Hypothetical Regarding Child Support

[Mr. Skittles]

What specific "rights" are being trampled on?

I also have to wonder how it is you are able to push the blame off on woman at all seeing as the vast majority of judges who make the court orders are actually men...
I suspect that perhaps you have things a bit backwards.

However, since you have not yet reveal what rights are being trampled on...

No. Part of what I do is not only do I work in the hospital dealing with discharge planning of patients I also work part time for the county of Los Angeles in dealing with assisting families with housing, job resources etc. Sometimes I am pulled into court to give my analysis of parents and whether or not there is an issue in the home, or whether the parent(s) live in a dangerous environment or if there is a possibility of drug use. Now in dealing with the county cases I have done majority of the cases I've delt with, majority of these cases were low income women who live in rough neighborhoods who are on government assistance and are involved with men who have rap sheets as think as the Bible and Qur'an put together.

9 times out of 10 the courts still award the woman custody (obviously since the men are in jail or prison) but the child is growing up in a crappy area where most likely the kid or kids will grow up in gangs or will get involved in criminal activity. I can tell you first hand that in majority of my cases there was no home improvement even when I give some of these mothers resources to help themselves.

 

[Debater Slayer]

As a healthcare worker I have seen the whole gamit. From drug addicts to cancer patients to patients who pass away. I have heard the argument of "my vagina is greater than your rights because I pushed out a human child." Carrying a child to term does not mean in a custody situation a woman's rights are greater than a man's rights. I can appreciate a woman enduring labor pains, however if the argument is made in such a way that this repetitive argument of "my golden vagina trumps men's rights" continue, then I can do nothing but show what the real world is actually like.

I judge motherhood on the capability of the mother not because of her anatomy as I have clearly said before, mothers strung out on heroin give birth to, but clearly as a drug addict they are not being responsible to themselves and their child. So sorry I don't buy into the "golden vagina" argument.

I don't recall anyone in this thread saying that giving birth automatically equates to custody. I also don't know what you mean by "men's rights." What are "men's rights" and how does recognizing that childbirth warrants appreciation for the mother equate to "trumping men's rights"?

 

[Mr. Skittles]

So it is your claim that the father has the "right" to not pay child support?

I am not understanding what you mean by the fathers "rights".

I am saying the father has the right to have shared custody. The father has a right to demonstrate his capability that his child(ren) ought to live with him. I believe child support should not fund the mother's pedicure nor should it fund her clothing orher hair. I have seen first hand in court a mother arguing about child support but show up to proceedings wearing Gucci while the child is wearing dirty wrinkled clothing with a snotty nose. If we are going to talk about child support I have made the argument that the courts need to monitor how the money is spent.


I am not saying men shouldn't pay child support but I believe whenever your dealing with money there needs to be careful monitoring on how that money is spent

 

[Mr. Skittles]

I don't recall anyone in this thread saying that giving birth automatically equates to custody. I also don't know what you mean by "men's rights." What are "men's rights" and how does recognizing that childbirth warrants appreciation for the mother equate to "trumping men's rights"?

Because there is an implication in law that a mother's rights somewhat exceeds that of a man due to her birthing a child. My argument is thus on the basis that because the idea that a woman carrying a child to term somehow makes her rights supercede that of a man when it comes to custody and/or child support is unfair.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Because there is an implication in law that a mother's rights somewhat exceeds that of a man due to her birthing a child. My argument is thus on the basis that because the idea that a woman carrying a child to term somehow makes her rights supercede that of a man when it comes to custody and/or child support is unfair.

I've never implied that nor stated that vaginas are inherently better than penises. I like them both.

 

[gnomon]

Because there is an implication in law that a mother's rights somewhat exceeds that of a man due to her birthing a child. My argument is thus on the basis that because the idea that a woman carrying a child to term somehow makes her rights supercede that of a man when it comes to custody and/or child support is unfair.

But your own argument depends upon a male providing the necessary genetic material for the matron to declare such rights.

Do you not see that this concept requires a participation of responsibility of both parties engaged?

 

[McBell]

I am saying the father has the right to have shared custody. The father has a right to demonstrate his capability that his child(ren) ought to live with him. I believe child support should not fund the mother's pedicure nor should it fund her clothing orher hair. I have seen first hand in court a mother arguing about child support but show up to proceedings wearing Gucci while the child is wearing dirty wrinkled clothing with a snotty nose. If we are going to talk about child support I have made the argument that the courts need to monitor how the money is spent.


I am not saying men shouldn't pay child support but I believe whenever your dealing with money there needs to be careful monitoring on how that money is spent

Please explain how the mother is the one trampling the fathers rights?

Seems to me you should be ****** at the judges, most of which are MEN, not the mothers.

Are we perhaps getting into the meat of the matter with your concerns over the money goes?

How do you propose to monitor the money?
How do you propose to pay for the monitoring of the money?
What do you propose should be done if the money is "mismanaged"?

 

[McBell]

Because there is an implication in law that a mother's rights somewhat exceeds that of a man due to her birthing a child.

You have made this claim several times, but you have as yet to show that it is true.

My argument is thus on the basis that because the idea that a woman carrying a child to term somehow makes her rights supercede that of a man when it comes to custody and/or child support is unfair.

You have not shown that the mothers rights supersede the fathers rights simply because she has given birth.

 

[Me Myself]

IYes, 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.

I would have liked to know before there was differentiation of legal and moral in what we were talking about

But then I guess we are not even in opposite pages in this matter?

I ask again cause I am kind of curious if I read anything wrong around. You do support that the father should have the legal capacity to get himself out of the parental rights?

About morality, I would not argue there but neither would I say I agree with your point on every scenario, it has more shades of gray.

 

[Me Myself]

I am saying the father has the right to have shared custody. The father has a right to demonstrate his capability that his child(ren) ought to live with him. I believe child support should not fund the mother's pedicure nor should it fund her clothing orher hair. I have seen first hand in court a mother arguing about child support but show up to proceedings wearing Gucci while the child is wearing dirty wrinkled clothing with a snotty nose. If we are going to talk about child support I have made the argument that the courts need to monitor how the money is spent.

I do wholeheartedly believe on that. The one supporting economically should be able to demand all the bills of what he is paying for the baby.

 

[McBell]

I do wholeheartedly believe on that. The one supporting economically should be able to demand all the bills of what he is paying for the baby.

Better yet, put those bills in his name and make him responsible for them instead of paying child support to the mother...

 

[Me Myself]

Better yet, put those bills in his name and make him responsible for them instead of paying child support to the mother...

You mean if the mother says "child needs dentist" he goes himself with the child? Sure, possible.

I mean in general I am simply in favor of some good regulation for everyones sake.

 

[s2a]

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?

*breaks out can opener and handy rod and reel*

Well, I am guided by a few basic principles here:
1) Only a woman can become pregnant (at least today).
2) Adult consensual sex is legal most everywhere, for good reason
3) Contraceptive use is, well See: #2
4) No man should ever have final say, ever, about whether a not a woman chooses to keep or terminate her unwanted/unintended pregnancy…under any circumstances. Any. Ever. It’s never a man’s call. Period (new thread coming soon to an REF board near you).
5) Progeny are not property…but are a responsibility.
6) Despite any and all best efforts by all parties involved, sometimes the feces unexpectedly interacts with the oscillating rotary blade air mover… and casualties ensue… (passes the paper towel).

In your unique and specified scenario regarding “Bill”, I’d say he has been dealt a bad hand with no good options to either check, raise, or fold..

..it’s unfair to poor Bill, and here’s why:

Neither Bill nor his one-nighter bouncy partner expressed any notion of an intended procreation, and both parties took steps to prevent any likelihood of that occurrence to the safest degrees available in barrier prevention, which in and of itself indicates a consensual agreement a priori. If Bill’s “brief encounter” had other motives, there is no notion that Bill would have been privy to any deception or motivations to the contrary. Just like millions of people every hour of every day, Bill and his co-conspirator in jointly “getting their freak on”, both conscious of the consequences, but taking all available steps to avoid the most obvious unwanted outcomes of all contingencies (besides “coyote date syndrome” , and/or “morning bad hair affliction”, or the always dreaded “walk of shame”).

Your theoretical “Bill” (aka, “I have a friend that…”) may have a legitimate legal grievance to file in avoidance of any monetary obligations of providing child support to his unintended, unwelcome, and unexpected lottery ticket winner.

But as it often boils down to a decent glazing sauce, Bill can tell it to the judge, and some detached third party will decide.

When laws are drafted to treat unintended pregnancies between otherwise consenting adults as accident… instead of punishment or a “wage of sin” retribution for immorality in the scope of any religious context…

…perhaps then poor Bill might expect to fold his hand gracefully with no loss other than what he invested in a singular hand dealt and played out.

But until that day, Bill has my sympathies, and maybe bi-annual visitations if he wants...

 

[Kerr]

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?

Its unfair. But life isnt fair.

 

[Kathryn]

I have in both feminist class. I PO'd a lot of women. I am sorry having a vagina does not make you special. Giving birth does not make you special and if you or any woman believes that a vagina and a baby coming out of one warrants a father's rights to be trampled over then you have another thing coming.

I don't think anyone is saying that.

A "father" (to use your own word) is no more special than a mother - and no less. Fathers have responsibilities - more responsibilities than a single man with no kids.

Responsibilities come along with rights. I think a lot of people forget that sometimes.

 

[jarofthoughts]

If that is the verdict, abortion should not be legal unless rape is the culprit. Women should accept the consequences of their decision.

Being pro-choice and standing against forced child care on those who initially opposed having or financing a child is the only gender egalitarian solution.

Nonsense.
Having an abortion is one possible consequence.
Having the child is another.

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Nonsense.
Having an abortion is one possible consequence.
Having the child is another.

Exactly.

The complaining about how women somehow "get" to have this special position regarding terminating a pregnancy, and that it's "unfair" how if she "gets" to have an abortion after a discover of an unintended pregnancy, then he should "get" to have one more special position unique to him where he can absolve himeslf of parental responsibilities.....is completely missing the point.

:sad4: "(weeps, cries, complains with buddies) It's not FAIR! How come SHE gets to have an abortion and get out of motherhood, but I have to be STUCK with being a DAD!! Stupid feminists!! All they want to do is put women in a FAVORABLE position and stick us men with ALL the RESPONSIBILITIES!!!! WAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!" :sad4:

It's all fun and games until the reality of pregnancy and the responsibilities and the life changing physical and physiological consequences emerge with prenatal doctors visits, blood sugar counts, blood pressure monitoring, weight gain, puking puking and more puking (I have to keep mentioning that LOL).....

It's not like pregnancy is some roller coaster ride where all that happens is you feel the effects of the motion. It actually changes the body to where you, as a pregnant woman, must be monitored by a team of medical practitioners to make sure YOU are doing okay along with checking on the fetal development. But they have to make sure YOU are doing okay first, since how YOUR body is adjusting to the pregnancy directly impacts the development of the fetus.

Yet, the complaints are that it isn't fair that a woman "gets" to make this choice of opting out of the 9 month pregnancy legally or illegally, but a man is "stuck" with making child support payments.

That man forgets that the woman is "stuck" with raising that child, which is far more taxing and exhausting than making child support payments.

I invite people who are talking about being "stuck" with supporting a human being that we are talking about a living breathing human being as though that living breathing human being is a commodity. As s2a so eloquenty said, progeny is not property. Please do not see the living breathing child as such.

 

[Alex_G]

Exactly.

The complaining about how women somehow "get" to have this special position regarding terminating a pregnancy, and that it's "unfair" how if she "gets" to have an abortion after a discover of an unintended pregnancy, then he should "get" to have one more special position unique to him where he can absolve himeslf of parental responsibilities.....is completely missing the point.

:sad4: "(weeps, cries, complains with buddies) It's not FAIR! How come SHE gets to have an abortion and get out of motherhood, but I have to be STUCK with being a DAD!! Stupid feminists!! All they want to do is put women in a FAVORABLE position and stick us men with ALL the RESPONSIBILITIES!!!! WAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!" :sad4:

It's all fun and games until the reality of pregnancy and the responsibilities and the life changing physical and physiological consequences emerge with prenatal doctors visits, blood sugar counts, blood pressure monitoring, weight gain, puking puking and more puking (I have to keep mentioning that LOL).....

It's not like pregnancy is some roller coaster ride where all that happens is you feel the effects of the motion. It actually changes the body to where you, as a pregnant woman, must be monitored by a team of medical practitioners to make sure YOU are doing okay along with checking on the fetal development. But they have to make sure YOU are doing okay first, since how YOUR body is adjusting to the pregnancy directly impacts the development of the fetus.

Yet, the complaints are that it isn't fair that a woman "gets" to make this choice of opting out of the 9 month pregnancy legally or illegally, but a man is "stuck" with making child support payments.

That man forgets that the woman is "stuck" with raising that child, which is far more taxing and exhausting than making child support payments.

I invite people who are talking about being "stuck" with supporting a human being that we are talking about a living breathing human being as though that living breathing human being is a commodity. As s2a so eloquenty said, progeny is not property. Please do not see the living breathing child as such.

Listen, the problems I highlight relate to a system that would see it justified to blanket enforce child care from biological fathers simply due to that fact alone, that they be biological fathers.

I sincerely believe that such a thing would lead to many unjust outcomes, and that a subject such as this could therefore only be effectively handled on a case by case basis. The made up hypothetical of this thread is simply there as a tool to illustrate how contextual information is of paramount importance in seeing reasonable justice realised. It’s much more than some doomed egotistic gender battle… It’s about what fundamentally justifies freedom, choices and responsibilities.

It does suck that it’s an unchangeable fact of nature that women must bear the burdens of childbirth, the complications and emotional challenges. In a similar sense it could be argued however that they are lucky to be able to experience such a thing, to create life and to share a special bond to their child that men cannot claim equivalence on.

None of this is really relevant to the point I make in this thread, that given certain circumstances the male can be forced into child support off the back of ‘engaging in protected sex for pleasure purposes’ being seen as sufficient consent and agreement to support a child to adulthood, which strikes me as quite shaky. The same values that defend a woman’s right to have absolute say over her own self, body and future is that those are hers and hers alone to decide upon, which if breached would constitute a form of slavery to the will of others. On a philosophical level, the money/time or assets of the man constitutes a part of himself just like with the woman, and to be illegitimately or arbitrarily forced to part with said assets is to commit the same moral crime in principle as forcing a female to abort or keep a pregnancy against her will.

(And just to note, comparing the scope/importance and value of a simple regular child support payment to the larger role of being a full time parent has absolutely nothing to do with the central issue.)

To engage in protected sex for the clear purposes of pleasure alone strikes me as an implicit agreement in opposition to pregnancy, one supported by both a lack of motive and clear action taken to prevent such a thing through contraception. I think it’s reasonable for a man, given no circumstantial evidence of personal or cultural preference on the part of the female, to assume that if an accident occurred that the default course would be to rectify it, especially in a country where such freedom of choice is a real possibility. The fact the female changes her mind to keep is quite radical, and seeing as the outcome of pregnancy was hardly the principle outcome of the sex, it was incidental, (not the aim of sex in this case) and that its reasonable for him to have not anticipated this change of heart of hers, it can’t really be argued that through these actions of his he has given strong enough evidence to demonstrate his agreement to be support a prospective child, enough so to warrant a rule that can enforce such care on all biological males.

In law 'Promissory Estoppel' refers to the ability to sue a party to have enforced a broken promise on their part provided that it induced justifiable reliance, which seems a reasonable thing to be able to do.

If we manipulate the principles of this for the purposes of this case, i could argue that through the actions of protected sex, under solely pleasure motives and voiced desires to avoid pregnancy at all costs, could constitute a promise that the male justifiably relied upon being maintained in the event of an accident occurring. For the woman to then change her mind to keep the accidental pregnancy breaks the promise the male relied upon, especially given his inability to have control over the decision once she did get pregnant. Of course i don’t think he could then justifiably get the abortion enforced as with traditional promissory estoppel for quite obvious reasons, but it could support him in principle in being able to deny a potential enforced child support rule.

What do you make of that angle on the issue?

 

[jarofthoughts]

Exactly.

The complaining about how women somehow "get" to have this special position regarding terminating a pregnancy, and that it's "unfair" how if she "gets" to have an abortion after a discover of an unintended pregnancy, then he should "get" to have one more special position unique to him where he can absolve himeslf of parental responsibilities.....is completely missing the point.

:sad4: "(weeps, cries, complains with buddies) It's not FAIR! How come SHE gets to have an abortion and get out of motherhood, but I have to be STUCK with being a DAD!! Stupid feminists!! All they want to do is put women in a FAVORABLE position and stick us men with ALL the RESPONSIBILITIES!!!! WAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!" :sad4:

It's all fun and games until the reality of pregnancy and the responsibilities and the life changing physical and physiological consequences emerge with prenatal doctors visits, blood sugar counts, blood pressure monitoring, weight gain, puking puking and more puking (I have to keep mentioning that LOL).....

It's not like pregnancy is some roller coaster ride where all that happens is you feel the effects of the motion. It actually changes the body to where you, as a pregnant woman, must be monitored by a team of medical practitioners to make sure YOU are doing okay along with checking on the fetal development. But they have to make sure YOU are doing okay first, since how YOUR body is adjusting to the pregnancy directly impacts the development of the fetus.

Yet, the complaints are that it isn't fair that a woman "gets" to make this choice of opting out of the 9 month pregnancy legally or illegally, but a man is "stuck" with making child support payments.

That man forgets that the woman is "stuck" with raising that child, which is far more taxing and exhausting than making child support payments.

I invite people who are talking about being "stuck" with supporting a human being that we are talking about a living breathing human being as though that living breathing human being is a commodity. As s2a so eloquenty said, progeny is not property. Please do not see the living breathing child as such.

I completely agree.
We're literally talking about a woman's body here (she shares blood with the fetus for most of the pregnancy) and I can see no justification for taking away someone's right to make decisions about their own bodies.

As I've said repeatedly; as a man, if you're not prepared to have a child and take the responsibility that comes with it, keep it in your pants.
Stop being such whiners...

The end.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

But your own argument depends upon a male providing the necessary genetic material for the matron to declare such rights.

Do you not see that this concept requires a participation of responsibility of both parties engaged?

Of course. I am saying it is about participation of both parties I am merely saying when it comes to custody and/or child support it is often unfair. For example a woman with a six figure salary compared to a man making minimum wage has no right (in.my opinion) to ask for child support. It does happen though.