Child Support

The burden of proof would really be more tort or criminal cases...

In any case, exceptions to the rule or special circumstances would be relevant, because laws (idealistically speaking, at least) are supposed to be created with everyone in mind, not just the majority.

Simple yes or no question, Usht: Should parents who are not allowed to see their children through no fault of their own be forced to pay child support anyway?

There's a simpler way to resolve it, make sure visitation and contact rights are enforced. Given that I know of people complaining that they can't move because the non-custodial parent won't give them permission, I don't think we can really rely on these subjective opinions, since perspectives can change.

Might be differences of jurisdiction, might be something else.

Let's assume a man has a child in Maine, with his then-wife. Shortly after the divorce, the mother chooses to move to California.

The father, if he's a blue-collar worker, has no possibility of regularly seeing his child anymore. However, he is still obligated to pay child support. The equitable thing would be to let the mother move, but allow the father to terminate the payments.

edited 12th Jun '11 8:48:26 AM by SavageHeathen

I see that as trading one inequity for another. Namely the child's. See, here's what you're not getting, the child support laws are for the child's support, not for the equity of anybody in particular.

Sorry, Solomon, but sometimes you can't split the baby in half.

No matter what route you choose, I think you'll find somebody can suffer somehow.

edited 12th Jun '11 8:50:53 AM by blueharp

Let's see that one. Mommy is a doctor, she makes six figures. Daddy is an electrician, he makes sixty grand.

Mommy and daddy divorce. Although mommy is much wealthier, she still feels entitled to demand ten grand a year out of Daddy. Which is, at any rate, a major rip off.

edited 12th Jun '11 8:52:09 AM by SavageHeathen

It should be determined on a case by case basis.

But seriously, I haven't looked enough into this topic to feel that I'm readily able to discuss it in full detail, I just call fallacies as I see them.

EDIT: Also, something tells me making hypothetical situations isn't going to help either.

edited 12th Jun '11 8:54:15 AM by Usht

She's not entitled to anything. It is the child who is entitled.

That said, as I pointed out to you, the law can account for different parental incomes. If it doesn't where you live, I suggest you attend the hearings to review the law and point it out to them.

I'm not arguing for the abolition of child support. I'm arguing to have circumstances considered, and not rip men off unjustly.

Father/Mother that can't see his/her children and has no domestic abuse conviction? There should be no child support paid on that situation. Custodial parent that is much wealthier than the non-custodial one? No form of alimony or child support should be required from the non-custodial parent.

On all other cases (father is allowed to see their children, non-custodial parent is similarly wealthy or wealthier than the custodial parent) child support should apply as usual.

You can't take somebody's parenting rights away and expect him to foot the bills anyway, that's a major injustice.

Sophistry. It's her who gets the money.

edited 12th Jun '11 8:57:39 AM by SavageHeathen

How often do you think the problems you are so concerned about happen and why do you think the laws don't cover them sufficiently?

You say the laws should consider circumstances. They do everywhere I know about. Where is it that they don't?

And no, it's not hers, if the non-custodial parent believes the money isn't being spent properly, I do agree they are entitled to legally challenge it, and if necessary, have the funding administered by somebody else. Which does actually happen.

edited 12th Jun '11 9:00:55 AM by blueharp

Thread Hop

I see it as a whole huge smattering of "This is why we can't have nice things".

Ideally? It wouldn't be necessary because it's something that wouldn't be needed. It would be relatively easy for even a single mother to have good affordable child care and to be able to get a well paying job that would be able to look after the family.

But seeing as so many people are opposed to the things in the previous paragraph (and often the same people who are complaining about child support), we have the system that we have.

"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." - Karalora

... what, if anything, do you base this on?

Speaking for myself, personal experience? Both with interactions with people who oppose mandated child support, and also reading of articles who oppose mandated child support.

Or in short, if you write an article about how you oppose mandated child support you really have a responsibility to explain in the same article how you intend to replace it. And if you don't, it's not unreasonable for people to suspect you want to replace it with nothing.

Oh yes it is unreasonable. The latter does not follow from the former.

Personally, I would go with public funding, at least for situations in which the father cannot fairly be blamed for expecting the woman to abort the fetus, or situations like that. The only reasons against it are cost (which is fairly negligible in comparison to welfare in general) and having one less deterrent against guys causing pregnancies.

EDIT: And people you know, or articles you have read, opposing child support, are not necessarily going to be a representative sample. Your argument is just Guilt by Association.

edited 12th Jun '11 11:37:39 AM by neoYTPism

I'm a dirty filthy communist so I think that if there is a case of parental abandonment, the state should take some responsibility in ensuring financial aid.

It takes a village after all.

But again, I'm a dirty socialist who wants to steal all of your paychecks

Also I talked to my mom about it and she's all for it because her ex (and my sister's father) ended up becoming a dead beat drug addict who basically told my mom to fuck off AFTER my sister was born. She didn't get a cent from him because he couldn't hold a job. At least my mom used to work for lawyers so when the scumbag died about a year ago, she got a nice bit of dosh.

So yeah.

edited 12th Jun '11 11:50:44 AM by Thorn14

Sadly I know all too many children whose parents best contribution to their lives is dying before they hit 18.

My sister was already married and happy by that time.

He only died alone recently, so it was more or less him just giving us some spending money.

When it comes to casual-ish sex (the kind that leads to these contested child support cases), the guy has a simple choice: A) keep his dick in his pants, or B) screw. The girl has three choices: A) don't screw, B) screw and avoid getting pregnant (or abort if necessary), or C) screw and get pregnant and have a kid.

Problems happen (for both) when the guy picks B) and the girl picks C). The question should be, who do we blame/punish to prevent that from happening? Punishing the guy seems unlikely to be efficient, since even with the (small) risk of child support cases, guys still prefer sex to no sex (possibly complementing with rules like "always use a condom even if she says she's on the pill" or "don't stick your dick in crazy). On the other hand, "blaming" the girl for picking C) (i.e. have her life through the consequences) seems more likely to make girls change their behavior, be more careful about safe sex, consider getting an abortion, etc.

Therefore, I'm rather in favor of the mother not getting any child support from the guy nor from the state, though mutually beneficial arrangements can be found (visitation rights in exchange for child support; I wouldn't mind the state paying the girl to go around schools tell others about what happens to your life when you sleep around and don't pay attention to safe sex, etc.).

(Things are of course different when the guy wanted a kid, or made the girl believe he did, etc. and then changed his mind. And if the girl goes to court claiming the guy wanted a kid, and he says he didn't, I'd consider living together and having a stable income sufficient evidence that he did. Or of course being married, goes without saying.)

edited 12th Jun '11 12:07:45 PM by SlightlyEvilDoctor

Then you punish the one party who is completely innocent.

I'm not punishing the kid, the girl is. I'm just talking about which incentives can make that kind of situation as unlikely as possible.

The end result of your change is that the kid is the one who suffers.

That's the objection to it, because believe it or not, child support laws are not meant to make the life of the non-custodial parent worse, or that of the custodial parent better, they exist to serve the needs of the child.

edited 12th Jun '11 12:54:04 PM by blueharp

Yes, they just inadvertently reduce the incentive for women to be careful, resulting in more crappy cases. I'm accusing the system of stupidity, not malice.

The problem here, is that there are too many legitimate reasons to keep child support around, and too many legitimate reasons to dismiss it.

The system is imperfect. Your solution is even worse.

edited 12th Jun '11 2:00:06 PM by blueharp

How so?