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.
In fact, he's so intensely concerned that he seems to keep U.S time while posting.
Now THAT'S committed to a cause.
You seem to have a grudge against me. Is it because first you quoted me you just assumed I had certain opinions without any evidence, and you were caught.
And just like now instead of making proper responses you sink down to personal attacks.
If you ever marry a man who has ever screwed a woman, you can essentially be forced to pay child support for whatever child was produced, just like this woman was. Even if he honestly tells you he doesn't have any kids, child support can happen, because maybe he doesn't know of a child he fathered.
I guess your prospects are now limited to gay guys, or both 40 year old virgins still available.
Welcome to Family Law, USA, 2013. But its for the children, you know.
It does scare me but to be honest I think most men know if there is a possibility they have kids (or would hope). Fortunately I don't think this is common but yep it is horrifying and I believe that there should be a statue of limitations to prevent this from happening.
So women have no responsibility in becoming pregnant?
Women absolutely do. A man can only control his actions though in situations like that.
I suspect in the majority of cases where these situations occur, where a woman gets pregnant by a man and there isn't further contact between them to know about the pregnancy, it was a casual hookup.
Why would you as a man assume that a woman you barely knew was 100% responsible in her role in preventing pregnancy? If you are going to have sex with someone you don't know very well, why wouldn't you use a condom?
It does scare me but to be honest I think most men know if there is a possibility they have kids (or would hope). Fortunately I don't think this is common but yep it is horrifying and I believe that there should be a statue of limitations to prevent this from happening.
Many states do have rules around this. For example in California, you can't start accruing back child support until a judge has ordered child support be paid.
Colorado is just so completely outside of reality, that things like this happen here.
Here's my answer. When all the costs costs are included, it won't attribute to an estimated 1000$/month median costs to raise a child. Remember, this cost also includes a decent portion of mothers with joint/shared custody, but with other parent still paying (although smaller) child support - so the median costs were cnoservatively estimated at 1,000$ - other parent is sharing some time with them in many cases. I'm arguing that an average child costs are NOT 1000$ per month.Bold again. Not when everything is calculated in. Please do note that parent with primary residence also usually numerous SUPPORT from state in various programs, and that taxes are a bit lower, that the costs for insurance/medical costs are covered by the OTHER parent generally, and if it's not then that other parent needs to pay even more money.
Rest of your story is offtopic just like the story of child support. My argument is that child support is another form of alimony earnings because mother not only gets sole emotional fulfillment for being with her child, she also gets better share in economical aspect by staying with the child than leaving it to the father. if you think this isn't the case then just imagine - mother generally has "the first pick" regarding child custody and you've never heard of mothers saying your "average Jane" to give away child custody because it was an economical burden to her. Just let all the other women imagine the alternative - an average divorced mother should be paying an equivalent of ~450$/month (80% of median's pay, right?) to the custodial father, which is supposedly her half of the bargain, or an equivalent share in costs. This excudes security/insurance costs such as childcare costs or insurance coverage.
I need to make it bold again - child's expenses aren't even near 1,000$/month per child for an average household.
And some truth needs to be said: most parents aren't single (or "independent") either - they usually have their unmarried spouses or their married spouses, or they burden their relatives, usually their parents or their unmarried siblings to babysit their children or to help them out. Other than that, many of single parents are also recipients of one of numerous state programs. This is especially the case for single mothers.
When it comes to alimony to spouses, or so-called "spousal support", main deal with it is that the spouse needs to "maintain the lifestyle" rather than have the payment as a "rehabilitation period", this is how it goes in many states. Some states made exceptions and this changed things a lot. However, regardless of how illogical or backwards most of alimony laws are, opposition to change them is very strong in both political parties and in most relevant organizations. It's mostly individuals inside of politics and inside of various groups who fight for the change - all relevant and influential organizations who might have helped to solve the problem within a week are generally NOT seeing any interest to do it, but they see interest in keeping things as they are. Unlike what ColoradoAlimony says, I think that Colorado's alimony laws are a step forward in terms of ending the "ambiguous" ways of interpreting the law once the clear formulas and rules are set. However, alimony seems to be crazy with the formula which will effetively make it so that a non-working spouse can receive more payments in alimony than the spouse who earns that alimony. It makes no sense given that alimony laws are generally so lame in a way with the "maintenance" thing. It is rather an ENTITLEMENT instead of being "rehabilitation" in so many states. Other person can literally start earning more than the person who pays alimony, but the alimony payer needs to continue paying alimony... and there is a silly clause about "remarriage" - which proves how outdated it is.
It is clear that you have no real life experience with these issues, other than what you have "heard."
What support from state programs are you talking about that are available to someone simply because they are a divorced parent with children.
That's fine. I've heard enough for 2 lifetimes, too.
What irritates me is people spouting off opinions based on a whole lot of speculation, conjecture, anger, or sexism when they have barely managed a long-term relationship, if at all, never mind marriage. I get the sense that more than a few of the guys here who natter on about "I'll never marry" or "marriage is bad for men" have little to no experience with women themselves beyond perhaps meaningless hook-ups with drunks in clubs, and wouldn't know what love was if it came up to them and slapped the taste out of their mouths. It just sounds like overcompensation for a whole lot of fear, or maybe sour grapes.
Do you have to experience Heroin or Krocadil to know that it could screw up the rest of your life?
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.
