> If she thinks he might be a shitty father who only contributes the minimum, then she shouldn't marry him or have kids with him.
The law frequently provides protection for people who enter certain contracts, even when they ought to know better. For instance, if I loan money to someone who then goes bankrupt, I am entitled to some of their property. Even if it was a really stupid loan.
In this particular case, women aren't particularly good at determining whether a potential husband will turn out to be a scumbag, so it makes some sense for society to protect them against that possibility. (Actually, men aren't very good at determining whether a potential wife will be a scumbag either, so society should probably protect them, too...)
Or, perhaps, government should simply let them figure it out by themselves. And by the way, loan provisions are not mandated by government but negotiated up front. If you make a non-recourse loan, you won't get access to the borrower's personal assets even if his business goes belly-up.
> And by the way, loan provisions are not mandated by government but negotiated up front. If you make a non-recourse loan, you won't get access to the borrower's personal assets even if his business goes belly-up.
I did not know that. Admittedly, I don't have any examples that work quite as well. Maybe medical malpractice... or is that just a breach of contract?
The law frequently provides protection for people who enter certain contracts, even when they ought to know better. For instance, if I loan money to someone who then goes bankrupt, I am entitled to some of their property. Even if it was a really stupid loan.
In this particular case, women aren't particularly good at determining whether a potential husband will turn out to be a scumbag, so it makes some sense for society to protect them against that possibility. (Actually, men aren't very good at determining whether a potential wife will be a scumbag either, so society should probably protect them, too...)