Hypothetical Regarding Child Support

[Mr. Skittles]

Here you go:

​

Look at quotes #4 and 5. The words "imply" and "appear" are there. Enough said Mr. Paralegal. Although I may have mistakenly not have included the actual word(s) "imply" "appear" and also the like, the fact remains the U.S judicial is biased. Whether its biased on racial grounds or custody battles it is not an impartial system point blank period. So when I use words like trample it is merely me stating the fact that under this notion of a biased judicial system, there are responsible men who do suffer point blank period.

Now if your going to respond please come with facts not "oh well in my case it was fair" or "well my friends had a fair case" no, Mr. Paralegal, show me the law.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

I actually agree that the rights of the child are the most important. All I've been doing in this thread is highlighting a potential for unfair circumstances that can be experienced by some men and how such can be missed if you dont consider the detail of the various scenarios. I dont see how thats an unreasonable claim.

Well that has been my point as well all along. I firmly believe courts in deciding custody battles should take it case by case and decide the best interest of the child. But judges are so swamped a lot of times I think some don't really look at it case by case.

 

[Alex_G]

"Child support" isn't about the rights or liberties of either of the parents, it is about the rights of the child. It is in place to maximize the state that "no child gets left behind," so to speak. Whatever rights the parents have legally take second place to the rights of that person who cannot speak for itself.

I do agree with you that the rights of a child are paramount, and should be safeguarded first and foremost. But its also a mistake to equate that with assuming therefore nothing else matters, or at least not noteworthy. Im simply highlighting the scope for unjust circumstances that can arise in these sorts of situations.

As an example, imagine that in my hypothetical the woman has plenty of support and money so that the welfare of the child is under no foreseeable threat per say. What would a regular payment from the male contribute under a strict consideration to child welfare? Much less than other less ideal scenarios for sure. Such a spectrum of need simply further suggests to me that its a justified position to take that situations like this are best dealt with by consideration of each case, and the specific context and circumstance to best reach a fair outcome. Remember im only highlighting the potential for injustice if such detail is overlooked by protocol, thats all.

 

[McBell]

Just got home and very tired....This little exchange between you and I is going nowhere. For your information I am an LCSW (go ahead and google it since you arrogantly wanted me to look up your profession).

:biglaugh:
Funny how you fail to meet your own standards...

 

[McBell]

Look at quotes #4 and 5. The words "imply" and "appear" are there. Enough said Mr. Paralegal. Although I may have mistakenly not have included the actual word(s) "imply" "appear" and also the like, the fact remains the U.S judicial is biased. Whether its biased on racial grounds or custody battles it is not an impartial system point blank period. So when I use words like trample it is merely me stating the fact that under this notion of a biased judicial system, there are responsible men who do suffer point blank period.

Now if your going to respond please come with facts not "oh well in my case it was fair" or "well my friends had a fair case" no, Mr. Paralegal, show me the law.

you back peddle like a pro.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

you back peddle like a pro.

Ok well cool story bro....

Anyway, on a good note I commend you for being a responsible parent. I wish more men especially those men in "the hood" would take this serious as you do.

 

[jarofthoughts]

I actually agree that the rights of the child are the most important. All I've been doing in this thread is highlighting a potential for unfair circumstances that can be experienced by some men and how such can be missed if you dont consider the detail of the various scenarios. I dont see how thats an unreasonable claim.

My point is, and has been that if you do the deed, then you deal with the consequences.
Which in this case means making sure that the well-being of the child is taken care of.
When that is done, then you can argue about the fine print.

But if you're responsible for the birth of a child you damn well better face up to that responsibility.
There's no two ways about it.
Anything else would, in my view, put said person in a particularly nasty class of low-lives.

 

[Alceste]

'Since so many men have trouble grasping...?' i completely understand that conception and the 9 month pregnancy to term occurs within the body of the female, thus justifying her as the only person who should have a say over matters concerning such. Im familiar with all aspects of it from physical complications to the emotional struggles short of being pregnant myself. I mean ive delivered 5 babies and seen plenty more women through the process. Not grasping really isnt a problem here. Those rights of a female over her own person is unchallenged i mean i used it as a comparison to demonstrate that the same principles allowing her such freedoms and rights should for all intent and purposes be applied to things that are part of the man's self and identity. To illegitimately deny either their said rights is what i had previously described as a form of slavery in principle.

That said, its true that there is no child for support to go to until he/she is born. But is he not locked into such prospective support by virtue her express decision to keep? It would be a mistake to pretend that 'private medical decisions affecting her own body' don’t directly affect other people too. All im arguing for in the thread is that with a blanket rule for enforced care, there is clear possibility for injustice to occur. There are hundreds of situations where i think a man really should pay child support, but im just saying that an overriding rule leads to some unfairness to some, which seems like a reasonable claim..

Your post above strikes me as a borderline ad hominum mixed with a bit of a red herring. An appeal to ridicule to weaken credibility of any arguments that might come in opposition. Thats 'dirty politics' tactics and not a very honest or honourable way to discuss a topic!

It's not a red herring, but the rejection a false comparison, and in this case the comparison is totally ridiculous. To equate a woman's body with a man's money is foolish, even if you call it his "self and identity". The argument lacks credibility all by itself without any help from me.

I haven't once claimed that injustice could never occur with a blanket law obliging fathers to help raise their own children in some way. From the beginning, I've pointed out that very often in life, injustice occurs. Families are hotbeds of injustice. Sometimes innocent children are forced to mow the lawn against their will when they'd rather be playing video games. Sometimes mothers have to clean up projectile vomit that they took no part in creating. Sometimes fathers have to go to work while everybody else goes to the zoo. I'm sure every member of any family could list a litany of injustices. I can't think of anything more tedious than trying to examine the details of all these complaints to definitively establish once and for all who got the crappiest deal.

I actually agree that the rights of the child are the most important. All I've been doing in this thread is highlighting a potential for unfair circumstances that can be experienced by some men and how such can be missed if you dont consider the detail of the various scenarios. I dont see how thats an unreasonable claim.

Courts do consider the details of every scenario that is placed before them.

I do agree with you that the rights of a child are paramount, and should be safeguarded first and foremost. But its also a mistake to equate that with assuming therefore nothing else matters, or at least not noteworthy. Im simply highlighting the scope for unjust circumstances that can arise in these sorts of situations.

As an example, imagine that in my hypothetical the woman has plenty of support, money so that the welfare of the child is under no foreseeable threat per say. What would a regular payment from the male contribute under a strict consideration to child welfare? Much less than other less ideal scenarios for sure. Such a spectrum of need simply further suggests to me that its a justified position to take that situations like this are best dealt with by consideration of each case, and the specific context and circumstance to best reach a fair outcome. Remember im only highlighting the potential for injustice if such detail is overlooked by protocol, thats all.

Being a father is about more than money. A relationship with the father is also in the child's best interest. I have real difficulty perceiving the financial burden of child support payments (thinking of Mystic's $100 a month - about the same as my car insurance) as a major affront to a man's rights and freedoms. Especially when weighed against the child's best interests.

 

[Willamena]

I do agree with you that the rights of a child are paramount, and should be safeguarded first and foremost. But its also a mistake to equate that with assuming therefore nothing else matters, or at least not noteworthy. Im simply highlighting the scope for unjust circumstances that can arise in these sorts of situations.

If we're talking child support, nothing else matters. "Child Support" is a regulation put in place to consider the rights of the child, and nothing else.

If we're talking other things that matter, then we're talking something else. But don't bring child support into it.

As an example, imagine that in my hypothetical the woman has plenty of support and money so that the welfare of the child is under no foreseeable threat per say. What would a regular payment from the male contribute under a strict consideration to child welfare? Much less than other less ideal scenarios for sure. Such a spectrum of need simply further suggests to me that its a justified position to take that situations like this are best dealt with by consideration of each case, and the specific context and circumstance to best reach a fair outcome. Remember im only highlighting the potential for injustice if such detail is overlooked by protocol, thats all.

That the woman is rich doesn't automatically release either parent from their child support obligation. The obligation is in place unconditionally, by virtue being a parent.

Avenues are open, legal arrangements can be made, nothing is set in stone. But that financial obligation comes into being the moment a child is born.

 

[Alex_G]

It's not a red herring, but the rejection a false comparison, and in this case the comparison is totally ridiculous. To equate a woman's body with a man's money is foolish, even if you call it his "self and identity". The argument lacks credibility all by itself without any help from me.

I haven't once claimed that injustice could never occur with a blanket law obliging fathers to help raise their own children in some way. From the beginning, I've pointed out that very often in life, injustice occurs. Families are hotbeds of injustice. Sometimes innocent children are forced to mow the lawn against their will when they'd rather be playing video games. Sometimes mothers have to clean up projectile vomit that they took no part in creating. Sometimes fathers have to go to work while everybody else goes to the zoo. I'm sure every member of any family could list a litany of injustices. I can't think of anything more tedious than trying to examine the details of all these complaints to definitively establish once and for all who got the crappiest deal.

Courts do consider the details of every scenario that is placed before them.

Being a father is about more than money. A relationship with the father is also in the child's best interest. I have real difficulty perceiving the financial burden of child support payments (thinking of Mystic's $100 a month - about the same as my car insurance) as a major affront to a man's rights and freedoms. Especially when weighed against the child's best interests.

It really isnt a ridiculous comparison for the purposes i intended. I only bring it up to highlight what it is we use as valid justification for most instances of autonomy and freedom to own oneself and correlated it with the man’s situation to demonstrate that it in principle, regardless of what it consists of, is necessarily from similar foundations. Only done to try and flesh out what it is we're talking about.

ok sure i do accept that you arnt proposing that injustice cant foreseeably occur under a blanket law, but equally im not really claiming any more than that also.

I know being a father is much much more than some naff support payment, which just further exemplifies the really tough position some guys can find themselves in, when they might very well wish to be dads and have a family to love, but have it happen through accident and choices beyond their control, with women who choose for them not to be around.

You must admit that there is some degree of imbalance of control to the potential detriment of the men when it comes to these matters. A woman is legitimately justified in choosing a termination, such that her considerations are deemed more important than that of an embryo. And that strikes me as fair. Clearly the acceptability of such a decision gets less the more developed the child becomes, as with their development comes their increasing rights alongside.

So if the male cannot support a decision of continued pregnancy, should he be allowed to state his position early enough and it be fair for him to do so? Should the decision of a female to continue with a pregnancy be something done in a manner independent of the male? Because at such an early stage we arnt strictly talking about a child, but of an embryo with the potential of being a child. Its a whole different scenario for a man to walk away from a child that already exists.

What do you make of this following quote by the way, i think i included it in an earlier post somewhere to Mystic.

Former president of the National Organisation for Women attorney Karen DeCrow who wrote that;

'if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support...autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice.'

 

[Alex_G]

If we're talking child support, nothing else matters. "Child Support" is a regulation put in place to consider the rights of the child, and nothing else.

If we're talking other things that matter, then we're talking something else. But don't bring child support into it.

I sort of disagree, child support seems pretty reliant on the source, (and thus its justification) which is either the father and/or the mother making their circumstances directly relevant to its provision, even if secondary in importance to those needs of the child. Im not sure u can argue irrelevance here, especially when all im doing is illustrating a potential for unjust outcomes for some men with a blanket rule. Such a rule might be in place to statistically safeguard as many children as possible, and likely rightly so in that motive, but it shouldnt stop us from simply pointing out problems and issues that can arise for those involved.

That the woman is rich doesn't automatically release either parent from their child support obligation. The obligation is in place unconditionally, by virtue being a parent.

Avenues are open, legal arrangements can be made, nothing is set in stone. But that financial obligation comes into being the moment a child is born.

Maybe not automatically release but it demonstrates that any obligation is really centred on what you owe to the child rather than the arbitrary payment, that might have no intrinsic worth in certain senarios like the one i just proposed, making it worth considering what exactly is getting enforced in certain cases.

Are there any circumstances in which you think its justified for a male to decide he cannot support a decision to continue a pregnancy at an early stage, and him have a right to move on with his life, such that an enforced blanket rule might seem to unfairly prevent? Similar to my hypothetical example at the beginning of the thread. I only argue for the potential of such situations.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

It really isnt a ridiculous comparison for the purposes i intended. I only bring it up to highlight what it is we use as valid justification for most instances of autonomy and freedom to own oneself and correlated it with the man’s situation to demonstrate that it in principle, regardless of what it consists of, is necessarily from similar foundations. Only done to try and flesh out what it is we're talking about.

ok sure i do accept that you arnt proposing that injustice cant foreseeably occur under a blanket law, but equally im not really claiming any more than that also.

I know being a father is much much more than some naff support payment, which just further exemplifies the really tough position some guys can find themselves in, when they might very well wish to be dads and have a family to love, but have it happen through accident and choices beyond their control, with women who choose for them not to be around.

You must admit that there is some degree of imbalance of control to the potential detriment of the men when it comes to these matters. A woman is legitimately justified in choosing a termination, such that her considerations are deemed more important than that of an embryo. And that strikes me as fair. Clearly the acceptability of such a decision gets less the more developed the child becomes, as with their development comes their increasing rights alongside.

So if the male cannot support a decision of continued pregnancy, should he be allowed to state his position early enough and it be fair for him to do so? Should the decision of a female to continue with a pregnancy be something done in a manner independent of the male? Because at such an early stage we arnt strictly talking about a child, but of an embryo with the potential of being a child. Its a whole different scenario for a man to walk away from a child that already exists.

What do you make of this following quote by the way, i think i included it in an earlier post somewhere to Mystic.

Former president of the National Organisation for Women attorney Karen DeCrow who wrote that;

'if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support...autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice.'

What would constitute "cannot"?

I've argued that if either parent is under extreme physical or mental duress, they should not be granted parental obligations because doing so would negatively impact the child.

In my mind, that is the decision up to the court to see if the parents are fit. If they are, then it's their responsibility to own up to ensuring care for their child. That means, in the case of wanting to shirk responsibility, by ensuring the child is adopted by another adult in his or her place.

And if you thought my words were harsh, I asked my husband what he thought of Bill's scenario, and his opinion of Bill was MUCH more colorful than my own. I thought Bill's scenario was absurd. He thinks of Bill as not much more than an immature, whining, disgusting excuse of a human being.

Although the way he put it was in words that can't be repeated here.

 

[Alex_G]

Here’s my basic argument, just to reiterate to avoid the thread derailing at this stage, as can easily occur.



Man and woman have consensual sex


They have sex for mutual pleasure purposes only, both express a clear desire to avoid pregnancy at all costs and demonstrated it through proper use of contraception.


They have no prior emotional involvement with each other, with neither party feeling that they are in a position of emotional responsibility towards the other beyond that which you have to any acquaintance.


From the male’s perspective, he sees nothing that would suggest that she actually wants to get pregnant. He also doesn’t see any evidence that should she get pregnant a choice between early termination (or even emergency contraception 'morning after pill') and keeping it be anything other than a free choice on her part. That is, no cultural, personal or circumstantial evidence that might indicate such a thing would not be a wholly free choice on her part is not reasonably foreseeable to him.


Given the expressed aversion to pregnancy that was voiced and expressed through contraception, he assumed that should some accident or mechanical failure occur, that measures would be taken to rectify the situation under the anti-pregnancy ethos of before he assumes would endure.


He justifiably relies upon her promise ‘to avoid having kids at all cost’ as is defined in promissory estoppel (which was voiced before the sex) when he consented to intercourse, as its easily foreseeable that should such a promise be broken, it would likely lead to child support at the very least until that child was an adult, which is not insignificant.


Given such a malfunction occurring, she then decides that she wants to keep the child. From the males perspective this is quite a radical change from what they’d verbally and implicitly agreed upon before.

She does not want any further relationship with him or him be involved personally.


She is of appropriate background and personal circumstance that one can assume that the child’s welfare is under no foreseeable risk.

Never the less he is forced to pay child support for her decision to keep, by virtue of his engagement in the sex described above constituting strong enough evidence of consent on his part to pay support towards a child until they are an adult.


This fact does significantly impact his life’s circumstances


This to me demonstrates the potential for injustice to occur with a blanket rule, without consideration of details pertaining to context and circumstance. (i.e. this is a specific example I’ve created to demonstrate such a possibility).
That’s all I’m really claiming.

 

[Alceste]

Here’s my basic argument, just to reiterate to avoid the thread derailing at this stage, as can easily occur.

Man and woman have consensual sex

They have sex for mutual pleasure purposes only, both express a clear desire to avoid pregnancy at all costs and demonstrated it through proper use of contraception.

They have no prior emotional involvement with each other, with neither party feeling that they are in a position of emotional responsibility towards the other beyond that which you have to any acquaintance.

From the male’s perspective, he sees nothing that would suggest that she actually wants to get pregnant. He also doesn’t see any evidence that should she get pregnant a choice between early termination (or even emergency contraception 'morning after pill') and keeping it be anything other than a free choice on her part. That is, no cultural, personal or circumstantial evidence that might indicate such a thing would not be a wholly free choice on her part is not reasonably foreseeable to him.

Given the expressed aversion to pregnancy that was voiced and expressed through contraception, he assumed that should some accident or mechanical failure occur, that measures would be taken to rectify the situation under the anti-pregnancy ethos of before he assumes would endure.

He justifiably relies upon her promise ‘to avoid having kids at all cost’ as is defined in promissory estoppel (which was voiced before the sex) when he consented to intercourse, as its easily foreseeable that should such a promise be broken, it would likely lead to child support at the very least until that child was an adult, which is not insignificant.

Given such a malfunction occurring, she then decides that she wants to keep the child. From the males perspective this is quite a radical change from what they’d verbally and implicitly agreed upon before.

She does not want any further relationship with him or him be involved personally.

She is of appropriate background and personal circumstance that one can assume that the child’s welfare is under no foreseeable risk.

Never the less he is forced to pay child support for her decision to keep, by virtue of his engagement in the sex described above constituting strong enough evidence of consent on his part to pay support towards a child until they are an adult.

This fact does significantly impact his life’s circumstances

This to me demonstrates the potential for injustice to occur with a blanket rule, without consideration of details pertaining to context and circumstance. (i.e. this is a specific example I’ve created to demonstrate such a possibility).
That’s all I’m really claiming.

If they put this agreement in writing, in consultation with an attorney to ensure that it met all the standards of a legal contract and violated no laws, and had two witnesses sign to verify the contract's authenticity, then yes, you have an excellent point. He should not later be forced to pay child support. Hopefully he had the foresight to include this child support clause in the contract, rather than relying entirely on his utterly irrational and foolish expectation that she would have no difficulty whatsoever deciding whether or not to have an abortion if she got pregnant, and would never, ever change her mind on the subject.

Realistically, though, he's probably been too busy telling her she's the most interesting and beautiful woman he's ever met and daydreaming out loud about taking her on holidays in hot countries to remember to put his post-coital expectations in writing, the fool.

 

[Me Myself]

Simply put, the only one benefiting from his payments would be the mother in such a scenario.

Yeah, it is pretty straight forward unfair for the man, in an injustice generated by the legal system.

 

[Alceste]

Simply put, the only one benefiting from his payments would be the mother in such a scenario.

Yeah, it is pretty straight forward unfair for the man, in an injustice generated by the legal system.

What are you talking about? It's called child support, not mother support. When the father has custody, the child support payments go to him. How is that unfair to men?

 

[Me Myself]

What are you talking about? It's called child support, not mother support. When the father has custody, the child support payments go to him. How is that unfair to men?

It is unfair to whoever of both who has not made the choice to be a parent and is forced to the duties because the other one doesnt want to put the baby on adoption.

It makes no sense.

 

[Willamena]

I sort of disagree, child support seems pretty reliant on the source, (and thus its justification) which is either the father and/or the mother making their circumstances directly relevant to its provision, even if secondary in importance to those needs of the child. Im not sure u can argue irrelevance here, especially when all im doing is illustrating a potential for unjust outcomes for some men with a blanket rule. Such a rule might be in place to statistically safeguard as many children as possible, and likely rightly so in that motive, but it shouldnt stop us from simply pointing out problems and issues that can arise for those involved.

No, child support is reliant on and justified by the source which is the child. The welfare of the child is the source of this regulation.

The father and/or the mother are resources.

And it's not about statistics, or "how many we can save." It's about rights, the rights of the child to be cared for.

Maybe not automatically release but it demonstrates that any obligation is really centred on what you owe to the child rather than the arbitrary payment, that might have no intrinsic worth in certain senarios like the one i just proposed, making it worth considering what exactly is getting enforced in certain cases.

Both parents' payments have worth, no matter how large or small. Together, they must meet certain criteria (that varies from state to state).

Are there any circumstances in which you think its justified for a male to decide he cannot support a decision to continue a pregnancy at an early stage, and him have a right to move on with his life, such that an enforced blanket rule might seem to unfairly prevent? Similar to my hypothetical example at the beginning of the thread. I only argue for the potential of such situations.

Of course. If he's too young, for instance, and still dependent on his own parents.

He always has the right to "move on with his life," he never loses that. He just has to find someone else to take over his legal obligation. If he can't, then he has a problem.

 

[Willamena]

Given the expressed aversion to pregnancy that was voiced and expressed through contraception...

This is the first unnecessary bias that I would object to in the story. Such an "aversion" is not inherently represented by the use of, or agreement to use, contraceptives to avoid pregnancy (and may even be misconstrued as a "promise" of sorts).

 

[Alceste]

It is unfair to whoever of both who has not made the choice to be a parent and is forced to the duties because the other one doesnt want to put the baby on adoption.

It makes no sense.

That's right. Love is irrational. It doesn't make any sense. It makes no sense that people still want to have sex when they don't want to make a baby. It makes no sense that both of them will ultimately become more attached to the baby than they have ever been to anything else in their lives, when they didn't even think they wanted one before.

And it's EXTREMELY irrational for you to argue that anything to do with sex, love, pregnancy and child-rearing ought to be rational.