Someone paying child support doesn’t have much reason to live. Got it.
You, of course overlook the little detail of the man being raped and forced to pay his rapist. Probably because you don’t care.
Consent is irrelevant. A child has a legal right to financial support from both parents unless they are adopted. The money is for the child, not for the mother.
And if the woman raped the man she shouldn’t have custody, and the man should be allowed to put the child up for adoption.
If a rapist is in prison, how much can they contribute. Maybe we should let them have visitation, so the mother will have to face their rapist in prison once a week.
No, it’s not. It’s for the mother.
That law needs to be changed. Obviously there needs to be some proof of paternity before the state can force an unwilling man to pay child support. Innocent until proven guilty isn’t it? I even find it hard to believe any state could be that stupid and unjust to initiate such a policy in modern times. What those men need is a good combined class action law suit against the state to bring that practice to a halt.
I find this pretty unlikely but certainly not impossible. The law can’t guard against every possible scenario. There are laws in place to sue for neglect, for custody, or other options. If she’s using the money for drugs that’s one thing. If she decides to give it to her church that’s her choice. The Dad is still required to fulfill his obligation to the child even though he’d rather buy a boat or a ATV.
Pragmatically speaking under certain systems, it might not be administrated properly. But we are arguing principles here (hence the “should” in the OP title). And in principle, the money is for the benefit of the kid. Otherwise it would be alimony, not child support.
What it’s called is irrelevant as is it’s official purpose; what matters is what it is. And what it is, is for the mother, not the child; the child is just an excuse.
I’m not sure how you can justify that position. There are no women receiving child support payments who are not raising children.
And again I’ll reiterate a separation of two distinct issues: 1) whether ideologically, the children should be financially supported by their fathers regardless of the circumstances of their creation and 2) whether such a thing can pragmatically be legislated effectively. My arguments are only addressing the first issue.
But, as has been repeatedly said, the courts don’t care if a dime goes to the kid.
They aren’t separate. The real world trumps ideology. And since men who aren’t the father have been forced to pay, it’s not about forcing fathers to pay anyway. It’s simply designed to take money from men, and give it to women. It’s “woman support”, not child support.
[quote=“jackdavinci, post:70, topic:470642”]
There are no women receiving child support payments who are not raising children.
QUOTE]
A story from my home state.
http://hatemalepost.blogspot.com/2006/10/false-child-support-case-exposes.html
This doesn’t follow. Some people in jail who are convicted of murder are not murderers. Therefore, murder laws aren’t designed to punish murderers, they are designed to put people in jail.
The law is certainly designed with the intent of getting biological fathers to pay support. The fact that enforcement is causing some men who are not biological fathers to pay support means there is a problem with enforcement of this particular (California) law. It does not invalidate the notion of child support in general.
That said, I do agree that it is ethically wrong to force male rape victims to pay to support the child. While the child does deserve to be taken care of, there are other possibilities. For example, a murderer deserves jail, but that doesn’t mean the murder victim’s estate should pay for it. The fact that something should be done is pretty universally shared, the question is when should a biological father pay. I’d say they should have a choice in the matter, and a rape victim has no choice at any point.
Don’t you see the disconnect here? Dad gives his money “to the child” but the mother gives it “to the church”.
Why isn’t there accountability to make sure the money indeed goes to the child?
Not the same thing. If, say, every time a black man is arrested under a law supposedly aimed against making murder convictions easier he gets convicted and imprisoned, but whites never are, would you saw that the purpose of the law is imprisoning murderers ? No, it’s about race.
The courts don’t care if a man is actually the father; they don’t care if the money is spent on the child. They DO care that money gets taken from a man, and given to a woman. Therefore, it isn’t about the children, but about taking money from men and giving it to women.
That’s an extremely broad overgeneralization and even anthropomorphication of the courts. Cite? One or two example of travesties of justice do not go to the intention of the law.
All rape victims, male or female, should pay child support, and this should replace the current system.
There should be a database of registered rape victims, and as a group they should be forced to provide for every child of a single parent.
It might not seem fair to make rape victims pay for children that aren’t even theirs, but the kids need to be supported, and the kids didn’t rape anyone.
You do know that this happens, right? Two teens, both under the age of consent, have been caught in the act and then BOTH prosecuted for rape, despite the fact that both say the sex was consensual. cite & cite
There was also a more recent case in California that was heavily publicized, but I was unable to find it. I think my google-fu needs sleep.
Yeah, common sense. Such as the notion that we have laws about age of consent in order to shield juveniles from the consequences they are too immature to assume or even assess, which to me sounds like a perfect common-sense argument for saying that an under-age father should be off the hook for child support. You might further argue that circumstances alter cases and view a case in which the female is much older and supposedly wiser as different from one where they’re each as callow as the other, and I’d certainly support that.
And from what I understand, the boys tend to get jail time and end up registered as a sex offender, and the girls get counseling.