Father's Rights (Children)

[Chaldanya]

Not for nothing but what if all of that money for the child support genuinely needs to go on food or rent so the child has somewhere to live. How's that gonna work out in your scheme?

N

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Thor, by the time she is pregnant it is only one person though. ONLY the woman has the choice to birth or to abort; ONLY she should pay for the consequences of her acts to birth a child, if that man never wanted one to begin with.

The way things stand are, the man is quite irrelevant except for his wallet, which is patently unfair to the man in question.

WHAT A HYPOCRITE! How many times did you say a woman who was RAPED should be forced to have her baby, whether she wanted it or not? But a man to dumb/lazy/arrogant to put on a condom should be able to opt out?

[Tinydigit]

Not for nothing but what if all of that money for the child support genuinely needs to go on food or rent so the child has somewhere to live. How's that gonna work out in your scheme?

N

Then you either write it that way in the contract or modify it to adjust to major life changes. But the mother should have to provide financial statements saying that she needs every penny to afford a good standard of living. My numbers were an example. Clearly these legally-enforced decisions can be modified voluntarily through consent of both parties, or by the same judicial system that designated the amount of money to be paid in the first place.

So no, just because you and your new fiancé are planning on trying to get pregnant soon, you can’t spend all of your ex-husband/baby daddy’s money on a four bedroom house just yet. His concern is to adequately provide for the product of their intercourse, not provide for another man's castle or an unjustifiably extravagant lifestyle.

Can we afford to allow the pursuit of perfect to stand in the way of the good? Think of the childrenz!

[Liadin]

Tinydigit, reading that story I wonder why your father didn't just open the bank account himself. Instead of giving the mother money and requiring it to be saved for the child, why not have fathers just save money for the child? In the instance that living expenses are already being met, of course.

[Lyanna Stark]

Tinydigit,

I am sorry you had a rough time growing up. What your father could have done is to have put the excess money into a special savings account which you could have used when you wanted to go to college. Obviously he trusted your mother to do right by you, which seems to have been misplaced.

However, this doesn't change the original premise that the child support should belong to the child. I support that this be looked into more and that it's really shown to be used for the child's benefit.

[Sariel]

I don't think stricter demands for accountability in regards to how one spends money received as child support is unreasonable.

I guess one could make it so that there's no automatic requirement but that the parent without custody should have to right to request documentation.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Who says I believe in Right#2? I can see instances where a man would have custody, and the WOMAN should not be obliged to pay a dime.

Do you live in the 1950's or something?

Of course the woman should have to pay if the father has custoday. There are plenty of woman who make more money than their husbands/baby-daddies. The expense of a child should be shared by both parents. (it is how state mandated child support works in MD) Even in a 50/50 custody split with my husband, I would have had to pay him child support when I made twice his income.

[Tinydigit]

Tinydigit, reading that story I wonder why your father didn't just open the bank account himself. Instead of giving the mother money and requiring it to be saved for the child, why not have fathers just save money for the child? In the instance that living expenses are already being met, of course.

It was a financial win for him. He was legally obligated to pay a certain amount and it was cheaper for him to voluntarily offer to pay an additional $500 a month in “child support” rather than have her go back to the court and risk them mandating an additional $1500 a month because his salary and bonuses resulted in $250,000 more than what he made the last time they did their calculations based on salary. He is a cheap fuck when it comes to me and she was selfish/dumb enough to take his lowball offer.

[Seventh Pup]

I think people are confusing pregnancy with children.

As a woman, because a pregnancy would completely to take over my body, I have the right say what happens to my body as long as whats inside is not able to be viable outside of it. It's my body. As a man you don't have the risk of pregnancy you have the risk of children. Because pregnancy does not take over your body you don't get to abort.

To put it another way when I have sex as a woman (with a man) I know I have the risk of pregnancy AND children. As a man you know if you have sex have the risk of children but not of pregnancy. Because pregnancy is not something you have to go through it's not something you get to control once you've planted your flag.

Also for people who trivialize hormonal birth control it can be a bit of a gauntlet. It can make you gain weight, have quite frankly frightening mood swings (I didn't know why I couldn't stop crying), kill your libido, you are risk for stroke and a host of other nasty things.

On top of that it's not 100%, & it is easy to make an honest mistake. (I'm pretty religious about it and even I had a OH FUCK moment a few months ago where I realized I'd forgot to restart after my week off. It was scary as shit and I have never been so relived to see Aunt Flo). Even if a lady says she's on the pill THERE IS STILL A KNOWN RISK OF CHILDREN. If you (a generic man) can't accept that wear a condom, or abstain from sex. But by participating in sex (with a premenopausal woman) you are knowingly exposing yourself to at least a limited risk of children. You may be exposing yourself to much greater risk if your lady is lying to you or supper careless about her BC. (I've had friends who can't remember to take it for anything. Who don't want children and who are not doing it to trap somebody.) But you are accepting the risk of children by forgoing control use of a barrier method and having unprotected sex.

It's like if I knew I was having sex with someone who was HIV positive I would know there is a risk of me contracting the virus no matter how small. In this analogy simply having sex with a woman means you know there is a risk however small that CHILDREN might happen.

Parental Custody and Child Support is a whole different thing, and where Father's Rights should come into play. A father should, all things being equal be considered an equal parent in custody disputes. Often they face an up hill battle in court and that is not fair. My father would have made a wonderful primary provider for my sister and I. (Though my mom also made an amazing primary provider and I am not belittling her by saying that of him.)

[Tinydigit]

Tinydigit,

I am sorry you had a rough time growing up. What your father could have done is to have put the excess money into a special savings account which you could have used when you wanted to go to college. Obviously he trusted your mother to do right by you, which seems to have been misplaced.

However, this doesn't change the original premise that the child support should belong to the child. I support that this be looked into more and that it's really shown to be used for the child's benefit.

I agree completely – my idea for a contract is to encourage more responsible spending of child support money.

I think it will also encourage fathers to pay because quite often, in my experience, the father attempting to duck that obligation is doing it because he resents how he perceives the money being spent by the mother and not because it will be an intolerable financial burden. You can use the power of information and the feeling of at least having some control over where the money is going to incentivize it and reduce the rates of men not paying child support.

[Tempra]

I agree completely – my idea for a contract is to encourage more responsible spending of child support money.

I think it will also encourage fathers to pay because quite often, in my experience, the father attempting to duck that obligation is doing it because he resents how he perceives the money being spent by the mother and not because it will be an intolerable financial burden. You can use the power of information and the feeling of at least having some control over where the money is going to incentivize it and reduce the rates of men not paying child support.

Courts do not want to scrutinize where child support payments are going anymore than they already need to. One solution is to set the limit of child support on the amount of money necessary for the child to live just above the poverty line. Child support cannot exceed that amount, but can be adjusted downwards if it would create a financial hardship. Of course, a parent could pay more, but not by court order.

[Seventh Pup]

Courts do not want to scrutinize where child support payments are going anymore than they already need to. One solution is to set the limit of child support on the amount of money necessary for the child to live just above the poverty line. Child support cannot exceed that amount, but can be adjusted downwards if it would create a financial hardship. Of course, a parent could pay more, but not by court order.

A parent who makes over $250,000 a year should have a child that is "just over the poverty line."

No way. A child should have the right a lifestyle within their parents income. If you are making good money your child quality of life should reflect that.

[Mlle. Zabzie]

Courts do not want to scrutinize where child support payments are going anymore than they already need to. One solution is to set the limit of child support on the amount of money necessary for the child to live just above the poverty line. Child support cannot exceed that amount, but can be adjusted downwards if it would create a financial hardship. Of course, a parent could pay more, but not by court order.

Because what we need is a bunch of children living right above the poverty level. So, in your system, if the mother was employed with a job that would allow her and the child to live above the poverty level, does the father not have to pay child support?

[Tinydigit]

Courts do not want to scrutinize where child support payments are going anymore than they already need to. One solution is to set the limit of child support on the amount of money necessary for the child to live just above the poverty line. Child support cannot exceed that amount, but can be adjusted downwards if it would create a financial hardship. Of course, a parent could pay more, but not by court order.

In Michigan (at least when I was a minor) the amount of money owed was determined by two things: the cost of living in that zip code and income differential between both parents. If the mother makes more money than the father, he will still pay, but it will be something in the order of $150 a month. If the father makes $250,000 a year and she and her new husband make $70,000 combined, she is more likely to get something in the range of $800-1200 a month.

[Tempra]

A parent who makes over $250,000 a year should have a child that is "just over the poverty line."

No way. A child should have the right a lifestyle within their parents income. If you are making good money your child quality of life should reflect that.

By court order, yes. A non-custodial parent could supplement child support, but if is unnecessary, from the State's perspective in particular, to require any more child support than is necessary for the kid to not be a drain on social welfare programs.

What reasons are there for State requiring more from a non-custodial parent?

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

In Michigan (at least when I was a minor) the amount of money owed was determined by two things: the cost of living in that zip code and income differential between both parents. If the mother makes more money than the father, he will still pay, but it will be something in the order of $150 a month. If the father makes $250,000 a year and she and her new husband make $70,000 combined, she is more likely to get something in the range of $800-1200 a month.

There is actually a formula used. The amount to support the child is a % of the total income of both parents, then each parent is assigned an amount based on what their percentage of the total income is, then things like who pays for the insurance and who pays for the day care are taken into account.

[Maithanet]

Getting back to the theoretical contract that was discussed several pages ago, I understand that the reason it falls short is that child support payments are for the child, not the mother, and therefore the mother cannot sign away future financial support for a theoretical child.

However, would people support a binding contract which states: In the event of pregnancy, the couple will either seek an abortion or agree to give the child up for adoption, without exception. The choice between the two would be up to the mother.

Signed - Mother and Father.

Once again, I think this would be a very difficult contract for a man to convince a woman to sign, because it essentially limits the woman's options, and has no benefit. I would be concerned about potential coercion. But aside from that, I see no downside to such a contract, and if a man is hellbent on both having sex and avoiding any future financial obligations therein, this seems like a defensible approach.

Thoughts? I realize it would be very difficult to enforce such a contract.

[Tempra]

Because what we need is a bunch of children living right above the poverty level. So, in your system, if the mother was employed with a job that would allow her and the child to live above the poverty level, does the father not have to pay child support?

He would pay his fair share to get the kid above the poverty line, which, in your example, frees up money for the mother to spend on herself.

Realistically, my change would only affect upper middle class and rich parents. Even in these cases, child support is often agreed to as part of a divorce agreement, and therefore not covered by my rule. There is no need for the state to require a non-custodial parent to pay more than I suggested.

[Tinydigit]

Getting back to the theoretical contract that was discussed several pages ago, I understand that the reason it falls short is that child support payments are for the child, not the mother, and therefore the mother cannot sign away future financial support for a theoretical child.

However, would people support a binding contract which states: In the event of pregnancy, the couple will either seek an abortion or agree to give the child up for adoption, without exception. The choice between the two would be up to the mother.

Signed - Mother and Father.

Once again, I think this would be a very difficult contract for a man to convince a woman to sign, because it essentially limits the woman's options, and has no benefit. I would be concerned about potential coercion. But aside from that, I see no downside to such a contract, and if a man is hellbent on both having sex and avoiding any future financial obligations therein, this seems like a defensible approach.

Thoughts? I realize it would be very difficult to enforce such a contract.

I have no problem with such a contract being drawn up and legally-enforced, provided both parties met all the legal requirements for a contract to be binding (consent, not under the influence of alcohol, etc.). If the man struggles to find a woman who is both attractive enough for him to want to sleep with/date, and willing to sign that prior to the night’s festivities or a relationship, that’s his problem.

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

Getting back to the theoretical contract that was discussed several pages ago, I understand that the reason it falls short is that child support payments are for the child, not the mother, and therefore the mother cannot sign away future financial support for a theoretical child.

However, would people support a binding contract which states: In the event of pregnancy, the couple will either seek an abortion or agree to give the child up for adoption, without exception. The choice between the two would be up to the mother.

Signed - Mother and Father.

Once again, I think this would be a very difficult contract for a man to convince a woman to sign, because it essentially limits the woman's options, and has no benefit. I would be concerned about potential coercion. But aside from that, I see no downside to such a contract, and if a man is hellbent on both having sex and avoiding any future financial obligations therein, this seems like a defensible approach.

Thoughts? I realize it would be very difficult to enforce such a contract.

THe problem is that it is hard to know how you will feel in advance. Easy for a non-pregnant single woman to say "I'd not keep my baby" but when she is actually pregnant, her feelings might change and to have her obligated by a contract like that is so very wrong.