whether a legally recognized parental bond ever existed is still an open question.

1d

mick at the movies@mickatthemovies

Seguir

Socio-affective parenthood courtroom debate

The part that gets me is the judge basically saying love can come with a bill attached. Guy opens his case by telling the court he can't be made to pay support for a kid that isn't his, arguing that Brazilian law doesn't turn every man who dates a woman into a parent by default. The judge comes back with a question about socio-affective parenthood under Brazilian legislation, and yeah, he's heard of it, Your Honor, but he never agreed to be anyone's father. He was dating the mom while she was pregnant, and in his view that doesn't make the child his daughter. She remembers it very differently. By her account he was beside her the whole pregnancy, hit the medical appointments, picked up things for the baby, and told people outright that he was the father. His side of it is that he did all of that out of love and was just trying to help, never expecting to end up in court years later with child support on the table. When the judge asks whether he was actually part of the child's life, she doesn't hold back: very much so, Your Honor. He carried the baby, fed her, took her to school, and everyone knew him as the father. Then he drops it, he found out he wasn't the biological dad. The judge wants to know if he kept showing up as the father after that, and he says he eventually pulled back, because he didn't feel obligated to keep playing a role that wasn't his. She fires back asking whether finding out the child isn't biologically his gives him the right to walk away after raising her. He insists he never said he stopped caring, only that he shouldn't be forced to support a kid who isn't his daughter. The judge explains that Brazilian law recognizes parenthood growing out of bonds beyond biology, and that a real, consolidated parental relationship can create legal duties. So the man asks the obvious thing, does loving a child turn into a financial obligation? The answer is yes if the requirements for socio-affective parenthood are proven, but the judge is clear they have to look at the evidence rather than assume he's on the hook just because he dated the mother. The woman grabs that thread, asking why he was fine with being called papa when things were good and only now, with money involved, is he suddenly not the father. His response is a joke about reading the fine print before you fall in love, and the judge snaps back that this is a court, not a subscription you cancel when the bill shows up. She thanks the judge, who tells her not to get ahead of herself, since whether a legally recognized parental bond ever existed is still an open question.

1d