ILLEGITIMACY PROBLEM

Press, Volume CVII, Issue 31385, 2 June 1967, Page 2

ILLEGITIMACY PROBLEM

‘Father Should Pay More’

Fathers of illegitimate children should bear more of the responsibility for their care. This is a growing feeling amongst those concerned with, the welfare of these children, states an article, “Unwed Fathers,” in the latest edition of the Parents’ Centre bulletin.

If the New Zealand parents of an illegitimate child were held responsible for paying the child benefit, this would bring the social security fund £250,000 a year on present figures, Dr. A. W. Liley, a senior research fellow at the Post-graduate School of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Auckland said recently. Illegitimate children were the “displaced persons” of our society, he said. A child born of a casual relationship was an innocent party—its birth not just a pity or a nuisance but an event that resulted from stupid, selfish and irresponsible behaviour. Dr. N. Begg, medical director of the Plunket Society also discussed the need for unwed parents to contribute in some way towards the provision of a home for their children. Adoptive homes were becoming more difficult to find for the increasing number of out-of-wedlock babies, while those unmarried mothers who would like to keep and raise their babies were unable to do so without financial assistance. It fell upon the Child Welfare Division to “wring a meagre maintenance” from an unwilling father if the mother wished it and could provide evidence that he was the father—a time-consuming task that added to the economic wastage associated with illegitimacy. Bill Introduced Last year a Bill was introduced by Dr. A. M. Finlay to Parliament seeking to amend the Destitute Persons Act, giving greater financial security to tiie unwed mother and placing more responsibility upon the unwed father for the support of his child, states the article. At the second reading Dr. Finlay said: “I know the Government is considering legislation of some kind in this field, and the Minister of Justice has intimated in the past that he is considering a complete consolidation and review of the Destitute Persons Act”

During “quite a number of years of legal practice” Dr. Finlay said he had advised many unmarried mothers-to-be who were anxious to keep their children.

“The only proper advice I could give them was that they could not afford to do so. Assuming that they could go tq. court and discharge the burden of proof that lies upon them, they would get a maintenance order for the child of about £llos er £2 a week, and the family benefit,” he said. Under the Act there were

three types of order the magistrate might make:— That the father pay expenses of the child’s birth or funeral expenses should it die. Order payment of a sum not exceeding £OO for past maintenance of the child. Make an order for the future maintenance of the child. The bill proposed by Dr. Finlay would enable a magistrate to order maintenance of the mother owing to her inability to support herself as a result of her pregnancy, and later, because of her need to care for the child. Limit Favoured There would be a limitation set to this power, making it clear that the magistrate would order maintenance only when he thought the circumstances of the case justified it, and not simply as a matter of course. And further, the order would be binding for no longer than five years. Said Dr. Finlay: “At first I was inclined to give the magistrate discretion to make the kind of order he could for any provision under the Destitute Persons Act, which usually expires at the sixteenth birthday of the child, but I decided to place a limitation of five years. “The paramount need is in the first five years of the child’s life when it is not at school, and requires more of the mother’s personal care than it does in later years. An order of this kind will undoubtedly impose quite a heavy responsibility on a number of quite young men, and it would be improper to go too far with that It would be better to impose a limitation of five years rather than have people of 20 or thereabouts exposed to a continuing liability for 16 years, or possibly more. “The next thing that the bill does is to make an amendment to section 9 of the act which deals with affiliation orders made before the birth of the child. “At present there is no provision for maintenance being made at that time. I propose that the section be amended to enable an order to be made for the maintenance of the woman concerned, but an order of tills kind would cease no later than 14 days after the pregnancy came to an end. . . .” Dr. Finlay’s bill was not passed and the Government has not yet brought forward legislation to revise the Destitute Persons Act.