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.
But Im sure hearsay from the 12 yr. old daughter of a friend of your sons is quite accurate.
I realize the bias that exists, but stories stating a court awarded child support from this womans' ex during this four yrs. then awarded her back CS for the same time period from 2 different men dosent lend to the credibility of existing biases.
If there is mandatory paternity testing, then all males, regardless of marital status, should have to submit their DNA to a national database. You know, for the kids.
If there is mandatory paternity testing, then all males, regardless of marital status, should have to submit their DNA to a national database. You know, for the kids.
Yeah, no. Hospitals already check the kids against the mother at birth for tracking purposes. Extending the same check to men is a no-brainer unless the woman has something to hide. If MPT was in effect it wouldn't even come to that since they'd have to be forthcoming ahead of time knowing they'd be found out.
Yeah, no. Hospitals already check the kids against the mother at birth for tracking purposes. Extending the same check to men is a no-brainer unless the woman has something to hide. If MPT was in effect it wouldn't even come to that since they'd have to be forthcoming ahead of time knowing they'd be found out.
Child support is for the benefit of children, not the mother. So if the mother is not forthcoming (hey, she may have legitimate reasons -- like if the guy threatened her, for instance), we need a way of knowing who the father is to hold his feet to the fire, right? AND to give him an opportunity to assert paternity. So I don't see, for argument's sake, what's wrong with taking all men's DNA and checking every newborn's DNA against that database.
Also, on that whole "male abortion" thing -- I'm still waiting for viable suggestions on how to make it a true equivalent of abortion (as in, no changing one's mind 18 years later) instead of merely getting out of child support. Perhaps a law that would make it a felony to contact the child at any age or to confirm paternity? Or civil liability for "unaborting" -- back pay for 18 years plus interest.
Child support is for the benefit of children, not the mother.
It's supposed to be, but often is not and is in practice just back-door alimony. Don't believe me? Try asking how men feel who have witnessed their CS checks pay for mom's trip to Vegas, boob jobs, etc. Without accountability the money just goes to the custodial parent and gets spent on whatever they decide. ACCOUNTABILITY is one aspect that needs to get fixed, but never will as I mentioned before because then it would require courts to examine what the costs of the child's care actually is, and that might lead to CS obligations only being enough to meet that figure instead of the massive wealth transfer vehicle CS is today. States stands to lose loads of money if they fix the system.
Good in theory, not so much in practice. That's why I think MPT is the way to go--it completely sidesteps the emotional/verbal berating men almost always get for suggesting the kid might not be theirs.
That's something else that needs to be fixed: accountability. The problem is that modern child support is less about support for the kids and more about being back-door alimony for all intents and purposes. The proper solution IMO is to split up the costs of raising the kids, then divide them up along percentage of custody and pro-rate CS rates by how much it takes to balance the costs. For example:
Say the total bills equal $10,000 for the year and both parents have 50/50 joint custody, then both should have to pay about the same and really no CS should even be required. However, if one parent say has 75% custody and is incurring 75% of the costs, then IMO the non-custodial parent should only owe the custodial parent that missing 25% so to even the bills out so both are paying half. Sucks for the non-custodial parent to be paying for the child who they don't get to see evenly, but that brings me to another point...
Default Equal Custody. If for some reason one parent is unfit and the other parent can prove it, great, then modify the custody arrangement accordingly. But handing over the kids to mom by default and giving dad 1 day a week + 1 weekend a month is just wrong IMO. Fix custody and the CS amounts will largely fix themselves.
Lastly, stop giving federal money to the states for collecting child support. It's a huge conflict of interest in that it's an incentive to create as much acrimony as possible as well as wealth transfer. As Stephen Baskerville pointed out in Taken Into Custody, it's in the state's best interest to give the kids to the lower earning parent so to ensure CS payments by the higher earning spouse and thus collecting their monies from the federal govt. This is why the CS payments are a division of income, not on actual costs of raising the child. If they went with the latter the amounts they'd have to transfer would drop like a rock and that would hurt the state's bottom line.
I agree, but only if it's in that 3 months when women are able to opt for an abortion. In fact, what you're talking about has a name: "paper abortion" and "male abortion". Currently the system is set up to effect her body, her choice, his responsibility. Meaning that she gets to choose the course of action unilaterally once pregnant and the man has no say. That's neither fair or equal as it puts his reproductive rights in the hands of another. While I don't agree with abortion at all, and paper abortion is no better IMO, it does balance the playing field and give both parties equal rights in that they would both then have the opportunity to choose to be a parent even after insemination.
Yeah the above would work in the perfect world but not in the real world .
Last edited by Urban Sasquatch; 11-04-2010 at 06:29 AM..
Reason: responded to a tracked post, didn't realize it was Great Debates, which I try to avoid on principle
It's supposed to be, but often is not and is in practice just back-door alimony. Don't believe me? Try asking how men feel who have witnessed their CS checks pay for mom's trip to Vegas, boob jobs, etc. Without accountability the money just goes to the custodial parent and gets spent on whatever they decide. ACCOUNTABILITY is one aspect that needs to get fixed, but never will as I mentioned before because then it would require courts to examine what the costs of the child's care actually is, and that might lead to CS obligations only being enough to meet that figure instead of the massive wealth transfer vehicle CS is today. States stands to lose loads of money if they fix the system.
On this I agree. There should most definitely be a system of checks and balances which includes receipts and proof of child care with regard to amounts of money spent. It is FAR too easy to play a game with money.
This is without regard to gender. Any parent receiving child support should be required to keep strict accounting and a completely separate account so that ALL funds are tracked -- period. If funds are left over, they remain in account to preclude unforeseen expenses; if funds are left over with regularity, they either go toward a child-savings OR a prescribed use such as college, or they provide proof for a need of administrative recalculation of child support funds to be paid in general.
I know for years my own mother told me how my father didn't love me and refused to pay my child support. When I was eight or nine years old I asked him WHY he didn't love me and wouldn't help mom since I clearly cost money.
Dad was understandably angry -- so he took me to a box he kept and showed me that day how cancelled checks work (back in the days before it was all scanned or bank-filed) because he had week after week of cancelled checks going back years, all the way up to the previous week.
So I asked my mother about it, and asked whether I could actually have some money for an allowance since Dad was paying and had proved it to me. First it was a lecture about how that money went to pay for my part of the water, my part of the electricity, my part of the home we lived in.
"So you admit Dad is paying, right?" I asked. THAT got me slapped.
I often thought of that in the years which followed, as I ate my often-twice-daily grilled cheese and watery tomato soup, as my mother wasn't hungry because she'd stopped and eaten on the way home.
We had a relative who was a preacher in the olden days and he would always say "If you dance, you have to pay the fiddler." In my opinion, this comes down to the responsibility between a man and woman deciding to have unprotected sex in the first place especially with someone that has multiple partners. Really, if you have sex, you risk ending up paying child support for 18 years - you decide whether it is worth it or not. For those married, with the divorce rate, you might want to plan ahead in that case too. Too many people want to be like those turtles that lay eggs in the sand and swim away never to return. Well, turtles aren't supposed to have morals and don't have laws to follow, they're turtles.
It's supposed to be, but often is not and is in practice just back-door alimony. Don't believe me? Try asking how men feel who have witnessed their CS checks pay for mom's trip to Vegas, boob jobs, etc. Without accountability the money just goes to the custodial parent and gets spent on whatever they decide. ACCOUNTABILITY is one aspect that needs to get fixed, but never will as I mentioned before because then it would require courts to examine what the costs of the child's care actually is, and that might lead to CS obligations only being enough to meet that figure instead of the massive wealth transfer vehicle CS is today. States stands to lose loads of money if they fix the system.
Unfortunately, you cant force financial accountability, not on custodial parents receiving CS or happily married couples.
I doubt there are lost of vegas trips and fake boobs, but I know often women will spend cs money on personal items while complaining about what the kids need (my ex DIL is a perfect example).
Actually this massive wealth transfer (average 400/mo.) might be higher if you actually itemized: housing, utilities, transportation, clothing, medical expenses, hair cuts, school dues, school trips, daycare, extra curricula activities. But then using the ex DIL for an example, she also works gets section 8 housing, foodstamps and medical on top of CS.
The system is changing as US stated. There is a formula to determine what amount is needed taking into accout both incomes and who is providing health insurance. So it is not alway X% of the non custodial parents income. The problem is courts are slow if they move at all when incomes change and in that time you are still required to pay X amount even if you dont have it. Also shared custody is becoming more common so the children are split more equal time and no CS is exchanged.
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.
