Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It could be a horrific decision if both parties never expected a child and aren't compatible to even live near each other, in which case fathering the child out of wedlock (and without a significant relationship with the mother) would be a best case scenario.
While I'm responding to you, are we just going to ignore the reasoning behind these pregnancies happening earlier and earlier or just focus on the pregnancies and ignore the rest? Focusing on the symptoms alone does nothing to but delay the inevitable. What we need to be doing is stop focusing on just the pregnancies and more on WHY we have so many young people my age having babies.
OK, you have a point .... why do you think so many out-of-wedlock babies are being born.
I still would tell my own kids that having a child out of wedlock is not a smart thing to do. Their seems to be a mountain of evidence that shows it is detrimental to long-term economic stability and success.
Persons placing high emphasis on material success, need not be interesting interlocutors, or steadfast friends, or even altogether all that bright. Those Starbucks barista philosophy majors are the butt of acerbic jokes about wide-eyed Millennials gone wrong, but often they’re truer friends and more erudite conversationalists than the successful attorney or neighborhood bank VP. However, I have also found that the intelligentsia-type is rare in America. Generally, persons without much formal education, are neither pecuniarily successful, nor all that interesting as dinner-party guests. They may have impeccable character and unimpeachable honesty, but they’re not much for debating Hume’s dismissal of causality, or why Unamuno thought that life was so tragic. So these more plain-spoken friends, while eminently valuable as people, are too often limited to pop-culture pursuits.
They may be great friends and be up for a debate about Hume but they will not obtain the economic success of the neighborhood bank VP. I think that's what people are saying.
If they got that philosophy degree on student loans they're in the same position as someone paying child support ... debt that you can not get rid of.
Just asked my son, if I was his custodial parent. He replied "Yeah, why?"
So ya lost me on the first line.
As to child support "needs" varying with each child based on a parents income. No sale, courts should be interested in what is needed for a child. Certainly a disabled child has greater need. However, a reasonable standard would likely be what does the government spend on the child of a poor parent. One half of that is the need of a child per parent. If one parent can't pay anything, the government should pay the missing half. My belief is parents are jointly responsible for one half the cost of raising a child unless one is disabled and can not work.
Each parent should pay one half the need. Beyond that, a court is catering to wants, mostly of mothers. You want a ton of your ex spouses income, somehow he did ya wrong. To be honest, that should not be the courts business. If you don't estrange children from parents, the parents will usually give a lot more than the minimum necessary. Part of the joy of parenting is deciding when to indulge a child, or alternatively when not to spoil a child. High custody orders are more like winning at a slot machine, you have a good earner, and won at family court. Kudos. Instead of your ex having discretion regarding indulgences, and you having motivation not to estrange, it's to court with you or your ex if anyone has a beef. Your ex has some chance of paying not only your legal bill, but the legal bill of any guardian ad litem the court orders. For an ex without custody family court is a very losing place, for an ex with custody it's jackpot almost every visit. IMO this causes mostly fathers to become estranged from children, and allows mothers to poison children against their fathers. Sometimes the genders are reversed, not often, but regardless of gender, it isn't helpful to a child to be estranged from a parent most of the time.
Then people post wondering why so many young people do not marry.
Did you pay support to your husband and did his order get suspended during those visitations? Your joint child was in his custody. Did you cover the costs of those visits? If the child is estranged, then flip custody, exactly to avoid the incentive to estrange a child. Unless unfit, flipping custody would cause a custodial parent to seek avoiding poisoning and estranging a child from one of it's parents. The economics of divorce are usually catastrophic for everyone but the courts and those who gain employment through the courts.
The problem of estrangement and poisoning a paternal relationship is exemplified in your post, you want the ex to not visit, and be gone, but you want let me guess nearly half his income to arrive monthly from the state? When such men meet others, they discuss how difficult their lies are. This causes men to avoid marriage and parenting, or worse to seek wives abroad. Under the assumption they will better cater to their needs. Usually this also results in not only divorce, but even more people dependent on government aid.
There are no good solutions, but the economics of having a kid in the west are horrific, mostly for men.
The "government" is my tax dollars. Get lost. Don't breed em if you can't feed em.
It came from the quote that you bolded in Post #5 -- the part indicating that married couples may not be any better off than cohabiting couples, thus confirming the notion that marriage is actually an effect, not a cause.
A bit of partisan isolation and paranoia are showing here.
Well, I take the word of peers who have worked at Heritage and/or AEI at pretty close to face value. I also have my own experiences and interactions with these "fellows" to take information from.
Kooks might work. Beyond the fringe whackjobs might work as well. These are after all over-the-top proponents of the failed "Tiger Mom" movement that called upon parents to enforce Turkish prison-like levels of discipline on children, ruling out such pointless frivolities as sleepovers, field trips, and participation in band, sports, or school plays as losses of time that should have been invested in more and more hours of intensive drill and study instead. It's pretty close to being a psychosis, particularly once you throw in the "chosen people" thing.
Shotgun weddings have fortunately become almost 100% a thing of the past. The odds of long-term success for such unions are abysmally low. The odds of long-term misery and abuse are frighteningly high. The "moral high road" does not properly travel through such territory.
Overall, the single parent alternative isn't working out better.
There are no good solutions imo. Limiting child support to needs instead of income, may be helpful. What is the need of a child, is it the money government will spend on a parentless child? If estrangement occurs by either parent, could the courts be legislated to flip custodial relationships to determine if that repairs the damage? Limiting support orders, and flipping custodian if the court order causes estrangement will be fought by just about everyone interested in this matter.
Abolishing the family court as one in equity, and preventing imputed income could help. A non-custodians support should be imposed in a way similar to payroll taxes. If a non-custodian loses a job, there shouldn't be a requirement to hire a lawyer and petition for a change in circumstance. This will also be opposed by many.
Family courts are places social workers, psychologists and lawyers draw from the troth of marital anguish. It is in most cases a 100% win or lose. Get custody, get control, don't get custody, become estranged. There is rarely follow up by courts to see if their orders created a positive situation for the divorced families.
Like student loans, child support and alimony are not discharged in bankruptcy court in the U.S. This wasn't always the case. If a person can't reasonably repay a support order over several years, particularly if interest is imposed on the debt, discharge should be an eventual option. Bankruptcy is helpful to many who become overwhelmed. This will also be opposed.
Try to suggest a meaningful change and it will be shot down.
Well I really don't think legalistic solutions can help much except at the margins. I think the real solutions are more about cultural values.
My son asked his father to buy him a fidget spinner last week. His father told him to ask your mother. I have already bought his about 5 different ones. I do not have to estrange his father, he is doing that all on his own.
.
So let's see .... your son hates his father but wants him to buy him something?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
