Child Support

I saw this on another thread and I figured I'd make a conversation.

Anyways, What do you think of this?

My perspective: My dad, for the first 9 years of my life, had to send fairly sizable checks out to the state for his (other) son's family in California, and the state never gave him any contact information so that he could see him or write to him or anything. So I'm not exactly sure where I stand. :/

If mummy has a right to choose whether or not she has the kid, daddy gets to choose whether or not he supports it financially.

Agreed.

See, I'm for enforced child support for the opposite reason. Once two people have had consensual sex without birth control, they have decided to have a baby. Both of them.

edited 11th Jun '11 6:24:14 PM by PDown

And what of the cases of sabotage, accidents, or alcohol impaired judgments.

It's a bit of a gray area here with child support (called Child Maintenance). Alongside CM, you get Child Tax Credits (Yes. The Gov't gives you money for kids. Until they're 18. However, the money is just enough so that having 10 kids will still leave you penniless), so for most single-parent families, it is less of a problem than in America, but still a serious one.

We have a lot of prejudice against single mothers. But, CM, the local council literally goes round to your house and take your money, if you don't pay CM. I too agree with forced CM. Unless a non-biological father or similar figure can be proven to be able to support the child, we're sending even more public sector workers to take your money.

The way I see it, it ought to be need-based; if the mother is not making a salary that's suitable enough to provide for her and the child, then child support is definitely needed.

@P Down: I respect your consistency, at least.

Meanwhile, here in the real world, we understand that a) consenting to sex (even unprotected sex!) and intending to become a parent are not the same thing, but b) children still need to be paid for, so c) in the absence of decent state funding for single parents, court-ordered child support from the non-custodial parent is the way to go. Also, d) sex partners need to discuss contingency plans for this sort of thing in advance.

While the mother has the right to choose whether the baby is aborted or not, what if the father made it crystal clear that he wants no part in the kid before doing her?

The woman could agree with him...or she could just be setting up a The Baby Trap .

edited 11th Jun '11 8:50:21 PM by Signed

I support this. I think that fathers should have the right to get rid of all financial responsibility for the child, but in exchange they give up legal parenthood and guardianship, and receive no visitation rights or a say in how the child is raised. The child is no longer his and he is treated no different from any random dude on the street, a stranger to the mother and her child.

but why should a man who made a mistake be forced to be the one foots the bill for a child he didn't want Karalora? It's that what men and fathers are now, wallets?

Did he ever sue for visitation? Why couldn't he of got it if you don't mind my asking?

edited 11th Jun '11 9:11:56 PM by joeyjojo

Suzy: I kind of like the sound of that but it would be difficult to implement. I could see a lot of ugly court battles over that.

I brought that up once and got called sexist. I miss high school.

Any way I suggested maybe a form you could fill out before the end of the third month, but the down side would be crazy men who try tricking women into reverse baby traps.

I agree with Suzy. Rights and responsibilities go together.

If he wants the rights of a father, he gets the responsibilities of one too, and that includes financial contributions to the child's upkeep.

If he doesn't want the responsibilities, he can forfeit the rights.

By the same token, if the mother takes steps to deny him a father's rights, (like getting all contact forbidden) she also forfeits all claim that he fulfill his responsibilities.

If she wants to hold him to his responsibilities, she must allow him to exercise his rights as well.

edited 11th Jun '11 9:19:55 PM by Madrugada

I've heard of women never even telling men about the kid they had until they sue them for 15 years of payback. So you will forgiven me for being a little more bitter than my usual self.

edited 11th Jun '11 9:20:19 PM by joeyjojo

^ That happens more commonly than you think. (Case in point the recurring topic of paternity testing on Maury.)

@Madrugada: Agreed. Being in the blue-collar field as I am, I get tired of seeing guys with half their check going to women who make twice as much as they do, and them not even getting to see the kids their money's helping to raise. I've heard it so much, it should be a cliche if it isn't already.

I can see where a good many of those same guys would have been less than perfect husbands and fathers...still, it hardly seems fair.

edited 11th Jun '11 9:36:36 PM by drunkscriblerian

Why should a child who had no part in setting up the situation have to live in poverty? It's not fair that men sometimes have to help pay for children they didn't want, but it's less unfair than the alternatives of letting men dictate what women do with their uteruses or leaving children without adequate support.

Unless we go with the alternative of state-funded welfare for single parents. But surprise surprise, the people who favor "paper abortions" are usually against that.

Why, if the man did not want the child, should he pay for it? You say a man is controlling a women's uterus if he does want to support a kid she had and wanted. Should a woman's uterus control a man's life? As for poverty. It sucks, but life has never been fair. Now if a man leaves his family I think he is the lowest scum. You don't abandon your responsibility to your kids.

Dude, you just defeated your own argument. If you figure out how within the time limit, you get to proceed to the Lightning Round!

That he should pay because life is not fair. Well dudette(?) I have a cross counter ready so hit me with your attack of considerable magnitude in comparison to the other moves available to you.

Uh, where is it written that a woman can't provide for a child on her own? Do women need a man to pay the bills? And if they need one, does it have to be the same guy who knocked her up? Just sayin'.

Thing is, the right to child support does not belong to the custodial parent. The right belongs to the child, and the parent enforces that right on behalf of the child. The state has decided that once you are born, your parents have an obligation to provide support to you, regardless of where they live and who they are.

Dealing with an unwanted pregnancy is a terrible situation that really offers no clean answers. The best we can try for is the least bad solution.

I thought about the idea of a father relinquishing his rights to a child, but really that is not the same as a mother terminating the pregnancy. Most importantly, one situation involves bringing a living person into the world, and the other clearly does not.

As sad and unfair as it may seem, once you create a person, both parents have a duty to see that the person is properly supported. And if that means saddling the father with child support, then that's how it needs to be.

In other words, legalized misandry FTW (let's not even get to the poor fucks who have to unwittingly cough up for someone else's kid).

And if it's about the kid ("think of the ch1ildren!!!"), instead of Mommy Dearest (who has 100% over hubby's pilfered earnings), couldn't you make a similar argument for prohibiting abortions?

At least the Bible Thumpers are consistent.