Father's Rights (Children)

[Kalbear]

An odd suggestion: what if all child support money up to a point (say the first $400) was converted into some amount of food stamps?

[Lany Freelove Cassandra]

An odd suggestion: what if all child support money up to a point (say the first $400) was converted into some amount of food stamps?

I think about 50% of the child support is used for housing (or more in some cases) and sometimes childsupport is olny $400 a month (or less). Then there are clothes and incidentials, day care/tutition. Food was only about 25% or less of the total cost of raising a child, so if you want to say 25% is in food stamps, maybe.

[Kalbear]

I was just thinking that that way the child support would at least be guaranteed to somewhat benefit the child. But it's probably not an engineering solution; it's a social one. Sure, you could audit all the things that are bought with the money and force both parents to do that sort of thing, but I think that would end up being more of a pain than it's worth.

But it does remain a problem.

[Angalin]

For personal reasons, I'm only responding to carefully selected posts here.

i don't think anybody would object to supporting their child which was born in wedlock or commited relationship

Mirthless laughter. I know bfc said he'd left the discussion, but sadly this assertion isn't entirely true. :(

This may be shocking to you people, but some guys get vasectomies not because they truly want the surgery, but because they can't afford to have anymoe kids.

Some women have their tubes tied or similar because they might die or the child might not survive if they have another pregnancy. People make the best decisions they can in unhappy circumstances.

If you lack sufficient maturity to just shut the hell up and pay the child support if something happens, then probably you shouldn't be having sex anyway.

Thank you. This is two-pint-worthy.

Plenty of dads who take their children every other weekend or for the summer definitely are stakeholders in their child's life and the quality his money is supposed to be providing.

In Canada, whether or not child support is paid is supposed to have no bearing on whether or not the support-paying parent gets to see his or her children. There are parents who do pay support who don't get the time with their children they should, either, and that is wrong too.

[mormont]

"… the mother spends child support on herself, then that's a problem between the child and the mother."

"The child and the mother have to sort it out between themselves"

The above aren't suggesting that young children step up and regulate the custodial parent's finances themselves rather than having an agreement that stipulates what child support can be used on to prevent abuse?

No. I'm not really in the habit of suggesting absurd things... those quotes were (pretty clearly, I thought, though I might have been wrong) in reference to a situation like yours, when, as an adult, the child discovers he's been getting shorted all along. At that point, you have a legitimate grievance with your mother that you need to settle.

ETA: And why should a non-custodial parent have their legal, emotional, and financial interests in the well-being of their child stripped entirely away from them? Deadbeats who never see their kids aren't the only ones paying child support. Plenty of dads who take their children every other weekend or for the summer definitely are stakeholders in their child's life and the quality his money is supposed to be providing.

Of course.

I've been on both sides of this issue, resident parent in receipt of child support and non-resident parent paying it. And I would not for a second suggest that any non-resident parent should have their parental rights 'stripped away from them'.

But the right to have a say in, for example, which school your child attends is not necessarily the same as the right to know the ins and outs of the other parent's financial affairs. And since money is fungible, it's hard to see how a non-resident parent can realistically and accurately judge how responsibly child support is being spent without being given access to a significant amount of such knowledge. That's without even getting into the problems that arise when the parents disagree over spending.

Your case appears to be an extreme example. It would be a bad idea to make general rules based on it. For most people, I think trying to make up some way their ex could monitor their household finances would be a terrifically bad idea that did more harm than good.

[Tempra]

Some women have their tubes tied or similar because they might die or the child might not survive if they have another pregnancy. People make the best decisions they can in unhappy circumstances.

Certainly. My comment was in response to a few immature and inappropriate comments questioning whether vasectomies are "emotionally traumatic."

[Kalbear]

In Canada, whether or not child support is paid is supposed to have no bearing on whether or not the support-paying parent gets to see his or her children. There are parents who do pay support who don't get the time with their children they should, either, and that is wrong too.

This is correct in the US as well. It sucks in some cases; there are plenty of deadbeat dads who do everything they can to avoid paying child support but can miraculously afford to buy a new car every couple of years along with as much drugs as their body can take.

But it's as much a right of the kids to see their other parents as it is the parent's right. In that respect I understand it, even if it fucking sucks some times.

[Rockroi]

I am very late to this party.

The man and his attorney feel that he should be afforded similar reproductive rights that women have, and that men should be given a small window of opportunity to sign an affidavit refusing any and all paternal responsibility.

Regardless of what the man though prospectively, the reality is that once the child is in the world, that child deserves the financial benefit of the two parents (Because ultimately the child is 100% not at fault for anything owing to his existence). Its just not fair otherwise. The child does not deserve to be left with 1/2 the available means (or more) because the father was ill-informed by the mother.

Look at it in a light most favorable to the father: mom states that she wants to have sex; father states - in writing - that he is morally opposed to having children due to overpopulation. Mom claims that she agrees. She then states that she is on the pill (shows that little container and everything); then states that even f she got pregnant she would have an abortion. Hell, she even signs 10 affidavits sworn on a stack of King James' Bibles to each and everything I just stated. In fact, dad states that he would NEVER have sex with a woman if that woman wanted to be pregnant. Dad even declares that he wants to wear a condom; mom declares that she is allergic to latex (stay with me here).

They have sex. Just once.

Mom then becomes pregnant. It is later discovered that mom was purposely planning to get pregnant in order to collect child support payments from dad. Hell, she even claims she lied, and is proud of it. She claims that she is so happy she tricked him. She laughs about it all the time.

Okay, got that?

Now, in everything I just stated, please define each and every way the CHILD had some hand to play in this fiasco? Why should the child be punished for the actions of the mother? Why is it the child's fault?

Mom? Yes, in my scenarios, mom's an awful person. But that awfulness should not and cannot transfer to the child.

Anyone ever watch Weeds? In the second (or third) season, the gay character (horrible character, btw) gets a woman pregnant. The circumstances are that a major drug dealer wants to prove that with the right woman, no man will stay gay. So he gets one of his women to "make a man" out of the guy. They physically perform sex and, of course, that gets her pregnant (quick aside: with the exception of the first season/season-and-a-half of Weeds, I am amazed that people think its a good show). THE VERY FIRST THING I thought was, "He's on the hook for child support, college, etc." Even if he can prove that he was, in effect, raped, WHY should the child suffer for the actions of the father once that child is brought into the world?

And yes, I know that this invades heavily into the pro-life/pro-choice debate (and maybe it should), but once we define this as being a debate AFTER the child is born, its not one that's hard to figure out. I also disavow any argument that suggests that "Well, women get to decide to have the child, so men have to pay." No. Even if this were a test-tube baby, etc, the same standard should apply.

[Kosciuszko]

Actually, I'd think if a guy were basically raped, he'd likely have custody of the kid, wouldn't he? I mean on the grounds that having a rapist raise a kid may not be the best idea in the world. So, since child support isn't a right of the mother but a right of the child, the rapist mother would be paying child support to the father.

[Seventh Pup]

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?

Benefit for the child. A child raised in a middle class income (that can be afforded by that child's parents) is more likely to be a boon on society, to need less from society, then a child that raise right at the poverty line. A child raised in an upper class income (if that can be afforded by the parents) is even less likely to require much from society. The only one who benefits from your system is the non custodial parent who has the right to all but financially abandon their child. More over it puts more strain on a parent who would honestly only be able to provide for their child at that level, then on a parent who could afford for their children to be raised in the middle class.

Don't get me wrong their needs to be more oversight, and the current system is in need of reform. My mother used the child support she got on us. She did not get yachts, or new cars, or anything like that with her payments. We lived within our means and she got us the best childhood she could out of it, I still have so much admiration for what she was able to do with not a lot. I still think my father should have had more rights to us, and been given more visitation (our system was every other weekend and the month of August, holidays where rotated), because he wanted more and was a good parent. But finically he owned us to provide for us within his means.

Sadly horror stories like TD are not rare and I think it would make more sense to show where the money went then to keep a child needlessly at the poverty line.

[Chanur]

This likely is not popular but I think just like a man should not be able to tell a woman what do with her reproductive rights, I feel a similar consideration should be made for men. I think that if before the birth/or upon first finding out about the birth a man should have the ability to sign away his rights to the child and not be allowed to see/or contact the kid. People do wear condoms and still get pregnant.

Frankly our parental laws have gone insane in the states. You can be forced to pay child support for children that are verified as not yours. It is absolutely silly.

[Seventh Pup]

Childfreedom isn't about wanting to escape child support payments. While I recognize that a lot of men might want such a contract just so they wouldn't have to pay the support, I find it offensive that a man who is strongly opposed to having a child is immediately labeled as an immature person who shouldn't be having sex.

A man who wants to remain child free has options that he can control at his disposal. If he chooses not employ those options he is accepting risk of children, and even with those options children are possible just extremely unlikely.

If a man's child freedom is very important to him, then it's his responsibility to make sure he stays that way. If he still has a child (that he knows about) born, despite the fact that man did not want it, he is no longer child free, even if he pays nothing to the child, and never sees it. He still has a child out there; he's simply not supporting or interacting with it. There is no contract that can make you child free; unless you think a man should be able to force an abortion through a contract.

[Tempra]

This likely is not popular but I think just like a man should not be able to tell a woman what do with her reproductive rights, I feel a similar consideration should be made for men. I think that if before the birth/or upon first finding out about the birth a man should have the ability to sign away his rights to the child and not be allowed to see/or contact the kid. People do wear condoms and still get pregnant.

Frankly our parental laws have gone insane in the states. You can be forced to pay child support for children that are verified as not yours. It is absolutely silly.

Most crazy case I read about involved a guy getting stuck with child support even though he didn't sleep with the girl. How? Because the genius went on a double date to a drive in movie theater, had sex with his girl, and then gave the used condom to his buddy who turned it inside out (so as not to be nasty), and then proceeded to sleep with the mother. I think of child support in this instance as more of a tax on being stupid.

[TrueMetis]

Got to bring this up but what about cases of sperm banks? Should the donor have to pay child support? I would say no but I've heard of a few cases were the donor did have to.

[Seventh Pup]

Most crazy case I read about involved a guy getting stuck with child support even though he didn't sleep with the girl. How? Because the genius went on a double date to a drive in movie theater, had sex with his girl, and then gave the used condom to his buddy who turned it inside out (so as not to be nasty), and then proceeded to sleep with the mother. I think of child support in this instance as more of a tax on being stupid.

Link?

[Tempra]

Link?

Was a handout in my family law class three years ago. I do not know the citation or remember the names of the party. Sorry.

[Seventh Pup]

Was the child genetically his?

[Tempra]

Was the child genetically his?

Yes. Here is an even more messed up example: man ordered to pay child support after woman saves sperm from oral sex. Let me just state that I don't point these examples out to argue against child support, even in these extreme examples, as i've already said I support some child support. I think it is interesting how strong the "best interests of the child" notion is in family law.

[Tempra]

Benefit for the child. A child raised in a middle class income (that can be afforded by that child's parents) is more likely to be a boon on society, to need less from society, then a child that raise right at the poverty line. A child raised in an upper class income (if that can be afforded by the parents) is even less likely to require much from society. The only one who benefits from your system is the non custodial parent who has the right to all but financially abandon their child. More over it puts more strain on a parent who would honestly only be able to provide for their child at that level, then on a parent who could afford for their children to be raised in the middle class.

Don't get me wrong their needs to be more oversight, and the current system is in need of reform. My mother used the child support she got on us. She did not get yachts, or new cars, or anything like that with her payments. We lived within our means and she got us the best childhood she could out of it, I still have so much admiration for what she was able to do with not a lot. I still think my father should have had more rights to us, and been given more visitation (our system was every other weekend and the month of August, holidays where rotated), because he wanted more and was a good parent. But finically he owned us to provide for us within his means.

Sadly horror stories like TD are not rare and I think it would make more sense to show where the money went then to keep a child needlessly at the poverty line.

Curious that the kid has more of a right to the money when his biological parents are not together. We do not force millionaire parents to send their kids to private school, pay for horse back riding lessons, buy designer clothes, take expensive european vacations, or really spend any money on the child that is not necessary for basic subsistence. But, when the parents divorce and one sues for child support, the child all of a sudden has a right to this money? Also, I hardly think it is fair to say that a parent that pays for the kids basic subsistence "all but financially abandons" his child. There are a lot of mothers who don't get child support anywhere near subsistence because of all the deadbeat dads (and it is deadbeat dads 99% of the time, guys).

[Seventh Pup]

Yes.

So then you think it unfair that a man has to support his child that was created through his own voluntary actions? Why are you being up this example exactly?