Hypothetical Regarding Child Support

[Mr. Skittles]

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


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

I am going to say this word I've been saying several times over. The keyword my children is IMPLICATION. In another thread I discussed the issue I had with a nurse regarding the issue of denying a father access to see his kid in NICU. The idea although not specificallu stated in hospital policy, is that a mother although not a patient at the hospital anymore can still determine who can visit even if its for arbitrary reasons (such as having an argument like big macs versus whoppers). Similarly in court, a woman can live in the worse condition like living in the projects (Like living in the Nickerson Gardens...google it) and being a FORMER drug addict. All it takes is for me to do what I call a psychosocial, an evaluation on the individual's psychological state, and/or current living conditions, also their financial condition and if they satisfy what we are looking for they maintain custody. What folks don't realize is that in these low income conditions the parent is still doing drugs but unless they are demonstrating this behavior we cannot immediately take action.

The point is giving these accounts, the law implies an imbalance. Because even though the father is not present, there are still mothers who still live in bad environments even as they were told its not good for the child. There are mothers who get paid child support but spend the money on Gucci, Prada while their child looks dirty. My biggest issue is how can any mother show up to court looking better than their own child?

To solve this problem if child support is ordered and the mother has primary custody the courts should do the following:

1) Putting the awarded money in an account similar to an EBT card (but not to be confused with an EBT)

2) Restrictions should include the purchase of alcohol, cigarettes or anything not specific to the child and/or living expenses (Buying Gucci isn't supporting the child)

3) Allow the mother to withdraw but if she has to withdraw she must report why the withdrawl was made and for what reason otherwise it becomes red flagged and child support becomes temporarily suspended.

4) In any court proceeding the judge should be aware of the appearence of the mother. If the mother looks like she is wearing $500 clothing but the child is wearing dirty. lothes its a problem. If both the mother and the child wearing Gucci but she is complaining of not able to find a job its a problem. Too often judges have sooo many cases that they aren't aware that some of these parents are not spending their child support wisely.

5) Mothers must be told that child support does not mean its for them (Quite Obviously) so any monies spent are being monitored. You woulf be surprise at the change of spending habits of people if they know their transactions are being monitored by the court.

6) Any severe violations will result in the state attaining temporary custody until the matters are resolved.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

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.

I agree with you--in theory but in my experience the judicial system doesn't always reflect that.

 

[McBell]

I am going to say this word I've been saying several times over. The keyword my children is IMPLICATION. In another thread I discussed the issue I had with a nurse regarding the issue of denying a father access to see his kid in NICU. The idea although not specificallu stated in hospital policy, is that a mother although not a patient at the hospital anymore can still determine who can visit even if its for arbitrary reasons (such as having an argument like big macs versus whoppers). Similarly in court, a woman can live in the worse condition like living in the projects (Like living in the Nickerson Gardens...google it) and being a FORMER drug addict. All it takes is for me to do what I call a psychosocial, an evaluation on the individual's psychological state, and/or current living conditions, also their financial condition and if they satisfy what we are looking for they maintain custody. What folks don't realize is that in these low income conditions the parent is still doing drugs but unless they are demonstrating this behavior we cannot immediately take action.

The point is giving these accounts, the law implies an imbalance. Because even though the father is not present, there are still mothers who still live in bad environments even as they were told its not good for the child. There are mothers who get paid child support but spend the money on Gucci, Prada while their child looks dirty. My biggest issue is how can any mother show up to court looking better than their own child?

To solve this problem if child support is ordered and the mother has primary custody the courts should do the following:

1) Putting the awarded money in an account similar to an EBT card (but not to be confused with an EBT)

2) Restrictions should include the purchase of alcohol, cigarettes or anything not specific to the child and/or living expenses (Buying Gucci isn't supporting the child)

3) Allow the mother to withdraw but if she has to withdraw she must report why the withdrawl was made and for what reason otherwise it becomes red flagged and child support becomes temporarily suspended.

4) In any court proceeding the judge should be aware of the appearence of the mother. If the mother looks like she is wearing $500 clothing but the child is wearing dirty. lothes its a problem. If both the mother and the child wearing Gucci but she is complaining of not able to find a job its a problem. Too often judges have sooo many cases that they aren't aware that some of these parents are not spending their child support wisely.

5) Mothers must be told that child support does not mean its for them (Quite Obviously) so any monies spent are being monitored. You woulf be surprise at the change of spending habits of people if they know their transactions are being monitored by the court.

6) Any severe violations will result in the state attaining temporary custody until the matters are resolved.

So you are basically saying you want to ADD loads more responsibility onto the mother without adding loads more responsibility onto the father?

And again: you claim to be arguing from the angle of "fair"?

Now I really am wanting to know what your basis for comparison is...
Cause you are not making any sense what-so-ever if you are going to claim you are arguing from the angle of "fair"....

 

[Mr. Skittles]

Let me put a spin on this.....

What if the man pays child support all the way until 18 and learns when the man turns 19 that it wasn't his. Should the woman pay restitution even though he learns a year later the kid was not his?

 

[McBell]

I agree with you--in theory but in my experience the judicial system doesn't always reflect that.

You have not yet explained how that is the MOTHERs fault...

 

[McBell]

Let me put a spin on this.....

What if the man pays child support all the way until 18 and learns when the man turns 19 that it wasn't his. Should the woman pay restitution even though he learns a year later the kid was not his?

Why would the man wait that long to get blood tests?

And just so you know, child support payments do not always stop at age 18 or even at age 21...

 

[Mr. Skittles]

So you are basically saying you want to ADD loads more responsibility onto the mother without adding loads more responsibility onto the father?

And again: you claim to be arguing from the angle of "fair"?

Now I really am wanting to know what your basis for comparison is...
Cause you are not making any sense what-so-ever if you are going to claim you are arguing from the angle of "fair"....

When its dealing with money yes if the mother is primary custodian of the child anything dealing with money should be monitored. I say monitored because anyone can be irresponsible with money. Sorry bro been to court too many times to see the croc tears dripping all on her Prada.

 

[McBell]

When its dealing with money yes if the mother is primary custodian of the child anything dealing with money should be monitored. I say monitored because anyone can be irresponsible with money. Sorry bro been to court too many times to see the croc tears dripping all on her Prada.

You are not even talking sense any more.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

You have not yet explained how that is the MOTHERs fault...

I never said fault. I said there is an implication....Come on man your playing word games here. Whenever you read the words "seem" "imply" "appear" I am using those words. Unless I have concrete evidence I am not saying "that is" "apparent" and the like.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

You are not even talking sense any more.

Since you have a child let me ask you what is your knowledge regarding in relation to child custody?

Is your knowledge only extending to your own situation or do you have extensive.knowledge of parental rights?

 

[McBell]

I never said fault. I said there is an implication....Come on man your playing word games here. Whenever you read the words "seem" "imply" "appear" I am using those words. Unless I have concrete evidence I am not saying "that is" "apparent" and the like.

I am calling bull ****.

You flat out stated in at least three different posts in this very thread that the mother is trampling all over the fathers rights simply because her golden vagina gave birth.

 

[McBell]

Since you have a child let me ask you what is your knowledge regarding in relation to child custody?

Is your knowledge only extending to your own situation or do you have extensive.knowledge of parental rights?

Not that it is the least bit relative, but I worked as a paralegal for a time for a lawyer who specialized in family law.

So how many children do you have?
How many cases have you been to FOR THE WHOLE CASE, not just your fifteen minutes of fame?

 

[Alceste]

A lot of Puritan nonsense about sex = acceptance of pregnancy is being spouted by the more liberal members of the forum



The difference is the injustice being done in this scenario is carried out willfully by the state, not by outside environmental factors. If the government were to say that all those who identify as Jews should be taxed an additional amount, that's not fair, but you can't shrug your shoulders and compare it to the rate of HIV being more prevalent in homosexual demographics. There's a difference. It's just as inane as conservatives using the excuse "life isn't fair" to explain away economic exploitation.

Pursuing child support when both parties initially said they didn't want children is unethical because it's an example of state involvement. This is one of the few scenarios where people are trying to argue that an agreement can be breached after the fact.

I haven't disagreed that it's socially problematic to compel an unwilling father to pay child support. How do you propose to resolve the greater social problem of child poverty if society does not compel men to support the children they've fathered?

 

[McBell]

How do you propose to resolve the greater social problem of child poverty if society does not compel men to support the children they've fathered?

Seems to me that this is one of the problems those who advocate "get out of paying child support free" cards are conveniently ignoring.

They claim it is "unfair" to the father who did not want to have children, but seem to have no problems putting the responsibility off onto the public...

 

[Alceste]

No.cause your a feminist and you have shown on many occasions you've shown your biases plain and simple....Oh I get it a woman with a vagina can do no wrong right? Gotcha

I am honestly sick of women using their vagina as a pedestal as if birthing out a kid the size of a watermelon warrants some sort of gold medal. No the hold medal comes from being a good mother not because you give birth.

I can't wait for your first kidney stone.

 

[Alceste]

I cannot help but wonder why those in support of being able to just sign a document and be free from responsibility keep completely ignoring the fact the woman has to go through the pregnancy process...

I mean they keep going on and on about how unfair it is for the man to have to pay child support but completely gloss over and ignore the whole pregnancy part...

I know - they do that with abortion too. It's weird.

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"?

I think he's talking about their right to get better jobs, make more money, be taken more seriously, and have their judgment deferred to in most matters. Their right not to have to do any housework or talk about their feelings, etc. Like in the good old days!

It's best to assume that when they people say "special rights" they are actually referring to "equal rights".

Seems to me that this is one of the problems those who advocate "get out of paying child support free" cards are conveniently ignoring.

They claim it is "unfair" to the father who did not want to have children, but seem to have no problems putting the responsibility off onto the public...

Exactly. The judicial system is there to attempt to find a rational balance between competing interests. I don't deny that some men have a very strong interest in evading financial responsibility for children they've fathered. Obviously they do. But the law must also consider the interests of the child, who has a much better chance in life with the involvement of both parents, and the interests of society in general, which has an interest in combating poverty for all sorts of reasons.

I haven't seen anybody explain yet why the father's interests should be elevated to a higher level of consideration than these other interests. They're just putting forward ridiculous hypothetical scenarios . "What if it happened THIS way??? THEN would my interests be more important than those of the mother, the child, and society in general???"

The answer is no. Regardless of the circumstances, a court is always going to try to take everyone's best interest into consideration and do their best to strike a reasonable balance between them.

 

[Alex_G]

I know - they do that with abortion too. It's weird.



I think he's talking about their right to get better jobs, make more money, be taken more seriously, and have their judgment deferred to in most matters. Their right not to have to do any housework or talk about their feelings, etc. Like in the good old days!

It's best to assume that when they people say "special rights" they are actually referring to "equal rights".



Exactly. The judicial system is there to attempt to find a rational balance between competing interests. I don't deny that some men have a very strong interest in evading financial responsibility for children they've fathered. Obviously they do. But the law must also consider the interests of the child, who has a much better chance in life with the involvement of both parents, and the interests of society in general, which has an interest in combating poverty for all sorts of reasons.

I haven't seen anybody explain yet why the father's interests should be elevated to a higher level of consideration than these other interests. They're just putting forward ridiculous hypothetical scenarios . "What if it happened THIS way??? THEN would my interests be more important than those of the mother, the child, and society in general???"

The answer is no. Regardless of the circumstances, a court is always going to try to take everyone's best interest into consideration and do their best to strike a reasonable balance between them.

Ye i definitely agree that an argument that appeals to the rights of the child is very important, and is a major fact that can legitimately trump other consideration in many scenarios. The protection of innocent and the vulnerable is indeed of paramount importance to humanity.

But there is a difference between a situation where you have a pregnancy that’s very early on and a situation where there is already a child. With respects to the rights of the embryo, is it really that wrong in principle to hold the rights of the human father as more worthy of attention at that time than that of the embryo? I mean when a woman decides upon an abortion we are allowing her freedom to do so at the expense of the rights attributed to the embryo. Its not hugely different, so long as its at an early enough stage to allow the male a similar freedom. The only difference really being that once the mother chooses to keep you can assume it will become a child that might need support down the line. But this might rather support an ethos that a female making such a decision really should be in a position to make such independent of the male. Again such only further supports my overriding position that justice could only be reasonably achieved through case by case consideration, looking at the context, circumstance and timings involved.

My point in this thread is simply to point out the capacity that exists for injustice with a blanket rule, which is the only reason for the hypothetical, to just create an accompanying illustration to support a point of possibility.
Im not really making any larger a claim than that.

I wrote down my views a couple of pages ago in a response to one of Mystics posts. Saves me spamming and re writing things again, i would be interested in what you think of things i mention in there.

I try not to get inflamed or emotionally charged in this, im just trying to reason as best and honestly as i can in the pursuit of fair conclusions.

 

[otokage007]

Unfair.

First of all, Bill should be able to see the child anytime he wants. But if Bill doesn't want the child and she says she is having the child alone, then she could reject the economic help, I mean, she is the only one that knows Bill is the father, so if she doesn't tell, he won't be forced to help economically.

The situation as you put it, is a poor man and a clever b*tch. lol

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Unfair.

First of all, Bill should be able to see the child anytime he wants. But if Bill doesn't want the child and she says she is having the child alone, then she could reject the economic help, I mean, she is the only one that knows Bill is the father, so if she doesn't tell, he won't be forced to help economically.

The situation as you put it, is a poor man and a clever b*tch. lol

Wow.

 

[Mr. Skittles]

Not that it is the least bit relative, but I worked as a paralegal for a time for a lawyer who specialized in family law.

So how many children do you have?
How many cases have you been to FOR THE WHOLE CASE, not just your fifteen minutes of fame?

I'm sorry for the last decade since getting my undergraduate degree, I have been in many cases. Not for fifteen minutes mind you. Sorry being a paralegal in my book is not sufficient. If you were an actual lawyer who sat in on cades perhaps, but no.