…and perhaps the fellas should avoid women that are piss poor mothers. A bad mother will still get custody over a good father 99% of the time.
My “deadbeat” ex-wife owes me 15 yrs back support for two children. Rather than taking Mommy to court, I somehow managed to provide a decent upbringing without her financial support. Maybe my gender made it easier to do that, but that’s beside the point. I felt it was more important to show the kids that there’s more to life than vengence.
Please explain this claim above as (IIRC) it seems somewhat at odds with observed social and demographic trends. It is my (possibly incorrect) understanding, that out of wedlock births have been increasing (albeit more slowly than before) across the socio-economic spectrum for some time, even for “native born” American females.
Actually, I think it would work out far better if all males had to make half a dozen deposits in sperm banks, and then had a vasectomy at the onset of puberty. This would be more reliable. We’d STILL have HIV, hepatitus, syphilis, and various other STDs, though. There would be very, very few unwanted pregnancies, though. Fewer unwanted pregnancies would be good for men AND for women. All pregnancies would have to be planned, which means that the woman would have the opportunity to make sure that she’s not drinking, smoking, or taking drugs (medicine or recreational) before she becomes pregnant. There are many drugs which should not be taken before becoming pregnant.
If I had any say about it, no one could become a parent until s/he was self-supporting (and likely to remain so), had a co-parent (of either sex) and two alternate parents (nowadays these backup parents are generally known as grandma, grandpa, aunt, or uncle), in at least fair health (and likely to remain so) and was generally a competent adult. However, I don’t think that this is EVER likely to happen.
I don’t think that it’s fair to kids to have a chronically very sick parent, either mentally or physically. And I don’t think that it’s good for kids to grow up thinking that someone is just gonna send money to the family, even if the parent(s) don’t work. While kids have grown up under these circumstances, and some turn out all right, I think that many DON’T turn out right.
Before anyone gets too upset about this, I will freely admit that I wouldn’t have qualified, even if I had wanted kids.
Rug Burn and Lynn, I trust both of you have taken the time to consider how the legal restrictions on child bearing that you are postulating are a hair’s breadth away from exactly what it takes to enforce legalized eugenics.
While your ideas are very agreeable in theory, they have hideous ramifications in real life. They are part of an extremely slippery slope of governement intrusion upon reproductive choice. Lynn, have you gone over what is would take (in terms of infrastructure) to have all of those sperm banks operating reliably (i.e., construction, staffing and energy costs)? Air reduction (for LN[sub]2[/sub]) is a cost intensive operation, even discounting all the other backup systems and reliability issues.
More importantly, Lynn, would you foresake having had your children (whom I’m sure you love dearly) in order to have the restrictions you suggest put in place? However much I have thought of the same exact same sort of “parenting license” concepts, they vaporize when I conside the potential for abuse.
The mother of my child, Amelia, ows me quite a bit of child support, I’m letting the state handle the enforcement, mostly. She used to have custody, and I paid child support, even when out of work. I sold blood plasma, I did every thing I could think of, untill I found a job.
What really upsets me is that Amelia stopped me from using birth control by telling me she was sterile. Then she doesn’t tell me she is pregnant, someone else does. Then she rufused to even discuss apotion while she was pregnant. Then she abandones our two year old daughter. Amelia just runs away, and rufuses to pay anything in child support, even though I am working for minimum wage and trying to go to College. If it wasn’t for the State helping with my child-care costs and Medical insurance I don’t know if I could make ends meet, it’s hard enough anyway.
I don’t think anything will make Amelia willingly pay child support. I hope her wages are garnished, because our daughter could really use the money. And I will do my best to be sure Amelia helps with our daughter’s support, because I can’t handle it alone.
I think the real issue here is people like me, who aren’t ready to be parents. I had sense enough to realize this, Amelia seems like she didn’t realize how unready she was. I can’t imagine how to fix it unless we put birth control chemicals in the water(which I do NOT advocate) . Some people are going to have children before they are ready, or thier lives are going to change so they wish to get rid of thier children. And nothing will make someone want to pay for a child when they are ready to cut them from thier lives.
How many deadbeat dads are forming new lives for themselves? How many would gladly give thier children up for adoption, if the mothers would? How many deadbeat dads are given a choice? How many deadbeat dads would rather be raising thier own children? Or don’t support the mother’s raising style or content?
I think these issues need to be worked on with child support issues. I believe that equality in custody, and respectful parenting partnerships will do more to “fix” child support than any thing else. But these two things require mature, dedicated to the children, parents. And that is what we have a derth of in this society.
P.S. to Susanann
I think the first has alot more to do with it than the second, and I think alot of fathers don’t want to support thier ex’s lifestyles or philosophy, which they do directly with child support. The checks aren’t made out to the kids(which would be a bad idea) but to the guardian who is usually the mother. Most fathers love thier children, also. The percentage of deadbeat moms would shoot up if the custody of children was closer to fity/fifty between moms and dads.
We could just let unwanted kids starve.
This frankly scares me, moreso because I appear to be a lone voice of dissent. Why is it right to take rights from someone to grant priveleges to another? (Yes, I’m refering to not starving as a privelege.)
You are confusing rights and privileges. Free speech is a right, driving an automobile on public roads is a privilege. Hunting, fishing and piloting a boat or plane in the public domain are privileges. If one is voluntarily infringeing upon the welfare of another in violation of an existing court order, revocation of such privileges can represent a valid method of deterring such unlawful acts.
Drive without insurance and your driving privileges can be temporarily suspended as one way of discouraging such illicit activity. I do not have a big problem with curtailing the nonessential recreational activities of deadbeat parents. A desire to regain the chance of engaging in them may well provide some impetus for compliance with a court order compelling them to support their own child. Garnishment and other pecuniary measures in the past do not seem to have provided sufficient dissuasion.
Certainly so. I am questioning the validity of court orders that force people to undertake financial responsibilities of parenthood without corresponding rights.
Who said anything about “without coresponding rights”? Withholding court-ordered visitation is just as illegal as withholding child support payments. Or are you talking about something else?
This has always been a hot-button item for me. I don’t equate the ability to have sex with the skills required to be a parent. If an adult can’t take care of a child in the most basic sense, there is no point paying that person to raise children. I think the child should be removed to a better environment.
It would be better, in the long run, to spend more money up front to help break a child out of the welfare cycle.
Before anyone goes off on my opinion, I am talking about LONG-TERM WELFARE. I repeat, LONG TERM. I’ve always supported short-term help.
The last question first: Yes. I won’t go into the details now, but yes.
Yes, I’ve gone over what it would take. It would only be PRACTICAL and likely for a new extraterrestrial settlement, I think. All of the settlers would have to agree to this method, and of course be genetically screened. While I think that my idea is a wonderful one in theory, I do not think that it would EVER be put in place here on Earth. There are too many people who think that they have a right to reproduce and not accept the consequences or consider other people when they reproduce.
I’d like to see SOME government intrusion in reproduction rights. To start, if someone is proven to be a child molestor, or a child abuser, and the government keeps having to take kids away from this person, that person should be sterilized, IMNSHO. We all read about cases like this occasionally, and we’re all outraged by them. I also think that if someone is currently on welfare/mental disability aid, then that person should not be allowed to go for fertility treatments, especially at taxpayer expense.
I could go on and on. I recognize that there is vast potential for abuse if the government steps in, but as it is now, there is vast potential for private citizen abuse. I think that eventually, we’re going to have to allow some government intrusion into reproduction rights. It used to be that a man could beat his wife and/or kids as much as he wanted to, without government interference…now we, as a people, say that this is not right. I think that sooner or later, we’re going to say that it’s not right for people to have kids, only to have to have them taken away.
Based on my (admittedly limited) experiences with the system, it seems that there is an undue burden on non-primary parents. If someone can only act as their child’s parent one day out of the week, shouldn’t they only pay 1/7th child support?
Why should the noncustodial parent be “off the hook” for 6/7 of the material and financial responsibility because he/she has shown him/herself to be unwilling or unable to provide equal parenting time and effort? That is basically just screwing both the child and the parent who is responsible 6/7 of the time.
Even my dad, who basically would do whatever a court ordered of him and no more, would never have come up with that kind of logic. At least he acknowledged that he should be responsible for 50% of financial support, even if he wasn’t around to provide 50% of care.
Deadbeat dads (or moms) don’t deserve the freedom of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness UNTIL they take care of their obligation.
What about the primary parent? Don’t you think they have those kids 24/7? Who is paying for their daycare while the primary parent works? If the mother is the primary parent her income drops down because she can only work XX hours in a day.
I worked 1 full time job and 2 different part time jobs. I don’t know how many hours I was working a week but at least 50 JUST TO MAKE ENDS MEET. Well the kids started getting into trouble because they were left on their own too long. I coulnd’t afford a sitter (that would have defeated the purpose of working those extra hours) I eventually had to quit all but the full time job.
Meanwhile the deadbeat dad is sleeping late, drinking with buddies, getting high. Does he deserve the RIGHT to the pursuit of happiness with another woman when he has his first family obligations to fill?
I would say that being unwilling or unable to provide equal parenting time is the reason for not having to be responsible for material and financial issues.
If he is not acting as a father or exercising parental rights, what obligations should he have?
I admit to viewing this issue through the polarizing filter of what is right, rather than what is good for anybody involved. If someone is not being a parent, it seems unfair to force them to act (financially) as if they were. We could define parenthood to be soley genetic, but this would throw a monkey wrench into the already tricky procedures of adoption and termination of legal parenthood with regards to abuse and neglect.
That’s awfully circular logic. So if you’ve proven yourself to be irresponsible, you should be off the hook because you are irresponsible? That’s like my ex-boyfriend who used to break dishes whenever I asked him for help with the dishes, so that nobody would ask him for help with the dishes. Why should we allow parents to abdicate themselves of every shred of responsibility? Adults need to take responsibility for their actions, especially when those actions either produce or have a significant impact on the lives of children who had no choice in the matter.
The courts can’t force visitation, or decent parenting skills, as a practical matter, but if they can forcibly collect material support, I have absolutely no problem with that.
With all due respect that is an assinine statement!
Just because someone is an ass and not sharing the responsibilties does that mean he is off the hook?
If I told my son to cook dinner and he burnt it on purpose each time just so he didn’t have to cook… And I said “ok you don’t have to cook anymore” who is the idiot?
Face it some guys think being a father ends when they zip up their pants!
Slight hi-jack
I read in our local paper that a guy was married to a lady, and she had a child. He then found out two years later, from a friend, that it wasn’t his child, and confirmed it though blood work. Two years after that, they split up, and she took him to court to pay support. He then took his blood work and said the baby wasn’t his, and he shouldn’t pay support. But the courts ruled that if he had done something about it when he first knew, he wouldn’t have to pay, but because he waited so long, he was required to pay support.
Sorry, no cite, but it the"you be the judge" thing in our paper.
sorry, “but it was from the…”
Let us take the example of your butterfingered boyfriend. Assume your boyfriend has so little desire to do the dishes that he is willing to skip dinner in order to avoid doing them. Is it fair to drag him in and make him wash the dishes? If you think the dishes need to be washed, then yes, certainly, because someone else did the rest of the work. If not, than no.
Also, if I haven’t made it clear, parenting should be binary. Either someone is a parent, with the rights and responsibilites therein, or not, and lacking them, because it is frigging hard to come up with a decent way to pair up rights and responsilities one-to-one.
I say asinine things all the time. Don’t make them wrong.
Well, you. Again, see my above example for what I think is right with regard to situations where rights are responsibilites are inexorably mixed: all or nothing.
Ideally, fatherhood would end when a father wanted to give up said rights/responsibilites. If someone can forefit those rights though misdeeds, it doesn’t make sense not to be able to give them up voluntarily.