Child Support Vs Welfare (economy, claims, status, prison)
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.
Although, I do agree more should be done about dead beat dads. Like castration after the first "non-payment" of child support.
A better solution would be to sterilize women after they have a certain number of children. Then men wouldn't matter. It's not feasible to do anything based on how many children a man has, because there is no way to be sure he doesn't have a lot more than are accounted for.
As for non-payment of child support, that's a civil issue. It's unconstitutional to give anyone any kind of criminal punishment for failure to pay any debt. When they get locked up, it's for contempt of court, not for failure to pay. And it's usually because they have a bad lawyer. Judges love to stomp on people who have bad lawyers. People who don't have the brains to select a good lawyer, should not be living under a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers.
It may seem unfair to women that they should be sterilized and not men. But in the majority of counties the judges are heavily biased in favor of women in custody cases. It makes at least some sense for the unfairness to balance out between men and women.
Since enforcement against deadbeat dads doesn't work very well, a better solution, which would be fairer to everyone, would be to give women the option to make men totally responsible for any children the woman has trouble supporting. In other words, she should be able to go to her local courthouse and file a paper stating that the dad is to be responsible for the child, and is to have custody. Then, if the dad fails to accept the child he has legal custody of, and/or fails to support it, he can be charged with criminal child abandonment and criminal child neglect. Criminal laws have a lot more force than civil laws.
A better solution would be to sterilize women after they have a certain number of children. Then men wouldn't matter. It's not feasible to do anything based on how many children a man has, because there is no way to be sure he doesn't have a lot more than are accounted for.
As for non-payment of child support, that's a civil issue. It's unconstitutional to give anyone any kind of criminal punishment for failure to pay any debt. When they get locked up, it's for contempt of court, not for failure to pay. And it's usually because they have a bad lawyer. Judges love to stomp on people who have bad lawyers. People who don't have the brains to select a good lawyer, should not be living under a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers.
It may seem unfair to women that they should be sterilized and not men. But in the majority of counties the judges are heavily biased in favor of women in custody cases. It makes at least some sense for the unfairness to balance out between men and women.
That makes absolutely no sense. Why would it not matter how many children a man fathers. A woman can have one child in a year and a half at the very best (excluding twins, multiples) and man can father countless children in that time. Even if you didn't know how many were accounted for, when there were two or three he is not paying CS for isnt it time time to sterilize him too? There is a man in my state who has 30 kids by 11 different women. In 2009 he had fathered 21 by 2012 he fathered an additional 9. He may have fathered more by now.
And women get custody in most cases because fathers dont ask for it. Its the mothers who are providing care for the children from the get go. If the fathers want custody they need to step up, not blame the court.
Since enforcement against deadbeat dads doesn't work very well, a better solution, which would be fairer to everyone, would be to give women the option to make men totally responsible for any children the woman has trouble supporting. In other words, she should be able to go to her local courthouse and file a paper stating that the dad is to be responsible for the child, and is to have custody. Then, if the dad fails to accept the child he has legal custody of, and/or fails to support it, he can be charged with criminal child abandonment and criminal child neglect. Criminal laws have a lot more force than civil laws.
You cant force people to be good parents and take proper care of their children. Where do you even get these crazy ideas. Instead of making fathers help support their kids you want mothers to put their baby in the care of someone who wont or cant care for it. If they wont even cough up 200/month to help financially support their own child do you think they are going to sacrifice and devote their everyday lives to the well being of the child?
You cant force people to be good parents and take proper care of their children. Where do you even get these crazy ideas. Instead of making fathers help support their kids you want mothers to put their baby in the care of someone who wont or cant care for it. If they wont even cough up 200/month to help financially support their own child do you think they are going to sacrifice and devote their everyday lives to the well being of the child?
That just shows your prejudice against fathers. Plenty of women neglect their children. Your prejudice makes you assume fathers neglect their children more than mothers do. The reason fathers are absent is because courts in the majority of counties are prejudiced against fathers and rule against them, forcing them to be absent.
We need to make things fairer for everyone. One way to do that is to end child support and let children live with whichever parent can support them best. That's fairest to the children too, because the more money the parent has, the more opportunities the child has. It would also reduce parental alienation syndrome, which is a much bigger problem than most people think it is. And mothers who can't afford their children would have more time for their careers, which they need, so they can get out of poverty.
A friend of mine was paying child support while working at a 7-11. He went back to Nursing school and asked if he could cut his child support payment in half for 2 years and then catch up. The system and his wife said no. Well, he still went back to Nursing school (graduated 1 in his class) but the system took his driver's license.
How did this make sense? He was stuck in a dead end job and the system and his x wife were happy with that rather than help him get ahead in life.
I and other friends helped him for those two years because he had to go to two different locations for Nursing classes. He is a great guy, never involved in trouble, and is all caught up on his child support. He makes nearly 70k a year now and started a college plan for his child.
I understand there are a lot of people that don't pay their child support but I see no reason to toss them into jail which many states do or take their driver's license.
It makes total sense. If we grant your friend an exemption from paying his child support while he attends nursing school, than we have to grant an exemption to anyone else who claims they want to further their education. Pretty soon we'd have guys attending art school and virtually any school to get out of paying their child support for a few years. His attendance at school doesn't change the fact that there is a living breathing child that needs food, clothing, and shelter. If he doesn't pay the taxpayers have too.
The point is your friend made a baby. It took his wife to do it too, but your friend contributed.
Now, look, I'm not saying there isn't any situation at all where some flexibility shouldn't be allowed. The ones that come to my mind have to do with sickness, disease, and actual inability to find employment in a bad economy. However, those are the only exemptions that ought to exist. He shouldn't have had a child if he didn't want to support one period.
Jail has to remain as an option for those who won't pay child support for a couple of reasons:
1. Some guys don't respond to anything else. Only the the reality of incarceration will make them break down and deliver that monetary support the court has ordered them to provide.
2. Courts look pretty silly when they order something and can't enforce their orders. Jail means "put up or shut up".
3. I actually favor a prison sentence for the repeat violator who continually and willfully refuses to pay child support. IMO, its a greater crime than something like insurance fraud is because insurance companies are able to hire lawyers and accountants to protect themselves from such an occurrence. Mothers with young children lack a means to protect themselves and are the ultimate vulnerable victims. Its more of a crime than many people are willing to acknowledge. Parents who willfully fail to child support are not people worthy of respect.
3. I actually favor a prison sentence for the repeat violator who continually and willfully refuses to pay child support. IMO, its a greater crime than something like insurance fraud
It's not even a crime. It's unconstitutional for debts to be crimes. The court puts the person in jail for contempt of court. And it's almost always because the person has an incompetent lawyer.
It makes total sense. If we grant your friend an exemption from paying his child support while he attends nursing school, than we have to grant an exemption to anyone else who claims they want to further their education. Pretty soon we'd have guys attending art school and virtually any school to get out of paying their child support for a few years. His attendance at school doesn't change the fact that there is a living breathing child that needs food, clothing, and shelter. If he doesn't pay the taxpayers have too.
The point is your friend made a baby. It took his wife to do it too, but your friend contributed.
Now, look, I'm not saying there isn't any situation at all where some flexibility shouldn't be allowed. The ones that come to my mind have to do with sickness, disease, and actual inability to find employment in a bad economy. However, those are the only exemptions that ought to exist. He shouldn't have had a child if he didn't want to support one period.
Jail has to remain as an option for those who won't pay child support for a couple of reasons:
1. Some guys don't respond to anything else. Only the the reality of incarceration will make them break down and deliver that monetary support the court has ordered them to provide.
2. Courts look pretty silly when they order something and can't enforce their orders. Jail means "put up or shut up".
3. I actually favor a prison sentence for the repeat violator who continually and willfully refuses to pay child support. IMO, its a greater crime than something like insurance fraud is because insurance companies are able to hire lawyers and accountants to protect themselves from such an occurrence. Mothers with young children lack a means to protect themselves and are the ultimate vulnerable victims. Its more of a crime than many people are willing to acknowledge. Parents who willfully fail to child support are not people worthy of respect.
So, All parents that cuts back for a longer term goal are neglecting their families. I have seen people move into small places, no vacation, cheaper food for a long term goal. With the way child support is set up there is no room for this.
As in the case above would it be in the best interest of the child to cut back and have a father that can provide more in the long term or for the father to stick with his dead end job?
Also there is reason they got rid of debtors prison....they don't work. You just end up with a lot people in prison being unproductive to society at the tax payers cost.
A better solution would be to sterilize women after they have a certain number of children. Then men wouldn't matter. It's not feasible to do anything based on how many children a man has, because there is no way to be sure he doesn't have a lot more than are accounted for.
As for non-payment of child support, that's a civil issue. It's unconstitutional to give anyone any kind of criminal punishment for failure to pay any debt. When they get locked up, it's for contempt of court, not for failure to pay. And it's usually because they have a bad lawyer. Judges love to stomp on people who have bad lawyers. People who don't have the brains to select a good lawyer, should not be living under a government of the lawyers, by the lawyers, for the lawyers.
It may seem unfair to women that they should be sterilized and not men. But in the majority of counties the judges are heavily biased in favor of women in custody cases. It makes at least some sense for the unfairness to balance out between men and women.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
That makes absolutely no sense. Why would it not matter how many children a man fathers. A woman can have one child in a year and a half at the very best (excluding twins, multiples) and man can father countless children in that time. Even if you didn't know how many were accounted for, when there were two or three he is not paying CS for isnt it time time to sterilize him too? There is a man in my state who has 30 kids by 11 different women. In 2009 he had fathered 21 by 2012 he fathered an additional 9. He may have fathered more by now.
And women get custody in most cases because fathers dont ask for it. Its the mothers who are providing care for the children from the get go. If the fathers want custody they need to step up, not blame the court.
Yeah - for dogs don't they enourage neutering the males?....calms 'em right down, too...hahaha
It's not even a crime. It's unconstitutional for debts to be crimes. The court puts the person in jail for contempt of court. And it's almost always because the person has an incompetent lawyer.
Wrong. All fifty states have a law on the books that makes willful failure to pay child support a crime. In some states its a misdemeanor. In other states a felony. You can go to prison for over a year for not paying. The statute is only used for the worst offenders. It is not used for parents who miss a payment here and there. It is not used for those out of work or disabled. It is used for those who over a long period of time refuse to pay and have the means to do so.
Such a law should exist because some parents can pay and are simply refusing to do so out of anger over their ex-wife or girl friend. A child should not suffer because of this kind of issue. Also, those parents who do pay child support have a right to know that the system is aggressively pursuing those who do not pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LIOC
So, All parents that cuts back for a longer term goal are neglecting their families. I have seen people move into small places, no vacation, cheaper food for a long term goal. With the way child support is set up there is no room for this.
As in the case above would it be in the best interest of the child to cut back and have a father that can provide more in the long term or for the father to stick with his dead end job?
Also there is reason they got rid of debtors prison....they don't work. You just end up with a lot people in prison being unproductive to society at the tax payers cost.
Long term goals are elusive and can be an easy decoy for simple refusal to pay. Should parents who attend art school in college get an exemption from paying support? Nor, does any of this change the fact that if parents don't pay, application is likely to be made for public assistance and the taxpayers will have to pick up the tab. Why should I have to pay anything to support a child that you were 1/2 responsible for creating? Why shouldn't that burden rightfully fall on you instead of me?
Parents should consider their current job status before engaging in reproductive choices that may have an eighteen year consequence.
Debtors prison doesn't exist per se. However, the system does demand that people who can pay judgments for child support and everything else do so if they have the financial means to do so. If they refuse to cooperate in this process than they can end up in jail. The debtor's prison analogy is only appropriate for the parent who truly cannot pay because of something beyond his/her control.
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.
