Better an abused system than no system at all
Just a short while after the news that 30 per cent of young teenagers say they live with just one of their natural parents, we have some other news in the same vein: that one in five babies born last year was registered as being of an unknown father. The number is significant, more than double that of the previous year, which had already seen an increase over the year before.
It should be noted that this is not the number of babies born outside wedlock, to use an old-fashioned phrase. That number would be even greater. No, it is the number of babies born to women who choose not to name the father. There is no way that these women are unable to work out who the father of their baby is, unless they are common prostitutes who have sex with strangers several times a day. It isn’t that difficult to work out that they don’t name the father because there are negative consequences to doing so, and not just because there are benefits to be derived.
It is assumed that women don’t name the fathers of their babies because they want to receive social security cheques and other benefits as ‘abandoned’ mothers. And yes, it is true that there are large numbers of women who think like this, usually under the influence of their so-called partners, who obviously find it much more convenient to have the government shell out for what should be their dues. But women in this position are clearly not thinking straight, are in denial of their situation, and have little idea as to their rights. They have been told what their rights are in respect of social security, but they don’t really have a clue what their rights are in respect of the man who fathered their child, always assuming, of course, that the man is going to be present in the child’s life, even if this fact is hidden from the authorities. The minute they put ‘unknown father’ on the form, they reject on behalf of their child the right to maintenance and even the right to inheritance. They sign themselves and their child on for financial dependence on the state, rather than on the father. But they also do away with something far, far more serious and important: the child’s dignity.
Women with a baby on their hands find it hard to conceive of a future in which that baby becomes a child, then a teenager, then an adult. They cannot see far enough ahead to the day when they will have to confront an angry 18-year-old with an ‘unknown father’ birth certificate in his hand, accusing his mother of being such a whore that she can’t remember who she slept with, or not even having the decency to accord him the respect of telling him who his father is, preferring instead to keep that knowledge to herself.
Far, far worse is the situation of a child raised in full awareness of who his father is, and with that man a more or less constant presence in his life, who then finds out when he first sees his birth certificate – when applying for a passport, for example – and finds out that his father is technically unknown. He goes to his mother for an explanation and she says: “Oh, what’s the fuss? You know who your father is. We decided to say that I couldn’t remember who fathered you so that we could collect social security.” That should go down well – because here’s the thing: once you’ve put ‘unknown father’ on the birth certificate to collect social security for 16 years, you can’t go back to the public registry when the cheques stop coming and say, “Now that’s it’s over, I’ve remembered who fathered him.”
I think if the mother were to be made fully aware of the significance of that ‘unknown father’ bit, she wouldn’t do it, no matter how much her partner tried to pressure her into it. And quite frankly, she should also be aware that any man who is so quick to publicly disown his own child, while passing it off as a cunning little way to get money off the government, is going to be a shifty piece of work to deal with where she’s concerned, too, sooner rather than later.
There are cases in which I can understand why a woman might register her child as having an unknown father. This is if she has no relationship whatsoever with the man, if he is abusive, or if having him in the child’s life would turn out to be for the worse. Women in this situation have a very, very difficult decision to make, and it is wrong to be judgemental. I can really understand what they are going through, having had a couple of friends who went through the same thing. You get pregnant by accident. The man doesn’t want to know, isn’t seeing you anymore, and wants you to have an abortion. He hates you because you have attempted to ruin his life by becoming pregnant (he never thinks of your life). He sees you as the vicious enemy, the bitch who’s done him in. He shouts at you and is abusive. Then he attempts to accuse you of sleeping with somebody else and trying to pass the baby off as his.
Seeing his attitude, you don’t want him in your life or your child’s life. You have to weigh things up. Do you register him as the father, and let him be what I like to call ‘a present absence’ in the child’s life, and what is worse, one who can call the shots by refusing his signature for a passport, and so on? Or do you pretend that he never happened, say that you can’t remember who the father is (which is like saying you are a common whore) and hope that by the time your child starts asking questions, you will have worked out some answers that will be good enough to prevent him turning on you in a rage? It’s a tough call, and nobody can presume to know the answers.
The trouble with the present legal situation is that the father’s rights are immediately enforceable but his obligations are not. So, if the father refuses permission for the child he never sees and doesn’t pay for to have a passport, then that child can never travel until he is 18. Do you think this is far-fetched? All I have to do is remind you of the teenage girl who had to have official sanction from a government minister to travel to Rome for a day for the beatification of Dun Gorg Preca, all because her father refused to sign the documents that would give her a passport. And when she went, she and her mother were guarded by a government official who even slept in the same room as they did.
Yet when it comes to getting the father to fulfil his obligations, things are not quite as summarily executed. Women end up in court suing for miserably small maintenance cheques and scrabbling by on the kind of money that wouldn’t even keep a family in bread and water. They pay for all their children’s clothes, medicines, books, toys, food, water, electricity and the roof over their heads, and then the present absence exercises his right to refuse to sign for a passport for the children just in case they disappear and he never sees them again, even though he never sees them in the first place. What is this? It’s insane. Imagine the situation of a child who never gets to leave the island until the age of 18, all because his absent father refuses to sign the passport documents. And this is something that the children of married but separated parents go through too.
Posted beneath the on-line story about these new statistics were several comments from people who think that the suspected sexual partners of a woman who tries to register her baby as having an unknown father should be forcibly DNA-tested, along with the baby. This shows a pitifully poor comprehension of civil rights. Some said that women who claim they don’t know who the father of their baby is should not be given social security, which begs the question: then who should? If there is a father in the picture, then they don’t need social security. Ah, but here’s the thing: the erroneous assumption is that the presence of a father means a source of income for mother and child. Oh, how wrong these people are, and how cruel, too, to force a woman to spend her life begging and chasing a man who doesn’t want to support his child or the woman who he made pregnant, leaving her unable to work and provide for her own living, still less that of two people.
Those who think that a wholly unwilling man can be made to cough up have obviously never tried it. Just imagine being a woman with a child forced to live in such circumstances, never knowing whether there is going to be enough money to last the day, still less the week. Ironically, those who say “she should have thought of that before she had sex” are usually the same ones who speak out against abortion. So they won’t allow her to have an abortion, but they won’t help her live with her baby either. They might as well take things one step further, and demand a return to the days when women in this situation got thrown into a workhouse, or begged on the streets with toddlers clutching their petticoats. I sometimes wonder what happened to people who think like this, that they are so harsh and insensitive to the trials of others.
Much as I object to the abuse of the social security system, I have no hesitation in saying that it is far, far better to have a social security system which is abused than a system in which desperate women with babies to care for have their lives ruined and their children’s lives blighted by 18 years of being beholden to a man who doesn’t care and doesn’t pay. There are enough married women in that situation, who have never had any hope of being rescued by a social security cheque, without dragging in the unmarried ones as well. Malta is full of married women who have raised their children in poverty in the households of men who earn money. At least their unmarried sisters can turn to the state and say: “Help me.” The married ones can’t.
This article is published in The Malta Independent on Sunday today.
26 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
I see the following as being key points in the ‘unknown- father saga crises:
1. The number of women claiming benefits through the unknown-father claim is increasing, and increasing at a rapid rate
2. The current social-benefits menu has encouraged a number of diy sub-schemes whereby persons of a lazycumignorant disposition claw into the tax-payer subsidised system, condemning themselves for a life of mediocrity at best
3. The social secuirty network, therefore, needs an urgent overhaul. A principle should be adopted whereby all services will be provided in kind. A clean bed, healthy food, TV etc. Posting cheques is at the basis of this potential abuse.
4. The burden on the tax-payer continues to spiral out of control. TMIS reports: Eleven thousand more families are benefiting from Children’s Allowance this year as a result of last year’s Budget decisions… Expenditure on Children’s Allowance during the first five months of the year has shot up from last year’s e14.8 million to e23 million,
The system is unsustainable on both on a social and financial platform
Regards
ps I am in favour of giving women the right to decide on abortion
Daphne presented a balanced case, I am in agreement with her facts, she opts for a status quo , and is of the opinion that the best of to evils should remain , ie : that we leave the abusers get away with it.
It is traumatic for a girl who had a one night stand with a guy she hardly knew, to go to court and beg for the maintenance of the innocent child.
I think there are logical solutions : doesn’t the government have the PAYE system? An amendment to the law can be introduced so that if proven, an ‘unwanted parent” should have so much money deducted from his/her wage or from his bank account for the maintenance of the child. If s/he is unemployed the Welfare state comes in and will deduct the expenses from the “unwanted parent’s” pension , or increases the NI contribution of the abuser.
People should shoulder their responsibilities and face the logical and natural consequences. Why should we pay for other people’s irresponsible actions or abuses?
The law should say to these unknown fathers (or to be politically correct : parents) :” OK if you cannot pay now , pay later ‘tardare si, scappare no’ ” .
Let us help the abused victims, by all means, let us give them more if need be , but we should not encourage abuse. We are talking about the sum of approximately €56,666 of social services per child in a span of 16 years . My ‘guestimate’ is based of Lm120 per month.If there are 200 abusers per year that will go up to more than €11,000,000 over a span of sixteen years of abuse.
John Schembri: The issue of benefit abuse does not only involve mothers of young children.
@ Corinne Vella : I agree. But let’s nip abuse in the bud wherever it is coming from , at present we are encouraging abuse ,by handing out cheques without investigating .In many cases abuse involves both parents.
Perhaps I misunderstood Maria Vella on point 4 but I am not against children’s allowance for these children with “unknown father”. That is another benefit , not to mention that some do not pay surcharge on water and electricity.
“once you’ve put ‘unknown father’ on the birth certificate to collect social security for 16 years, you can’t go back to the public registry when the cheques stop coming and say, “Now that’s it’s over, I’ve remembered who fathered him.” ”
The thing is: you can. Not to the public registry, that is, but through the courts – it’s a simple judicial application, actually.
I agree on everything else though – we’re a nation of bums who are all very eager to agree to pool in our cash in tax money, and are then equally keen to find ways of evading that obligation, and/or to devise illicit ways of getting as much of it as possible back through freebies and subsidies. This is just one more cross we have to collectively bear to avoid having to see mothers begging on our streets.
Ecce patriae.
“There is no way that these women are unable to work out who the father of their baby is, unless they are common prostitutes who have sex with strangers several times a day.”
You seem to have forgotten the effect of “social” drugs and alcohol. It is common knowledge that such substances can a) heighten sexual arousal and b) lower inhibitions. When these substances are used in the “right” circumstances there’s no knowing where they might lead. People under the influence do not necessarily remember who they’ve been with.
Besides that you must also consider orgies. From what I hear, health concerns are not always the top priority in such “gatherings”. I think it would be very difficult to say who the father is in such circumstances.
I think that spelling out the consequences of unprotected sex (and drug and alcohol abuse) should be the pillar of any sex education programme.
Hi John, my point 4 was a general aside, trying to force home the point that Government needs to stay ever on its toes as individuals seek every creative ploy to plunder the collective kitty.
The other day I could not believe my ears when I heard two persons discussing creative ways how to change their roofs post rent reform.
I am totally for giving support to those who really need it. My standard for efficient application of government funds is to provide ‘in kind’. I know that this system may further embarrass a person who needs support, yet the opportunity cost is too high.
Yes, Jason – technically you can go to court and get the father registered, but then social services can sue you to return all the money you’ve fraudulently taken over the years, together with the relevant fines.
On a positive note; with ‘fathers unknown”on the increase Rachael will be having enough material to run her charity TV show “Tista’ tkun int “on a daily bases, for the next half a century. Can’t wait !
Daphne, seems like Josie is reading your blog!
Clearly the system is being abused – one in five shows that there is a malicious, deliberate scheme to live off state benefits and this simply is not acceptable. Nor is it acceptable, that we see this as a justifiable, lesser evil. The system needs to be rectified. Instead of draconian methods such as forced filiation through DNA, how about the following-
1. Stronger penal consequences for men who do not pay maintenance. Currently, failing to pay maintenance is a contravention, and like all contraventions punishable with a maximum 3 month prison term (amend the law, apply harsher punishments as a deterrent). This should make the plight for getting maintenance easier;
2. Most of these women marry – then clearly the husband has the legal duty to support the child, even if it is not “his” child.
Let’s be more audacious – this duty for support and maintenance should also be extended to men, such as those who have fathered the child, but instruct the women to file a “father unknown” claim, who cohabit with women / or others who simply cohabit. How do you prove this ? – Quite simple – processing of utility bills, postal address etc; complaint with data protection legislation, say over an extended period of two / three years. (Of course, this being tantamount to a quasi-cohabitation scheme, chances of this suggestion being enforced are admittedly slim)
3. Positive discrimination – specialised ETC courses for women with children to help them into employment, and yes, they should be given preference over other candidates – get to work fast and cut/reduce the social benefits and sue women who deliberately choose not to, despite finding employment through ETC;
4. Quite simply education – how many women actually make an “informed choice”, assessing the pro and cons of their decisions – we’ve seen national campaigns for oodles of matters more trivial – why not this one?;
5. The child need subsistence, yes, but how many of it, actually goes to the child’s subsistence? Forget children’s allowance cheques, you only get the equivalent in kind (uniforms, bills, diapers, food, etc, medical insurance etc; – capped). And yes, to circumvent the scheming Maltese mind, these benefits are not transferrable, as I can already envisage using these “perks” as currency.
“Father unknown” signed declarations are generally devious declarations that takes away the dignity of the child from day one.
The rest, and that includes the mother’s social status, is secondary.
Re Today’s Transport STRIKE:::
The new MLP Leader’s appeal to both sides to sit around a table and bury whatever differeces, gives much credit to Joseph.
GonziPN’s election campaign promise to bus owners was very devious. Today’s stance to stop such monopoly makes sense.
Situation in Gozo is normal( except hearses ) since we enjoy different attitudes and situations.
Once again the same – being responsible is not rewarded. Not being responsible is. Of course the argument is always won by mentioning actual cases of need – when the pregnancy occured through rape for example which is very serious but misuse of drugs leading to pregnancy or rushing to bed without knowing who your partner is and getting into a vulnerable position of possibly getting pregnant with a man who you don’t trust to be a potential partner, never mind father! Then yes, as a (young) woman myself I think these are not responsible acts and they lead to the situations mentioned in the article and some choose the easy road of father unknown to avoid the hassle of dealing with a man who again, is not responsible.
I’ve said it before and will say it again, being responsible in this country is punished.
Jack: You’re assuming no educated, well-informed, employed woman would register her child’s birth as ‘father unknown’. What makes you so sure that would never happen appears to be a lack of knowledge of the circumstances under which it would happen – and does.
I used to work in an office that had `father`s name` on the application form.
I used to feel for the person in front of me having to say `I don`t know` when I asked for the father`s name.
In this day there are so many data bases in Gov depts, surely it shouldn`t be that difficult for a crack down on abusers of the system.
Abuse of the system …. lol. Here, the system is polically used to gain votes.
In a nutshell: the abuse of the system has certainly the ‘blessing’ of certain politicians to gain personal votes at the tax payers expense.This cannot be more evident then in our Wonderful Gozo.
A recent Gozitan saying:” Bil-barka minn Pjazza San Frangisk Ghawdex isiru l-Mirakli”.So true!
@ Cora …. That situation can ONLY happen if someone is raped and the rapist is blindfolded. But today a DNA test would even solve that.It is NEVER lack of knowledge. My God, whatever motives are behind that behaviour is condemnable and unacceptable.
Any ‘twit’ registerring a ‘child as father unknown’ does that for her selfish interests and at the expense of the child’s dignity. Nothing less nothing more.
A life long shame on such individuals.
Peter Muscat: Don’t you have a Very Important Business to run, full of employees bled dry by the blood banks at your request? Why are you wasting time online?
@ Dear Cora …. You are right, I am a very busy man! Howver,your puerile insinuation are not!!
But of course that is an important part of your character, isn’t it?
Peter Muscat: You wouldn’t know, given that you do not know me at all – any more than you would know why a mother would prefer not to register her child’s father’s name.
I’d like to thank Daphne for this article and for putting into perspective certain points in the life of a single parent which not everyone is able to realise. I am a single parent and I have registered my child as unknown father. True to what Daphne said I have questioned my decision through these past years about whether I had in any way diminished my child’s dignity. It is a hard decision to make and as a mother I would never bear my son being hurt especially by a decision as important as this. However, I am neither a “twit”, nor a “whore” or any of the other adjectives used above. My decision was based on the fact that I would rather explain to my child the situation in which he was conceived and hope that when he is old enough he will understand and respect the fact that I was looking out for him in the very first place. It is not easy to grow up not knowing who your father is yet isn’t it harder for a child knowing he was never loved and wanted by his own father. Wouldn’t it hurt more for that same child to be ignored by that same father for all of his childhood and teenage years. I believe that the term unknown father is not only incorrect but also offensive. Has any one ever thought about changing the term to perhaps something more realistic as in father refusing to claim his own child. As with regards to our systems please let’s not even go there. Why should I even bother to take this unknown father to court and not only pay a lawyer for his services but be made to beg for a miserly sum which would not help my son in any way. I would rather further my studies, work part-time and give my child all that he needs. That is dignity. Of course, there is abuse and of course it should be controlled. Yet what about other benefits for the genuine cases. Shouldn’t there be incentives for single mothers like me that perhaps want to further their studies whilst their child is still very young? Do you actually believe that with Lm112 per month you can give the child all he needs and manage to study?
@ Cora …. Never jump to any conclusions!Capish?
Whatever he reason might be for registering a child as father unknown is always condemnable.It is a child’s everlasting stigma.The more time passes the more it hurts.
Another one who’s obsessed with other people’s sex lives. What are the odds that “he’s” a member of AN – along with all the other parties, that is?
so the numbers given by Minister Gatt are wrong. As you where :)
@ Lucy : I know of a case like yours and the girl was in the same situation you are in, she did not opt for ‘unknown father’ ,and she had a long uphill struggle to obtain full custody of her child .In my opinion you are right about pigeonholing your child as unknown father , perhaps “Father is not man enough to shoulder his responsibilities” would have been better.
The problem lies in our Victorian judicial system.The ‘police’ should proceed against the irresponsible father and the latter should be made to fork out maintenance money from his wage or his pension fund.
Social Services are meant for basic needs.
@ Lucy…..if you or other women like you had tried to hold the ” unkown father” responsible for his actions the number of “unknown fathers” might start to go down rather than up.
The child is his responsibility and he should be made to pay for the child’s support, as it is now some of them can go around impregnating women at will. Maybe instead of having to do on a measley 112 you’d have another 112 from the “unknown father”.