A parent denies any obligation to financially support a child, claiming the other parent's choice absolves them
Premiumintermediate8 minutes
The Situation
What They Said
“I do not have to pay maintenance — she chose to have the child. That was her decision, not mine.”
This phrase is used by an absent or non-custodial parent — typically a father — to deny any financial obligation toward their child, claiming that because the other parent chose to continue with the pregnancy, responsibility lies entirely with them.
The Fallacy
Shifting Responsibility / False Causation
This argument misidentifies who bears legal responsibility for a child's existence and welfare. The false causation is the claim that one parent's choice to carry a pregnancy to term shifts the other parent's legal obligations onto them entirely. In law, both biological parents are responsible for the child they created — regardless of the circumstances of birth, or who made what choices. The child's right to maintenance exists independently of parental disagreements.
What the Law Says
Your Legal Foundation
Maintenance Act 99 of 1998
Section 15 — Duty to Maintain
“Any person who has the care of a child must, in the event of that person being unable to maintain the child, apply to the maintenance court for a maintenance order against any other person who is legally liable to maintain the child.”
Every parent who is legally liable to maintain a child — which includes both biological parents — is subject to a maintenance order, regardless of their personal position on the circumstances of birth.
Children's Act 38 of 2005
Section 18(2)(d) — Parental Responsibilities and Rights — Maintenance
“The parental responsibilities and rights that a person may have in respect of a child include... to contribute to the maintenance of the child.”
Maintenance is classified as a parental responsibility — it applies to every person who holds parental responsibilities and rights, including fathers who dispute the mother's choice to have the child.
What Scripture Says
God's Word on This
1 Timothy 5:8 (NET)
“But if someone does not provide for his own, especially his own family, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.”
Scripture is unequivocal that providing for one's children is a fundamental moral and spiritual obligation — refusing this duty on the grounds of personal disagreement is directly addressed and condemned.
Psalm 68:5 (NET)
“A father to the fatherless and a defender of widows is God in his holy dwelling.”
God aligns himself with the defence of children who lack a father's provision — this is a clear indication of where divine justice stands when a father abandons their financial responsibility.
🔒
You Know the Law — But Do You Know What to Say?
Reading your rights is one thing. Using them under pressure — calmly, correctly, in the right words — is what actually protects you. Members get the scripted rebuttal for this exact situation: what to say first, what to say if they push back, the tone to use, and the constitutional provision to cite. Practise out loud with audio until it's automatic.
Identity & Dignity and Gender & Equality are free · All 17 domains from R89/month · Cancel anytime
Not ready to subscribe? Get the free checklist first.
10 South African rights scenarios — what to say, what to cite, what to refuse. Free, no card needed.
What They'll Say Next
Common Counter-Arguments
After you respond, they may push back with these arguments. Members get the full rebuttal for each.
They might say: “I am not the father — she cannot prove it.”
🔒 Subscribe to see the full rebuttal and legal counter-argument.
They might say: “I have no income — I cannot pay what I do not have.”
🔒 Subscribe to see the full rebuttal and legal counter-argument.
Know Your Rights. Know Your Word.
149 South African rights scenarios — exact rebuttals, constitutional law, and Scripture. Practise out loud with audio. Free to start with 2 full domains.