full article
They expect the lawsuit to fail, but I can see their point. I am not sure I agree with it, but understand where they are coming from. What do you all think?
Child Support Stay
- Thread starter Ping898
- Start date
They expect the lawsuit to fail, but I can see their point. I am not sure I agree with it, but understand where they are coming from. What do you all think?
Considering the inequalities in the system, especially in NY, I think it most definately needs an overhaul. The whole thing is screwed up.
The responsibility to create takes 2. So should the responsibility to raise, but choices should be given in both cases, with the appropriate repercussions as well. If you choose not to support, then you lose all other rights as well. For some, this is no big deal. For others, they want their cake, but not the clean up duties. I don't know if the whole responsibility should be waived, but, there are cases where the pregnancy is not planned or expected by the father, but planned by the mother. (I know of one case where the mother lied about being on contraception in order to get pregnant so that she could "land her man". The situation was very ugly, ending in his mysterious death several years later.) I don't have a clear answer, but the system is unbalanced today.
The responsibility to create takes 2. So should the responsibility to raise, but choices should be given in both cases, with the appropriate repercussions as well. If you choose not to support, then you lose all other rights as well. For some, this is no big deal. For others, they want their cake, but not the clean up duties. I don't know if the whole responsibility should be waived, but, there are cases where the pregnancy is not planned or expected by the father, but planned by the mother. (I know of one case where the mother lied about being on contraception in order to get pregnant so that she could "land her man". The situation was very ugly, ending in his mysterious death several years later.) I don't have a clear answer, but the system is unbalanced today.
rutherford
Master Black Belt
I pay twice what the court ordered because I can afford to do so and because I want my children well cared for.
And I'm unconvinced that any type of arguement for equality between the sexes in matters of reproduction is in any way rational. It seems obvious that from the very beginning, the sexes are not equal and that to try to treat them so is boggling to my mind.
And I'm unconvinced that any type of arguement for equality between the sexes in matters of reproduction is in any way rational. It seems obvious that from the very beginning, the sexes are not equal and that to try to treat them so is boggling to my mind.
donald
Black Belt
I think that all involved should shoulder the responsibilities. I do not think that there should be any question of supporting a child you helped to be. It just amazes me. How attitudes have eroded in this nation. I think its a very simple concept. You don't wanna be a Mommy. You don't wanna be a Daddy. Then keep your clothe on!!!! I am gonna be a Papa(Grnddad)soon. Because my son decided that ignoring GOD's command to abstain from premarital sex, was just to difficult to obey. Now at 18, he has stepped into the very adult world of parenthood. He, and his "girlfriend" now have some very difficult life decisions to make. Most of which have to be left completely between them, and The Lord Jesus Christ. I want to shout at them,"what were you thinking", but what good would that do!? Whats done is done, and I pray that THEY allow The Lord Jesus to help them in the things that must be done. There are just so many ramifications to the act of sex. I hope that anyone reading this(especially yng.ppl.)take to heart the real life lesson here. If you play with fire even just once. There is the reality of getting burned, and maybe consumed.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
My job duties where I work in a financial institution include dealing with our clients who are delinquent in their child support payments. Basically, the Child Support Agencies step in and have to seize their assets in order to get them to pay their obligations. I see this kind of thing every single day, and it can be really pathetic, especially when it is a client who has a lot of assets. You wanna play? ok, you gotta pay. You help create a child, you must share in the financial responsibilities of raising that child. Some people really need to grow up.
bushidomartialarts
Senior Master
i'd be more inclined to support an argument moving towards equal consideration for custody of a child. abortion is its own argument and i don't want to get into it (see sd thread earlier this month). while i disagree with the idea that a father shouldn't have to support a child, i see their point -- chickenweasle, irresponsible point though it may be.
reproductive equality of the sexes is impossible. we're not reproductively equal. to think differently would be like trying to pass a law for bench press equality between men and women.
still, i'd like to see it become a little more likely that a responsible father would be given custody.
reproductive equality of the sexes is impossible. we're not reproductively equal. to think differently would be like trying to pass a law for bench press equality between men and women.
still, i'd like to see it become a little more likely that a responsible father would be given custody.
Kenpobldr
Orange Belt
rutherford said:
I agree, to an extent. You play, you should be responsible for the fall out.
However, I think the system is flawed.
2 cases:
1 - the father is $70k behind in payments. Told a judge in court that he couldn't make him pay as he works off the books. Told the mother that once she leaves he court shes dead. (In front of the judge mind you). Nothing was done to him.
2 - the father is $5k behind. Has his bank accounts seized, assets frozen. Among the seized assets was an account he was on with his disabled mother, whos bills he was paying for her. Support took it all, and she got screwed out of her social security money. Took a LOT of work getting him off the account so the state wouldn't steal her money again.
In NY, if a father seeking to do the right thing takes the mother to court in order to pay support and see his child, a mother can claim to have no idea who the father is, and the burden of proof and the funding of that is on the father. If a mother says "hes the daddy", the burden of proof and the costs associated with it is again, on the father. The testing is often done hurriedly, and sloppily, with a significant number of false positives.
I'm all for supporting a child you create.
I'm against the inequalities and defects in the system, and definitely against aiding those who see popping out a few extra kids as a way to save a relationship or gain easy money.
However, I think the system is flawed.
2 cases:
1 - the father is $70k behind in payments. Told a judge in court that he couldn't make him pay as he works off the books. Told the mother that once she leaves he court shes dead. (In front of the judge mind you). Nothing was done to him.
2 - the father is $5k behind. Has his bank accounts seized, assets frozen. Among the seized assets was an account he was on with his disabled mother, whos bills he was paying for her. Support took it all, and she got screwed out of her social security money. Took a LOT of work getting him off the account so the state wouldn't steal her money again.
In NY, if a father seeking to do the right thing takes the mother to court in order to pay support and see his child, a mother can claim to have no idea who the father is, and the burden of proof and the funding of that is on the father. If a mother says "hes the daddy", the burden of proof and the costs associated with it is again, on the father. The testing is often done hurriedly, and sloppily, with a significant number of false positives.
I'm all for supporting a child you create.
I'm against the inequalities and defects in the system, and definitely against aiding those who see popping out a few extra kids as a way to save a relationship or gain easy money.
As to custody....in NY, you have to be a complete hag to lose it, and the father a certified prince to gain it.
You want visitation? Get a lawyer.
You want custody? Win the lottery and get a lawyer.
She gets one for free. You get to pay for one.
You want visitation? Get a lawyer.
You want custody? Win the lottery and get a lawyer.
She gets one for free. You get to pay for one.
Flying Crane
Sr. Grandmaster
Bob Hubbard said:
Sure, things need to be fair and reasonable. But I think an attempt to allow the father a way to opt-out of financial support is going to fall on its face.
It will, and it should. But, if they can use the case to bring the other issues to light, then they have my support.
Edmund BlackAdder
<B>Rabid Wolverine</B>
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2005
- Messages
- 405
- Reaction score
- 29
Sounds like a bit of a mess.Bob Hubbard said:
rutherford
Master Black Belt
Bob Hubbard said:
Sounds like the IRS should take a look into his finances.
Last I heard, he's currently serving some "quality time" for a completely unrelated matter...thankfully. He won't be coming out for a while considering the age of his victim. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy. I just with the judge in his support case could have actually done his job. But, thats Erie County.
First - human biology makes men and women unequal.
Second - you shouldn't take anyone's word about whether or not a gun is loaded; likewise, if you don't want to engender a child, take appropriate precautions, no matter what your partner says - this goes for both men and women.
Third - if you don't take appropriate precautions because the other person assures you pregnancy is not possible, that is your own fault, and you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. Doctors, like meteorologists, do the best they can, but they are fallible. I used to know a woman who had a child by a man who was certified to be medically sterile due to mumps contracted as an adult, so she took no precautions; I knew another woman who was certified sterile by her doctor, so she took no precautions - not even after she got pregnant the first time (she eventually had 3 kids, despite the doctor's diagnosis).
Second - you shouldn't take anyone's word about whether or not a gun is loaded; likewise, if you don't want to engender a child, take appropriate precautions, no matter what your partner says - this goes for both men and women.
Third - if you don't take appropriate precautions because the other person assures you pregnancy is not possible, that is your own fault, and you are responsible for the consequences of your actions. Doctors, like meteorologists, do the best they can, but they are fallible. I used to know a woman who had a child by a man who was certified to be medically sterile due to mumps contracted as an adult, so she took no precautions; I knew another woman who was certified sterile by her doctor, so she took no precautions - not even after she got pregnant the first time (she eventually had 3 kids, despite the doctor's diagnosis).
Thats a good point, but "precautions" are also fallable. There is no real 100% effective precaution for sex. If you have sex you have the risk, however large or small is a different issue.
The problem is the one sided viewpoints. We all say a man shoudn't be able to "opt out" of his responsibilities, yet the legal system in most states will allow a women to "opt out" (by adoption or abortion) without the true concent of the father. So its bad for the man to have the option, but its cool for the woman to have the option? I have known many cases where the woman "opted out" of her responsibility and thus forced the father to "opt out" of the responsibility he actually wanted.
Bottom line is its an unfair system that needs re-working......I just dont want to be the one to do it
7sm
The problem is the one sided viewpoints. We all say a man shoudn't be able to "opt out" of his responsibilities, yet the legal system in most states will allow a women to "opt out" (by adoption or abortion) without the true concent of the father. So its bad for the man to have the option, but its cool for the woman to have the option? I have known many cases where the woman "opted out" of her responsibility and thus forced the father to "opt out" of the responsibility he actually wanted.
Bottom line is its an unfair system that needs re-working......I just dont want to be the one to do it
7sm
OP
- Thread Starter
- #17
One thing I am wondering, is it the woman decides to give up the baby, but the father takes it instead, does the woman then have to pay child support to the guy?
7starmantis said:
I think the above is a good point.
Abortion is legal now. Some of us would never, ever choose it for something we had a hand in creating. But that is a choice and we should live with it.
So what about the other side that does not feel the same way? Under the system now, if protection fails and the woman gets pregnant- she is the only one with the choice- but I have responsibilities. The man can't make her get an abortion or prevent her from having one. Yet he must pay.
If the woman makes the choice- and only she can make that choice, then I don't see how someone can be legally forced to be responsible for that choice.
Personally, I don't have the problem due to my keeping things inside my marriage. That is the way I think and reflects my upbringing. But I don't want to force my beleifs like that on others.
I think the system needs a major overhall. We need to level the playing feild between men and woman so that they have equal rights and protections under the law. An example of this is the reformation of child support. This should be determined by the amount of time the child spends with either parent. If the child is with both parents exactly 50% of the time, why should child support payments be needed at all?
Think about the incentive that changing the rules to THAT would have? Fathers (and some Mothers) would have no financial obligation if they shared custody 50/50...and that, IMO, wouldn't that be ideal for the child...and best for everyone involved?
Excusing fathers from child support is rediculous. It will never pass because it makes no sense. However, I think that the fact that so many fathers are pushing for this is a measure of just how powerless men have become in the system. If the playing field were leveled and both sexes had equal rights and protections under the law and were encouraged to spend equal time with the child, something like this would never even see the light of day.
Think about the incentive that changing the rules to THAT would have? Fathers (and some Mothers) would have no financial obligation if they shared custody 50/50...and that, IMO, wouldn't that be ideal for the child...and best for everyone involved?
Excusing fathers from child support is rediculous. It will never pass because it makes no sense. However, I think that the fact that so many fathers are pushing for this is a measure of just how powerless men have become in the system. If the playing field were leveled and both sexes had equal rights and protections under the law and were encouraged to spend equal time with the child, something like this would never even see the light of day.
I agree - but in cases such as the one listed in the original question, the man opted out of his responsibility to prevent the conception of a child he did not want. Had this child been conceived due to contraceptive failure (a hole in the condom, for example) that would, in my opinion, be a different issue than the child that now exists because he took the woman's word that she couldn't have children and took no precautions of his own.7starmantis said:
I do think that men should have more options - but the biological fact remains that men don't get pregnant, and while I agree that fathers who want their child(ren) should have the option to get custody, I also have a concern about forcing a woman to complete an unwanted pregnancy in such cases. There is not a clean, clear-cut answer to this issue - but ongoing debate is better than silence, even if the debate is uncomfortable.
Ping898 said:
This is a valid and important question that reflects ongoing changes in society. In English Canon Law, guardianship of children went to the father, to safeguard the ownership of land; it was in the 1830's that a legal change allowed the mother to become guardian if the father died - and then only to safeguard the child to an age at which control over inherited property could be passed to the child's control. Since the father had control over the family finances, only he had the resources to support the child(ren); only in cases where the father died was guardianship of the child(ren) given to the mother, and even then, the control of property was generally given to a male member of the father's family, if one existed. This didn't change until the 20th century, when there was a shift from guarding the child as a means of protecting family inheritance to concern for the child. This shift occurred during a time when women with children did not work - therefore, the father had to provide support for the child(ren), as the mother could not. As more women with children entered the work force, this support shifted to being proportional, based on each parent's income - but still, men were generally better paid than women, and therefore men paid the larger share of the child's upkeep. The shift from the father automatically getting custody for financial reasons to the mother automatically getting custody for emotional reasons happened fairly quickly in a historical sense; the recognition that a child needs both parents has been causing the pendulum to swing back. This has gradually been shifting to the father losing access to the child if he doesn't pay upkeep. Ultimately, it would make sense that the parent who has the greater income would contribute the greatest amount to the child's upkeep - but we're not there yet.
