Male Opt Out

[vegas giants]

Yeah! You're welcome!

Thank you for your opinion

 

[HowardBThiname]

Howard...
I would like others to chime in. I could understand if they were requiring an amount to handle the transaction because a person was not reliable , so the intervention was court ordered - but hell, that ain't right if the person has been reliable with support.

That's my take on it, too, but all child support goes through the agency. And those "collection fees" are deducted from the court-ordered amount the child is to receive. I don't think that's right.

 

[year2late]

That's my take on it, too, but all child support goes through the agency. And those "collection fees" are deducted from the court-ordered amount the child is to receive. I don't think that's right.

I looked on a California law site, and it states most transactions are person to person without such intervention.

I am curious, can you go on a legal site for your state and find the info?

 

[HowardBThiname]

I looked on a California law site, and it states most transactions are person to person without such intervention.

I am curious, can you go on a legal site for your state and find the info?

Yeah sure, it was easy to locate.

https://www.kansaslegalservices.org/node/1576/faqs-about-child-support

The payment of child support under all Kansas child support orders is paid through the Kansas Payment Center.

We can't be the only state that does that.

 

[btthegreat]

Originally for the few who had children but didn't want to assist. But, communities found a way to capitalize on the issue, and started having child support payment routed through their offices, skimming a bit off the top, of course, for their troubles. I'd be willing to bet that 80-90% of the men and women who must pay would do so without the courts watching them. I believe most people are honest.

Its not primarily about a scumwad and his lies. It normally starts with lots of good faith and an understanding Momma, but then that good faith gets quickly tested by the real world of '**** creeks and short paddles' Dad gets in a financial bind, starts sending partial payments with all good intentions to 'make it up next month', that neither side does a great job documenting the 50 bucks he says he gave on the 22nd four months ago. Mom gets in financial bind and starts getting increasingly pissy, especially when she sees the new car Dad drives over, with a blond in the passenger seat. Dad hears Mom got a promotion and now has moved in a sketchy border to sublet the basement and notes the kid has torn jeans and shoes with holes . There is often a real value to an independent party collecting the payment and documenting the completed transaction. Once the state has decided as a matter of policy that child support is an obligation that benefits both the child directly and the community at large by stabilizing income in single parent households, its a small step for the state to decide that monitoring compliance is to the same benefit as well.

I think you can assume all three interested parties Mom, Dad and the State begin this dance with good intentions, and still recognize that any of the three can end up tainted and corrupted.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Howard, this isn't how this works. It normally starts with lots of good faith and an understanding Moma, but then that good faith gets quickly tested by the real world of '**** creeks and short paddles' Dad gets in a financial bind, starts sending partial payments with all good intentions, that neither side does a great job documenting. Mom gets in financial bind and starts getting increasingly pissy, especially when she sees the new car Dad drives over, with a blond in the passenger seat. Dad sees that the kid has torn jeans and shoes with hole and hears Mom got a promotion and now has moved in a sketchy border to sublet the basement. There is often a real value to an independent party collecting the payment and documenting the completed transaction.

I get that -- but why should the collection fee come out of the money the judge ordered to be awarded to the child. It seems like the fee should be added on so the child isn't the one who ends up paying it.

 

[btthegreat]

Its not primarily about a scumwad and his lies. It normally starts with lots of good faith and an understanding Momma, but then that good faith gets quickly tested by the real world of '**** creeks and short paddles' Dad gets in a financial bind, starts sending partial payments with all good intentions to 'make it up next month', that neither side does a great job documenting the 50 bucks he says he gave on the 22nd four months ago. Mom gets in financial bind and starts getting increasingly pissy, especially when she sees the new car Dad drives over, with a blond in the passenger seat. Dad hears Mom got a promotion and now has moved in a sketchy border to sublet the basement and notes the kid has torn jeans and shoes with holes . There is often a real value to an independent party collecting the payment and documenting the completed transaction. Once the state has decided as a matter of policy that child support is an obligation that benefits both the child directly and the community at large by stabilizing income in single parent households, its a small step for the state to decide that monitoring compliance is to the same benefit as well.

I think you can assume all three interested parties Mom, Dad and the State begin this dance with good intentions, and still recognize that any of the three can end up tainted and corrupted.

Revised and extended. Family court hearings are a taxpayer fronted cost. Its costs society when Mom and Dad forget the details of their private little agreements. A judge has to decide if Mom actually promised to offset child support by 50 dollars for four months, when Dad put a new transmission in her car.

 

[btthegreat]

I get that -- but why should the collection fee come out of the money the judge ordered to be awarded to the child. It seems like the fee should be added on so the child isn't the one who ends up paying it.

Oh I see your point. Duh! of course you are right!

To the broader points in this thread, I think this is a good discussion. I am not unsympathetic to what you are trying to accomplish. Its not enough for the state to rest its policy case for the current system on the inequalities of 'biology'. If we can find a system that provides a secure income for kids AND offers a closer faximile to fairness than the current one, I would support reform. We have 50 states for a reason. Let one of them try a version of your 'bill' and see what happens!

 

[Lursa]

Yeah sure, it was easy to locate.

https://www.kansaslegalservices.org/node/1576/faqs-about-child-support



We can't be the only state that does that.

Well that's bureaucracy but it's also business.

Just like, for example, vehicle licensing here. The county contracts it out to private businesses and of course they are entitled to take a %.

If you think the amount is too high, that's one thing, if you think there's corruption, that's another.

*supposedly* contracting things like this out costs less overall. Usually in terms employee benefits, which are very expensive.

My local PUD contracted out the meter reading several months ago. I get somebody new all the time, they cant have the key to my farm gate anymore, and my dogs scare the **** out of every new person they send because they dont know them.

 

[AGENT J]

Over 2500 posts and the facts of the actual topic still remain. The topic is the inequality between women and men based on law/ legal options. The amount of mental gymnastics going on to try and leave the topic behind and deflect away from it is pretty funny but that is the topic.

FACTS

Current Law
Women Consent to sex =/= consent to being a parent, no force
Men Consent to sex = consent to being a parent and its forced
UNEQUAL

Presented Law Change
Women Consent to sex =/= consent to being a parent, no force
Men Consent to sex =/= consent to being a parent, no force
EQUAL

Facts still reigns 100% true. And nothing has been added that isnt a complete strawman or some other topic

Again for those of you that are fine with in NOT being equal thats fine and your choice but nobody honest is going to let you claim its something different. The fact is you support it not being equal based on what ever premise you choose but its still factually not equal. If thats how you feel, great, people will point out that factual inequality every time.

List of things that don't matter:
abortion
Biology
taxes
Birth Control/safe sex
subjective opinions of "responsibility"
subjective emotions
angry rage
. . . all failed arguments. None of that matters one bit and impacts the facts. Disagree prove they matter to the topic at hand and change it.

So we are waiting on you, please provide ONE fact that disproves the facts list above . . ONE, thanks!

 

[Celebrity]

I do not accept that one gender should have a privaliged life style. Which is why i object to some men pleading that they have a right to act without caring for the consequences of their actions.

Nor am i pretending any such thing of men and women enjoying the same form of due process of law as equals. Men do not get pregnant so have no right to claim that they are the equal of women who do.

And once again it must be pointed out that no one is forcing men to become parents. They are just being told that they must face up to their own actions and take responsibility for them. The law is not the same because we have two different things going on here. One is women having the right to choose and the other is men being held accountable for what they do.

Pregnancy is a biological consequence of being female. There is enough medical knowledge to treat the condition from beginning to end. So is prostate cancer, although it is less well understood. If I have a problem with my prostate, then I don't require a former sexual partner to solve that problem. The very idea is ridiculous. What is clear is that the "privileges" of being cared for and having choices are enjoyed by women.

Parentage is another matter entirely. We know that the circumstances of parentage vary greatly. Children need not depend on their biological parents, if they are adopted. Children in the foster care system are not dependent on their biological parents. Forced fatherhood is executed at the convenience of the state, and its sole purpose is to benefit the state by threatening fathers with incarceration and extortion.

So men are getting extorted?

Yep

 

[Celebrity]

Women dont opt out of parenthood, they have a medical procedure, or not.

Wrong. A pregnant woman can opt out of parenthood in a couple of different ways. She can take a pill. She can get an abortion. She can put the child up for adoption with or without permission from anyone else.

Medically or not, women have options. Men have no options, which is why we call it forced fatherhood when it is involuntary. The state chooses when and where men become fathers, but the same cannot be said for women.

 

[Lursa]

Wrong. A pregnant woman can opt out of parenthood in a couple of different ways. She can take a pill. She can get an abortion. She can put the child up for adoption with or without permission from anyone else.

Medically or not, women have options. Men have no options, which is why we call it forced fatherhood when it is involuntary. The state chooses when and where men become fathers, but the same cannot be said for women.

So then men can opt out of parenthood too...not having sex, using a condom, having a vasectomy....

Women have one biological option men dont. No law can change that and it's a million times more unfair, including dangerous, for women. If she puts it up for adoption without him knowing, he has no child support :doh (altho I think that is wrong)

So drop the victim act. The state doesnt decide when a man becomes a father... the man knowingly risks it when he has sex and becomes a father when and if a kid is born. The state is responsible for the best interests of the child and TO the taxpayers to make sure that both parents contribute to the raising of the kid they produced.

It's perfectly equal: women have never been able to have sex without consequences. Now men cant either.

Equal.

 

[Celebrity]

So then men can opt out of parenthood too...not having sex, using a condom, having a vasectomy....

So then women can opt of motherhood. Don't have sex. Use a condom. Have a hystorectomy.

Either you have made an argument against abortion or you believe women are superior to men. You are a bigot.

 

[soylentgreen]

Pregnancy is a biological consequence of being female. There is enough medical knowledge to treat the condition from beginning to end. So is prostate cancer, although it is less well understood. If I have a problem with my prostate, then I don't require a former sexual partner to solve that problem. The very idea is ridiculous. What is clear is that the "privileges" of being cared for and having choices are enjoyed by women.

What an absolute bull**** analogy.
Your partner did not help cause your prostate. That as your own life style / genetic problem.
However, it takes two to get pregnant and your trying to run away from your responsibility with this weak analogy.
As well you are once again trying the lame and untrue suggestion that a woman is getting it easy by becoming pregnant and choosing to keep the child. That it is some how a privilege.

Parentage is another matter entirely. We know that the circumstances of parentage vary greatly. Children need not depend on their biological parents, if they are adopted. Children in the foster care system are not dependent on their biological parents. Forced fatherhood is executed at the convenience of the state, and its sole purpose is to benefit the state by threatening fathers with incarceration and extortion.
Yep

Where as all you want is to never have anyone question your actions or demand that you be held responsible for your actions.
As far as you are concerned being held responsible is the government forcing you to do something.

You are not being asked to be a parent. You really need to stop begging for pity by using that word. All that is being asked is that you have a financial responsibility for your on actions.

 

[Lursa]

So then men can opt out of parenthood too...not having sex, using a condom, having a vasectomy....

Women have one biological option men dont. No law can change that

So then women can opt of motherhood. Don't have sex. Use a condom. Have a hystorectomy.

Either you have made an argument against abortion or you believe women are superior to men. You are a bigot.

You just pointed out that it's equal. What is bigoted about that? Women can do all those things. So can men. No one prevents men from taking any or all of those actions to protect themselves...men are not victims.

 

[vegas giants]

You just pointed out that it's equal. What is bigoted about that? Women can do all those things. So can men. No one prevents men from taking any or all of those actions to protect themselves...men are not victims.

Women get a extra choice post conception. That is unfair and a violation of civil rights

 

[Lursa]

What an absolute bull**** analogy.


Where as all you want is to never have anyone question your actions or demand that you be held responsible for your actions.
As far as you are concerned being held responsible is the government forcing you to do something.

You are not being asked to be a parent. You really need to stop begging for pity by using that word. All that is being asked is that you have a financial responsibility for your on actions.

Well said.

There is a play for victimhood when they are no longer entitled to have sex without consequences...which women cannot and never have been...yet some claim it's unequal! Yes, it is....the balance is still much more in favor of men.

 

[vegas giants]

Well said.

There is a play for victimhood when they are no longer entitled to have sex without consequences...which women cannot and never have been...yet some claim it's unequal! Yes, it is....the balance is still much more in favor of men.

Men often can not have sex without consequences

 

[roguenuke]

Women get a extra choice post conception. That is unfair and a violation of civil rights

Men also do not have to take on the biologically unfair burden of pregnancy and/or decision to have an abortion, and/or the threat of harm to her body, including death.

 

[vegas giants]

Men also do not have to take on the biologically unfair burden of pregnancy and/or decision to have an abortion, and/or the threat of harm to her body, including death.

She need not take on that burden at all. Everyone on here is talking about how men can use contraception to avoid any of his potential financial problems....contraception also works for women

 

[roguenuke]

She need not take on that burden at all. Everyone on here is talking about how men can use contraception to avoid any of his potential financial problems....contraception also works for women

Being pregnant is a burden, so as soon as that happens, she is facing a larger burden than he is and your "equality" claim fails.

 

[vegas giants]

Being pregnant is a burden, so as soon as that happens, she is facing a larger burden than he is and your "equality" claim fails.

Paying 18 years for a child you never wanted is also a burden. They keep telling me there is a way out of this burden for women....we should have one for men too.

 

[Lursa]

Being pregnant is a burden, so as soon as that happens, she is facing a larger burden than he is and your "equality" claim fails.

There doesnt seem to be any concern about others' burdens at all...not women, taxpayers, or kids. Just pretend victimization.

I saw the difficulty a few pages back where some people couldnt figure out why we had to have laws for child support in the first place.

 

[roguenuke]

Paying 18 years for a child you never wanted is also a burden. They keep telling me there is a way out of this burden for women....we should have one for men too.

She faces that same burden, so that is not relevant to what you are attempting to compare here.