Child support and the father.

[trouble13]

I have ethical issues with that. It's flat-out fraud. In an ideal world there should be some sort of penalty for her, but... it's not an ideal world and there are other considerations, also.

Sometimes legitimate considerations conflict, which is where the "I have my rights" argument falls off the boat. Yes, you do have your rights, but you also have responsibilities. Sometimes I feel like the "rights" argument is just a ruse to try and weasel out of responsibilities.

In cases that can be proved that the woman got pregnant by decieving her partner, would you object to the courts denying her custodial rights as a default position as a consequence of her actions?

Are womens rights arguments also an excuse to "weasle out of responsibilities" or does that only apply to men?



Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

And I agree an NCP should pay CS and be a good parent, but I will still advocate that CS be as equitable as possible for ALL parties involved. The CS system still needs work in that regard.

Accidentally deleted this part of your post.

Should the CP be able to be auditted to show that the money the courts allocated for CS is actually being used on that child?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Ikari]

Conclusion: you think that I should pay for sex.

That's not his point at all, but rather that there are certain probabilities associated with the act, and should certain probabilities be realized, such as pregnancy, you're on the hook for it. If the conclusion was that you should pay for sex, he would say you should pay the woman in all instances of sexual encounter, not just those that result in pregnancy.

People take actions, actions have consequence, we are responsible for those consequences. Many times the consequences are low probability, and you may not realize them. But anything with a non-zero probability has a chance of being realized, and once realized you are beholden to them.

Yes, I had the freedom not to have sex. Should I have used a condom, does condom failure indicate that I had a choice in the matter?

Yes, of course it did. You took a precaution that dramatically lowers probabilities. That probability is still not zero (only abstinence has zero probabilities...well outside Christian mythology, lol) and there is still an outside chance that consequences are realized, same as before. But those chances have been greatly reduced (not eliminated) through the use of a condom.

 

[radcen]

In cases that can be proved that the woman got pregnant by decieving her partner, would you object to the courts denying her custodial rights as a default position as a consequence of her actions?

Are womens rights arguments also an excuse to "weasle out of responsibilities" or does that only apply to men?

The notion that only men might weasel out of responsibility is absurd. If you read my comment again, it was not gender-specific, and in this context applied to anyone who declares their "rights" to be paramount.

 

[radcen]

Accidentally deleted this part of your post.

Should the CP be able to be auditted to show that the money the courts allocated for CS is actually being used on that child?

Not a detailed breakdown, and not necessarily showing 100% (75% would be acceptable, and still allow for minor incidental stuff), but yes, if requested by the NCP. The money is not for the CP, it is for the kid, and the NCP should have the right to know how THEIR MONEY is being spent for what is also THEIR KID. Don't get all mealy-mouthed and just *say* that the kid is both parent's and not really mean it.

What about you? What do you think on this question?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

This is why I refuse to use this app. (Not directed at you, but at them.)

 

[Celebrity]

That's not his point at all, but rather that there are certain probabilities associated with the act, and should certain probabilities be realized, such as pregnancy, you're on the hook for it. If the conclusion was that you should pay for sex, he would say you should pay the woman in all instances of sexual encounter, not just those that result in pregnancy.

People take actions, actions have consequence, we are responsible for those consequences. Many times the consequences are low probability, and you may not realize them. But anything with a non-zero probability has a chance of being realized, and once realized you are beholden to them.



Yes, of course it did. You took a precaution that dramatically lowers probabilities. That probability is still not zero (only abstinence has zero probabilities...well outside Christian mythology, lol) and there is still an outside chance that consequences are realized, same as before. But those chances have been greatly reduced (not eliminated) through the use of a condom.

While I don't fully agree with the former half of your post, I somewhat agree with the latter. Condoms do lower the probability of a pregnancy occurring, and only abstinence has a zero probability.

So why is it that in order for men to have a choice, they must not have sex?

Because when men have sex, they do not get the same choice that women have. :shrug:

Men are sexually repressed. The law targets heterosexual men who have vaginal sex with women.

 

[Celebrity]

Yup. Same thing if you are a woman. My child's mother is no more allowed to neglect her duties to the child than I am. Both our rights are abrogated by the needs of minor children we created.

No, not the same thing if you are a woman. Have you forgotten that women can choose whether or not to make children, where men cannot? Have you also forgotten that save haven adoption permits women to make children, and still choose to not be parents? Women have a choice at any stage. The question for women is not whether or not they will be forced to be parents, but whether or not they will be held to their word. If a woman chooses to form a family, then she is bound to support that family. The same should be true for men, but it is not, men are bound to sexual intercourse and the decisions of women stemming from that intercourse.

Again, your feelings about whether or not the results are fair (and I agree they are not) does not impact whether or not our actions can abrogate our freedom of movement - which they do all the time, both in contractual settings and non-contractual settings.

Despite your claim being under my scrutiny, you have failed to justify your claim with logic. Continuing to repeat the same claim without anything to back it up is just hot air. I have shown that your claim is not always true, and at least part of it is a fallacious appeal to authority. The law does not justify itself in a circular fashion. What do my feelings have to do with it? My argument is founded in logic, and yours is to repeat the mantra of victim blaming.

Here is at least one thing we can agree upon. If men and women decide to come together and raise children, past custody should be a very clear indicator of future support for children. Without any custody, or past history of support of any kind, that indication is much less clear. The argument you are making relies on feelings. No need to project your insecurities on me.

You don't get to opt out of the social contract because you do not like it's results, unless you are willing to leave the country, or commit to armed rebellion. You don't have the ability to stomp your foot, declare that something isn't fair, and use that as a means to get out of responsibility for your actions.

In other words, freedom isn't free. You agree that we are under contract.

Yeah. That's what happens when you break the law.

Did I break a just law, or did the law target me according to my natural identity? How about a law that says that women must obtain consent from men before assuming that those men will be supportive parents? That way, men could choose whether or not to be parents, as women choose to be parents. There is nothing feminine or masculine about the quality of being a parent.

You did change the subject. I pointed out to you that our actions can abrogate our freedom of movement and our rights, you claimed that this can only happen contractually, I pointed out that in fact it happens in our judicial system when someone breaks the law, an obvious example of it happening with no contract, and you tried to spin off into a Whattaboutism involving how the court system treats men and women.

Let me repeat myself one more time. What options do men not have? By process of elimination, we can see what options men do have. This is not changing the subject. You are ignoring a valid point because you cannot argue against it. This applies to both the issues of child support and custody. Women who tell men that they are fathers and then run in the opposite direction and demand child support do not give men the option of custody without a legal battle over a child. Women who tell men that they are fathers and then demand child support do not give men any choice, whatsoever. My point is relevant, and repeating your mantra will not make it any less so.

No, men are discriminated against because mothers are seen as more natural parents, who are less capable of producing a high income.

When women have rights that men do not, men have fewer rights than women have. I am saying that the legal system targets men, and that men are discriminated against. I do not need you to provide me with your off-the-cuff sexist comments about women raising children and men being breadwinners. That is not a real debate. If you believe that the justice system is biased against men, and you do, then there is no reason to keep pushing that biased agenda unless you think that men should be targeted according to their sexual orientation.

 

[Celebrity]

The courts do, certainly. That in no way means that the child doesn't have needs that abrogate the rights of it's parents.

In short, you are attempting to use the complaint that the court is abrogating the rights of the parents 65/35 against the men, to justify the argument that they should instead abrogate the rights of the parents 0/100 against the women. That's an even stupider position than the one you are (correctly) decrying.

I resent your false portrayal of my argument, ostensibly to score political points by strawman. My argument that the law discriminates against men is not an argument against women.

Sort of. As I have pointed out, committing a crime (like having sex with minors as an adult) abrogates your future freedom of movement and your rights, as does having children. Having sex with another willing adult, however, is not a crime. Having a child is not a crime. Neglecting that child is, and it should be.

You are attempting to spin this, and have failed to do so. Having sex with another willing adult is not a crime, and that is not what the analogy relates. Having sex with a minor is not always a crime. For example, both parties having yet to reach the age of majority does not constitute rape according statute in some states, though it may have at some point in history. Statute should not force men to become parents, and men who are only parents according to statute commit no real crime other than leading a different life than the one that they were legally obligated to lead. I consider a support order to be an intrusion for single, unmarried men who are not prepared to be parents, and I hope that the statute will change for future generations.

I'm sorry that you have to find this out from the internet, rather than your parents.

Perhaps you should review your own link, cpwill. Did I ever birth a child? The answer is no. You are pushing the same idealism that targets men because they are men, and does not allow men to choose to become parents. That idealism is sexually repressive of men, because it punishes men who have vaginal sex with women by sometimes forcing them to become parents. Why do you suppose you want to control the sex lives of other men?

When you as a man choose to engage in sexual intercourse with women, you are choosing to risk pregnancy and a child, and your actions put you on the line for taking care of the needs of that child until they reach adulthood.

What you have done is attributed women's reproductive actions to men, and men's sexual actions to men. You are attributing both parties' actions to one party, men, while absolving women of the same. That is a fallacy based on your idealism.

That is correct, I consented to the risk of becoming a parent when I had sex. I didn't, in fact, want to become a parent at that point. I wasn't even sure I wanted to get married at that point. That, however, does not mean that my producing a child doesn't rightfully confer obligations (legal and moral) on me.

cpwill, I am well aware that the law discriminates against men in a sexually repressive way. Men do not have the same choices as women. In fact, when a man chooses to engage in sexual intercourse, he is legally obligated to bear the burden of a woman's respective decisions resulting from that intercourse. The moral argument, however compelling, appears to be absent from this discussion. The legal argument is nothing more than an appeal to authority. Child support obligations do not justify the obligation to support children in a circular manner. Consent to have sex is not consent to reproduce, even though women are not legally obligated to obtain consent to reproduce in a way that abrogates men's actions.

Why is it that women don't simply ask men if they are prepared to be parents? Opportunity cost. Women have the opportunity to financially extort men, without even so much as allowing men visitation. Men and women are legally obligated to obtain consent for sex. Only men are obligated to obtain consent to parentage, not women, and that is discrimination against men. It saves women from having to ask the question "are you ready to be a parent," and allows women to make the statement, "I'm pregnant, and it's my body, your responsibility."

 

[Celebrity]

How Are Babies Made.

Then we are in agreement that you believe that sexual acts require payment for services rendered, if those babies are "made" from sex. I put made in quotation because it is really birth that makes the baby.

Nope. When you are paying for sex you are paying for a service. When you are supporting the needs of your child, you are supporting the needs of your child.

Ok, and when an 18 year old has sex with an 18 year old, they are consenting adults. When a 16 year old has sex with a 17 year old, that is an example of unsupportive parenting of irresponsible, needy children. :roll:
Can we cut the crap? There is no question that children need to be supported by their families. Using the word "child" does not change the fact that a child support order is supportive of a mother's decision to reproduce.

if another man is willing to adopt him, and take care of him, and provide for him, then good for that man, for being the father figure you are unwilling to be.

Alternatively, a woman decided that she wanted another father figure for her son. Emasculating me by accusing me of not wanting, or not being a father is an undue personal attack.

If a woman breaks into your house and takes away your property by force, that is illegal, as assuredly as if she sexually assaults you.

And what of a woman who takes you, yourself away by force, never mentions your father's name, and forces you to live in the world with other men?

What of a state who takes you, yourself away by force, never permits you to see your son, and forces you to go to prison for actions you did not commit?

No, I am pointing out that your claim is incorrect. Our actions do indeed effect others, and we do indeed limit them. For example, if a parent neglects a child, then the child suffers. Hence, we make it illegal for the parent to neglect the child.

Not only do we make it illegal for the parent to neglect the child, but we make it illegal for men to choose to become fathers. That is wrong, and it incorrectly labels some men as fathers, and does not label other men as fathers, but as uncles, godfathers, boyfriends, or whatever misnomers may be brewed up by deceitful people.

 

[Ikari]

While I don't fully agree with the former half of your post, I somewhat agree with the latter. Condoms do lower the probability of a pregnancy occurring, and only abstinence has a zero probability.

So why is it that in order for men to have a choice, they must not have sex?

Because when men have sex, they do not get the same choice that women have. :shrug:

Men are sexually repressed. The law targets heterosexual men who have vaginal sex with women.

No, we're not going to. There was always going to be some asymmetry with this issue because sexual reproduction is asymmetric. Men enjoyed the advantage early on because the woman carries the baby and the man can GTFO at any point. It's swung the other way now. It's not fair, but life has never been fair. It's about probabilities and statistics, it's about action and consequence. that's it. A cold and uncaring place. Know the system you are operating in and make appropriate and educated decisions, live by the consequences.

 

[radcen]

No, we're not going to. There was always going to be some asymmetry with this issue because sexual reproduction is asymmetric. Men enjoyed the advantage early on because the woman carries the baby and the man can GTFO at any point. It's swung the other way now. It's not fair, but life has never been fair. It's about probabilities and statistics, it's about action and consequence. that's it. A cold and uncaring place. Know the system you are operating in and make appropriate and educated decisions, live by the consequences.

This is an issue where absolute down-the-middle fairness is not even possible, given that only one sex can get pregnant and carry the baby. So, to strive for absolute fairness is a fool's errand.

We should try to the best we can, though.

 

[Ikari]

This is an issue where absolute down-the-middle fairness is not even possible, given that only one sex can get pregnant and carry the baby. So, to strive for absolute fairness is a fool's errand.

We should try to the best we can, though.

yeah, but even that, then has considerable contention and you find yourself in the heart of the pro-life/pro-choice battle. We do need to try our best and come up with a system that can account, functionally, for everything that can be done but it's not going to be "fair" persay.

Perhaps on the level of divorce with children, you can find something more equally spaced, but then you start getting into some of the very arguments in this thread. Should one divorced with kids and sharing custody be allowed to move so far away that the other parent is essentially and effectively cut out of the picture?

I don't know, it's always easy to have some overarching idealism on how to handle this, but he devil is in the details and when you start breaking it out like that, it becomes rather difficult right quick.

 

[trouble13]

That's not his point at all, but rather that there are certain probabilities associated with the act, and should certain probabilities be realized, such as pregnancy, you're on the hook for it. If the conclusion was that you should pay for sex, he would say you should pay the woman in all instances of sexual encounter, not just those that result in pregnancy.

People take actions, actions have consequence, we are responsible for those consequences. Many times the consequences are low probability, and you may not realize them. But anything with a non-zero probability has a chance of being realized, and once realized you are beholden to them.



Yes, of course it did. You took a precaution that dramatically lowers probabilities. That probability is still not zero (only abstinence has zero probabilities...well outside Christian mythology, lol) and there is still an outside chance that consequences are realized, same as before. But those chances have been greatly reduced (not eliminated) through the use of a condom.

What is the justification for holding men and women to different standards though?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

The notion that only men might weasel out of responsibility is absurd. If you read my comment again, it was not gender-specific, and in this context applied to anyone who declares their "rights" to be paramount.

I read your post and its why i asked because in a practicle sense the woman is allowed to weasle out while the man is bound by law if he tries to do the same things.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Ikari]

What is the justification for holding men and women to different standards though?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Men and women are different. Sexual reproduction is not a symmetric dynamic.

 

[trouble13]

Not a detailed breakdown, and not necessarily showing 100% (75% would be acceptable, and still allow for minor incidental stuff), but yes, if requested by the NCP. The money is not for the CP, it is for the kid, and the NCP should have the right to know how THEIR MONEY is being spent for what is also THEIR KID. Don't get all mealy-mouthed and just *say* that the kid is both parent's and not really mean it.

What about you? What do you think on this question?



This is why I refuse to use this app. (Not directed at you, but at them.)

Yup in principle ild say we agree.

In practice and how i would do it we might differ. Ild reform the whole system. I think the system should come up with a dollar amount that is the minimum amount of money required to cover a childs basic survival needs, shelter, clothes, food, health, etc....

Whatever the determined amount is it should be divided in 1/2 and that is the amount each parent is required to provide. This would eliminate the need to audit any money. If the child is being provided for and the NCP is up to date on their money it can be assumed it is being used correctly.

If either parents wants to spend more on their child like buying them desighner clothes or paying for a private education or whatever there is nothing preventing that either. That should be consideted discretionary spending.

Imo thats a fair way to determine and divide parents finacial responsibilities.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I can't count the number of times I have seen a man loose a custody battle for his children to the mother. Often despite evidence that the man would make a better father than the woman would make a mother. Then for quite a few ex-wives they either take the children to another state completely knowing that the man cannot follow due to other obligations (such as military) or convincing a judge that the father should be completely restrained from ever seeing the kids. And then, after the woman achieves custody they go after the father for every penny that they can squeeze out of them for child support. And lets face it/admit it, we've all heard examples of some mother using the kids to get revenge on the father.

And that I think is completely wrong. If the mother refuses or arranges it so that the father cannot at the very least see and spend a little time with his children then why should the father be forced to pay child support? It IS his children also after all.

Note: This is NOT about making it to where fathers do not have to pay child support. This is about making it to where vengeful ex-wives cannot use their children as a weapon.

Note 2: I am quite aware that there are men that do this also. I don't think that it is any more right than the ex-wives doing it. But I am focusing on the mens side more due to the fact that women seem to do it far more than the men do. Perhaps that is just a product of the way our system is in that it is disproportionately in favor of women when it comes to child custody battles. Either way, lets discuss it from the mans point of view to simplify this and while this might not accomplish anything beyond a simple debate here at DP we can assume that any law enacted regarding this would include both men and women equally.

I agree with you that this is a bad state of affairs (and I have lived through that mess -- my father was one of the lucky few who won his case, but only after 2 years of struggle), but I disagree that cutting off child support to spite the mother is the solution.

I don't think men should be forced to pay child support if they were unaware of the child, or made their dissent clear during pregnancy. But once a child is here and they've spent years raising it, they've assumed responsibility -- just like a mother can't just drop her 10-year-old. There is now an existent child who is attached to their parental figures, and spiting the mother should not be the first thing on the agenda. You're hurting the child too when you do that.

A better solution would be for it to be illegal to deny parental time in the absence of evidence of abuse or neglect.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

Unfortunately, due to flawed (and growing) concepts such as Male Privilege, the rights of men are seen as subservient to that of women, in the eyes of the law. This means that they will see things favoring women, like this, is just tipping the scales back in balance.

So I don't think we're likely to see much of a change here. Just my take on it.

Nonsense. This issue has been around forever, and actually improved since I was young, in no small part due to feminism.

It isn't feminism that thinks only women are suited to dealing with children, and that women can't support themselves. It's patriarchy that thinks that. It is not the fault of feminists that the elderly male judges that make up the majority of our court system still believe that.

After all, it's not a panel of feminists who decide these cases, is it. It's majority elderly male judges.

Feminism has been slowly working away at this, albeit indirectly, and it is better than it was 15 years ago. I can attest to that personally.

Men tried to work on it too -- with feminists -- but unfortunately they wound up getting drowned out by misogynist MRA's. I would invite the men of the early part of that era who were trying to do some good work to splinter off and try to reconvene, rather than trying to save the festering remains of their initial movement. Feminists were, and still are, more than happy to talk to them.

More work to be done obviously, but to say this is some feminist plot is completely ignorant of history.

 

[trouble13]

No, we're not going to. There was always going to be some asymmetry with this issue because sexual reproduction is asymmetric. Men enjoyed the advantage early on because the woman carries the baby and the man can GTFO at any point. It's swung the other way now. It's not fair, but life has never been fair. It's about probabilities and statistics, it's about action and consequence. that's it. A cold and uncaring place. Know the system you are operating in and make appropriate and educated decisions, live by the consequences.

Yup and you reap what you sow.

Men are dropping out of your unfair system in alarming numbers. They understand that it does not benefit them to play by your rules.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Ikari]

Yup and you reap what you sow.

Men are dropping out of your unfair system in alarming numbers. They understand that it does not benefit them to play by your rules.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

What are my rules? What did I set up here? Got some evidence that I did anything other than state the reality of the system?

And men are dropping out? How? They not having sex anymore, people not getting pregnant anymore? How are they "dropping out"?

 

[trouble13]

I agree with you that this is a bad state of affairs (and I have lived through that mess -- my father was one of the lucky few who won his case, but only after 2 years of struggle), but I disagree that cutting off child support to spite the mother is the solution.

I don't think men should be forced to pay child support if they were unaware of the child, or made their dissent clear during pregnancy. But once a child is here and they've spent years raising it, they've assumed responsibility -- just like a mother can't just drop her 10-year-old. There is now an existent child who is attached to their parental figures, and spiting the mother should not be the first thing on the agenda. You're hurting the child too when you do that.

A better solution would be for it to be illegal to deny parental time in the absence of evidence of abuse or neglect.

This is one of the more reasonable suggestions i have seen around here

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[trouble13]

What are my rules? What did I set up here? Got some evidence that I did anything other than state the reality of the system?

And men are dropping out? How? They not having sex anymore, people not getting pregnant anymore? How are they "dropping out"?

They are your rules in that you agree and support them. You have been justifing why men should be treated eith hostility.

Yes men are having sex much less than they were. They are also choosing to live on welfare rather than be active participants in the workforce. Some are activily choosing jail time for back support. Even colleges are seeing depressed male enrollment. All these stats have been growing over the past 30 years. Men are losing interest in women and society.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Ikari]

They are your rules in that you agree and support them. You have been justifing why men should be treated eith hostility.

This argument is ridiculously stupid because i haven't.

Yes men are having sex much less than they were. They are also choosing to live on welfare rather than be active participants in the workforce. Some are activily choosing jail time for back support. Even colleges are seeing depressed male enrollment. All these stats have been growing over the past 30 years. Men are losing interest in women and society.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Oh yes...men are having less sex and losing interest in women. :roll:

Anything to back this up? Or are we just throwing out claims.

 

[Visbek]

I can't count the number of times I have seen a man loose a custody battle for his children to the mother.

Sorry dude, but anti-male gender bias in family courts is a myth.

https://kar.kent.ac.uk/1719/1/R_Hunter_As_everybody_knows_2001.pdf

By the way, roughly half of custody arrangements are settled amicably. Only 4% of custody cases go to trial, and most of those are settled before there's a ruling. I've seen estimates ranging anywhere from 1.5% to 5% of all custody cases decided at trial.

Often despite evidence that the man would make a better father than the woman would make a mother.

Unless the evidence shows otherwise. (See above link)

Then for quite a few ex-wives they either take the children to another state completely knowing that the man cannot follow due to other obligations....

Men with custody do this as well.

after the woman achieves custody they go after the father for every penny that they can squeeze out of them for child support.

Yes, that's usually how courts work. It's an adversarial system. It's not like the courts typically see that the custodial parent lowballs the amount, then doubles it as a reward for their modesty.

And lets face it/admit it, we've all heard examples of some mother using the kids to get revenge on the father.

Oh. Well, if we've "heard examples," then it must be true :roll:

I've also "heard examples" of people claiming that Airborne and echinacea prevent people from getting sick. They're wrong, of course, but hey they've got their stories, right!

If the mother refuses or arranges it so that the father cannot at the very least see and spend a little time with his children then why should the father be forced to pay child support? It IS his children also after all.

As noted above, 95% or more of custody cases are arranged by agreement, not by the courts.

So if the husband is not seeing the kid? Most of the time it's because he agreed to the schedule and/or didn't want to see the kid.

Note: This is NOT about making it to where fathers do not have to pay child support. This is about making it to where vengeful ex-wives cannot use their children as a weapon.

While I am sure you are sincere here, the reality is that this is rarely the case.

I've also heard people on both sides complaining bitterly about alimony, custody, child support, kids turning against parents, custodial parents leaving the area, the list goes on. Ultimately this is not a gender thing. It's a "pissed off about being tied to this person who divorced me" thing.

 

[trouble13]

This argument is ridiculously stupid because i haven't.



Oh yes...men are having less sex and losing interest in women. :roll:

Anything to back this up? Or are we just throwing out claims.

My opinion is based on data.

Millennials are having less sex than any generation in 60 years. Here’s why it matters. - LA Times

Do you need to find you a link showing men are dropping out of the workfoece too?

There is coresponding data available for everything i have said.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk