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.
If the man is paying child support, he should be able to see his kid.
Maybe not see his kids, but he should have the ability to see where his money goes. For example instead of sending money he can send clothes. There are fathers who are simply abusive and having them visit their kids could put them in danger but someone still has to provide for them.
Maybe not see his kids, but he should have the ability to see where his money goes. For example instead of sending money he can send clothes. There are fathers who are simply abusive and having them visit their kids could put them in danger but someone still has to provide for them.
Why not see his kids? They're his kids. Unless he's a deadbeat, he should be able to see his kids.
You father a child and think you should not pay child support?
I think we ought to go back to the system that we had when this country was founded - bastardy bonds. Every woman who gave birth to a child outside of wedlock was required by law to post a bond that was enough to cover that child's welfare costs. If the father did not step forward, the father of the unwed mother was held responsible. You better believe that brothers and fathers of unwed mothers tracked down the man who impregnated their relative and he was held in jail if he didn't post the bond.
Maybe if men knew they would be thrown in jail til they came up with the money it takes for the state to raise a child, they would not be so quick to spread their seed - with sane or crazy women alike.
I don't think I should pay "child" support, that is right (notice the quote). I guess you can't understand why or more than likely don't *want* to understand why I don't think that I should pay child support. My previous posts have explained it well, but I can go on and on about it.
You make it sound so rosey with one liners like "father a child" but it obviously not that way at all.
Fathering a child means nothing more than becoming a human piggy bank with no REAL regard as to whether or not you see your child again.
I can't father my child in the conventional sense. I am forced to live several States away from my child to work in order to do any sort of fathering at all. The local economy where my child resides no longer had employment where you could pay "child" support and pay rent. Ambitious fantacies of working at McDonald's just to pay support and keep out of jail are just that in many localities.
You cite jail as if it is a new consequence when there is nothing new about it. If you don't pay "child" support, you are almost invariably guaranteed to go to jail until you can pay it. This truth is vastly hidden, the media makes it seem as if men can just run away from "child" support but there really is no escape.
It is pretty obvious that I don't want to pay it, but yet I pay it because there is no escape from it. So I am not sure why you think such extremes are necessary. They are already in place.
I agree with you in spirit but I think exceptions exist. Anyways I don't think child support should come in the form of money but rather clothes, school supplies, hospital bills for the kids. The woman should not get the money and be able to allocate it.
I agree with you in spirit but I think exceptions exist. Anyways I don't think child support should come in the form of money but rather clothes, school supplies, hospital bills for the kids. The woman should not get the money and be able to allocate it.
Obviously exceptions exist but that's hypothetical.
Just seems like common sense to me that if you do your part as a parent, you should be able to see your own kid. I don't know what kind of sicko would have a problem with that, but everyone's jumping all over this guy.
Yep. My brother is the same way. He pays but can't see his kids. His evil ex won't let him.
It doesn't take very much does it?
Man doesn't pay child support = criminal action, go to jail even if you lost your job through no fault of your own
Woman doesn't let man see kids = civil action, broke dad due to "child" support payments will somehow be able to come with a $10,000 attorney retainer to slap the ex on the wrist.
If the man is paying child support, he should be able to see his kid.
It doesn't work that way. Naysayers love to tout that there is no relation or nexus between child support and visitation as if it were a convenience. The Naysayers are right, but it is not a convenience. Unfortunately, the father would be better off if the two were related.
Here is why:
Father doesn't pay child support because he loses his job, mother witholds visitation. Father becomes a criminal, mother has committed a civil crime, and if she has commited a crime good luck getting the police involved. Good luck hiring an attorney and having anything done about it and if you are lucky afterwards you are dead broke.
Father doesn't pay child support, mother gets assistance from State for free (or in some states for a whopping $25) to force father to pay (draw blood from a rock).
Mother continues to withold visitation. Father either starts paying when he gets a job and has to pay tons of impossible arrears RIGHT NOW (purge order) or go to jail for non-payment.
If you count visitation in jail real visitation, then that is it. How are you going to see your kid again when you are in jail? I mean, any meaningful visitation time.
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.