Deadbeat Dads and daughters

[cosmosdan]

@Rubystreak

I’m not talking about not paying support. I’m presenting a different POV, which was solicited by Cosmodan, with my constructive suggestions for making things more fair. You disagree, that’s fine, but don’t change the subject onto who is and who isn’t a whiny asshole. And when you call someone an asshole in MPSIMS, you’re in the wrong forum, because that is insulting.

I don’t think** stretch** was being insulting to you and it certainly wasn’t a personal comment.
You made the comment about reality vs/ on paper which prompted the real world comment to you. The point being that while we can find examples of things that seem grossly unfair there are many more people who willing pay their CS without complaint or feeling screwed. OTOH I’ve known several men who can’t get by their bitterness over CS and see it as paying money to their ex rather than their rightful support for their children. Child support can create a financial burden I know. Been there and done that. It isn’t the ex or the system that is creating that burden. It’s just the valid responsibility of having a child.

A lot of people are very bitter about it. There are problems with the system that hurt people. We are entitled to discuss it without being accused of defending deadbeat-ism or being tarred with the brush “assholes” or “whiners.”

I think more of the problems are with the people using the system and feelings of spite and resentment that get in the way.

[stretch]

@cosmosdan

I don’t think** stretch** was being insulting to you and it certainly wasn’t a personal comment.
You made the comment about reality vs/ on paper which prompted the real world comment to you. The point being that while we can find examples of things that seem grossly unfair there are many more people who willing pay their CS without complaint or feeling screwed. OTOH I’ve known several men who can’t get by their bitterness over CS and see it as paying money to their ex rather than their rightful support for their children. Child support can create a financial burden I know. Been there and done that. It isn’t the ex or the system that is creating that burden. It’s just the valid responsibility of having a child.

Thanks, cosmosdan, you grokked what I was posting.

[catsix]

Kalhoun said:
She’s saying she’s not the only one responsible for the situation.

If by ‘the situation’ you mean pregnancy, that statement is technically correct.

Since Roe v. Wade, however, she is solely the one to decide whether or not there is a birth.

I believe firmly that if a woman chooses to have a child knowing she is the only person who wants that child, she should be the only person who pays for that child’s needs.

Women have three months into pregnancy, so let’s say sixty days from the time they find out they’re pregnant, to terminate the pregnancy for purely elective reasons, and seven days after the birth to turn the kid over under Safe Haven and thereby completely end any and all parental responsibility, financial or otherwise.

I say we give men 67 days from the date they are informed of the pregnancy or child (to prevent situations where they are deliberately kept in the dark past the first trimester/first week window) to terminate all of their parental rights and responsibilies permanently.

I call it male abortion. I think it’s a way to balance the scales of justice.

Also, the idea that the only reason men support their children at all is that they’re forced to, and that there would suddenly be millions and millions more men who don’t want shit to do with their kids unless a law is making them is blatant misandry.

[cosmosdan]

@catsix

If by ‘the situation’ you mean pregnancy, that statement is technically correct.

Since Roe v. Wade, however, she is solely the one to decide whether or not there is a birth.

I believe firmly that if a woman chooses to have a child knowing she is the only person who wants that child, she should be the only person who pays for that child’s needs.

Women have three months into pregnancy, so let’s say sixty days from the time they find out they’re pregnant, to terminate the pregnancy for purely elective reasons, and seven days after the birth to turn the kid over under Safe Haven and thereby completely end any and all parental responsibility, financial or otherwise.

I say we give men 67 days from the date they are informed of the pregnancy or child (to prevent situations where they are deliberately kept in the dark past the first trimester/first week window) to terminate all of their parental rights and responsibilies permanently.

I call it male abortion. I think it’s a way to balance the scales of justice.

Also, the idea that the only reason men support their children at all is that they’re forced to, and that there would suddenly be millions and millions more men who don’t want shit to do with their kids unless a law is making them is blatant misandry.

I didn’t see one post suggesting men only support their children because they’re forced to.

I do believe that if we gave men the right to wash their hands financially of their children within a time frame, in a generation or so we’d have a lot of men behaving incredibly irresponsibly. It’s not a hatred of men but a recognition of human nature. If you give people an a way to easily avoid the consequences of their actions then in time they will feel it’s their right to avoid those consequences and there is nothing morally wrong with it.

This applies to people of both genders.

[stretch]

@catsix

Also, the idea that the only reason men support their children at all is that they’re forced to, and that there would suddenly be millions and millions more men who don’t want shit to do with their kids unless a law is making them is blatant misandry.

Well, I call it remembering the good old days, when Mommy or Daddy could walk out the door and never be held accountable for leaving their kids in a financial lurch. Child support enforcement guidelines and regulatory agencies were set up because people didn’t pay their share. Non-paying parents came before the advent of child support enforcement.

[Lightnin]

@stretch

Visitation is easy to enforce, but nobody seems to want to take the necessary step–going to court. The court will enforce visitation if the NCP asks it to. Usually the NCP whines to the wrong people about lack of visitiation so nothing gets accomplished.

When the only recourse the NCP has for being denied court-ordered visitation is to go to the cops, I’d say there’s a problem. I despise the party line of “child support and visitation are entirely separate”- if child support is enforced by a state agency, visitation should be as well! I’m not saying one should be dependent upon the other, but NCPs should have as much representation as the custodial parents. NCPs shouldn’t be required to have a sheriff accompany them just so they can get the court-ordered visitation.

@stretch

People who can’t afford lawyers can get all the necessary forms for child support orders and modifications online. They can contact family courts for assistance in completing these forms. If support is paid through the Child Support Registry, either parent can have their local support enforcement office assist with modifications or setting support.

In my experience, the child support agency is strictly there to help the CP get as much money as possible from the NCP. Don’t the agencies get matching funds from the federal government for every dollar collected? That seems a huge conflict of interest, to me.

One thing that really bugs me, though, is that child support is tied to a percentage of the NCP’s salary. Why should a child support obligation increase when the NCP gets a raise? In an intact family, a salary increase doesn’t necessarily mean the kid gets nicer stuff- so why is it mandated when the family’s divorced? It seems to be a case of having and eating cake- child support is supposed to pay for the child’s expenses, but if Dad gets a raise, the kid’s expenses suddenly increase. Doesn’t make sense to me.

[cosmosdan]

@catsix

I believe firmly that if a woman chooses to have a child knowing she is the only person who wants that child, she should be the only person who pays for that child’s needs.

Women have three months into pregnancy, so let’s say sixty days from the time they find out they’re pregnant, to terminate the pregnancy for purely elective reasons, and seven days after the birth to turn the kid over under Safe Haven and thereby completely end any and all parental responsibility, financial or otherwise.

I say we give men 67 days from the date they are informed of the pregnancy or child (to prevent situations where they are deliberately kept in the dark past the first trimester/first week window) to terminate all of their parental rights and responsibilies permanently.

I call it male abortion. I think it’s a way to balance the scales of justice.
.

There’s another person involved here that seems to have been forgotten by those who are standing up for equal rights for men. That’s the child who is unable to defend itself or provide for itself. How are the scales of justice balanced for this citizen under your proposal?

[cosmosdan]

@Lightnin'

When the only recourse the NCP has for being denied court-ordered visitation is to go to the cops, I’d say there’s a problem. I despise the party line of “child support and visitation are entirely separate”- if child support is enforced by a state agency, visitation should be as well! I’m not saying one should be dependent upon the other, but NCPs should have as much representation as the custodial parents. NCPs shouldn’t be required to have a sheriff accompany them just so they can get the court-ordered visitation.

If they have court ordered visitation that is being denied by the custodial parent how do you propose it is enforced? You drive over with a sheriff who’s there to enforce the court order. It’s crappy that it has to come to that but sometimes it’s necessary. I think visitation will be enforced by the system but the NCP has to go through a lot of crap and be determined and relentless. Some NCPs give up because they feel as if the child will only be hurt in the fight. It sucks but thats how it is for some.

In my experience, the child support agency is strictly there to help the CP get as much money as possible from the NCP. Don’t the agencies get matching funds from the federal government for every dollar collected? That seems a huge conflict of interest, to me.

Not in mine. I had a friend who got divorced and had two kids by her ex. The problem was that he was already paying the maximum amount of CS for two kids from the marriage before her so she got nothing. How’s that for justice?

One thing that really bugs me, though, is that child support is tied to a percentage of the NCP’s salary. Why should a child support obligation increase when the NCP gets a raise? In an intact family, a salary increase doesn’t necessarily mean the kid gets nicer stuff- so why is it mandated when the family’s divorced? It seems to be a case of having and eating cake- child support is supposed to pay for the child’s expenses, but if Dad gets a raise, the kid’s expenses suddenly increase. Doesn’t make sense to me.

It’s total income of both parents and then a percentage basis I think. If the Dad makes 60 or 70% of the combined income then he is responsible for 60 or 70% of the exspenses not half. I think…

Why should the kid get the bare minimum? If NCP can afford Reebok’s instead bargain basement shoes shouldn’t the kid have them? If NCP can afford sirloin instead of macaroni and cheese shouldn’t the kid have it?

[stretch]

@Lightnin'

When the only recourse the NCP has for being denied court-ordered visitation is to go to the cops, I’d say there’s a problem. I despise the party line of “child support and visitation are entirely separate”- if child support is enforced by a state agency, visitation should be as well! I’m not saying one should be dependent upon the other, but NCPs should have as much representation as the custodial parents. NCPs shouldn’t be required to have a sheriff accompany them just so they can get the court-ordered visitation.

Parents shouldn’t have to have a court order them to pay support, but they do. I’m all for a visitation enforcement agency as well, but have a feeling that most people would be unwilling to fund one, especially given the resistance to funding support enforcement.

@Lightnin'

In my experience, the child support agency is strictly there to help the CP get as much money as possible from the NCP. Don’t the agencies get matching funds from the federal government for every dollar collected? That seems a huge conflict of interest, to me.

Various support enforcement agencies get federal funds based on a number of things. In Washington, the state does not getting matching funds and they make no money on the collection of child support because state law at this time prohibits taking a percentage. Which I think is a good thing…I don’t want children to have to lose a portion of their support because a parent doesn’t want to pay and has to be chased. Many states are going to private collection agencies, which don’t get federal funds, do take a percentage, and can sometimes screw over both the receiving and paying parent.

@Lightnin'

One thing that really bugs me, though, is that child support is tied to a percentage of the NCP’s salary. Why should a child support obligation increase when the NCP gets a raise? In an intact family, a salary increase doesn’t necessarily mean the kid gets nicer stuff- so why is it mandated when the family’s divorced? It seems to be a case of having and eating cake- child support is supposed to pay for the child’s expenses, but if Dad gets a raise, the kid’s expenses suddenly increase. Doesn’t make sense to me.

What do you think child support should be tied to? Do you think there should be a flat rate, so that Joe Blow who works as a cashier pays the same amount as John Blow the rocket scientist?

Child support amounts do not automatically increase with a person’s raises and increases of income usually have to remain in place over time before a modification is considered. It is generally accepted that if you make more money, you spend more money on your kids. Either you provide them with things you couldn’t before, or you provide them with better quality things. The kids should not have to do without because mom or dad would rather not spend more money on them than the parent currently deems absolutely necessary.

[catsix]

cosmodan said:
That’s the child who is unable to defend itself or provide for itself. How are the scales of justice balanced for this citizen under your proposal?

Perhaps the mother who chose to have a child that only she wanted should’ve thought about whether or not she could support it before she went through with ‘I’ll have my own way on someone else’s wallet’ plan.

Tough titty, said the kitty. Lots of people grow up poor. I did.

[cosmosdan]

@catsix

Perhaps the mother who chose to have a child that only she wanted should’ve thought about whether or not she could support it before she went through with ‘I’ll have my own way on someone else’s wallet’ plan.

That’ll teach that selfish bitch.

Tough titty, said the kitty. Lots of people grow up poor. I did.

Ahhh, now that you mention it I think I remember this in the remarks from a CS case that went to the Supreme Court.

The justice said something like “In the interest of justice for all , tough titty said the kitty”

It was very moving in context.

[Rubystreak]

@stretch

I don’t want children to have to lose a portion of their support because a parent doesn’t want to pay and has to be chased.

To be fair-- child support doesn’t always get turned over to government agencies because the NCP “doesn’t want to pay and has to be chased.” Sometimes it’s because of animosity and communication breakdown between the parents. That is not necessarily the fault of the NCP or a result of his unwillingness to support his child.

[Malacandra]

@cosmosdan

That’ll teach that selfish bitch.

I suppose the idea is that the awareness of the consequences would mean that the occasion would seldom arise - so it wouldn’t often be a case of teaching any selfish bitches.

[stretch]

@Rubystreak

To be fair-- child support doesn’t always get turned over to government agencies because the NCP “doesn’t want to pay and has to be chased.” Sometimes it’s because of animosity and communication breakdown between the parents. That is not necessarily the fault of the NCP or a result of his unwillingness to support his child.

Agreeing to pay through the registry is a great thing and I encourage people to do it. That is different than having a collection agency chase the non-paying parent and then keeping part of the support–the kid loses out in that situation.

[catsix]

Malacandra said:
I suppose the idea is that the awareness of the consequences would mean that the occasion would seldom arise - so it wouldn’t often be a case of teaching any selfish bitches.

Yup, that’s the idea. Think really really hard about whether you really want that baby that you alone will have to support.

[cosmosdan]

@catsix

Yup, that’s the idea. Think really really hard about whether you really want that baby that you alone will have to support.

Well that certainly places more responsibility on woman, while giving men a free pass to behave irresponsibly and telling innocent children , tuff titty.

This is your concept of balancing the scales of justice??