Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Blargityblarg]

You know, this is a horrible thing to say, but with the women having a right to chose to have the baby...

End welfare and child support requirements and I'll bet there is never a problem with fighting for father's rights to time with their children again.

People chose to have kids. If they can't support them with their own family structure, too bad. Punish failure instead of rewarding stupidity.

The issue is when family structure changes after the kid comes out.

[Kogan Loloklam]

If there is no financial incentive for either parent to keep the child, all interaction becomes one of emotion. I am not saying remove human services to check on child welfare. I am just saying if the parent can't support the kid, take the kid away and sterilize that parent until their situation changes. (iucs for women. I'm sure there is something that can be done to guys that is easily reversable from changed situations too.)
give the other parent the chance to step up to the plate and if he or she fails, the same treatment.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Dude, what? Forced sterilization? You crazy.

There is also no reversible sterilization treatment available for men in the US. There is one in India, though.

[penguinofhonor]

Child support is not about the woman. It's about the kid.

This is the biggest problem I have with people who talk about child support issues, I think. They make child support a men versus women thing, but it's really about the kids. If you end child support requirements, yeah, you'll get back at those mean women who abuse it, but you're going to hurt a ton of children in the process.

And moving kids around through different households and potentially the adoption system is an even worse solution.

[Kogan Loloklam]

I thought child support was about the kid too, until recently.

Do you give your kid a large wad of cash every month? Do you even budget a certain percentage of your income to the care of your child? The simple fact is that true child support does not work that way. This concept of child care through cash is a construct of the court designed to allow single parents to be successful and subsidizing divorce and broken homes.
Where is the child support to kids who lose a parent to disease?
You take away this court sponsorship of family seperation and suddenly a parent can really provide support for their kid.


Through my family my son has free anytime daycare forever. My ex spends $600 taxpayer's dollars a month in childcare. Strangers see my son more than his extended family. She is entitled to reimbursement from me for her daycare costs. What support is really more valuable to him?

She said herself she was looking forward to her financial benefits of being a single mother. Child support is one of those things. Extra cash from all kinds of people, and really very liittle of it actually has to go to the child. She just has to show he has access to the same benefits she does with utilities, food, and housing and that it divided by 2 is greater or equal than the input she gets.

Children always have survived on the incidentals from parents. Monitary equations for child support neglect that fact. My family resources represent a true child support offer, bus she just wants the cash. The problem is this is very common, and these women get sympathy when they talk about the deadbeats that don't pay and how hard it is being a single mother.

Yea, I don't see any real value in child support for children. I live in this society so I get to subsidize a choice of being a single parent while being villified as a bad guy even when I give everyhing I am ordered to. Go ahead and explain how my new externally imposed system really does help a child over eliminating the financial incentives for a parent to play hardball in a divorce. I'd love to see a reasoned explination of that grounded in reality.

[scriver]

I can't make what you are saying, Kogan. Could you be a bit clearer?

[Rooster]

Tl;dr Kogan says (and rightfully so) that money for child support not only is suspiciously too large for child support, but also women (as would anyone really) abuse the fact that money goes to them and not the child, and it ends up supporting women, and children won't see a dime of that money, except basic food and housing.

[Tuplis]

I tend to agree with Kogan on child support issues. My parents broke up and that whole ordeal was actually handled pretty smoothly, though I've seen some pretty tough cases, too.

In my opinion, it'd be best to keep these families together. Children are made without really thinking the ramifications - the thing I learned from watching my parents break up was that I'll never make kids unless I can be completely sure I won't have to put my kids through the same thing. Obviously, I can't ever be 100% sure so that stance has to be softened.

Now, child support in legislation is the kind of thing that makes breaking up easier. It's the woman's choice to either keep the baby or the not, but in case of a break up, it's usually the man that gets the short straw. Without child support, in case of a break-up the child will, in my opinion, end up with the one more equipped to take care of him/her instead of "always the mother".

[kaijyuu]

It'll be easier to fix child support problems after we fix the horribly unbalanced child custody laws. When fathers get the custody of their children in a roughly equal ratio to mothers, then the gender related issues with child support evaporate.

[Kogan Loloklam]

You can't fix the custody issues until you remove incentive for conflict  beyond what is in the child's best interest.

Catch 22.