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.
Basically, my question here is this: If a child's custodial parent refuses to seek child support from this child's non-custodial parent, then should this child (as in, once this child himself/herself becomes an adult) be able to go to court, demand 18+ years of child support from his/her non-custodial parent, and always win?
Indeed, if child support is genuinely the right of the child (which is something that I disagree with, but I have heard other people make this claim), then children should certainly be able to do this once they themselves become adults.
Anyway, any thoughts on this?
Indeed, I am certainly curious as to exactly how many of the people here who say that "child support is about the child" genuinely believe this statement of theirs.
Last edited by Jeo123; 03-22-2016 at 10:04 AM..
Reason: Merged
Child support is for the support of the child while he/she is growing up. In most states, unless it has been extended through written/verbal agreement or by court order, it is paid until the child is 18 and graduates high school. The intent of child support is to help the custodial parent pay for food, clothing, rent, etc. It's not payment for not being in that child's life by the non custodian. Yes, the money is for the child, to raise the child and should not be used by the custodial parent to fund expensive vacations or clothing for that parent while the child goes without. No, the money is not something the adult child is owed if the custodial parent either didn't go after it or the non custodial parent didn't pay it. The weird thing is, this isn't the first time I have seen that question.
Child support is for the support of the child while he/she is growing up. In most states, unless it has been extended through written/verbal agreement or by court order, it is paid until the child is 18 and graduates high school. The intent of child support is to help the custodial parent pay for food, clothing, rent, etc. It's not payment for not being in that child's life by the non custodian. Yes, the money is for the child, to raise the child and should not be used by the custodial parent to fund expensive vacations or clothing for that parent while the child goes without. No, the money is not something the adult child is owed if the custodial parent either didn't go after it or the non custodial parent didn't pay it. The weird thing is, this isn't the first time I have seen that question.
If child support is genuinely for the child, though, then wouldn't it make sense to allow former children to go to court in adulthood, demand 18 years of child support from their non-custodial parents, and always win, though?
After all, without this option, a child's parents can choose to screw over this child even if this child himself/herself opposes being screwed over.
Basically, this is an issue which is very important to me on a personal level due to the fact that, unlike cis-women in areas with access to safe abortion, I myself literally need to get surgically castrated in order to ensure that I will never be forced to pay any child support to an unwanted child of mine.
Thus, I have decided to share my own thoughts on child support. Indeed, these thoughts of mine were developed after a lot of thought and reflection:
(Before I say anything else, I would like to previously point out that I asked about the difference between causing someone to exist in the first place and extending someone's existence. Since some people have previously told me that there *is* a *relevant* difference between these two things, I have decided to *no longer* make this comparison.)
First of all, as far as I know, we generally use harm, negligence, and/or illegal activity to impose *involuntary* obligations (as in, *involuntary* obligations *to other specific people*; thus, taxes certainly don't count for this) on people. (Indeed, can anyone here name any cases other than child support where involuntary obligations (as in, *towards another specific person/other specific people*) are imposed on people? Completely serious question, for the record.) Since causing someone to exist isn't a harm and since having consensual sex is neither negligent nor illegal, I don't see any argument in favor of forcing people to pay child support for children whom they never wanted in the event that a sufficiently large unconditional basic income will be developed (and assuming that these parents are willing to give up all of their parental rights to these children of theirs). Meanwhile, in the absence of an unconditional basic income, I can certainly see a case in favor of having the state yank out the same amount of money (but *no more*) from non-custodial parents that custodial parents previously got in the form of welfare. Thus, if a child's custodial parent got $5,000 in the form of welfare during the 18 years of her child's childhood, then the state should only go after the child's non-custodial parent for $5,000 *and not* a penny more.
Now, there are two objections that I can imagine to my argument here:
1. One can say that causing a child to exist *is* a harm in certain cases in the sense that a child would prefer to never have existed at all than to exist. In response to this objection, I would like to say that the same can be true of some children who are given up for adoption (such as if these children have some sort of incurable disease). Thus, *unless* children who were given up for adoption *and* who prefer non-existence to existence should also be eligible to receive financial support from their birth parents, this argument and objection appears to be invalid.
2. One can argue that one should have an obligation to pay financial support to someone purely based on your genetic relationship to this person. Meanwhile, my response to this objection is that this argument and objection can likewise be used to justify forcing rape victims to pay child support, forcing adult siblings to pay child support to their minor siblings in the event of one deceased parent, forcing sperm donors to pay child support, and forcing me to pay child support to a (hypothetical) clone baby of mine if someone will (hypothetically) steal my DNA and create a clone baby using this DNA of mine. Thus, unless you likewise support all of these other things, this argument and objection of yours appears to be invalid.
Now, since we addressed this issue from the *child's* perspective, let's address this issue from the *woman's* perspective:
One can argue that child support is for the *woman* rather than for the *child.* (For instance, someone on the City-Data forum told me earlier today that if the state hunts down a non-custodial parent for past child support after the child in question becomes an adult, then this child support still goes to this child's custodial parent rather than to this child himself/herself.) While this might be an unorthodox argument (and an argument which I myself have *never* heard until today), I actually *do* think that this argument might have some merit to it. To elaborate on this:
One can argue that a man impregnating a woman initiates a series of events which result in harm for this woman. After all, pregnancy can be considered a harm, childbirth can be considered a harm, and raising a child is a harm in the sense that it causes one to lose money on raising this child. (Also, I am operating under the assumption that refusing to give a child up for adoption is *not* a novus actus interveniens (in the chain of causation) and that raising a child *isn't* "too remote" from sex. Meanwhile, if one *doesn't* share one or both of these assumptions, then one appears to have *absolutely no* case in regards to this.)
Frankly, this argument might actually be convincing *if* one consistently applies this argument. To elaborate on this, if one accepts this argument in regards to child support, then one must likewise accept this argument when it comes to forcing men to pay financial compensation to women for pregnancy and childbirth. Likewise, if one accepts this argument in regards to child support, then one must likewise accept this argument in favor of forcing me to pay financial compensation to my friend if the two of us will have a sword-fighting contest (without any protection, of course) and if I will accidentally severely injure my friend with my sword during this sword-fighting contest.
Now, one can argue that the person who was (purely hypothetically) injured in a sword-fighting contest knew the risks and dangers of this before engaging in this sword-fighting contest and thus shouldn't be allowed to receive any financial compensation from you for this injury of his. Likewise, one can argue that women knew about the risks of pregnancy and childbirth when they had consensual sex with men and that thus women shouldn't be allowed to receive any financial compensation from men for pregnancy and childbirth. However, if one accepts this argument in regards to both of these cases, then one must likewise accept this argument in regards to child support. After all, women certainly knew that raising a child would cost a lot of money before they had sex with men. Thus, by this logic, women shouldn't be able to acquire any child support from men.
Anyway, my point here is that if one opposes giving people (of *either gender*) a *unilateral* opt-out from paying child support, then one must likewise embrace certain other positions (indeed, possibly certain other unpleasant positions) in other to be logically consistent in regards to this.
Anyway, does anyone here have any thoughts, comments, criticism, and/or objections in regards to anything that I wrote in this post of mine? If so, then please don't be afraid to speak up! After all, believe it or not, but I certainly try extremely hard to be as intellectually honest as I can be. (Indeed, intellectual honesty is certainly an extremely good thing. )
Child support is for RAISING the child. Not for the child to spend as an adult. If you're 18, you're done being raised, and you're no longer a child. No more need for the money.
I think the problem with the pregnancy-->harm argument you're trying to make vs. child support, is that raising kids is expensive and not a one time event. It's a minimum 18 years, and of course for most parents it's a relationship that lasts a lifetime. So child support isn't ordered as a punishment, it's recognition that raising a new human reasonably well requires some funds. Typically, the first people that ought to pay for that new human are the 2 existing humans whose DNA combined to create the new one. I could imagine some sort of contract to get out of this arrangement becoming a legal alternative in the future. But until then, who do you propose pays the new human's way? Did I miss that part of your post?
The problem with your "shared DNA" rebuttal is that all of those situations you named are 1) already covered by existing statutes (i.e. contracts that sperm donors relinquish rights and responsibilities of any genetic offspring, etc) 2) Do not involve the creation of a new human (i.e. older siblings are not legally responsible for younger ones unless granted custody or guardianship 3) Involve nonconsensual sex (i.e. I agree that stealing DNA should result in child support. And of course there's rape. Although there are probably many rapists that are paying child support, and those who've been convicted and are serving time in prison probably should be compelled to provide funds in some way (like to a state fund to offset "deadbeat dads" instead of to the child/mother)
I think the problem with the pregnancy-->harm argument you're trying to make vs. child support, is that raising kids is expensive and not a one time event. It's a minimum 18 years, and of course for most parents it's a relationship that lasts a lifetime. So child support isn't ordered as a punishment, it's recognition that raising a new human reasonably well requires some funds. Typically, the first people that ought to pay for that new human are the 2 existing humans whose DNA combined to create the new one. I could imagine some sort of contract to get out of this arrangement becoming a legal alternative in the future. But until then, who do you propose pays the new human's way? Did I miss that part of your post?
Yes, you do appear to have missed a part of my post here.
Indeed, what I am advocating here is this--if one parent has enough money to take care of their child by himself/herself, then they shouldn't be able to acquire any child support from their child's non-custodial parent if their child's non-custodial parent wants to give up all of his or her parental rights to this child of theirs. (Also, for the record, I think that people should automatically be able to give up all of their parental rights.)
Now, if a child's custodial parent is too poor to financially support a child by himself/herself and goes on welfare, then I think that the state should be able to retrieve the exact same amount of money (and not a penny more) that this custodial parent acquired in the form of welfare from this man's non-custodial parent. Thus, if Susan is the custodial parent and extracts a total of $5,000 from welfare during her child's childhood, then the state should only go after Bob (the non-custodial parent) for $5,000 and not a penny more.
Also, though, I certainly strongly hope that the creation of a sufficiently large unconditional basic income will eliminate the issue of welfare altogether.
Quote:
The problem with your "shared DNA" rebuttal is that all of those situations you named are 1) already covered by existing statutes (i.e. contracts that sperm donors relinquish rights and responsibilities of any genetic offspring, etc)
These statues can be repealed, no?
Quote:
2) Do not involve the creation of a new human (i.e. older siblings are not legally responsible for younger ones unless granted custody or guardianship
Yes, but then you wouldn't be using the genetic argument in the first place, now would you?
Quote:
3) Involve nonconsensual sex (i.e. I agree that stealing DNA should result in child support. And of course there's rape. Although there are probably many rapists that are paying child support, and those who've been convicted and are serving time in prison probably should be compelled to provide funds in some way (like to a state fund to offset "deadbeat dads" instead of to the child/mother)
Yes, but then you wouldn't be using the genetic argument in the first place, now would you?
Also, though, do you honestly think that stealing DNA should result in child support?
VASECTOMY is an easy, permanent solution to not impregnating a woman, though either of you could still pass on an STD to the other.
I guess that you have never heard of re-canalization, eh?
Quote:
Or thick condoms. Or double condoms.
But if you let the goop loose, pay up!
Condoms can fail even with consistently perfect use, though.
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.
My own thoughts on child support
After all, believe it or not, but I certainly try extremely hard to be as intellectually honest as I can be. 
)