I think that if it’s the father’s obligation to provide financial support for the child, then it’s the mother’s obligation to do everything she can to foster the relationship between the father and the child, unless she has a very very good reason (like he’s a violent abuser or some such thing). All this business about collecting a check and meanwhile moving the kid halfway across the country or otherwise making visitation difficult is not only not fair to the father, it’s not at all in the best interest of the child.
In an ideal world, BOTH parents would support the kid monetarily and in every other way possible. Doesn’t seem to happen that way as much as it should.
Tell that to the kid growing up without parents. Tell that to the kid growing up struggling in poverty?
Hand wave away but you’re spitting on people when they need their parents the most, you’re spitting on children. Just crank em out with no regard for their futures eh?
How is it in the best interests of society that some deadbeat jackass waste of flesh, too stupid to effectively use a condom, gets to duck out of supporting his/her kids?
How is that fair to the kids who had no choice about how they came in the world? The parents sure had a choice.
Except that the courts have required men to pay for children that aren’t theirs. The courts have shown no interest in whether or not the money is spent on the child; if she spends it on herself and has the kids panhandle for more that’s fine. The courts are also fine with other children the man is supporting being deprived so that she - not the kids - can get her money. The courts have shown little interest in whether the father or mother is a better parent; unless the mother is Olga the Ogress she gets the kids. The kids are just an excuse, not the purpose of these laws. The courts show little interest in the actual welfare of the children involved, just in making sure the money flows from him to her.
And again, I think it rather disgusting to force a man to pay for a child to be raised to hate him. And blaming him for being resentful of that is ridiculous.
I don’t think anyone should be in the situation of raising a child they didn’t want or are unable to raise. The fact is that in this country, in this day and age nobody has to, even if abortion were illegal. I’m not unsympathetic to the emotional anguish giving up a child means, but I firmly believe that it is a fundamentally selfish act to keep a child when you aren’t in a position to raise one, financially or otherwise, when there are adoptive parents who are.
I know a lot of people who got into this situation and had unplanned and unwanted children way too young and in ridiculously short-lived relationships and kept them for emotional or religious reasons. I’m the step-dad of a kid like this. While they all love their kids like crazy, not a one of them doesn’t regret starting their families at that time and in those circumstances, mostly because it would have been so much better for their kids had they waited.
I have also made the observation that there is zero correlation between child protection orders and child welfare. The ones where the dad is a deadbeat in the classic mold have child protection orders, but rarely see a dime. The dads who are both involved in their kids’ life and who pay child support sure as hell aren’t involved in their kids lives because the court ordered them to. Maybe this is a stereotype, but in my experience the kinds of men who are able to pay child support (enough that it makes any difference) are the sorts who would support their kids anyways.
So going back to the first paragraph here, I think that the current child support paradigm pretends that the state can somehow decree a good parenting situation by force of law. For women making the already extremely difficult decision of whether to keep a child or give it up, I think that having this illusion that somehow the laws are going to make an unwilling or unable person a parent in any sense of the word (even if only financially) helps sway a lot of women towards making the decision that is wrong for them, wrong for their kids, and wrong for the health of our society. I’ll concede that there are some situations where child support is appropriate (there are some well-off jackasses out there), but I think it being the default situation doesn’t help anyone.
pravnik, you’ve got a little coding error: your 2003 link takes us to the 2004 thread by RazorDull. Here’s the link to the original 2003 thread: Roe v. Wade’s Dirty Little Secret.
I don’t think that there will ever be 100% equality in any of this. We can, however, try to make it fairer. Men can and do get physical custody of children, although not as often as women in the US. Some countries routinely award custody of children to men almost exclusively. A vasectomy is a much simpler medical procedure than a tubal ligation.
In the US, at least, visitation rights are completely unconnected to child support payments.
If a man is proven NOT to be the biological parent of a child, then no, he shouldn’t have to pay child support, IMO.
That hasn’t been my experience. IME, many men ONLY pay support because they have been ordered to, and think that if they’re no longer with the mother, then their kids are not entitled to any of their money.
I don’t think that there will ever be 100% equality in any of this. We can, however, try to make it fairer. Men can and do get physical custody of children, although not as often as women in the US. Some countries routinely award custody of children to men almost exclusively. A vasectomy is a much simpler medical procedure than a tubal ligation.
In the US, at least, visitation rights are completely unconnected to child support payments.
If a man is proven NOT to be the biological parent of a child, then no, he shouldn’t have to pay child support, IMO.
That hasn’t been my experience. IME, many men ONLY pay support because they have been ordered to, and think that if they’re no longer with the mother, then their kids are not entitled to any of their money.
What you don’t realize, or more likely are being willfully blind to, is that this situation is already dealt with under the law. It may not be dealt with well, but that can (and should) be addressed. If a mother is receiving child support payments, spending them on herself, and having the kids panhandle for more it is not “fine.” That is blatantly false. It’s child endangerment.
There should be changes made to the enforcement of custody law. There are problems, for example, with standing law, which have resulted in bad situations - my own for example is far from optimal. But none of that alters the basic situation that my child is entitled to support from me, regardless of where my child lives. He has a financial claim on me. I have a right to access to my child. Those two rights are separate, and are separately enforced.
If my son was being raised to hate me, that would be disgusting. And I would be resentful of that. But I would deal with that in a separate way to starving my child, because, oddly enough, my child wouldn’t be the one at blame there. Were my child support money being spent on drugs, or on things that did not benefit my child, I would deal with that. Doing it by not paying child support would be counter productive, though. And all your way represents is bitterness against the child’s mother, rather than any concept of best interests of the child. When one becomes a father, that becomes paramount.
Except, again, men have been forced to pay who weren’t the father. And it doesn’t matter if the situation is “dealt with under the law” if the people who are supposed to enforce such laws are so biased or indifferent as to not enforce it.
And if the money was going to feed a drug habit or otherwise wasted you’d “deal with it”? How? Complain and be ignored?
You are confusing bad enforcement, which occurs, with bad laws. Both exist, but you deal with them in different ways. When an innocent person is convicted of murder, the solution isn’t to turn round and say that murder shouldn’t be criminal.
There are major problems with custody law, but the situation is improving. There is also the presumption under the law that a child born to a married woman is the child of her husband - without thinking too deeply about that, I am probably in favor of making that a rebuttable presumption (if it isn’t already - I’m not a family lawyer).
If my ex-wife was using my child support payments to feed a drug habit, and my child was not receiving the benefits of that money, I would get custody of my child. I would involve the police in the matter on grounds of child endangerment. Even if that failed, which, unfortunately, because of poor enforcement it does at times, that would be a problem with the custody law, not the child support law.
The child has a right to be supported. A custodial parent who does not use the support payments for the benefit of the child is violating that child’s rights. A non-custodial parent who does not pay the support payments is violating that child’s rights. Your solution - to simply stop paying - does NOTHING for the child, the one whose rights are being violated.
Take her to court for custody, and make her pay you child support. No court is going to allow a child to remain in the home of a drug addicted parent over the objection of the nonaddicted parent.
I don’t think this is true at all. I think the disconnect comes in a different form. The man doesn’t want his money going to the woman (he would gladly pay for whatever the kids need, as long as it doesn’t go to her)
It doesn’t go to the woman. It goes to the kid. What the guy wants doesn’t mean shit anyway. He made the baby, he needs to pay for it. he’s responsible for his own sperm. The public sure as hell isn’t responsible for it.
It goes through the woman. See what I did there.
She made the baby too but she has a choice to abort it (because it’s her body and all that, ya heard?)
lol, I guess the woman isn’t responsible for her eggs
The money goes to his child that he decided to make and who he is responsible for. The fact that the money is administered by the child’s legal guardian or custodial parent is irrelevant, and none of the guy’s business. He does not get to shirk his responsibility to his children because he doesn’t like their mother. too bad. He shouldn’t have chosen to have a child with her then. I frankly cannot understand at all how so many men can show such utterly callous disregard for their own children. It’s sociopathic.