Prostitution and Child Support

Wildy

Adelaidean
Wildy
Joined
Sep 18, 2007
Messages
11,962
Location
Australia
Just read this about a man in Melbourne.

Seems that he went to a prostitute and she had his kid. He was paying about $100 a week on an informal agreement to her but his circumstances had changed and the matter is in court because he stopped paying her.

However the possibility does exist for the man to sue either the woman or the company that she works for because it's illegal to have sex without a condom.

I can understand the point the man is making. I would have thought that the woman would still be on birth control as a precaution in case something goes wrong, and I'd guess that there would be a duty of care on the part of the prostitute to ensure that nothing like this happens.

Yet the man was incredibly stupid and still engaged in an illegal act, and this was a consequence of his actions. I would assume that from a legal perspective the man managed to get himself into this issue by giving the woman child support money even if it was an informal agreement.

So what does everyone else think?
 
She could just claim that the condom broke. In addition, she was under no legal obligation to be on birth control.

He's the father, he's got to pay up for the next 18 years.
 
Yes, he should pay up for his part in a mistake. Still, he might have grounds for a lawsuit against the cathouse. I'm certainly no expert in law, though.
 
Seems to me that child support is for the child. If he doesn't have to pay, that punishes the child for the mistake of the mother, or her employer, or the man, or whatever. He's the father, he should have to pay, regardless of the circumstances surrounding the conception. Can he get reimbursed from the brothel? Maybe, but that's a different question - he should be primarily responsible.
 
Interesting to know how she know it was him that was the father. I assume she would have had many partners. Then a test to see if he was the father.
 
How the bloody hell does a prostitute get custody of a child? That's the real issue here.
 
The argument that there's an implied guarantee that a prostitute won't get knocked up (or, presumably, takes responsibility for it if they do) is an interesting one. It might or might not be a good thing for the sex industry if there was such a rule, I'm not sure, but it's an idea that's worth a look.

Laws that prevent sex workers hiring security guards have rightly been decried by those sex workers as an attempt by Puritans to make sex work riskier - making clients responsible for pregnancies would seem to have a similar effect.
 
A man who has sex with a prostitute without a condom is an A grade idiot and deserves the consequences.
 
rjh01 said:
Interesting to know how she know it was him that was the father. I assume she would have had many partners. Then a test to see if he was the father.
Click to expand...

That's a very good point. A prostitute has many johns, then which one is the father? The others using a condom does not exclude them, a condom has a non-zero rate of failure too. Even with his increased chance of fatherhood due to absence of a condom, I'd be surprised if a court would demand a paternity test in case the prostitute pressed it.

The article does not state why he accepted fatherhood in the first place. Seems like a very dumb move. The only explanation I can come up is that she blackmailed him with not using a condom, and he agreed to that.
 
Wildy said:
...snip...

So what does everyone else think?
Click to expand...

Everything in your post is pretty much (in my opinion) superfluous to the actual issue, i.e. there is a child that needs financial support. The child's right to that from his/her parents should come before any rights of the the parents.

About the only exception to this would be if either parent had been raped or the sperm or egg obtained under fraudulent conditions, then there should be no financial obligation on the parent. However in this instance I can't see how the father could claim that.

ETA: Posted the above before the question of the child's parentage was raised - I am obviously assuming he is the biological father.
 
Last edited:
ddt said:
The only explanation I can come up is that she blackmailed him with not using a condom, .
Click to expand...

Having just a little experience in that business I don't think that not wearing a condom was her idea. On the contrary it is rather difficult to get a "customer" to wear a condom if he doesn't want to.

What next..... she "raped" him to get herself pregnant?
 
MindRevolution said:
How the bloody hell does a prostitute get custody of a child? That's the real issue here.
Click to expand...
Excuse me? She is the mother. She has custody by default. And in Australia, she is not doing anything illegal. No grounds to take away her custody of the child.
 
Roma Hart said:
Having just a little experience in that business I don't think that not wearing a condom was her idea. On the contrary it is rather difficult to get a "customer" to wear a condom if he doesn't want to.

What next..... she "raped" him to get herself pregnant?
Click to expand...

Hold it right there, no strawmen, please. I was just wondering why he admitted to being the father and paying child support. Or is wearing a condom for a john customer client in any way more difficult than paying $100/month?

And for the record, I do not in any way condone the practice you describe.
 
lionking said:
A man who has sex with a prostitute without a condom is an A grade idiot and deserves the consequences.
Click to expand...

Here's what he was most likely thinking: well, everyone else uses a condom with her! So she can't have any STDs so I can sleep with her without being worried about them!

The train of thought of every parent who doesn't vaccinate their child because "measles doesn't exist anymore" or "every single other kid is vaccinated so I don't have to do mine cause of herd immunity".

Or maybe "I'm paying her, I get to do what makes me feel good."

Or maybe he just didn't know, didn't care, was too drunk or something else.

Regardless of why birth control wasn't used, all fathers of children have to pay child support and this guy shouldn't be any different. Whether or not the mother lied about or neglected birth control or birth control didn't work or whatnot.

A non-prostitute and a non-client with a child together don't get to say "Your Honor, she didn't want to use a condom!", "No, he didn't want to use a condom!", "She told me she was on the pill!", "I never said anything like that!". So a prostitute and a client shouldn't be any different.
 
Alt+F4 said:
She could just claim that the condom broke. In addition, she was under no legal obligation to be on birth control.

He's the father, he's got to pay up for the next 18 years.
Click to expand...

Hold on now. There's a reasonable expectation that there would be no child from this coupling. And, unlike a real BF/GF situmication, she is the professional.

If a car shop test drives your car after repairing the transmission, and crashes it, they have to pay for it. Why should this professional be exempted from that level of expectation?

It was her mistake, and in the professional realm of her job. It is 100% her financial burden.



:duck:
When's the new season of House start?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom