Father's Rights (Children)

[Seventh Pup]

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).

A parent legally has to provide for their child. If the parents are together then in almost all cases the child lives with them and so is in their sphere of finance.

[Tempra]

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?

By voluntary action you mean handing over a used condom to his friend and receiving oral sex from a crazy woman? Hell yes, I think both are unfair. But still, I think they should pay child support because of their "voluntary action." I posted my aside in response to a comment that parental laws have "gone crazy." Both are pretty extreme examples of a child's right trumping a father's right.

[Tempra]

A parent legally has to provide for their child. If the parents are together then in almost all cases the child lives with them and so is in their sphere of finance.

Yet, as stated already, a parent is only required, among other basic necessities, to feed, clothe, and supervise a child when he is married (or has custody). However, once he is hit with a child support order, he may be required to provide child support in an amount that sees the kid's standard of living far higher than what custodial parents are legally required to provide.

Why don't we require ALL parents to provide a certain level of lifestyle to their children based on their income? Why you might ask? "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."

ETA: I know that monitoring and enforcement costs make such a requirement impractical, but if you don't support requiring all parents to provide beyond basic subsistence, subject to their ability in theory, you can't require that of a non-custodial parent. Without being a hypocrite, at least.

[Seventh Pup]

By voluntary action you mean handing over a used condom to his friend <snip> ?

I posted my aside in response to a comment that parental laws have "gone crazy." Both are pretty extreme examples of a child's right trumping a father's right.

Handing over a used condom to a friend is a voluntary action that can reasonably lead to pregnancy. He knew he was putting his baby making love seed into a field where it might take root. I don't think that is paternity laws gone crazy, I think that's a guy who made a bad call, but who had enough information to make a better one.

They other case is harder because I don't know enough about it. Did the woman admit to doing this or is it just an accusation? If true I think that it's good that he is suing her and I hope he wins. That's a 1 in a billion chance of that happening if it happened as he said. He got the unlucky number.

[Seventh Pup]

Yet, as stated already, a parent is only required, among other basic necessities, to feed, clothe, and supervise a child when he is married (or has custody). However, once he is hit with a child support order, he may be required to provide child support in an amount that sees the kid's standard of living far higher than what custodial parents are legally required to provide.

So your assuming that the noncustodial parent is the father as a default. Okay since you have picked the pronoun lets have at it.

I'm not sure what your problem with this is. While the parents where together they made choices about what to have their child involved in. If the parents didn't want to have their child do horse back ridding or ice skating or what ever they didn't. Once they divorce the parents might still choose not to participate in those activities.

However the primary caregiver now has to make more single choices, deal with more responsibility, and make a more unilateral discussion about what benefits the child. The child doesn't get to demand "I want a pony and you can afford one so you have to give it to me." As when the child lived with both parents it's still at it's caregivers call what resources would best benefit it.

That's why more oversight and more visitations makes more sense then keeping a child's resources next to the poverty line.

[Kalbear]

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.

So, funny story, that.

In order to do something like this - where even both parents agree that one of them will support the child and one will explicitly not - you have to 'prove' that the man in question is not the father. Meaning that both parents have to explicitly lie. Even if that's what they want.

I know this because that was the situation I was born into. My mother desired a baby but did not want a husband and did not want me to have a father (or at least a father figure). She found someone, got them to sleep with her, lied about birth control and then had the baby. He said that he wasn't going to give any support unless he was going to be allowed to be part of my life actively; she refused and said she didn't want that. So they went to court. Amusingly my mom's lawyer forbade mom from going to court with me because I looked so much like my dad that it would have been an obvious lie.

But it worked, he has never paid a dime of child support or helped out in any way. She got what she wanted and was able to raise me by herself.

I'm pretty positive that regardless of the benefits to them, it was not the ideal outcome for me - and it wouldn't be the ideal outcome for most kids. I know plenty of fathers are horrible dads, but those are the exceptions. The reality is that most kids would benefit from greater financial investment, and most kids would benefit from knowing their parents or having some relations with them.

That's likely why I'm so fervently against the notion of signing rights away. It has nothing to do with the father's rights or the mother's rights and everything to do with the child's rights.

[Angalin]

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.

Haven't time to find links right now, but the biggest predictor for children doing well after divorce is that they not live in poverty. Poverty is a black hole, surprise surprise.

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.

No, millionaire parents do a lot of that stuff already. They can afford it and in certain circles it adds to their social cachet.

[Solmyr]

Fathers* should pay child support. The amount should be the same % of the total financial support the child needs, as the % of outcomes of all trials, where both parents wanted to have custody of a child/children, where the father won custody.

The competence/incompetence factor is irrelevant, unmeasurable and most often overlooked or skewed. Furthermore, the competence level of raising a child is not far from equal in both men and women in general.

*Also vice versa for mothers, when a father keeps the child as a single parent - the mother should pay the same % of the child support.

[Jaak]

No, millionaire parents do a lot of that stuff already. They can afford it and in certain circles it adds to their social cachet.

Yes, they do it when and if they feel it is appropriate, suits the child, the child deserves it etc. Which is most of time, but not all times. And when they do not, they cannot be sued to demand it.

Nobody forbids divorced parents to contribute more than they are legally required to because they still love the child. But the minimum they can be legally required to do is, for some reason, higher than that for parents who are together.

[Tinydigit]

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.

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.

I misread your comments, but even seen in the appropriate light, I think by the time a child is looking for their college fund, it is far too late. I highly doubt the college fund would be the only important aspect of what child support is designed to provide that will fall by the wayside if used unwisely and in direct opposition to its intended purpose.

I know that my personal circumstances are fairly unique in scope, but definitely not unique in how common such problems are. It seems like even if we stop short of a contract, there must be some way we can build in controls to make sure the money is going to the right things (maybe have percentages of the entitlement directly deposited into accounts that can be monitored by both parents). If the mother wants expensive dresses and toys, she can use her own money. No one in the thread seems to disagree with the fact that child support is money that is reserved to provide for the child, so why can’t we place legally enforceable restrictions on it to be absolutely certain it is fulfilling its intent?

[Tinydigit]

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 that falls into line with what I was trying to elucidate with the contract. Fifty percent of the allotment would be reserved for housing. If there are concerns raised about whether this money is being applied to rent or mortgage, the legal authorities can garnish that portion of the allotment and send it directly to the mortgage company or landlord. My wife works with people whose job it is to act as a payee or finance manager for higher-functioning mentally ill people. A similar such position can be created in extreme cases for problematic or combative child support arrangements. The next 25 percent would be given in the form of food stamps. The last 25 percent would be placed into the checking account of the receiving parent for all other expenses.

[Tinydigit]

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.

Making a man pay child support if his sperm, which was donated to a bank, is used by a woman to get pregnant is absolutely ridiculous. It is an act similar with the exact same consequences as being raped by a woman for the purpose of breeding. It completely removes the choice from the man on who conceives using his sperm. It also completely negates the charitable aspect of sperm donation and would definitely provide a huge disincentive.

[MinDonner]

Making a man pay child support if his sperm, which was donated to a bank, is used by a woman to get pregnant is absolutely ridiculous. ... It also completely negates the charitable aspect of sperm donation and would definitely provide a huge disincentive.

This, granted.

It is an act similar with the exact same consequences as being raped by a woman for the purpose of breeding. It completely removes the choice from the man on who conceives using his sperm.

This, WTF? Why else is a man donating his sperm, if NOT to be used in impregnation? Does he generally get a choice in who benefits? Comparing it to rape is insanity.

Anyway, applying this rule retroactively is wrong on many levels, as the sperm was donated in good faith with no expectation that further financial support would be required. That's the kind of thing that needs to be made clear up front, if the rule is going to be introduced. But you can't start claiming that the donors had no idea of the non-financial consequences.

[Tinydigit]

This, granted.

This, WTF? Why else is a man donating his sperm, if NOT to be used in impregnation? Does he generally get a choice in who benefits? Comparing it to rape is insanity.

Anyway, applying this rule retroactively is wrong on many levels, as the sperm was donated in good faith with no expectation that further financial support would be required. That's the kind of thing that needs to be made clear up front, if the rule is going to be introduced. But you can't start claiming that the donors had no idea of the non-financial consequences.

He voluntarily made a charitable donation of his precious bodily fluids, what he did not do was agree to form any sort of a personal or financial relationship with the outcome of that donation being used. In this instance, he is being forced to assume the role of parent for a child he did not mean to sire. It is really not that different from the example of the woman using sperm from a condom or garnered as the result of a blowjob for impregnation without his consent. I would classify that as a crime against choice and personal reproductive rights akin to rape.

[BigFatCoward]

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

what i meant was 'i don't think anybody 'here' 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. :(

just re read post and realised i needed to clarrify that. though i am aware of numerous situations where both sexes have used children to hurt their formally loving partners, both financially and emotionally (my childhood included) so perhaps i am giving the board too much credit. i dont see why people here should or would be any better than the general populace.

[Alexia]

If there are concerns raised about whether this money is being applied to rent or mortgage,

Presumably this concern would arise if it were discovered the family were living in a tin shack or a homeless shelter....

[Lady Winter Rose]

Just to say. If mother force some man to pay money for some kid he don't want, man would be mad. You don't need rage or hatred between parents and child, nor near child and mother.

Child support should be personal choice. At least choice without rage and hatred, if not personal.

[Lyanna Stark]

Just to say. If mother force some man to pay money for some kid he don't want, man would be mad. You don't need rage or hatred between parents and child, nor near child and mother.

Child support should be personal choice. At least choice without rage and hatred, if not personal.

I guess it's really hard to understand that child support is for the CHILD, not the mother. It's a child's right, not the mother's or father's right.

It would indeed be good if people stoppedn being angry at eachother and just behaved reasonably, which unfortunately a lot of people don't. That is why we have legislation.

[Ormond]

And what she said. I am doubtful that this oral sex and self made impregnation has really taken place.

I was extremely skeptical of this one, too. However, it seems to have really happened. Not only is the blog that was originally linked to a seemingly legitimate commentary on legal issues and not a satire, but you can find Associated Press articles on the case:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7024930/ns/health-sexual_health/

And it's not mentioned as an urban legend on "Snopes".

I suppose the fact that the woman was a physician makes it a little more plausible. She may have had knowledge, skills, and access to medical devices to make this happen that most women would not have had.

I think one should point out, however, that even though the articles say this man was ordered to pay child support, there is no indication that he contested that order. The case was in the news because he sued the woman for mental distress and theft, and the court ruled that he COULD sue her for mental distress, but NOT for theft. The biological father does not seem to have sued to try to get out of the child support order.

[Tempra]

I was extremely skeptical of this one, too. However, it seems to have really happened. Not only is the blog that was originally linked to a seemingly legitimate commentary on legal issues and not a satire, but you can find Associated Press articles on the case:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7024930/ns/health-sexual_health/

And it's not mentioned as an urban legend on "Snopes".

I suppose the fact that the woman was a physician makes it a little more plausible. She may have had knowledge, skills, and access to medical devices to make this happen that most women would not have had.

I think one should point out, however, that even though the articles say this man was ordered to pay child support, there is no indication that he contested that order. The case was in the news because he sued the woman for mental distress and theft, and the court ruled that he COULD sue her for mental distress, but NOT for theft. The biological father does not seem to have sued to try to get out of the child support order.

I don't know whether he contested the order, but I doubt it would have mattered. It is his biological kid. I suspect part of the reason he sued her, among many, was to recoup child support payments.