I’m sorry, folks, but I’ve lost all patience with Jon. He’s sucked all the intertest out of this debate by being obtuse, and I can’t stand to listen to him stomping his feet and throwing a temper tantrum any longer.
For christ’s sake, Jon, Jodih gave you multiple choice questions and you still didn’t answer her.
It’s too bad, really, as this was a very interesting thread.
“I think it would be a great idea” Mohandas Ghandi’s answer when asked what he thought of Western civilization
Well, Jon, it seems to me we’ve stepped away from the issue at hand to a discussion of what is “fair.” You seem to feel that it is not “fair” to expect a biological parent to financially support a child that he or she did not want. But, at the same time, you admit that you have no better solution for how the support of the child could be handled. In other words, you think the law is not fair, but you have no idea how to make it fairer.
Neither do I. Someone MUST support the child and that someone should be its biological parents. The fact that one parent would prefer not to suffer that financial burden cannot outweigh the child’s right to support. This situation exists precisely because there isn’t any other way to handle it that is not more unfair than this solution. You seem to say that the current system may be the way it has to be, but it’s still unfair. I would argue, to the contrary, that if the current system represents the most fair solution, and in fact the only reasonable solution, it is, by definition, not unfair.
You say:
You don’t like it, but you admit you don’t have any better idea for how to handle the problem under discussion. What you have, then, are only complaints. It would be hard for me to argue that you don’t have the right to complain about something (even when you don’t have a better idea), but your complaints are hardly something I need to exert myself to address. But you HAVE finally answered me by admitting:
Okay, thank you. Now I can stop repeating myself.
Of course it does. The child must be supported and the biological parents should bear the responsibility for that support. Placing that burden on their shoulders is “right” because the alternative (placing the burden on the state) is not right. It is also fair: it’s your child; your child needs support; someone must support your child; that someone ought to be you. This does not represent a system that is “outrageously skewed against” men. It certainly does subordinate the rights of the reluctant parent (which is not, BTW, in every case the male) to the rights of the child, but that is because the child is the one truly innocent party and the one in need of support. If the system is occasionally used “as a bludgeon” against men, that is hardly an argument for abolishing the system entirely. Any number of laws may be abused; that doesn’t mean they should be repealed. But, you’re not arguing for the law to be repealed, are you? Because you admit “I don’t know HOW to fix it, or I’d offer my ideas up.” All you’re doing is complaining about it.
You have not convinced me the existing solution is not the right solution, and you have not even tried to do so. I, on the other hand, have repeatedly explained why it is the fairest possible solution and therefore, by definition, the right solution. If you don’t want to accept it, you can argue against it; but you admit you can’t do that, either, beyond simply repeating that “it’s not fair.”
No, as a matter of fact, I do not. The thinking there is as follows: It’s not unfair, it is in fact the best available solution and therefore the right solution. Even if YOU think it is unfair, you still can’t come up with a better solution and you admit the child needs support, so deal with it.
You are right, however, if you sense a lack of sympathy on my part for the parents who have children and then would prefer not to support those children. To them I say: These are YOUR children, and they need support. I don’t care if they came into existence with or without your permission, because at this point that is irrelevant --they exist and they need support. You, as a biological parent, have the legal and moral duty to support them. Don’t like it? Tough. I don’t care if such parents write their support checks kicking and screaming, moaning and whining, so long as those checks get written.
And I’m not addressing whether child support can’t be used as a weapon by one parent against another – it can, but the circumstances under which it might be is a subject for another thread. The question under discussion here is whether the fact that a parent did not want a child should abrogate that parent’s responsibility to finanically support that child. The answer to this question is “no” – an answer with which you apparently do not disagree.
I do NOT, Jodi. What I feel is not fair is that legally, if I get someone pregnant, I don’t even have the right to know… and it just goes downhill from there. (And I strongly suspect that even if our technology reached the point where an embryo could be removed from a woman who wasn’t willing to be a mother, it wouldn’t change for the benefit of a willing father.)
In fact, if you’ve paid attention, most of my argument has revolved around the unfairness to a WILLING father.
From somewhere, and not from the public, absolutely. What you’re conveniently forgetting in this debate is the intricacies.
Support isn’t based on what the child requires. It’s based on what the couple make, combined. Do you realize that, using Virginia’s guidelines, a non-custodial parent making $50,000 can be placed in a position where they can’t reasonably afford to live within 20 miles of Dulles Airport? That’s not a “right to support,” it’s highway robbery (regardless of the gender of the non-custodial parent), and realistically has little to do with the actual expense of caring for the child.
Kids have a “right” to eat decently, and not freeze to death, and have warm clothes. They don’t have a “right” to the toy fad of the year, or an endless supply of junk food, or designer jeans they’ll outgrow in three months. If families of four can get by on $20K a year, I see no rational excuse for the law forcing someone to shell out half that for the “support” of one child.
Well, you know, it’s the only right y’all are willing to grant me, being male and all. 
A system which places 100% of the burden on even an unwilling parent is not “right.” (And that applies both ways! I fully agree that it’s not fair for a custodial parent to bear the whole burden, either!)
TWO someones must support that child.
Here… you worry me, Jodi. It absolutely IS skewed against men; one look at the percentage of custody awards going to men and women should make this clear. Courts have a blatantly clear policy of “preferring” the mother, except when she’s patently unfit or the father would be able to provide an environment which is vastly superior to that which the mother can provide. And it doesn’t stop there. I’ve never seen pictures of women on post office walls for failing to provide proper visitation. I’ve never heard of women losing their drivers’ licenses for it, either. Produce me evidence of the former, or show me a statute in ANY state where the latter is mandated, and I’ll gracefully bow out. Hell, I’d completely accept the initial inequities if the REST of the system was fair…
And where, Jodi, have I even remotely suggested “abolishing the system entirely”? I don’t quite grasp where this need to misrepresent my views comes from.
I would refer you to my initial post in the original thread, where I quite clearly stated that the original poster’s idea wasn’t kosher… yet you continue to harp on me as if I’m in favor of handing men a free pass.
The reason I don’t know how to fix it is that I’m not a damned economist, nor am I a lawyer. I don’t know how to refigure laws and guidelines so that they’re fair. What I DO know is that I’ve seen too many men paying support so that the mother can have a slack-ass unemployed live-in boyfriend (which the law won’t do anything about)… or so she can drive a shiny new car while the father gets stuck in a rusted-out beater he can’t trust to make it the five-hundred miles to pay his kids a visit after she decides it’d be cool to live somewhere else (which the law won’t do anything about)… I think you get the picture.
I won’t bother quoting your last paragraphs; really, it should have been clear that I agree. In fact, -I- have no sympathy for men who get women pregnant and then shrug their shoulders and try to dodge the responsibility. If we are going to say that the discussion is ONLY about those sorts of men, rather than about the overall issue of the fairness of women having the sole discretion, then fine. We’re all in agreement, and we can shut up. I digressed, because comments were made which pushed me toward that digression… and my digression was argued with. It is those arguments that I find unsympathetic, offensive, and laced with reverse sexism.
Or, put another way, fine. I digressed. Mea culpa. That I digressed doesn’t mean my points are invalid, nor does it warrant an inaccurate and misleading representation of my opinion based on things I haven’t said.
~jon
Okay, we appear to have pretty much exhausted the question initially presented in this thread. Jon now wants to divert the discussion to not just one other issue, but several other issues, ranging from the gender inequities of custody awards to the amount of support to which a child should entitled to whether the entire “system” is bias against men. Maybe Jon will find people who want to discuss these topics, but I’m not one of them. In general, I find divorce, custody, and child-support issues to be boring and fraught with emotionalism, which is why I don’t practice that type of law. Since the true subject of this thread appears to be exhausted, you won’t mind if I excuse myself at this point.
>^,^<
KITTEN
He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius
Man, we were really getting down to brass tacks on teh first version of this thread. Jodih, Diane, Melin…all really had the issues boiled down. Heck, they won me over to their side.
Baby wins! Thousands of thrilled posters go home to rest from protracted partying.
>^,^<
KITTEN
He who walk through airport door sideways going to Bangkok. - Confucius
I’d like to summarize with an anecdote.
One day my boyfriend and I were discussing politics. The question rolled around to abortion. He was pro-life (not rabidly); I was pro-choice (not rabidly). We argued for a while. Then we reached the obvious conclusion that it was really fucking stupid for two gay guys to be arguing about abortion.
::giggle:: Thanks, Matt! That was my best laugh of the day!
-Melin
Phenomenal woman
Bitch Corporate Lawyer
That's me