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 thousands of people tell mothers to stop having kids, are they going to pay attention, or is it just going to sound like a din to them? Maybe they'll have more kids, to express their annoyance at the din.
I have two kids why a huge age gap between them. I certainly did not have kids to lower my tax liability or qualify for assistance. And I would not have another for all the money in china.
Sometimes the issue is with the jurisdiction you're in. Some places are better about punishing non-supporting parents than others. My mother used to work for a county judge who'd put non-custodial parents in the county lock-up the minute he got done listening to their spiels about why they couldn't pay the ordered support. My Mom used to laugh that 90% of the time, the deadbeat's MOTHER would show up and write a check for what was necessary to get her baby out of jail.
I don't get the idea that men should pay ridiculous amounts of money in child support. A couple hundred a month is about the max a woman should need for clothes and food. I have children, so I know how much it costs. Men shouldn't be responsible for paying your rent. If you can't pay your bills let the father have custody.
The mother could live in a one-bedroom apartment if she didn't have kids. Of course the non-custodial parent needs to provide for shelter AS WELL AS food and clothes. Cough something up for education and medical expenses, too. You say you know how much it costs to have children, but it doesn't sound like it if you think food and clothes is all that is necessary to raise a child.
Lol guess my point was proven. People will post about their hatred of welfare for 30 pages, but don't get angry about child support deadbeats.
Two different issues. Child support comes from the child parents, while the Welfare funds come from tax payers. Besides that, there are times when the parent who's supposed to be paying for child support may not be able to do so. For example, unemployed, or in prison, or incapacitated, ill, handicap, for whatever reason unable to work, dead, and so on.
Two different issues. Child support comes from the child parents, while the Welfare funds come from tax payers. Besides that, there are times when the parent who's supposed to be paying for child support may not be able to do so. For example, unemployed, or in prison, or incapacitated, ill, handicap, for whatever reason unable to work, dead, and so on.
Yeah but if low income single moms can't collect child support, they qualify for welfare.
I personally feel that if a female gets pregnant outside of wedlock, that's her own problem. The majority of the time, he isn't going to stick around.
IT'S YOUR BODY, YOUR CHOICE! Use your brain and wake up! Take personal responsibility for your actions.
I'm tired of the shoddy excuses:
-He promised/agreed to
-We were in love
-We were going to get married
-He pressured me
-I forgot birth control
-I really wanted to be a mom
Why is it that everyone gets fired up about single moms collecting welfare or government assistance, but no one gets fired up when the same mom can't collect child support?
We seem to be directing our anger at the wrong issue. I am a firm believer that if they fix the child support system we will see great improvement in the welfare system.
Why do they not do more to collect support from dead beats? Why are the tax payers not pushing for child support enforcement to collect these bad debts?
The problem with child support is that judges can easily award money but as I pointed out in an earlier post (link) the judge is not writing the check. The party seeking the divorce should be made to understand that collection rather than award is the true battle. Part of the problem is that many "fathers" are 16 year old, urban, hormone-crazed teens who often wind up in jail for other reasons. They may easily father multiple children. This environment lacks recreational opportunities or other opportunities for constructive engagement,
There are problems though even when a traditional marriage ends. I personally am a happily married attorney but there are two main reasons I see:
That the legislatures and judges set support awards (including both child support and maintenance) at wild and unaffordable levels; and
That the custodial parents freeze out the non-custodial parent.
Awards - Judges set awards according the the perceived needs of the child and the wife. Even though the husband's income is supposed to be considered, the husband is often regarded as minimizing income to minimize mandated payments. While there may be some truth to this, the problem is that the divorce adds to living expenses since two households now must be maintained. That immediately reduces how far the respective incomes go. Judges will say (and I have heard them say) that they consider it their "moral duty" to feed the wives and kids. The problem is that the judge is not printing the money.
Non-custodial freezeout - This is self-explanatory. Either the child is not made available for visits, or is said to be "sick" or the custodial parent schedules other obligations in the middle of the visitation period to break it up and make it difficult for the non-custodial parent. Eventually the non-custodial parent throws up his or her hands.
My overall analysis - There is no question that "back in the day" divorce was too hard to get. The parties needed "grounds" that were sometimes hard to prove. And judges didn't like to determine whether there was really adultery, or withholding of "marital relations," or cruelty. So the concept of "no fault" divorce was created. Fine, as far as it goes.
Join that with wanting to empower women, and you wind up with a lethal mixture where no one has an incentive for marriage to work. The woman just reads the law and "learns" that the judge will "give" her x-amount for maintenance. And better yet the child support checks will be written to her so the child perceives the mother to have real economic power. Sounds good, particularly if there is friction.
The problem of course is that the husband may well be unable to finance those payments, particularly with now having to maintain two sets of household payments. And since there will be friction over seeing the children, and over control, the husband may be unwilling to make all of the payments.
My view is that the law must create a balance, where there is some incentive to make the marriage work. My wife and I have a pretty good marriage. One of us comes from a divorced family, and the other comes from one where the marriages were a definite mixed bag. Marriage, and relationships, take work. It should not be "easy come, easy go, here's the check" since the check may not be there, and the children, caught in the middle, are faced with instability at best, impoverishment at worst.
And to return to my first example, none of this is a factor where the father is both utterly impecunious, and absent.
I don't get the idea that men should pay ridiculous amounts of money in child support. A couple hundred a month is about the max a woman should need for clothes and food. I have children, so I know how much it costs. Men shouldn't be responsible for paying your rent. If you can't pay your bills let the father have custody.
So if the wife never worked because they both agreed that they wanted their kids raised by a stay at home mom, she just has to give up custody because she's not prepared to earn enough to take over the mortgage if he leaves?? And the kids who spent all day with mom are now thrust into day care or spending their lives in some tiny apartment because they BOTH decided as a couple that she wouldn't work and now he wants to go off with his 19 year old intern?
Yeah but if low income single moms can't collect child support, they qualify for welfare.
Maybe, maybe not - I'd say there's usually a gap between what you'd collect as child support versus the quite low standard in order to get welfare - so quite a big "donut hole" where life would be more difficult than need be if the ex didn't pay what was owed.
Maybe, maybe not - I'd say there's usually a gap between what you'd collect as child support versus the quite low standard in order to get welfare - so quite a big "donut hole" where life would be more difficult than need be if the ex didn't pay what was owed.
Ok let me rephrase. I qualify for food stamps when my ex does not pay the court ordered child support.
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.
