Gideon MacLeish Gideon MacLeish

End Mandatory Child Support

▼

End Mandatory Child Support

from JoeUser Forums

One of the endless stream of contradictions streaming from the left is the concept of mandatory child support. It's enforced, and usually the money is directly debited from the nuncustodial father's paycheck. This leads, in effect, to many fathers taking under the table work or skipping between jobs before a court order can be obtained to garnish their current wages.

But most importantly, when it is taken against the will of the noncustodial father, it represents a glaring contradiction. Because court rulings have consistently ruled that a fetus is a part of the mother's body, and represents a "choice", the mother's "choice" should come with willingness to absorb the entire cost of raising the child to adulthood. The mandatory child support laws give her a gun to hold to her ex husband or boyfriend's head for the next 18 or so years.

It would be entirely different if the father had a say in whether or not the mother was to have an abortion. Then HE should foot the bill if he chose to keep the baby. But because the choice to keep or abort belongs entirely to the mother, so do the consequences of her decision.

3,132 views 33 replies
Reply #26 from JoeUser Forums Top
Let me clarify one thing: If a child support settlement is reached in a divorce decision either argued before a judge or agreed upon by the father of the children, that settlement should be binding. It is a contract, and, in the case of a judgement, the father DOES have appeal rights. But in the way it is practiced currently, the LEGISLATURE has essentially made the decision absent a judge or a divorce agreement (example: my father in law, who shared custody of my sister in law, was required by law to pay child support, even though my sister in law spent half her time with him. Now, he was responsible and paid well over his share of her upkeep, but only because her mother agreed to take care of certain expenses to equal the child support she had been granted by the state...not all women are so generous in their application of child support).
Reply #27 from JoeUser Forums Top
People should just say what they mean, instead of relying on cliche'd buzzwords.


absolutely.

(i wish there was a rating beyond insightful like 'writer just earned a great deal of respect from me'...but since there isn't, i hope you'll take the 'insightful' you're getting from me to mean just that.)
Start11 - Customize the Start Menu and Taskbar in Windows 10/11.
Reply #28 from JoeUser Forums Top
The second was an obviously sarcastic remark to deflect the insinuation that the woman was somehow an innocent "victim" of impregnation by a man


i'm usually fairly well-attuned to sarcasm, but in this instance it escaped me. thanks for the clarification.

If a child support settlement is reached in a divorce decision either argued before a judge or agreed upon by the father of the children, that settlement should be binding. It is a contract, and, in the case of a judgement, the father DOES have appeal rights. But in the way it is practiced currently, the LEGISLATURE has essentially made the decision absent a judge or a divorce agreement


state child support laws exist to ensure both parents provide for any children they bring into the world and dont distinguish between--nor are they intended to burden or favor--fathers or mothers. the language in california's laws, for instance (id be surprised if this isnt the case elsewhere) refers only to custodial and noncustodial parent. the word 'father' appears only in those provisions relative to the need for and means of establishing paternity.

in other words, it's not an issue of 'deadbeat' dads or moms per se. both parents have a legal obligation to provide adequate financial support. the custodial parent's obligation isnt reduced by fact of custody, but costs of housing, etc. (which are open to judicial query) represent consideration. both custodial and non-custodial parents risk being adjudicated for default. that process--like a determination of paternity--isnt automatic and involves a judge.

if you were to insist on totally equal treatment of both parents, i guess we could legislate a maternity test as well but...(im just kidding)LOL
Reply #29 from JoeUser Forums Top

state child support laws exist to ensure both parents provide for any children they bring into the world and dont distinguish between--nor are they intended to burden or favor--fathers or mothers.

But the problem is, the father DOESN'T get a say in whether or not the child makes it into the world. That's what's at stake here, in my opinion, that the father is legally an unperson until the child is born, then he bears full responsibility.

Frankly, I would FAR prefer the father be given some say in the decision, but since numerous court decisions show that our professional jurists do not feel the same way, I DO feel it's time to end the double standard.

Reply #30 from JoeUser Forums Top
believe the greatest challenge facing our society today (I'm speaking in Canadian terms but I think this holds true among most societies) is the breakdown of the family. We spend too much time dicking around with relatively peripheral stuff like gay marriage and it's time we bring the conversation around to what's really important.


David, I gave you an 'insightful' for that statement.
Gideon, I see and agree with your point. However, having said that, men ought to start realizing that they cannot and should not take the woman's word for it when she says she's using contraception. They have to start being more proactive about it...and I know that there are a lot of men who do, but there are obviously those who do not.
Reply #31 from JoeUser Forums Top
Gideon, I see and agree with your point. However, having said that, men ought to start realizing that they cannot and should not take the woman's word for it when she says she's using contraception.


Yes, I agree with that as well. What really gets my gall about the whole thing, though is (and I've known only two people who have done this) that a woman can, in a fit of anger at her husband, have a child aborted that they had planned for and prepared for but that she, for whatever reason, suddenly doesn't want to have...and the husband has no recourse. And yet, when a child is born that the father clearly didn't want, and the mother had to keep the father on the hook for child support (again, this isn't a trend, but it DOES happen...I've known of a few cases of this, but ONLY a few), then the father better pay up.

Either the fetus is the woman's body or it isn't. This double standard is something we need to eliminate.
Reply #32 from JoeUser Forums Top
I can see both sides of this discussion and I wish I had the wisdom to solve the problem. I can only tell you from my own personal experience. I came very close to having an abortion. The father even paid half. Since I didn't go through with it and I was able to support my son, I didn't feel that it was fair to have the father pay child support. My son and I have no contact with his father since my son turned two (the father's choice although there were no hard feelings). My son is almost 19 now and I have never asked nor received a dime in child support. And yes if his father came to me today and ask for a relationship with my son, I would not stand in their way because it's absolutely not about me. So based on my life experience, I can almost agree with you, except...

I always thought child support was on the behalf of the child (perhaps I am naive but most likely ignorant) so with that in mind I would probably err on the side of the child...who didn't have a choice either. It really sickens me when people abuse child support (men and women alike) but that doesn't mean that it's not viable...maybe that support keeps the family off of welfare. Anyway as adults we need to be responsible for our mistakes and accept the consequences. Sometimes the consequences are expensive, sometimes they are unfair, and sometimes both.

BTW my mistake became the best thing that ever happened to me and I would go through it all over again. Love ya Sweet Pea!
Reply #33 from JoeUser Forums Top
Either the fetus is the woman's body or it isn't. This double standard is something we need to eliminate.


Absolutely. Women have been using their unborn babies as bargaining chips for far too long. That's an awful thing to say, I know, but it happens.