Child Support is unfair

[koshergrl]

What's more, it's based on his insistence that single mothers are crack addicts and otherwise irresponsible if they don't have the father of the children in the household telling them what to do.

Apparently divorce causes them to become depraved individuals...but they craftily hide this from the courts so that only their exes are aware of it...and we should take their exes' word for it, and allow them to handle the finances from afar.

Sounds like sharia.

 

[earthmuffin]

What's more, it's based on his insistence that single mothers are crack addicts and otherwise irresponsible if they don't have the father of the children in the household telling them what to do.

Apparently divorce causes them to become depraved individuals...but they craftily hide this from the courts so that only their exes are aware of it...and we should take their exes' word for it, and allow them to handle the finances from afar.

Sounds like sharia.

It's just ridiculous. If the mother has an addiction that impacts the lives of her children, or she simply isn't providing... report her to CPS.

If they are other reasons the father doesn't like what she does with the money, tough. His kids are being taken care of and that's the point of the whole thing.

 

[lareinedumonde]

I say, castration would make it easier for all.

 

[Noomi]

He wasn't their father. The father was the neighbor who wasn't paying a red cent. Whether the kids would have been upset or not doesn't matter. The man shouldn't be paying a penny for kids he didn't father.

He was their father in every other way.

I agree with you in that I don't agree with forcing men to continue to parent and pay for children that aren't biologically theirs.

But again, when it comes to children, the courts put the well being of the child above all else, above the mother, the father, and what's fair or just.

I understand the need to put the children first, but having the kids receive money from a man who isn't even their real father is just wrong. The biological father should have been made to pay child support.

The man had said that he didn't even want to see the kids anymore, he was so devastated that he had to get away from them.

 

[Noomi]

He wasn't their father. The father was the neighbor who wasn't paying a red cent. Whether the kids would have been upset or not doesn't matter. The man shouldn't be paying a penny for kids he didn't father.

He should not be forced to pay support for kids that he did not Father. If he willingly chooses to step up, it's been done before.

in some unusual and rare cases, people have to pay support because they're the psychological parent of the child.

Only because in those cases, the mother has lied to the man in order to get his money.

 

[koshergrl]

If he took on the duties of a father and acted as their father, then he has taken on ongoing responsibility for them.

Let *stepfathers* and boyfriends take heed...you move into a household and start playing house, you have taken on that responsibility forever. It doesn't end when you stop banging mama. So think about it before you insert yourself into a kid's life.

 

[koshergrl]

c

He should not be forced to pay support for kids that he did not Father. If he willingly chooses to step up, it's been done before.

in some unusual and rare cases, people have to pay support because they're the psychological parent of the child.

Only because in those cases, the mother has lied to the man in order to get his money.

Not true at all.

I've seen many child support cases where an unrelated male is paying child support for children that are not his own. Sometimes it's because he met the mom when she was pregnant, sometimes it's because he portrayed himself as a parent to the community, and behaved in that capacity towards the children.

 

[Noomi]

Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.

I don't think it's discrimination. As they say, it takes two to tango.

Sure it is.

Consider this:

Scenario one: Woman gets pregnant, doesn't want the baby. Man does want baby and is prepared to provide financial support. Woman has the right to choose, she has an abortion. Man is prevented from becoming a father because of her choices.

Scenario two: Woman gets pregnant. Man does not want child, had made it clear that he was not ready to be a father, was using birth control the whole time. Woman decides she wants to be a mother after all, has the baby and forces the man to become a father.

How is it fair to force a man to become a father, but he cannot force her to become a mother?

 

[Noomi]

c

in some unusual and rare cases, people have to pay support because they're the psychological parent of the child.

Only because in those cases, the mother has lied to the man in order to get his money.

Not true at all.

I've seen many child support cases where an unrelated male is paying child support for children that are not his own. Sometimes it's because he met the mom when she was pregnant, sometimes it's because he portrayed himself as a parent to the community, and behaved in that capacity towards the children.

But in those cases, he would have known he wasn't the father. I am speaking of men who believed they were the father of the child, but the woman had screwed around behind his back and lied about who the father was. Those are the women who should be dragged before the courts and given a roasting.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes indeed.

This is what happens when you make murder a *right* of one set of people only. By it's nature as a human rights violation, that *right* naturally violates the rights of others.

 

[koshergrl]

c

Only because in those cases, the mother has lied to the man in order to get his money.

Not true at all.

I've seen many child support cases where an unrelated male is paying child support for children that are not his own. Sometimes it's because he met the mom when she was pregnant, sometimes it's because he portrayed himself as a parent to the community, and behaved in that capacity towards the children.

But in those cases, he would have known he wasn't the father. I am speaking of men who believed they were the father of the child, but the woman had screwed around behind his back and lied about who the father was. Those are the women who should be dragged before the courts and given a roasting.

What happens is the alleged fathers simply contest the allegation, and a simple test clears it up.

 

[Noomi]

Yes indeed.

This is what happens when you make murder a *right* of one set of people only. By it's nature as a human rights violation, that *right* naturally violates the rights of others.

I gather you refer to abortion...and while I fully support the right of women to opt out of motherhood, I wish it was as easy for men to opt out of fatherhood.

c

Not true at all.

I've seen many child support cases where an unrelated male is paying child support for children that are not his own. Sometimes it's because he met the mom when she was pregnant, sometimes it's because he portrayed himself as a parent to the community, and behaved in that capacity towards the children.

But in those cases, he would have known he wasn't the father. I am speaking of men who believed they were the father of the child, but the woman had screwed around behind his back and lied about who the father was. Those are the women who should be dragged before the courts and given a roasting.

What happens is the alleged fathers simply contest the allegation, and a simple test clears it up.

Some men may have no idea they are not the father until years down the track, and by then they have paid child support for decades. That is why I think paternity tests should be compulsory at birth.

 

[earthmuffin]

Sure it is.

Consider this:

Scenario one: Woman gets pregnant, doesn't want the baby. Man does want baby and is prepared to provide financial support. Woman has the right to choose, she has an abortion. Man is prevented from becoming a father because of her choices.

Scenario two: Woman gets pregnant. Man does not want child, had made it clear that he was not ready to be a father, was using birth control the whole time. Woman decides she wants to be a mother after all, has the baby and forces the man to become a father.

How is it fair to force a man to become a father, but he cannot force her to become a mother?

Because financial responsibility is not the same as being pregnant for nine months. One affects your paycheck, the other affects your body. Apples and oranges, really.

 

[koshergrl]

Abortion should never be easy...and men try to opt out of fatherhood all the time. That's why we have court mandated child support.

 

[Noomi]

Sure it is.

Consider this:

Scenario one: Woman gets pregnant, doesn't want the baby. Man does want baby and is prepared to provide financial support. Woman has the right to choose, she has an abortion. Man is prevented from becoming a father because of her choices.

Scenario two: Woman gets pregnant. Man does not want child, had made it clear that he was not ready to be a father, was using birth control the whole time. Woman decides she wants to be a mother after all, has the baby and forces the man to become a father.

How is it fair to force a man to become a father, but he cannot force her to become a mother?

Because financial responsibility is not the same as being pregnant for nine months. One affects your paycheck, the other affects your body. Apples and oranges, really.

And I understand that completely. But at the same time, you cannot deny that the law favors women over men on this issue.

 

[earthmuffin]

And I understand that completely. But at the same time, you cannot deny that the law favors women over men on this issue.

Well, yes and no.

You have to keep in mind that abortion is a separate choice. It's simply not an option for a lot of women. It's not any sort of default position. And opting to end a child's life before it's really begun is vastly different than ducking out of financial responsibility for a child that exists.

The fact of the matter is that women may receive a second chance at making a decision, but men KNOW, going into it that they only have one. If they squander it, too bad. No one can force a man to become a father unless he's been raped or had his sperm stolen.

 

[Ravi]

The ebt doesn't track like you seem to think it does.

How does it declog our court system?

Who's going to pay for this new system of tracking you want?

And if the monies the primary parent spend far exceed the amount the other parent sends, are they then required to reimburse the primary parent?

The State can track what you spend and limit spending on items that are non-essential to sustenance. For example, with the EBT card you can track your balance and purchases you've made. I propose the same with child support. Have the state set standards of what is essential to the welfare of the child. Making purchases of alcohol and/or items not essential to the well-being of the child off limits.

Example:

The primary custodian must indicate how much rent they pay a month, have whatever amount that is agreed upon, and allow any monies to be deducted to go towards the rent and/or utilities. The purchasing of any or new items which causes debt, non-essential to the welfare of the child is off limits. The purchasing of alcohol or tabacco is off limits. The purchasing of adult clothing and/or gift bags is off limits. Any money that is taken out via ATM transaction must have follow up documentation as to why monies were taken out.

Sounds like work doesn't it? I gurantee you, if you employ this standard in divorce decrees or custody disputes the courts would be less clogged with domestic issues than they are now. As far as exceeding the amount all you have to do is come to an agreeable standard of payment per month or bi-weekly, put that amount on the card and have that person use that amount on that card.

If additional money is needed, social workers must be contacted, the person requesting an additional amount must document why he/she needs additional money and based on the request, the one paying child support must provide additional financial support. This eliminates custody disputes regarding finances.

The state cannot track private funds paid from one private citizen to another absent evidence of abuse, neglect, or some other criminal activity. That would violate due process doctrine and constitute a presumption of guilt on the part of the CP; citizens are not required to ‘prove’ they’re not doing anything wrong.

You’re also confusing public assistance with private party child support; the state can track the former as stewards of public monies.

And yet again: if the non-custodial parent believes there is abuse, neglect, or other inappropriate activity on the part of the CP, he/she can bring that evidence to the authorities and petition the court for a modification of the order.

Otherwise, it’s nonsense to propose a CP be subject to ‘tracking’ because he/she ‘might’ do something wrong.

And the anecdotal ‘evidence’ you provided in subsequent posts does not justify creation of a blanket tracking policy for all custodial parents.

Exactly. The OP is more interested in punishing the mother than helping the children.

A sad excuse for a human being, imo.

 

[koshergrl]

And he may be perfectly justified in his disdain of her...the point is, that doesn't warrant changing the system. You cannot allow non-custodial parents to exert that sort of control over their exes. It is bad juju.

 

[MisterBeale]

The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction

I have a disability and I raise my child, as such I make no income other than what I get through disability. (You can't claim the child care exemption/deduction on disability.) I looked into it though, as it turns out, since I am not claiming the deduction, (since I cannot claim one), my son's mother can, but only if I sign a form waiving my right to.

In the end, we look at it all as one big pool that benefits our boy, so I gladly signed the exemption. It enabled her to take him on a road trip to Disney world this December (assuming the fabric of society doesn't unravel. )

So anyway, it might be best to see who's exemption/deduction would be larger for your child, your ex's, or yours. If it turn's out that your exemption is larger, talk to your ex, see if she would let you take the exemption and see if you could both split the benefit, maybe even if you don't have a very trusting relationship, you could pay her cash up front for your half. Sometimes, if the father's half of an exemption is larger than the mother's entire whole exemption, the mother will clearly see that it is in the child's best interest to sign over the tax credit. It is, after all, about getting as much money as possible into the kids life.

 

[Steelplate]

So its ok that a woman squander's the money on herself?

Yes it is.

The woman pays rent, buys food, buys clothing, pays the utilities. If she takes the child support and blows it, she's still paying the bills.

This, times a million.

Child support is not about budgeting exactly what it costs to raise a child, if that were the case, everyone would get the same amount, regardless of any other factors.

And who's to say that a mother getting her nails done can't benefit the child. Contributing to peace of mind contributes to good parenting also.

or preparing for a job interview, or the woman's employment in and of itself....perhaps she works in a field where she has to look professional and well groomed....Your appearance is one of the things that employers look at when you walk in their door for a job.