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 you probably don't live in a million dollar home or take elaborate vacations.
I would bet that is an elaboration but it doesn't matter. It is someone else home and someone else is paying for it, I assume since she is not working. Both parents are obligated to contribute to their children's support based on their financial ability (in theory anyway). Because one parent is able to secure an expensive home, etc. does not diminish the other parents obligation.
But you probably don't live in a million dollar home or take elaborate vacations.
Ehh, that is debatable. I own two houses with a value of $600k which is a source of contention for my ex.my kids have both been on elaborate vacations in the last few months.
It does not matter what I own or what kind of house I live in, unless the children are not in safe conditions. Child support is based off income of both parents and a child's expenses. That is it.
And if parents would voluntarily and consistently help to financially support their children the government would not have to step in and make them. The government got involved because the taxpayers got tired of having to help provide when children were left in poverty due to abandonment by a parent.
This is what results from the "sexual liberation" of the 1960's. The act of having sex between any two people (or eventually given current logic a human and any mammal) that moves is green-lighted. Sex sometimes results in the production of children. In the case of some sexual activity even divining who the father is is next to impossible. And there's no guarantee that the father has any legal ability to generate money.
I don't want to be sexist here, but since the female will be the one carrying the baby, she must take the onus to make sure that she has only has sex with those who can and will support a resulting baby. The current social welfare system again creates a divide; at least a subsistence income comes from carrying and birthing a baby. This again splits the ability to create a baby from the need to figure out how to pay for the baby. THe end result, then, of "sexual freedom" is societal responsibility for the results. Maybe a return to the more puritanical 1950's and early 1960's, with stricter mores, might not be a bad idea.
This is what results from the "sexual liberation" of the 1960's. The act of having sex between any two people (or eventually given current logic a human and any mammal) that moves is green-lighted. Sex sometimes results in the production of children. In the case of some sexual activity even divining who the father is is next to impossible. And there's no guarantee that the father has any legal ability to generate money.
I don't want to be sexist here, but since the female will be the one carrying the baby, she must take the onus to make sure that she has only has sex with those who can and will support a resulting baby. The current social welfare system again creates a divide; at least a subsistence income comes from carrying and birthing a baby. This again splits the ability to create a baby from the need to figure out how to pay for the baby. THe end result, then, of "sexual freedom" is societal responsibility for the results. Maybe a return to the more puritanical 1950's and early 1960's, with stricter mores, might not be a bad idea.
The sexual liberation of the 60's didn't happen due to lack of values on society's, it came with the advent of the birth control pill. For the first time women had choice of whether they got pregnant or not, it was a social revolution, a milestone. There is no putting that genie back in the bottle. The rest of your post, let's just say I disagree.
This is what results from the "sexual liberation" of the 1960's. The act of having sex between any two people (or eventually given current logic a human and any mammal) that moves is green-lighted. Sex sometimes results in the production of children. In the case of some sexual activity even divining who the father is is next to impossible. And there's no guarantee that the father has any legal ability to generate money.
I don't want to be sexist here, but since the female will be the one carrying the baby, she must take the onus to make sure that she has only has sex with those who can and will support a resulting baby. The current social welfare system again creates a divide; at least a subsistence income comes from carrying and birthing a baby. This again splits the ability to create a baby from the need to figure out how to pay for the baby. THe end result, then, of "sexual freedom" is societal responsibility for the results. Maybe a return to the more puritanical 1950's and early 1960's, with stricter mores, might not be a bad idea.
You do realize that the majority of child support is a result of a divorce or dissolution of a monogamous relationship right. Not an accidental pregnancy from random sexual acts with multiple strangers.
And no, I dont agree the onus is on the female. It is every individuals responsibility to engage in safe sex or refrain from sex, every individual takes the risk that a pregnancy could occur and is equally responsible for the resulting baby.
Maybe a return to the more puritanical 1950's and early 1960's, with stricter mores, might not be a bad idea.
I grew up in the 60's 1/3 of the girls in my graduating class were pregnant or had been pregnant, the only difference between then and now is that abortion was not legal and birth control not available but the "stricter mores" have never stopped humans from having sex, they just kept people from talking about it.
The sexual liberation of the 60's didn't happen due to lack of values on society's, it came with the advent of the birth control pill. For the first time women had choice of whether they got pregnant or not, it was a social revolution, a milestone. There is no putting that genie back in the bottle. The rest of your post, let's just say I disagree.
The problem is that they did have a choice after the pill came out. Not all exercised that choice in favor of refraining from having children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
You do realize that the majority of child support is a result of a divorce or dissolution of a monogamous relationship right. Not an accidental pregnancy from random sexual acts with multiple strangers.
I'm talking, obviously, about all parenting situations where courts need to enforce support. I would be shocked if there were not a significant number of such pregnancies outside of the boundaries or marriage or monogamous relationships. And certainly the ones involving true desparation are from random acts with strangers, such as 16 year olds in the "hood" impregnating girls and moving on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
And no, I dont agree the onus is on the female. It is every individuals responsibility to engage in safe sex or refrain from sex, every individual takes the risk that a pregnancy could occur and is equally responsible for the resulting baby.
You're talking about life as it should be, not as it is. In reality the baby arrives out of the mother and compelled support is so often, too often, a very poor second choice to prevented pregnancies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2sleepy
I grew up in the 60's 1/3 of the girls in my graduating class were pregnant or had been pregnant, the only difference between then and now is that abortion was not legal and birth control not available but the "stricter mores" have never stopped humans from having sex, they just kept people from talking about it.
Many got married. Many of those marriages didn't work out. But more often than not the child support was paid. The amounts were lower then, but were within the ability of the husband to pay. Now, not so much.
I might have missed a comment, if so I apologize, but I thought you said you were on SSDI, if so they pay (in addition to your benefits) 50% to your children, most states disallow the mother from trying to get more money from the father and declare that as the maximum child support that she can receive.
My son is emancipated. He received his benefit in a lump sum when he turned 18. That was supposed to catch up the back support when I had no income. But, the gave my ex my back pay under that guise. She double dipped.
My son is emancipated. He received his benefit in a lump sum when he turned 18. That was supposed to catch up the back support when I had no income. But, the gave my ex my back pay under that guise. She double dipped.
I've seen that happen when you have to wait several years to be approved though. When you get your back SSDI, they give the children their family allotment in a lump sum for the period between when you applied and when you were approved. If you were also paying child support during that time, and if the amount you paid + the SSDI lump sum were more than the child support order you can go to court and get an order for her to repay the difference, that would be double dipping & isn't legal
I'm talking, obviously, about all parenting situations where courts need to enforce support. I would be shocked if there were not a significant number of such pregnancies outside of the boundaries or marriage or monogamous relationships. And certainly the ones involving true desparation are from random acts with strangers, such as 16 year olds in the "hood" impregnating girls and moving on.
Many divorce/monogamous relationships require the courts to enforce support. As I said that is the vast majority. When children are conceived thru random sexual acts with strangers who move on, finding the bio father and collecting CS is rare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbgusa
You're talking about life as it should be, not as it is. In reality the baby arrives out of the mother and compelled support is so often, too often, a very poor second choice to prevented pregnancies.
Compelled child support if so often, too often, the result of a dissolved marriage or LTR where the child was planned or at least wanted.
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.
