The Unmarried Mother

The working title for this section was "the burning groups to talk about." This is because when I started this work, my mind was pulling my experiences from legal practice and trying to pull them up to the law because I imagined there was some law out there that was raining down paternity categories. I could not have been more right and wrong at the same time. I'm only considering heterosexual relationships and I'm excluding any substance/abuse factors.

The groups that arise in litigation that were treated differently despite having children just like the other groups were: (1) DCFS families, esp. unwed mothers caught in DCFS; (2) married moms and dads who live and parent together; (3) unmarried moms and dads who live and parent together; and (4) divorced moms and dads who live apart and parent.

I was thinking about making an instagram post, and it would go something like this: I see some very stereotypical family structures in this work, and I'm sad to report that my personal life has also become a cliche. I see the following:

1. Obviously, there's the "functioning family unit," the happy-wife-happy-life household that many married couples exhibit (paternity established by marriage at time of birth);

   
   

2. There's also the "taboo family unit," the unmarried mom and dad who operate like a married couple, but for whatever [financial/successions] reason do not get married, that is undeniably taboo under the law (paternity easily established by mom or dad under 197 or 198 with evidence of DNA test and affidavit of paternity, filing in court and requesting Judgment of Paternity, easy peasy for these couples; however, there is a lag period after the child's birth where the dad is not the dad, so ostensibly the only way to get healthcare for the child is through the mother; not sure if it's possible, but maybe these couples could get prenatal screening and file a CC 198 before the baby is born to delete the lag period?);

   
   

3. Next, there's the "deadbeat dad," where dad (whether married or unmarried, legal father or not legal father, but, in all cases, dna father) is gone. Gone, who knows where. He doesn't send mom money. He doesn't call the kid(s). He's just gone and mom does everything as best as she can. Maybe he pops in for birthdays here and there. But mostly gone. I love talking with these moms because they are so upset their kid doesn't have a relationship with their father, but it's one of those grass is always greener situations. (paternity may or may not be established);

   
   

4. Then I see the "stay at home mom divorce," which works out one of two ways, both fully sanctioned by law:

   1. "stay at home mom divorce suddenly dad wants kids 50/50"- the dad moves out and the mom cannot sustain herself because she's been out of work taking care of his kids while he's been working, so the dad gets upset mom can't pay for herself, and he thinks having 50/50 will allow her to work and pay for herself because he'll have the kids half the time, but mom never really catches up financially, but he's not supposed to pay as much child support because he's got the kids 50/50, and now, even though she dedicated her best years of her career to her children, she only sees her kids half the time of their childhood; or

   2. "stay at home mom divorce dad says he will pay"- the dad moves out and mom cannot sustain herself because she's been out of work taking care of his kids while he's been working, so dad reassures her he'll pay for the kids. He probably even agrees on paper or has a judge tell him he must pay interim spousal support and gobs of child support. However, after a few months or after a new woman comes along, he stops paying. And mom never sees that money, and mom still has her kids, but with what resources can she raise them?

   3. The "stay at home mom divorce" is why I never stopped working, and I would never wish any mother in 2026 to leave the workforce, for the sake of their kids.

   4. (paternity established by marriage at time of birth);

      
      

5. I feel cliche in the "equitable marriage, equitable divorce" scenario. Mom and dad both work during marriage, but wages diverge, which leads to one of the following:

   1. "equitable marriage, equitable divorce, mom makes more money than dad"- the mom went into the marriage thinking he'd be awesome at home and at work, but he didn't keep up with her earning capacity. So in getting divorced, she knows he's decent at being at home with the kids, although it's not really what she wants for her kids now that he's shown her he's not even capable of being a good husband (otherwise why would they be getting divorced?!?), she agrees to 50/50 custody or whereabouts and she owes him money or at least does not get child support from dad.

   2. "equitable marriage, equitable divorce, dad makes more money than mom"- the mom went into the marriage thinking he'd be awesome at home and at work, but he didn't keep up with her home/caretaking capacity. So in getting divorced, the laws do not support her staying home with the kids (see both stay at home mom scenarios above) and she knows what outside the house demands she faces, so she's in need of the extra time a 50/50 schedule would provide her so she can stay even remotely financially afloat. Sure, she's getting a little bit of child support from dad, but she's also dealing with him continuing to prioritize his career over the children, only now she can't see what the kids are up to when they're in his care- does he have them brush their teeth? do they clean their room?

   3. (paternity established by marriage at time of birth);

   
   

6. "DCFS moms and dads"- wow, this is the demographic that got me vocal and analytical about handling family structures and paternity in particular. There's not much stereotype here, because, at this point, the children are taken from their birth parent(s). It is these parents that my work is centered around. If the state is able to give moms and dads rights in civil court, the state should be able to maintain those rights in executive, ahem, CINC court. The biggest issue DCFS moms and dads brings to light is "Why aren't all children considered children of their father?"

   • Dads who sign the birth certificate/ affidavit of acknowledgement, and how to get this affidavit (with the clearly signed notarized part!) from DHH vital records or whether to codify that there in fact need to be two affidavits duly executed, one filed w vital records for the birth certificate and a second filed with Clerk of Court for judgment of paternity

   • Dads who complete DNA- great job! Maybe we could make a presumption that once a DNA test and a dual affidavit are filed in a local clerk of court then we can get a jment of paternity?

   • Judgment of paternity- this seems like the most legally appropriate filiation for non married persons.  It’s a “Judge’s signature” which my local school system likes to see.  It’s also a “Judge’s signature” which would be easy to submit for tax purposes if needed.

   • These moms get Medicaid for their child if they are unwed, so there is no additional burden to provide health insurance/healthcare for the infant

Now that all those family structures are out of the way, let's look at the unmarried mother. Oh, wait! You'll see that it's those very family structures that lead to having an unmarried mother. It's not the other way around! These women don't go around thinking they want to get pregnant for fun. Pregnancy is at the same time beautiful and awful.

So then we can talk about the unmarried mother's access to the laws. Over time.

The legal error I keep making in doing this research is treating all women as humans. All women, no matter race or social class. This is apparently problematic when looking back at laws of not even quite one hundred years ago. I also make the legal error of treating all women as humans. As humans, with little to no distinguishing from the rights of men. That's for sure problematic when looking back at laws not even five years ago (hello, Dobbs!).

I'm going to continue making these legal errors because that's the point of this work. To point out the social effects on children and direct our eyes to something more beneficial for children.

I think "the unmarried mother" has so many stereotypes attached that even trying to get my mind wrapped around laws (I'm an unmarried mother!) is hard. So let's talk about the history of "illegitimacy" in another post.