Hypothetical Regarding Child Support

[Me Myself]

Relinquishing parental rights, unless under extreme physical or mental duress, is a very serious matter, and nothing like terminating a pregnancy.

Nothing different than adoption. Both can do it when they agree. The only difference now is that any of them can do it whether the other wants it or not.

If the woman was afraid of aborting for all the risks mentioned to health by aborting but still didnt want to be a parent, she is not forced to. Neither would the man.

Both would have the choice, instead of both depending on the other to agree with them if they dont want to be parents.

Each have their parental rights to their children and each can renounce those rights.

Fair.

 

[Kathryn]

What about a married guy in the same situation. The marriage partnership was clearly based around OTHER things - careers, time for charities/trips/hobbies/endeavors - and the very clear agreement from the beginning was - No children. But then some time in, there is an accidental pregnancy, and the wife finds her heartstrings attached, and just can't go through with the abortion.

As well, what about a marriage situation where a clear maximum of 2 children was agreed upon, and where the birth of another unplanned baby would turn everyone's lives upsidedown. What if this new unplanned baby would cause the husband to not be able to make a very important life change for himself that was clearly agreed upon years earlier? Perhaps the other two children were teens- and the birth of a baby - economically and other wise- would make the previous life plan/agreement impossible.

If these men leave the marriage (ie. divorce) as a result of the wife changing the game plan without his agreement, should he have to pay child support for the new baby?

In such cases one night stands can be no different from long term marriage agreements.

Sex sometimes results in babies. These things happen. You gotta know and accept it going, errrr, in.

 

[Kathryn]

Has anyone even bothered to think about what may be best or most "fair" to the child in question?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I flat out admit that many judges are of the mind that the woman gets the children and the men get child support payments.

I was merely pointing out that not all judges are that way and that I am a prime example of the man getting the child and the woman getting child support payments.

Many men don't even file for full custody. Many men also feel as if they SHOULD be given full custody because....well, because she's a ***** (and women can be just as bad in divorce settlements and use the kids as weapons.

Many men think that it's a gender issue when the courts are looking at who has been the primary caregiver for the child. But for men who want custody when the child is a baby who is breastfeeding, it poses a challenge if the AAP is cited by the mother that her commitment to breastfeeding the baby is in the child's best interest.

There's also the question of which parent does the child have a stronger emotional bond with. Who has been the primary caregiver?

Who has been the parent caring for the child when he or she has been sick? Who has the child spent the most time with?

This is not a sexist issue, but one where in most parts of the country or the world, women wind up taking care of the children.

As mestemia has pointed out, fathers can and SHOULD get custody of the child if/when he goes through the motions of filing for sole custody or joint with primary residence.....and can show that he has been the primary caregiver, has the stronger bond with the child, and/or demonstrate a number of risk factors the mother has that threatens the well being of the child.

When it comes to child support, custody, parental rights and obligations, being on one side of experience of going through a divorce and being on the short end of the stick when it came to support from the kids' dad.....and also being on the side of advocating in the best interest of the child, I tend to have only so much patience with complaints of what is "unfair."

ESPECIALLY since none of the guys claiming that it's unfair have mentioned that they've fathered children and have personal experience in court trying to a) get out of paying child support, and b) get custody of their children.

There's also this idea that when women change their mind and decide to have the baby, that it's somehow an indirect attack against the man, and has nothing to do with the fact that she is free to change her mind and to go through a pregnancy and care for a human being.

It also negates the many many many many many many MANY stories of men who when discovered they are going to be a father suddenly become overjoyed with the opportunity to be one with a successful pregnancy and childbirth of the mother.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Has anyone even bothered to think about what may be best or most "fair" to the child in question?

You know, I keep hinting at that after the child is born, but I'm glad you're back at RF taking the bull by the horns and smacking the crap out of it with a direct question.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Until you introduce the plan into the real world...
Who takes care of the child while it is up for adoption?
Who ends up paying when one party decides to just up and leave and the party with the child has to get on welfare?

Yeah, it sounds fair until you stop and realize that the welfare system is already over taxed and your plan merely clears the way for people to multiply like rabbits with never having to own up to any responsibility for it.

Well, yeah, but since a woman can have an abortion, shouldn't the man be able to just get something similar? I mean, it's just not FAIR!!!!! :sad4:

Just kidding.

 

[NIX]

sex sometimes results in babies. These things happen. You gotta know and accept it going, errrr, in.

lol

 

[Kathryn]

You know, I keep hinting at that after the child is born, but I'm glad you're back at RF taking the bull by the horns and smacking the crap out of it with a direct question.

Well, you know me - restraint is not my strong suit! LOL

 

[Me Myself]

Has anyone even bothered to think about what may be best or most "fair" to the child in question?

Sure, the fair position would be to have a right to live and not be killed off since before birth and then that both of them support him in the way they can, but thats another discussion.

In this case we got to think what is fair for all of them. As long as the remaining parent (be it mother or father) has enough money to provide for he child then it is good enough. If s/he doesnt have, welfare comes to place I understand.

But there is simply no reason to deny the right to any of the parents to take control of their lifes and their money.

Having to pay for a child he never wanted Harry may be handicapped for long to not be able to have a family that he does indeed want and pay for the kids he did indeed plan with the woman he loves.

 

[Alex_G]

Ok there’s been loads of responses since yesterday, and i haven’t been able to come on much today so have missed replying to you guys, sorry about that, not that anyone necessarily missed me . (oh and Mystic you never gave me a reply earlier in the thread, u just went on to use the arguments elsewhere ignoring my response to them, tut tut )


I really don’t think you can defend the position that the scenario is somehow inherently fair on Bill. Whether it be something that can be effectively changed in the real world or not or whether other parties experience similar examples of unfairness is beside the point. The question was simple.

From listening to some of the posts, i think it makes sense to reiterate that should the potential ‘father to be’ actually want to be a parent to that child, be around and be a part of its life, then it’s a decision he makes for himself, justifying the child support owed by him by virtue of inheriting the responsibilities of being a parent that comes with that decision. The same occurs for the female whenever she decides to keep a pregnancy to term. My argument is that both sexes should be allowed the freedom to make such a decision themselves. What would be unjust is if there was a blanket rule that enforced child support from all biological fathers by default.

As many have so eloquently put, 'keep it in your pants then' does not really answer the deeper philosophical questions pertaining to rights, freedoms, responsibilities and what truly justifies them, which is what's at the heart of this topic in my opinion.

 

[Kathryn]

Sure, the fair position would be to have a right to live and not be killed off since before birth and then that both of them support him in the way they can, but thats another discussion.

In this case we got to think what is fair for all of them. As long as the remaining parent (be it mother or father) has enough money to provide for he child then it is good enough. If s/he doesnt have, welfare comes to place I understand.

But there is simply no reason to deny the right to any of the parents to take control of their lifes and their money.

Having to pay for a child he never wanted Harry may be handicapped for long to not be able to have a family that he does indeed want and pay for the kids he did indeed plan with the woman he loves.

Then Harry should keep John Henry zipped away till he's with the woman he wants to be the mother of his children. Or be prepared to accept the possible ramifications of his actions.

 

[Me Myself]

Then Harry should keep John Henry zipped away till he's with the woman he wants to be the mother of his children. Or be prepared to accept the possible ramifications of his actions.

Could say the same for the woman.

She should keep her honey cave zipped closed until she finds the man of her dreams or be prepared to accept the possible ramifications of her actins (her wanting to keep the child and the man dont wanting to take part on it).

Nonsense.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Sure, the fair position would be to have a right to live and not be killed off since before birth and then that both of them support him in the way they can, but thats another discussion.

In this case we got to think what is fair for all of them. As long as the remaining parent (be it mother or father) has enough money to provide for he child then it is good enough. If s/he doesnt have, welfare comes to place I understand.

But there is simply no reason to deny the right to any of the parents to take control of their lifes and their money.

Having to pay for a child he never wanted Harry may be handicapped for long to not be able to have a family that he does indeed want and pay for the kids he did indeed plan with the woman he loves.

The cost of child support is so little compared to the cost in time and money to actually RAISE the child. That's why it's called "support", and not "sustenance" or something similar. The payments are there just to support the welfare of the child.

If a man truly wants to get out of his parental duties, I believe legally he should have that right, but he should go through a very lengthy process of doing that and that it shouldn't be a simple method of signing a paper and call it a day. He is essentially saying to the state....YOU give support for the child, I'm out!

I say this because I've been in and out of court with my ex when he tried everything he could to get out of paying support. My favorite was when after he married a woman with a six figure income cried in front of the judge, 'You don't understand! We'll lose one of our houses if we have to pay the full support payment to the kids!"

Yep, he said they'll lose ONE of their houses if they have to pay the full support payment to the kids.

Meanwhile, as they were childless at the time and going on $6,000 cruises a few times a year and denying to pay for dental work for the kids, all while demanding that I continue to pay half the airline costs for the kids to come see them.....my husband and I were making ends meet by not having cable or satellite, making all our meals from scratch and never eating out, and at one point only having one car (a used one that barely ran).

The judge wouldn't buy it. He told my ex to pay up. My ex wept harder begging him to reconsider, and even uttered the words later to me, "This is not fair AT ALL! Just step in and tell the judge that you want to keep the payments as low as they have been. Don't make us lose one of our homes!"

Eventually, they paid up. I didn't step in to tell the judge to have leniency on my ex and his wife. They lost one of their upper-middle class houses. She lost her job. They then had two kids of their own. And now, even though the support payments are exactly the same as when they had a six figure income, and they have a household income that is like our middle class income, he pays the child support on time every month without a single complaint.

It was after they had kids of their own where he has been around to raise them, and no complaints about support being "unfair."

.

.

.
Again, I have little patience for the rhetoric that child support payments are "unfair." I recognize the legal right for someone to extradite themselves from parental rights and duties, but to call it "unfair" is beyond me.

 

[Me Myself]

Again, I have little patience for the rhetoric that child support payments are "unfair." I recognize the legal right for someone to extradite themselves from parental rights and duties, but to call it "unfair" is beyond me.

I am not following. By this sentence I would understand we would be on the same page. You DO recognize the legal right for someone to extradite from parental rights AND duties. So... then not allowing that right would be unfair.

I am not saying that raising the child is easier or even on equal footing than child support payments, I am merely saying that s/he who does not want ANY role, be it economical or on the raising of the child shouldnt need to pay for such child in any way.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

I am not following. By this sentence I would understand we would be on the same page. You DO recognize the legal right for someone to extradite from parental rights AND duties. So... then not allowing that right would be unfair.

I am not saying that raising the child is easier or even on equal footing than child support payments, I am merely saying that s/he who does not want ANY role, be it economical or on the raising of the child shouldnt need to pay for such child in any way.

Yes, I recognize the legal right for someone to extradite themselves from parental rights and duties. If that person is not showing that he or she is under extreme physical or mental duress for the reason of not providing support for a living breathing next of kin, I reserve the right to call that person a jack***.

And speaking of unfair, I think it's the living breathing child that is experiencing the worst of it all from such a decision.

 

[outhouse]

At the risk of re-opening a can-o-worms, i thought I'd start this thread.
My issue with a blanket rule for enforced child support is that its possible for some to be taken advantage of, especially when they have no real opportunity to voice their objections, leading me to think such a subject can only be justly dealt with on a case by case basis.

What does everyone make of this hypothetical?

Bill is a decent and good guy. He loves his job working with endangered animals, where he travels to foreign countries for most of the year fighting against poaching and animal black market dealing. His job does not make him much money at all. When back in the UK one time, he meets someone when out having some drinks with his old mates. They end up having sex, in very casual circumstances for pleasure only. He doesn’t usually do this sort of thing, but does feel that he should let his hair down occasionally and have some fun.


They both were using contraception, him a condom, and she said she was on the pill as ‘she definitely wouldn’t want to get pregnant, and do anything to avoid it’.


As far as Bill was concerned it seemed clear that neither wanted a pregnancy, especially evident from the implementation of contraceptive measures.


Never the less, approx. a week or so later, after adding her to Facebook as you tend to do with everyone you meet, he finds out that she is pregnant and is keeping the baby. On further investigating it turns out to be his.
She isn’t interested in any kind of relationship with Bill at all. She is quite well off, and has lots of family support. Bill is soon leaving the country again for his job. He was never consulted on the decision to keep this child, or what it might mean for him.


Bill is forced to pay child support until the child grows up. The amount substantial enough to impact his job’s travelling costs, which he must save up for every trip abroad he takes. As a result he cannot do what he loves as often as he otherwise could.


Does this seem fair or unfair on Bill?

based on your story no child support is owed



ithis is done on a case by case basis. the fact dad doesnt want anything to do with the child means he will pay more.

this is generally done by wages of mother and father. if you had equal paranting time, which you have every right to, SHE would owe you money every month.

the fact dad doesnt make much means he doesnt pay much.


I dont know UK law, but thats how it works here.


at any time dad can get parenting time and build a relationship with his child, moms with money will often void child support for complete custody agreements

 

[MysticSang'ha]

based on your story no child support is owed



ithis is done on a case by case basis. the fact dad doesnt want anything to do with the child means he will pay more.

this is generally done by wages of mother and father. if you had equal paranting time, which you have every right to, SHE would owe you money every month.

the fact dad doesnt make much means he doesnt pay much.


I dont know UK law, but thats how it works here.


at any time dad can get parenting time and build a relationship with his child, moms with money will often void child support for complete custody agreements

When my divorce was settled, my ex was ordered to pay $112 a month for two children. It was based on his claim that he was a contract carpenter who made very very little money.

He was discharged from the military for disability and also had been receiving payments and health care from the government.

The courts were very lenient on him and said so regarding his disability. $112 a month, for me, was able to help support the kids with some food and hand me down clothing. I was grateful to have that since when we were getting nothing, and the kids were both toddlers, I was pretty much supplying all their nutrition for them from breastmilk.

 

[Me Myself]

Yes, I recognize the legal right for someone to extradite themselves from parental rights and duties. If that person is not showing that he or she is under extreme physical or mental duress for the reason of not providing support for a living breathing next of kin, I reserve the right to call that person a jack***.

That makes sense to me. People have the right to renounce parental rights and you have the right to call anyone you please Jack *** .

Sounds fair to me.

And speaking of unfair, I think it's the living breathing child that is experiencing the worst of it all from such a decision.

Ah! so now you care for the baby.

In any case, if the baby can be put on adoption then there is no reason to see it as any different on an each person form.

 

[Kathryn]

Could say the same for the woman.

She should keep her honey cave zipped closed until she finds the man of her dreams or be prepared to accept the possible ramifications of her actins (her wanting to keep the child and the man dont wanting to take part on it).

Nonsense.

The same logic applies to both. The thread just happens to be about the man's perspective.

As my mama always told me, "When it comes to who you sleep with - be particular."

 

[MysticSang'ha]

That makes sense to me. People have the right to renounce parental rights and you have the right to call anyone you please Jack *** .

Sounds fair to me.



Ah! so now you care for the baby.

In any case, if the baby can be put on adoption then there is no reason to see it as any different on an each person form.

Yes, I never said I don't care for the baby. I'm seeing your spin from 1,000 miles away with the notion that my support for abortion rights somehow make me into someone that DOESN'T care for babies.

I care very very much for living, breathing, sentient human beings. My example of discovering an estranged mother suffering from dementia is quite similar. Yes, people should have the right to extradite themselves from caring for aging parents they wanted nothing to do with. But if that aging parent is of no physical risk to the adult child, I think that person is a jack*** for extraditing themselves for caring for their living, breathing kin.

Real life example....my father is a recovering alcoholic who used to physically and mentally abuse the entire family. He drank himself until he'd pass out on the floor after kicking the kids around. Once I was out of the house, I swore I'd never see him again. He was dead to me.

We had moments when he tried to call me, and I'd either avoid him or flat out tell him that I was not talking with him. Nearly 15 years later, he approached me with two truths:

1) He was sorry.
2) His health was failing him.

For the last several years, I have been driving him to and from doctors, fixing him meals when I can, and spending time with him. My fathers kidneys are both dead and he is on full dialysis. He has had a number of heart attacks, and each one has the entire family at the hospital wondering if this is the one that will take him.

Had I kept my promise that my father was dead to me, when he reached out to me asking for my help, and had I denied him, I would feel like I was a horrible person. Yes, I have the legal right to cut off any and all ties to him. But as a human being, and especially as my father, I give myself responsibility to care for him before he dies. I willingly take on this responsibility because I give a damn.