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.
So the abused wife who finally gathers the strength to leave her abusive husband with children in tow should not be awarded funds to ensure those children are clothed, fed, and educated?
The scumbag who leaves his stay at home wife and children for the hot secretary du jour should not be made to ensure his children are left destitute?
Seriously?
If these "hardworking men" bring children into the world and then decide to "move on" to the next thing, oc COURSE they should continue to support their children. They are HIS CHILDREN, for crying out loud!!
Did you ever stop to think that some of the students who give you the hardest time may not have involved fathers in their lives?
The poster to whom I was responding said that he paid over half of his salary in child support. Say what you want, but that doesn't seem fair. It's like punishing those who got married and did everything the legal way while, possibly, giving the guy who didn't get married and had several children out of wedlock a free pass. If anyone should be paying fifty percent of his income as child support, I think it should be the latter. Society should punish people for their mistakes, not their good intentions. Since the stakes are so high for married men who get divorced, isn't that incentive for young people to not get married in the first place?
The poster to whom I was responding said that he paid over half of his salary in child support. Say what you want, but that doesn't seem fair. It's like punishing those who got married and did everything the legal way while, possibly, giving the guy who didn't get married and had several children out of wedlock a free pass. If anyone should be paying fifty percent of his income as child support, I think it should be the latter. Society should punish people for their mistakes, not their good intentions.
Child support has nothing to do with marriage. Unmarried fathers have to pay child support, too.
Child support has nothing to do with marriage. Unmarried fathers have to pay child support, too.
Do they, though? I think there are many women in the U.S. who can't even claim their deadbeat dads for fear of reprisal. My friend has one child who was fathered by another man she was not married to, but she won't file for child support, because it would mean that she would have to give him visitation rights, and he could file for custody of the child.
The poster to whom I was responding said that he paid over half of his salary in child support. Say what you want, but that doesn't seem fair. It's like punishing those who got married and did everything the legal way while, possibly, giving the guy who didn't get married and had several children out of wedlock a free pass. If anyone should be paying fifty percent of his income as child support, I think it should be the latter. Society should punish people for their mistakes, not their good intentions. Since the stakes are so high for married men who get divorced, isn't that incentive for young people to not get married in the first place?
Point 1: That poster gave us his side of the story. He admitted he left, although he didn't tell us why. There may very well be parts he left out, too, including why he supposedly paid his wife directly instead of through the agency if he was supposed to go through the state agency in the first place? Why didn't he have proof that he paid her by check, as in his canceled checks? He could always get copies from his bank.
Point 2: Guys who don't get married and father children out-of-wedlock have to pay child support. That's what this entire thread is about: the OP is ranting about the possibility of having to be responsible for partially supporting a child he created.
Are you and the OP identical twins? You seem to share a remarkable similarity in your mutual disdain for taking people taking responsibility for their own actions.
Do they, though? I think there are many women in the U.S. who can't even claim their deadbeat dads for fear of reprisal. My friend has one child who was fathered by another man she was not married to, but she won't file for child support, because it would mean that she would have to give him visitation rights, and he could file for custody of the child.
So, because one friend of yours who's not married chooses NOT to pursue child support from the father, married women who get dumped by their husbands should be denied child support? As Mr Spock would say, "That's illogical."
Do they, though? I think there are many women in the U.S. who can't even claim their deadbeat dads for fear of reprisal. My friend has one child who was fathered by another man she was not married to, but she won't file for child support, because it would mean that she would have to give him visitation rights, and he could file for custody of the child.
I am talking about as far as the legal system is concerned. If someone chooses not to ask for child support, that's on them, but IF she did, he would be ordered to pay child support just like if they were married. The point is it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the mother and father were married or not. Married women have to allow visitation and risk the guy filing for custody too, there is no difference as far as the law goes.
I am talking about as far as the legal system is concerned. If someone chooses not to ask for child support, that's on them, but IF she did, he would be ordered to pay child support just like if they were married. The point is it has nothing whatsoever to do with whether the mother and father were married or not. Married women have to allow visitation and risk the guy filing for custody too, there is no difference as far as the law goes.
If child support is genuinely the inalienable right of the CHILD, though, then shouldn't the government hunt down non-custodial parents for child support regardless of whether or not the other parent asks for child support?
Please do all of us a favor and tell pro-choicers to likewise stop whining and complaining about it when pro-lifers tell them to "keep their legs closed," will you?
Also, is getting surgically castrated not "taking responsibility" for you?
I'm not sure if the ones saying "if you can't feed 'em, don't breed 'em" and "keep their legs closed" are indeed pro-life.
I didn't have time to read it and couldn't make it past the PC nonsense.
Suffice to say that child support should be paid only if and when children are the product of marriage and provided the marriage contract was not voided; there are no games with visitation; and the cost is apportioned based on true costs.
So if I donate a kidney to some poor child, then should I be forced to pay child support to this poor child afterwards?
Talk about comparing apples to oranges. When you donate a sperm you create a life that needs to be taken care of. When you donate a kidney you save the life of someone who already has parents to take care of them. So, no, you do not owe support to someone you donated a kidney to.
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.
