Ah, yes. That was it. Died rather quickly, didn’t it?
I can’t believe some of the people who have posted to this thread.
I’m pretty confident that these “pay up or zip up” cases will be ruled unconstitutional. THis is the land of the free, and being free to do what you want, you’re free to reproduce. It sucks that some parents don’t fulfill their responsibilities and that families suffer because of it, but you can’t limit a man’s rights just because he doesn’t pay child support.
I work for a family law firm. We handle mostly divorce/settlement/custody cases. In my experience here, our state and local DCSS(or Dept. of Child Support Services) is in the very least, overreaching, and at worst, crooked…all the while being wholly incompetent and ineffectual.
-They take on cases and will litigate for years, just to serve the wrong person and make the mother start from ground zero.
-They don’t take on cases that need attention
-They can take a man’s business license, driver’s license, and winnings from any sort of civil suit
-They add on the most ludicrous amounts of interest to these fathers who can’t pay their guideline support to begin with
Most fathers who are in arrears aren’t “deadbeats”. Most are just guys who might have fucked up, or had a bad lawyer or got a raw deal or just lost their big $$ job. The way the job market here in San Jose, people who were making $100,000 a year are now stuck making $30,000 a year.
Adding up arrearages and interest like they do without changing guideline support is insane. And it happens all the time. Many times these guys are just trying to keep afloat. They sell all they have just to pay bills and give SOMETHING back to mom and the kids.
THe liberties that child support enforcement takes are nearly criminal at times, and I am loath to consider the state or local authorities having rights over a man’s reproductive rights, just like I couldn’t support a state- or federally- written initiative or amendment to limit who can get married.
Sam
OK, will do…
So I have to help pay for your spawn because you’re too irresponsible or stupid to learn how to operate a condom?!?!
OK, OK…Now, once the baby’s here, we really have no choice but to support it. BUT, isn’t trying to prevent the situation in the first place it a SMART and RESPONSIBLE thing for society to do? Society creates laws to protect us from ourselves all the time, like seatbelt laws, drug laws, etc. Welfare mothers should get free birth control, condoms, and tubal ligations. Now, I don’t mind paying for that. But I DO mind paying for these lazy slob’s offspring. We need to protect people like this from themselves. This is self-destructive behavior AND it harms society in general. It puts a heavy burden on society to have to support all these kids.
Judge O’Connor, from the New York case, said it best (from the NYT article):
I like her idea about the supposed “right” to have children. Is this really a RIGHT? Just because I CAN pee in the street, does that mean is it my right? Just because I CAN pick up a gun and shoot it, does that mean it’s my right? There are lots of things I physically CAN do, but can’t or shouldn’t. If reproducing is a RIGHT, that certainly comes along with the RESPONSIBILITY to raise and support the child. Otherwise, there are tons of infertile childless couples out there would love to raise these babies.
Here’s another analogy: Children are expensive. So are cars and houses and such. If I can’t afford to buy a new car, then I can’t have it. If I can’t afford to buy a house, then I can’t have it. So WHY, pray tell, should I have a kid if I can’t afford it? If I wanted one, then I would wait and work and save, then I would reproduce. Sheesh, at least if I got the car or house and couldn’t pay for it, it would just be repossessed…but if you can’t pay for a baby, it’s not quite a simple. It is a living human being…if you can’t afford to take care of it, then it is UNCONSCIONABLE to have it.
What about the liberties of the children? Who will guarantee their rights? They didn’t ask to be born. Who is to be responsible for them and their welfare if not those who chose to produce them?
What about them?
A system put in place which makes it doubly difficult for father to pay his monthly child support and instead racks up interest in arrearages that he can never be able to pay benefits nobody. Taking a man’s license, benefits nobody. Taking his business license benefits nobody. Not the state, not mom, not the children. Why? Because if he can’t work, he can’t pay.
We all know who is responsible. We all know that those who refuse to pay child support are fucking deadbeats. What most people don’t know and don’t see is the other 90% of men who are out there busting tail to pay mom her child support. The other 90% of men who can barely afford to live, let alone pay child support. The other 90% of men who dutifully pay their support and more.
In our office we see all kinds. We see moms who refuse to work and want to survive off of support. Men who don’t want to pay any support and live their lives hiding property and income just to fuck mom out of her meager support. Moms who get breast augmentation with support money. Men who are over $100K in arrears. Women who will accept what dad has available as support, even if it isn’t 100% of what they’re supposed to be paying, and Men who give up all but their rent checks just to pay their support.
Taking his god-fucking-given right to reproduction may seem like it will correct the problem and indeed may have a minimal impact, but at what cost? At the cost of once again compromising our Constitution? You can’t take a woman’s right to reproduction(or not) from her, and the same things goes for dad. Unfortunately, constitutional issues, even when dealing with child support nonpayment have to be more important than punishing dad because he is a deadbeat.
So go back and read my post, I think the answers to your questions are pretty clear.
Sam
Hmm, I must have missed the part in the Constitution where it said it is a right to have children if you can’t support them. Land of the free? Oh, but am I free to refuse to pay the portion of my taxes that go to support your kids because you were irresponsible and had them before you could support them?
“Free to do what you want???” Am I free to kill, rape, steal or otherwise harm society? When you have kids you can’t afford, and then I am forced to pay for them, that doesn’t seem the “The Land of the Free” to me. Seems like theft. It is a burden on society, not only financial but in other ways. Plus, it’s just plain cruel to the children.
People like you complain about YOUR RIGHTS, YOUR RIGHTS, but what about the rights of the children born into a family that cannot support them? What a selfish attitude.
Also you say “you can’t limit a man’s rights just because he doesn’t pay child support.” Well yes you can. He broke the law. When you break the law, some of your rights may be taken away. You might be put in jail, not be able to vote, have restrictions related to probation, etc.
Basically it seems your whole view and premise is one of IRRESPONSIBILITY, and that society should have to pick up your slack, because it’s your RIGHT to be irresponsible.
If you don’t want to/can’t support children, then WEAR A DAMN CONDOM!
So, because you’re afraid I’m too stupid or irresponsible to operate a condom you can force me to? So if I lock my door and fuck in private, you claim a legitimate right to come in and demand I fuck in your approved manner? Or if I don’t, that you can toss me in jail?
This analogy is seriously flawed. If you could, with the aid of a consenting adult, grow your own car/house within your own bodies, it would START to approach the real issue. The baby is not someone else’s property that you must have the money to purchase from them. Society doesn’t have a “baby dealership” where financially secure couples can go and purchase babies after filling out the appropriate mortgage paperwork and getting financial approval. You don’t want to pay for other people’s babies? Then withdraw the entitlements and reform welfare so that society doesn’t support these families anymore. Good luck with that by the way.
The judge is going out on a limb here, legally speaking, trying to seperate the “have and raise children” which has been found to be an individual right protected by the constitution, into “have” and “raise” seperately. My prediction is the court will be reversed.
Luckily for them they were born into a society where the majority feel willing and able to support them if their natural parents can’t/won’t. I’ll pay taxes to support a tiny fraction of parents who are deadbeats if it means that the children are cared for and the government doesn’t burst into my bedroom with a pack of condoms in one hand and a pair of cuffs in the other.
Enjoy,
Steven
Hmm, well I guess he should have thought of that before he stuck his dick in some woman without a condom.
“God-fucking-given?” Where do you get that? And, uh, again, where exactly is this right to reproduction written in the Constitution?
Or shall I say, where is it written that you have the right to force me and the other taxpayers to support you and your kids?
And at what cost? Well let’s see…states would save the money spent on welfare and such and use it to improve schools so we can teach the kids who are already here…the dads who are struggling to pay their child support wouldn’t have to struggle, they could afford to pay their rent…kids wouldn’t have to grow up poor and neglected…
Did you read the NYT article above about the woman whose three babies were born with cocaine in their systems? You think it is her “god-fucking-given” right to do this??!!?? Shit, I say jail the bitch for attempted murder. Maybe that will keep her from doing it again.
I’m not sure I can even see the post through the strawmen…
And yes, telling person ‘A’ they are free to reproduce and telling person ‘B’ that they are not is most likely unconstitutional. Just like telling all women that they cannot abort a pregnancy is unconstitutional. Just like forcing a woman to sterilize herself for bringing unwanted/addicted children into this world is unconstitutional(AFAIK, a specific case was ruled in mother’s favor many years ago).
Like I suggested to Lib, please go back and look at most of my posts as a whole instead of picking one little paragraph to argue with me about. You’re right, deadbeats need to be handled somehow. But this is not the way to do it, nor are many of the methods that the Child Support departments employ to get the job done.
Sam
Who supports child support enforcement if it is executed properly.
Yeah, I know the drill, Gawd. Intimately. As a father who paid child support for 16 years, I understand what a struggle it can be. But you are mixing up two things. There is no unqualified “right” to reproduce. You cannot, for example, grab some random woman, impregnate her, and force her to bring a baby to term. But even if there were such a right, there is also a comensurate responsibility to provide for the child’s welfare. Some people give more thought to buying a new car than to having a child. If you are going to bring a child into the world, then you’d better make certain that you can provide it a loving home, food, clothing, and shelter. It frankly doesn’t matter if you have to struggle to do so. That’s a part of the risk you took when you were fucking. I am astounded by the assertion that it’s okay to pump out kids like Pez candy and have no concern about their provision.
That’s stupid. Why would the government burst into your bedroom if you’re taking care of your children. Besides, if you like supporting them, why wait for taxes? Who’s stopping you from making voluntary contributions in the support of children?
Look, buddy, fuck all you want, how you want, I don’t care because it doesn’t affect me. BUT it does affect me once your fucking produces mouths to feed that society has to pay for. You may fuck in private, but once your kid pops out and you can’t support it, it becomes a public problem.
Get it??? :rolleyes:
Are there any other kind?
You present the two sentences as they have anything in common. However nothing in the first has anything to do with the second. Further how do you recon he voluntary abandoned or neglected the children? Because he didn’t pay an arbitrary set amount of money? Give me a break. Million of children suffer daily from worse emotional abandonments and neglects. I wonder how imprisoning him will assist him in facilitating the much more important emotional parenting? But not as much as I wonder how you’re able to reconcile your supposedly libertarian worldview with giving the state the power to define by force how children should be raised. Or indeed by removing his free will a prior any “crime” has been committed. Or by trusting the state with this terrible power of determining our reproductive rights. How about forced anti-fertility medication? Forced sterilization?
That’s called sarcasm. Sarcasm is like when you say one thing and mean the opposite. E.g. I didn’t see the appalling neglect of the children since none were apparently starving, and there are worse things in life than not having a Playstation II. Oh, and you’d be well advices not to take my word for anything.
Apparently not. I did labour under the, obviously mistaken, assumption they were libertarian. My mistake. As you say, won’t happen again.
Exactly. Finally spoken like a true Libertarian. Let the parents sort this out themselves. Especially since the state’s solution seems to be something as insane as imprisoning him or taking away his passport and drivers license; like these are going to do wonders to his ability to hold a job.
G’night
Oh. I almost forgot. nyctea scandiaca You are a fucking imbecile moron
Birdgirl-
Do you have any fucking clue about what you are discussing? Or is this just a feather that worked it’s way up your ass? Really, do you have any experience in working with state or county agencies or lawyers regarding child support? Or do you just have a family member who failed to live up to his responsibility?
I work with people every day on both sides of this issue. I work with people who are getting screwed and who are screwing the system-both male and female. If you have no idea of what you speak, it is probably better not to speak of them at all.
Was this directed at me, or were you just popping off again? I don’t have kids or an ex-wife. If you don’t like your tax dollars going to programs like the ones that support women and children who are in need, than I’m sure you have more complaints than just this.
If you don’t like your tax dollars going for these programs, then how do you feel about other social needs programs? Food for the homeless? Money for anti-drug and drug abuse centers? Roadwork?
Sam
Looks like we have a lot in common then! :wally
Lib-
I think I have the issues straight and you and Birdgirl have them confused. This isn’t about the right to fuck. This is about the right of the state to assert control over your right to fuck. Once again- The Federal government cannot assert power over a woman’s right to reproduce(AKA, the right of abortion). The State has very limited power over a woman’s right to reproduce(we’ll soon see the results of a suit on that).
Ergo, people being people and all, the State and Federal governments have little to no power over a man’s right to reproduce. This is being challenged right now as well.
I’m on both of your sides here with regard to responsibility. I don’t think there is a single poster in this that has said a man(or woman) is absolved of responsibility in the bringing of a life into the world. People shouldn’t reproduce if they can’t care for a child monetarily, emotionally, or mentally*. But what I’m telling you is that the powers we’ve given to the state on an emotionally charged political issue like this are absolutely ridiculous. I think that furthering the state’s reach into our lives is a big mistake-right, wrong or indifferent.
Sam
*-people who are mentally challenged not only use public resources(the same ones you complain about paying for nyctea), but have asserted their rights as human beings to have babies.
So, how exactly do you suggest stopping me from popping out kids without stopping me from fucking in private?
Oh, so I should just trust that they wouldn’t burst into my bedroom even though they have done it before to other people? I guess it’s one of those things that only the criminals need to worry about, like expanded phonetapping powers and those other things the civil libertarians are always carping on about. I don’t want the government in ANYBODY’S bedroom. Opening that door on someone’s bedroom gets them that much closer to opening mine.
As to the second part, I’d like to see your evidence that I “wait for taxes” to support children in need instead of doing something on my own. Otherwise you are cordially invited to fuck off.
Enjoy,
Steven
Why, yes I do know what I am talking about. Do you think I am just making this all up for the fun of it? I am an analyst at a public policy research firm and we study these issues in all 50 states…I focus on health care and welfare issues. States are struggling because their welfare and Medicaid rolls are bursting at the seams because of the irresponsible people I am complaining about. We all suffer for it. States are broke, can’t even pay to educate the kids who already exist, much less pay for everything else…and any politician who tries to raise taxes gets booted out. So you just can’t win!
Other experience I have: I worked at the Fairfax County Juvenile Court, monotoring juvenile delinquents on probation. Most of these poor kids came from parents just like the ones I am talking about. My mom is a manager at a neighboring county’s juvenile probation division. She has been in the social work field for over 30 years and she sees these kids all the time. It is extremely sad.
My main point is: what is better, to fix a problem after it has arisen, or to avoid the problem in the first place? I say, avoid the problem to begin with. We are not rabbits; we’re human beings who have the intelligence to know that a) sex sometimes results in babies b) this wonderful invention called birth control prevents pregnancy.
And no, I don’t “have a family member who failed to live up to his responsibility.” (laughs) All the people in my immediate and extended family were smart and responsible enough to plan their families so they could support them.
When I finish building my website I’m going to make Child Support and custody issues and major section. I used to think just like a lot of you people posting here, until it happened to me, that is. As you might note form my location, I live in California. I’ve just recently paid off the $6k I owed in child support, despite the fact that initially we had joint custody of our children, then for the last 3 years or so I’ve had full custody.
In my state I guess there’s no verification of any kind when someone goes into a state office and requests welfare. Consequently, my Ex has been able to successfully receive welfare three times, and in each instance I was hit with child support and interest. Try calling the DA’s Child Support Enforcement bureau if you owe any significant amount of money legitimately or not, which you will be in a case like mine because it tends to be months before you even find out about it. . They treat you as if you’re some kind of child molesting leper, nothing you say will convice them you don’t owe money. Eventually, someone might show up to verify your claim, in my case it was at least six months between my WTF call and seeing an investigator. Despite proving this twice (I’ll be doing it for yet a third tomorrow - see my previous pit thread) how much money do you think the state has given me back? None. De Nada. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Goose Egg!!
And I know it’s not just me, I have a best friend who drives trucks (lories for you UKers) he owes nearly 90k in support payments, and he’s had his commercial license yanked repeatedly. Meaning of course that he falls even further behind in his payments while fighting to have his license returned. Repeat ad nauseum. Well he shouldn’t be going out having a whole bunch of babies you might be thinking right? Wrong, he has one child. My brother owes 21K after losing his job building cars and only just now finding work, he’s had both his drivers license and business license he’s also a contractor) suspended during that 2 year period.
The guy in the OP’s link might be a bad guy; I don’t know I haven’t read it. What I am really getting tired of is the term Deadbeat Dad. I don’t have any more trust in the term. I think it’s used far to casually.
Are you serious? You can’t be that dense!
OK well, if you read my previous posts, you will see this line:
In other words, WEAR A DAMN CONDOM! You can get them free at your local Planned Parenthood. (Planned is the key word here).
Have I made myself clear?
Originally Posted by World Eater
I think you should have to take some type of test before you can become a parent. Give them a written exam or something
Hmmmmmmm, should think ample evidence of being able to support them, after all fiduciary ability is one of the main things they look for in adoptive parents. i know there are a lot of hoops parents who want to adopt have to jump through. I seem to remember a couple friends of my parents talking about having to have a bank balance of $10K US, and that was back in the 70s.
I would like to see them be able to pass a whiz quiz or blood test on crack and some of the heavier opiates. Being gainfully employed and in the condition of having some form of medical insurance for pre and post natal care of mother and sprout. How about a separate bedroom for any children [say, allowable is 2 per bedroom] and I for one wouldn’t mind requiring a high school diploma or GED.
But then again, I have always liked certain SCFI universes where you go on birth control at menarch and have to be either a certain minimum age or pass a parenting class to get it removed to where it takes a positive longterm dedication to have kids. I would actually prefer people to get to about 25 before starting families, giving them adequate time to get a steady job, settle into a relationship and build a bit of savings for contingencies.
I dont think it irresponsible to desire some assurance that the sprout-to-be be assured of adequate care and financial support. I do think it is entirely irresponsible to expect that the government will step in to do so then ream them for ‘interfering in our right to have children.’
:dubious: