I know that’s the law, what I don’t get is why anyone would think that is logical. How did it happen that a child’s right so supercedes everything else that a non-custodial parent goes bankrupt so the custodial one can buy polish? And why do some children have the right to suck up all this money?
Kinda pathetic, eh? But I still think something should be done so that non-custodials aren’t required to pay a pile of money the child doesn’t need.
Actually, I don’t think that the state should be paying poor women to have children - I think the law should be that if you want a baby, you pay for it. You can’t afford it, you don’t get to keep it.
Exactly. So how is it even approaching fair (or logical) that a man is stuck with the same or more financial burden when he had zero say in whether there is a baby resulting from the pregnancy?
I’m not suggesting it, I’m saying it. If the woman decides she is going to carry the pregnancy and keep the baby and the man has said he has no interest in the child from the beginning, then she should be the one to pay for it. Just because it is a child doesn’t give anyone the right to force someone to pay out hundreds of thousands of dollar on something he never wanted.
Piffle. Sex=/=pregnancy. Men are essentially stuck relying on women to make sure that there is no pregnany due to the lack of decent birth control for men - do you suggest that no men have intercourse ever unless they want to have children? Do you wish to give complete control over whether or not a man must raise children to women?
Except, other than not “screwing” as you put it, men have no choice in the matter. This attitude is the one that I view as extremely Victorian - “thou shalt not have sex except to procreate”.
And every woman who gets pregnant (with the exception of rape) is pregnant by choice. So we can just outlaw abortion and all women need to do is not get pregnant. Which is always a choice they made.
fully knowing what pregnancy means {we hope} and the potential for babiness.
As I said before. It can’t be equal because biology isn’t equal. The laws are based on the possible choices and welfare of the individuals involved based on reality. Once pregnancy occurs the womans choice about her own body is key. Once a baby is born the child’s welfare enters into it and must be weighed.
btw, the economic formula of who pays how much is based on income not gender so your “same or more” reveals a bias. You assume it’s the same or more because of past gender inequality.
Yes it does and the courts don’t agree with you. It’s about responsibility and consequences for actions.
Gee judge I never wanted to run over that pedestrian with my car. Why should I pay? Well sure I had a few drinks but I wanted a buzz. I don’t see what that has to do with it?
The fact it’s a child incapable of caring for itself demands someone take responsibility so the courts must decide who that is. Based on reality and biology the courts have decided the genetic donors should be responsible as much as possible. Good call IMO.
well piffle and WTF
This is just incorrect bullshit. Both men and women make irresponsible choices but and we expect them to accept the consequences. The alternative and the hope is that by there being consequences for actions they will make more responsible choices. A man can say no to sex or suggest an alternative to the risk of pregnancy because of a lack of sufficient birth control by the woman just as a woman can insist on a condom. What you’re suggesting is they shouldn’t even have to worry about it at all.
I’m suggesting men be responsible for the consequences of their choices planned or unplanned, because that’s what responsible humans should do.
Because of the choices men have it’s impossible for me to give complete control over to women.
btw, paying child support is a far, far cry from actually raising a child.
Utter nonsense. I’m in no way suggesting men only have sex to procreate. If you’re in a relationship you can plan birth control together. If you pick someone up at a party there are other alternatives for both parties. What you’re suggesting is more in line with the Victorian era. It also reminds me of the old south where masters could have sex with slaves and completely deny and ignore any offspring simply because there were so few potential consequences. Yeah, let’s bring that sexual attitude back.
You also seems to be suggesting that since abortion is a viable option the woman’s conscience and feelings are irrelevant. If she can’t choose abortion for reasons of her own then that’s her tough luck and the child’s as well. I do see the reasoning there. In weighing reality and the consequences of actions society has decided that the man was an equal contributer in putting her in a position to have to make that choice and the resulting child should not have to go without , nor should financial concerns being the sole responsibility of the women be unnecessarily burdensome on the woman making that choice. She didn’t get there alone and if the man is unable to offer emotional support he can at least offer what financial support he is able.
It’s the unpleasant messiness of humanity. Since she now has all she needs she may also put that money away for a collage fund or a car when they’re old enough. The rich doctor may also be paying many times more child support to his ex than the janitor pays to his. Sometimes step parent’s assume all the responsibility and a dead beat parent skates. It’s a far from perfect system. I think it’s unfortunate that when incomes change the ability to legally change child support is soooo hard and slow.
I don’t know the law but when I knew I couldn’t trust my ex to use the money wisely I would buy things directly for my kids and deduct it from the child support. I doubt that’s legal but she never challenged it.
There’s no way to create rules and laws to make things completely fair in every situation so our family courts are forced to do the best they can with the minor’s welfare in 1st place. So now the janitors kids live in a nice house and their step dad can afford stuff. Does that void the janitors responsibility? No.
Here’s a scenario. An old friend of mine divorced her husband with whom she had two kids. The court decided that he was already paying his maximum CS to his older kids from a previous marriage so she got nothing. In this case his younger kids went without because the court was trying to be fair to him. Like I said, not a perfect system.
Who gets to decide their needs? The economic formula is based on income and shared responsibility. If the father makes twice as much as the mother then it shouldn’t be equal amounts. If the janitor was married to an RN then she makes a lot more and pays more.
Here I agree to some degree. I recall a story about the former Governor of NJ who capped aide to dependent children. There was a huge uproar over how the children would suffer but the birthrate actually went down. Woman stopped cranking out babies to up their monthly check. I also support workfare rather than welfare. You need help, great, so do we. Here’s a mower, get over to the park. Here’s a bag and a stick with a nail in it. You get highway 17.
What are you talking about? Biology is very unfair to women. I think it is totally unfair that I have cramps and a period every month. “The government” should equalize this injustice somehow since I’m a woman.
It is also thoroughly unfair that I was the one who had to carry both pregnancies to term and then had to undergo a painful childbirth. And as I suffered, my husband read the paper and watched a football game. Totally unfair.
Biology is not fair and there is no law that will make it so. Why is that so hard to understand?
It seems so simple and obvious doesn’t it. I find it hard to fathom people suggesting something that would promote even more rampant irresponsibility than we already have. Is it hard to imagine the implications of allowing men to just say “No thank you” and walk away from offspring?
Men have that right. It’s called a vasectomy. And stop trying to dress yourself up as a protector of women’s rights by supporting the “right” of men to abandon their children. It’s as implausible as King Herod claiming to be a feminist because he ordered the death of all first born male children in Bethlehem, presumably to institute a gynocracy there.
In the hopes of getting it through the noise, I will rephrase the current state of my question:
If under current safe haven laws, both parents can opt out of their financial responsibilities to the baby, why can’t only one parent do it? What is it that makes it ok for both to bail out at the same time but not one at a time? Why is the outcome of one tied to the decision of the other?
And again, please notice that this question has nothing to do with biology. Although it may be true that statistically fathers are more likely to want to opt out, this affects women all the same by preventing them from opting out if the father wants to keep the baby.
A rationale for the law is that the child becomes almost automatically financially worse off in that it has access to fewer support resources if abandoned by one parent. If abandoned by two, the child can be placed for adoption. Therefore, when we are looking to best interests of the child, allowing abandonment by one parent will be generally speaking (and almost always financially) a net loss for that child. Abandonment by both is a far less automatically negative outcome.
Also - did we ever settle if safe haven laws provide an opt out for financial responsibilities? Or are they just a safe haven from criminal prosecution?
Worse off doesn’t necessarily mean in dire straits. It is assumed that the one parent is either in good enough shape to take care of the kid, or is declared incapable of it and the kid is taken by the State.
If the remaining parent doesn’t want the trouble of raising a child on one income, they can choose to abandon the child just as the other abandoning parent.
I would be all for handling as an exception the specific case of a child who would drop from being ok to stay with both parents to having to be taken by the State because the one remaining parent is incapable of maintaining him, and child support to be exacted from the abandoning parent if they have the means to provide it.
In most cases, though, worse off only means still better than many others with either both parents or one abandoned parent.
Having the kid stay with one (willing and able) parent is always preferable to being put for adoption, so I don’t see why the law has to exclude that possibility.
Having two paying parents is most definitely an ideal situation, but it is by no means necessary.
And as I mentioned before, demanding child support from a parent who cannot afford it is just a transfer of poverty that still leaves the State having to pay up that money except that instead of doing it directly to the child, it has to go through two sets of hands who may have other ideas about how to spend it.
ETA: Oops, your post grew while I responded. I think safe haven laws allow the parents to abandon the child with no financial obligations to the child afterwards. At least that was the case of the specific cites provided upthread.
But the legal standard isn’t “what doesn’t put the child in dire straits” it is “best interests of the child.”
How does the law exclude that possibility. It simply says if one birth parent maintains custody, the other birth parent is required to pay child support. How on earth do you twist that round to say that it prevents one willing & able parent keeping a child?
Considering the factors to whether A or B want and can afford the baby, the possibilities, as I think they should be:
Both A and B want the baby:
If they can afford it: Life is good. A+B pay.
If they cannot afford it: Welfare for all. State pays.
Neither A or B want the baby:
The baby goes for adoption. State pays (until adopted).
A wants the baby but B doesn’t:
If A can afford it: A pays.
If A cannot afford it:
— If B can afford it: A and B pay
— If B cannot afford it: State decides:
----- A keeps baby. A and State pay
----- Baby goes for adoption. State pays (until adopted)
Now here is what I see are problems when you always make B pay, disregarding A or B’s financial situation:
A wants the baby but B doesn’t:
If A can afford it:
— If B can afford it: transfer of wealth from B to A with no benefit to baby.
— If B cannot afford it: forces B into poverty with no benefit to the baby. State pays baby ++.
If A cannot afford it:
— If B can afford it: Life is good. State is saved the money.
— If B cannot afford it: Transfer of poverty from A to B. forces B into poverty. State pays baby ++
There is only one case (and I have no idea what percentage of real cases each of these options represent) where the baby benefits. In all others nobody benefits and/or B and the State suffer.
And just as the Safe Haven laws exist to prevent the monstrous possibility of parents dumping kids in the garbage, by forcing B to pay in all cases, and with the money going to A with no oversight of how that money is spent, you could be forcing B to fight for custody of a child they do not want. Another monstrous possibility. I don’t see how a reluctant parent looking for custody to protect their money is in the best interests of a child.
You seem to think that child support is a fixed amount, regardless of the income of the father and mother. In which case, I have to tell you that you are wrong.
Then you say something like this…
Well, this is a pretty much flawed scenario. Why is there “no benefit” to the baby? That’s only the case if you view the alternatives as polar - living in abject poverty or not living in abject poverty. While A may be able to provide a lifestyle above the breadline for the child, money from B won’t be “of no benefit” to that child. It will improve that child’s financial situation.
By “can afford it” I don’t mean a fixed amount of dollars per day per child. I mean the ability to provide a level of life adequate to the reasonable expectations of a child of that class, etc.
If A can afford to give all that to the child, whatever it costs and means, then most likely that money is not going to the child, unless A opens some form of saving instrument for the child to use when the need comes. With no form of oversight of what happens to that money, chances are that money is going to luxuries or crack, depending on the socioeconomic level of A.
ETA: By the way, I have no idea how child support payments work? How is the amount to be paid determined?
