I want to be sure I’m understanding this right. You believe that the courts are so notoriously biased against men on the side of women that men who aren’t the fathers but are “the nearest convenient male” are paying for children who aren’t their own? Do you have a theory on how these nearest convenient males are being chosen?
Your post #235 seems to state that this is happening and I’m assuming it’s happening pretty frequently for you to state this as if it is fact in a thread that seems to be about finding preferred solutions for men who are paying unwanted child support.
I guess I’ll need to understand more of how these “nearest convenient males” are being selected before understanding how a solution is available for them because my understanding of how this works (from a friend of mine who was falsely accused of being a father to a child) is that the woman says “THIS GUY RIGHT HERE is the father of my child.” The guy either (1) accepts that and they both sign an Acknowledgment of Paternity (AOP) form and the court decides the amount he is to pay (after the court tells him no to the 50/50 custody I’m sure he’s insisting on) and the payments are sent to the child’s custodial parent or (2) says “Billie Jean is not my lover” and they moonwalk their asses to the lab to be tested for paternity. If he is not the father (like my friend was not) then no child support payments are made. If he is the father, see step (1).
That, unfortunately, is where my knowledge ends. At what point does “the nearest convenient male” get dinged and how does this happen?
But how are they being conveniently selected? Curious minds want to know. Is the convenient part that they look like the child? Live near where the child lives? Share a name? Is there a Hunger Games type financial reaping where their names are all being put in a big glass bowl?
When they say “But court, I am not the child’s father! Take some of my spirit to test for DNA to see that I am not!” What does the court say? “Too bad, we are here to take money from a man to give to *a woman *and you are being selected. We don’t care if the child is *being supported *so just pony up that money ($380 on average, livin like royalty these ladies are!) so we can pass it out.”
I suspect that Der Trihs is talking about is the not very common case of a man who at the time of divorce comes to the correct conclusion (I’m sure lots more men suddenly decide their wife was cheating and turn out to be wrong ) that he is not the father of child he has been raising for the past three , five or ten years- and is willing to give up all contact with this child if it means he doesn’t pay support. Married men are presumed to be the father of their wife’s child. I believe in most states this presumption can be overcome, but it would have to be soon after birth not years later.
If that’s what he’s alluding to he sure picked an odd way to present it.
Still, it seems that if that is the case it hardly belongs in this unwanted child support thread unless it’s just being used as “aha them wimmenz is liars!” which can be true about all people, men and women, but hardly relevant to the topic discussed except random rantings about women and this being a convenient nearby thread (hee) to throw these rantings into.
If someone wants to start a thread about the issues facing men who find out the kids they believe to be there own are not, that would be a sad yet interesting thread to have. Unfortunately I know a woman who did this and the guy found out when the child was about 8. He was nearly suicidal because he’d actually had a vasectomy after the birth because he only wanted the one child. Heartbreaking.
And, as nothing exists in a vacuum, that rare scenario has a counterpart. Married men who have children during an affair are often found financially responsible for illegitimate children, which places an unfair burden on his legitimate wife and family. Some people stray, and the resulting children must be cared for as the court sees fit, even if that occurs at the expense of an unwitting, innocent party.
It can and does happen. My friend is the custodial parent of his teenaged daughter. Mom developed a drug problem and lost all but supervised visitation rights years ago and is in jail because she is several years behind on child support.
You misunderstood. I was saying if a guy owes child support, he should sue the owner of the vagina for that expense incurred due to her attractive vagina.
Why do you insist on doing this? Where have I ever advocated that anywhere in this thread? Despite your repeated distortions, I think I’ve been pretty clear with my position:
What I strongly object to is the nasty rhetoric you use to discuss male sex organs and their BC options, your ‘primary procreative purpose of sex’ and ‘biological imperative’ nonsense.
For some reason you seem determined to engage in some very elaborate performance art when it comes to my posts or you have some serious reading comprehension issues.
You may have just presented the only truly fair and equal argument in this entire thread, since women sue the owners of attractive penises for expenses incurred.
But again, child support is neither a penalty for failed birth control nor a bonus for custodial parents. Child support is for the resulting children.
I’ve yet to understand any of your proposed solutions for unwanted child support or who you feel should take financial responsibility for progeny conceived under deliberate, negligent, or accidental conditions. “It’s not fair!” simply isn’t a realistic jumping off position.
I’m picking up sarcasm in your post here. So maybe you can answer your own question because I’m hazarding a guess you don’t have a problem with men being forced to pay child support for kids that aren’t his.
It does happen, the frequency of which it happens or the amount that has to be paid is not the point at all. The point is it shouldn’t be happening at all. Because I can guarantee you if the roles were reversed it wouldn’t be tolerated by the SD feminists for one second.
I’ll take a guess behind the liberal ideology behind it though. It’s a combination of “it takes a village to raise a child” motto and “What’s in the best interest of the children” Men’s feelings, violation of their basic human rights of responsibility are secondary. It’s also about alleviating another financial burden on social services with another single mother requiring assistance from taxpayers. Hence " the nearest convenient disposable male will do" is very true.
Imagine if you were this man. Imagine how you would feel. Disposable, less than human, something to be harvested for the better of society, and to hell with how you feel. Having no reprodcutive rights is bad enough. But being forced to pay child support for some other man’s kids is just dehumanizing. Go after the biological father, not the most convenient one because it’s easier and cheaper for everyone else except him of course.
So for the topic at hand* Men, what would be a fair solution for unwanted child support? * Doesn’t really matter does it. Since the precedent has been set that men may have pay for kids that aren’t their own anways. That horse left the barn a long time ago.
Women can choose not to be mother .Abortion, adoption, drop the kid off in a box by the nearest fire station. A woman has the choice at the hosptial to give birth and are asked “Who’s the father ?” a false statement is all that’s needed.
A man has no choice, it’s totally up to the woman whether he is going to be a father or not.
Are you serious? Please go back and thoroughly re-read, very slowly, the post you just quoted of mine, where you remarkably snipped out the answer to your own question.
You mean in the case of an unintended pregnancy? Because both partners bear an equal choice prior to conception.
And it’s women who have no choice as the the financial impact of children conceived in extramarital affairs. Is it fair that Maria Shriver and the children she conceived while married to Arnold Schwarzenegger should suffer financially because he conceived an illegitimate child? After all, Maria isn’t the mother of this child, so why should she suffer any financial impact at all? Because the needs of the child take precedent over what’s “fair”.
Actually, situations like Marie Shriver and Arnold Schwarzenegger are extremely good reasons why awarding child support in nonmarital pregnancies is a bad idea. It punishes the nonadulterous spouse and awards the other party in the adultery. Some of us don’t believe the “needs of a the child” should never be allowed to trump basic idea of fairness that is the bedrock of civilization. If a woman doesn’t want to stuck raising a child alone financially, she should be certain she has a willing partner. It’s that simply. There are no 100% unbreakable condoms out there. Expecting a man to get a vascetomy before ever having sex is as unfair as expecting a woman to have her tubes tied before she loses her virginity.
Get serious, as long as the custodial parent is spending the child support, it’s bonus money in their budget. Maybe if the children were taken from the custodial parent and put into some sort of institutionalized care and the money paid to and spent by the government it might approach fair, but as long one person (usually the mother) can force someone to subsidize their childrearing project the situation is as unfair as forcing women to gestate zygotes they don’t want.
As social animals, we care for and provide for the needs of our young as well as other weaker members of society. Denying support to Joseph punishes an innocent victim who is just as deserving of support as Schwarzenegger’s legitimate children. The kid didn’t ask to be born of two willing parties who consented to a sexual relationship. It’s not the kid’s fault they weren’t more careful.
