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 financial support for a child that approximates 25-40% of Dad's gross income is so important, why are those in authority perfectly ok with Mom providing 0 financial support to their child?
That is an easy one to answer. You have to think about the age of those that wrote the current system and the times they grew up in which is where they pull their thoughts on the subject.
If the majority of the rules were written in the 80's and 90's or were built upon existing law from an earlier time then likely many of those writers were older and agreed. A person who was 55 in 1995 was born in 1940 and had a completely different experience growing up than we did. And men were still the Head of Household in many states (still had many archaic laws on the books). So the rules reflect that group, the men take care of the money and women took care of home. So when those rules were written it was from a view that the MAN is suppose to take care of the woman. US law builds on older law so some of that stuff hangs around for long periods of time.
Times have changed very quickly since the 2000's which is why so many are fighting to return to something they recognize. But time does not stand still and at some point our opinions become irrelevant to the new generations that come after. We age out so to speak but it still takes time to change these laws.
This is why I don't favor making laws based on current cultural trends that run against the constitution to serve some other power (religion for example). Its one thing to agree on "Don't kill" but supporting unfair measures for tradition (unfair child support, slavery, drug regulation, religion creep into government) or religion always leads to policy that seems silly after the cultural leanings of the country change with new generations.
When parents are unmarried, Mother has custody of any child born out of wedlock. Furthermore, Father has ZERO parenting rights by default. What that means is that Dad is not allowed to see the child at all- not even 15 minutes- if Mom does not allow it. In fact, Dad will be arrested if he tries. The only way Dad can get any parenting rights at all is to file in court, which usually results in some small token amount. Almost never does Dad get custody in this situation.
So you have a situation where one gender is given 100% full rights, and one gender is given 0 rights. Nothing, zip, nada. Imagine if you will a scenario where the script was flipped, and it was decided that moving forward Dad was granted 100% parenting rights (Mom zero) when parents are unmarried. That story would be on the cover of every newspaper, it would be the lead on every news show, and it would be discussed on every radio show. Yet this subject is rarely if ever discussed now.
I believe that this policy rises to the level of a large scale human rights violation (remember, not only are Dads rights being trampled on, but also all children born out of wedlock). It's really not that dissimilar to slavery, or anti semitism, or discrimination against people that are handicapped. Perhaps the best analogy would be many decades ago when women were not allowed to vote. Of course that was wrong, why should one gender be given full rights and the other 0? How is this policy any different then women being prohibited from voting?
By the way, I have never been personally effected by this policy. I do have one child from a previous marriage, but I was married to Mom at the time so this has nothing to do with me being effected personally.
I've always thought that the Social Security system strongly favors women who generally live long lives with more time to collect the gov't theft while men must make do with the same payment mode with generally shorter lives.
I dont disagree. The courts need to insert some logic in cases such as a man not knowing about a child for years after the birth and then being required to pay CS. I think if mom has sex out of a committed relationship, gets pregnant, chose to keep and raise the child without the benefit of a mate, she is by default saying she accepts the sole responsibility of the child.
If dad is aware and wants nothing to do with the child then the child support issue gets complicated. I know lots of men who initially wanted nothing to do with a pregnancy/child and later wanted to be in their life.
Of course mothers have rights. There is no question of maternity. She has been there since conception, throughout the pregnancy, the birth then nurturing the child throughout its life.
If dad is not there through most of this, why should he have automatic rights, even if he doesn't know. One should have a commitment in order to have rights. If dad is aware and wants to be part of his child's life against the mothers wishes he should be able to force a paternity test and get parental rights.
You missed my point. Fathers don't have rights they have privileges, if they had rights there would not be any need for court orders.
I mean it's literally crazy.
If a man is married, is named on the BC, thinks the kid is his, finds out it isn't. In the majority of cases he's still liable for child support.
If a man isnt married, is named on the BC without his knowledge he's liable for Child Support, until he proves he's not the father.
If a man isnt married, is not named on the BC, wants to be part of his child's upbringing, wants to support it, he has to file legal proceedings to do so, if the mother objects. He can't even get a paternity test without a court order.
Husband's coworker's wife. She was a RE Agent. What was her annual salary? Based purely on Commission from year to year.
Judged initially gave her custody with no alimony, but her husband had to pay child support. She was renting an apartment and did not pay her rent. Evicted. Went to live in hotel with children. Preteen daughter complained to her Dad that strange men were making lewd comments to her in the hotel.
They were living in her car for a time before going to live in a homeless shelter. "Mom is abusing us" kids said to Dad on their visits. Shelter workers observed her abusing her children and called CPS who observed her incognito. They reported this. Judge took away her custody and gave it to their Dad. She was only allowed supervised visits with the children.
Their Dad called her numerous times asking when she wanted to see the kids. All he got was a recording on her phone saying she was unavailable. He had no idea where she was.
He finally called his ex-wife's sister to try to reach her. She said their Dad had recently died and she was at the reading of his will. They both got over a million dollars from his estate. Her sister told him she thought her sister probably went back to Australia where they were from with the money from their inheritance.
My guess this woman did not give a damn about her own children. Their Dad cared far more.
Most of these woman qualified for rent free apts. Some even got paid to live there. We have to account for my disabled son's SSDI check. Do you think that is easy? But it is doable because it is required.
Why do you think most divorced women receiving CS qualify for free apts. Or get paid to live there?
I was divorced twice, never got anything free.
I also got some SSI when my kids were young. I filled out a form once a year stating how much of the SSI was spent on the kids. Is that what your talking about accounting for your sons disability check.
You missed my point. Fathers don't have rights they have privileges, if they had rights there would not be any need for court orders.
I mean it's literally crazy.
If a man is married, is named on the BC, thinks the kid is his, finds out it isn't. In the majority of cases he's still liable for child support.
If a man isnt married, is named on the BC without his knowledge he's liable for Child Support, until he proves he's not the father.
If a man isnt married, is not named on the BC, wants to be part of his child's upbringing, wants to support it, he has to file legal proceedings to do so, if the mother objects. He can't even get a paternity test without a court order.
Its heads Dads lose, tails Moms win.
Because mom carries the pregnancy, mom gives birth, mom nurses and nurtures the child, moms maternity is never in question. Therefore mom has rights to the child.
Dad deposits sperm. Paternity is in question.
Its one of those biological double standards.
A man can not be listed as father on a birth certificate without his knowledge. He must sign an acknowledgement of paternity for it to be legal.
Your post is an example of men wanting it both ways. In the married situation he has that automatic right and with it the responsibility, but you dont want that automatic right if it turns out you are not the biological father.
so what if a man claimed to be the father of a child but wasn't. Should his claim give him an automatic right to be part of that child's upbringing or should a DNA test be required by the court to prove paternity?
Most of these woman qualified for rent free apts. Some even got paid to live there. We have to account for my disabled son's SSDI check. Do you think that is easy? But it is doable because it is required.
There are no rent free apartments from the government. I have zero income and I am still required to pay $52/month in rent or I get evicted. You are still required to pay minimum rent even if you have no money coming in.
There are no rent free apartments from the government. I have zero income and I am still required to pay $52/month in rent or I get evicted. You are still required to pay minimum rent even if you have no money coming in.
Not in some section 8 apts. I worked for them for 10 years.
You missed my point. Fathers don't have rights they have privileges, if they had rights there would not be any need for court orders.
I mean it's literally crazy.
If a man is married, is named on the BC, thinks the kid is his, finds out it isn't. In the majority of cases he's still liable for child support.
If a man isnt married, is named on the BC without his knowledge he's liable for Child Support, until he proves he's not the father.
If a man isnt married, is not named on the BC, wants to be part of his child's upbringing, wants to support it, he has to file legal proceedings to do so, if the mother objects. He can't even get a paternity test without a court order.
Its heads Dads lose, tails Moms win.
Thank you for being a voice of reason. Thank you very much.
Thank you for being a voice of reason. Thank you very much.
You did not address the fact that a man can not be legally named on any birth certificate without signing acknowledgement of paternity form. So if he signs an acknowledgement of paternity why is it reasonable for him NOT to support his child?
Why is it reasonable for a man to have parental rights to a child without establishing proof that it is his child?
Why is it reasonable that a man should have both parental rights to a child and no financial obligation to a child based only on weather or not he wants to claim the child and any given time in its development?
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.
