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 doesn't say anything about a parent of a welfare recipient being responsible for any support "up to age 18 or a few years older."
As a matter of fact, it says a minor welfare recipient should live with parents or relatives and will get TANF:
Again, nothing about their parents having to pay anything.
CT will also give extra assistance (State Administered General Assistance) in addition to TANF to, among other groups, people under 16 and/or in high school full time with, again, no mention of their parents being responsible for paying anything:
I missed the post where he said which state they were in. Regardless, the girl's mother is legally responsible for supporting HER (but not her child) until she is 18.
I missed the post where he said which state they were in. Regardless, the girl's mother is legally responsible for supporting HER (but not her child) until she is 18.
Source? (For instance, please name and quote the actual Federal Law that says so since you seem to be imagining this is the case for the entire country.)
Source? (For instance, please name and quote the actual Federal Law that says so since you seem to be imagining this is the case for the entire country.)
There is no federal law, but every state requires parents to support their children until at least age 18.
Here is a relevant Connecticut law (I doubt it's the only one):
That law is about support which has been legally ordered by a Family Court, such as child support. It is not an all-encompassing law about the general support of family members.
For instance, it includes support of "spouse" and "parent under 65." So should we take it to mean everyone in CT has to support their parent under 65 too? And if you will be punished for not supporting your spouse, which spouse is the one who has to provide the support and which is the one who will be supported? In many marriages both people work ... how does this deal with that issue?
That law is about support which has been legally ordered by a Family Court, such as child support. It is not an all-encompassing law about the general support of family members.
For instance, it includes support of "spouse" and "parent under 65." So should we take it to mean everyone in CT has to support their parent under 65 too? And if you will be punished for not supporting your spouse, which spouse is the one who has to provide the support and which is the one who will be supported? In many marriages both people work ... how does this deal with that issue?
It specifies "reasonably necessary" support and is NOT about court-ordered support. It says the court may order support as a part of its adjudication of the law. There is an entire separate chapter of CT laws about court-ordered support and I might be able to find a general obligation in there as well and almost certainly would in some other CT statute.
Everyone knows that parents are required to support their minor children; are you being deliberately obtuse because you support man-children who bail on their wives because they don't disown their own flesh and blood when they make mistakes?
When a girl becomes pregnant, she can receive TANF, ect regardless of her age. Once she is a mother she is financially emancipated.
But if you put your wife in a position where she feels she has to choose between her daughter/grandchild or her marriage, sge will most likely choose her daughter. If she feels she can't be as supportive or involved as she would like to because you are not on board, age will resent you.
It specifies "reasonably necessary" support and is NOT about court-ordered support. It says the court may order support as a part of its adjudication of the law. There is an entire separate chapter of CT laws about court-ordered support and I might be able to find a general obligation in there as well and almost certainly would in some other CT statute.
Everyone knows that parents are required to support their minor children; are you being deliberately obtuse because you support man-children who bail on their wives because they don't disown their own flesh and blood when they make mistakes?
Oh, you "might?" Than why don't you then? Because you cannot.
#1: Don't assign nefarious "reasons" to my actual knowledge of facts, as per the bolded. Is that why you "are being deliberately obtuse" ... because you think I have a bad point of view as per the OP?
#2: You should not dream up your own "facts" about things you simply don't understand, such as law.
When a girl becomes pregnant, she can receive TANF, ect regardless of her age. Once she is a mother she is financially emancipated.
But if you put your wife in a position where she feels she has to choose between her daughter/grandchild or her marriage, sge will most likely choose her daughter. If she feels she can't be as supportive or involved as she would like to because you are not on board, age will resent you.
OMG! Someone with a brain! Yes, she can receive TANF (which is to support herself AND her children)! (Strangely enough some people don't understand that TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE TO NEEDY FAMILIES includes the single parent as part of their family! Who knew! LOL!) Her own parents don't have to support her (and/or her children) at that point! The government will pay the vast majority of the freight ... although in some states (it should be ALL) she will get less TANF if she is getting a free place to live with mommy and daddy since she doesn't have to pay rent and utilities for a place for HERSELF and her children to live (yes, the part that says FAMILIES in "TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE TO NEEDY FAMILIES" includes the single mommy ... or daddy as the case may be).
Last edited by I_Love_LI_but; 08-08-2014 at 02:49 PM..
Reason: Emphasis on facts
But, your question was about enforcing your rule of "no babies." You can make that rule for your own offspring, but do not be surprised when your wife feels your rule is being imposed on HER.
Oh, you "might?" Than why don't you then? Because you cannot.
#1: Don't assign nefarious "reasons" to my actual knowledge of facts, as per the bolded. Is that why you "are being deliberately obtuse" ... because you think I have a bad point of view as per the OP?
#2: You should not dream up your own "facts" about things you simply don't understand, such as law.
Addressing both this post and your next one -
LMAO...I couldn't find it in a very short period as I have no experience with CT law. I searched for "nonsupport," which is commonly used by states as a term for failure to provide support. I also looked through the statutes briefly; I wasn't going to spend hours looking thoroughly.
TANF is irrelevant here; just because she can get it doesn't mean her parents are not responsible for ensuring that her needs are met (NOTE: her parents are not responsible for ensuring her child's needs are met). By the way, if you read the law in CT that you posted, she can only get it in most cases if she lives with her parents.
You understand law and I don't? Ha! Please cite the law in any state in this country that shows a child is automatically emancipated when she has a baby.
As far as your point of view, I do think it's bad. I don't think you should simply bail on either your spouse or your child when things get tough.
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.
