Should the fathers of the unborn have a say in the process?

[Removable Mind]

Why the lies? No one is sent to jail for being unemployed and just because one pays child support one is not denied parental rights.

Actually in the State of Texas an unemployed non-custodial parent can be sent to jail for contempt of court for failing to pay child support. There’s no statute of limitations on back payments. The only thing a noncustodial parent can do if they become unemployed is RUN, not walk, to the Attorney General Office, Child Support Division and ask for legal aid to get the court to revise the orders. But an accruing amount of support will continue based on what the person would pay if earning minimum wage. That is to be paid when the parent becomes employed.

However, unless the court changes the “Parent - Child Relationship Order, the custodial parent can hit with contempt of court for withholding visitation as specified in the orders.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/cs/handbook-for-non-custodial-parents

 

[prometeus]

Actually in the State of Texas an unemployed non-custodial parent can be sent to jail for contempt of court for failing to pay child support. There’s no statute of limitations on back payments. The only thing a noncustodial parent can do if they become unemployed is RUN, not walk, to the Attorney General Office, Child Support Division and ask for legal aid to get the court to revise the orders. But an accruing amount of support will continue based on what the person would pay if earning minimum wage. That is to be paid when the parent becomes employed.

However, unless the court changes the “Parent - Child Relationship Order, the custodial parent can hit with contempt of court for withholding visitation as specified in the orders.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/cs/handbook-for-non-custodial-parents

Child support and the laws enacted in connection with it are enacted for the protection of the children who's well being and needs can only be met, in most cases, with the help of the payments. As such these laws are very important and rightfully so. While sadly there are numerous dead beat parents who deservedly get the books thrown in them and thrown in jail, even in a unique place such as Texas allowances are made for the instances where parents do not shirk their responsibilities but fall on hard times. Jailing a parent who meets his or her obligation all the time who due to no fault of their own loose that ability temporarily, does not serve the child who's well being is the primary objective.
Clearly just being laid off is not a get out of jail card but neither is it a jail sentence.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Child support and the laws enacted in connection with it are enacted for the protection of the children who's well being and needs can only be met, in most cases, with the help of the payments. As such these laws are very important and rightfully so. While sadly there are numerous dead beat parents who deservedly get the books thrown in them and thrown in jail, even in a unique place such as Texas allowances are made for the instances where parents do not shirk their responsibilities but fall on hard times. Jailing a parent who meets his or her obligation all the time who due to no fault of their own loose that ability temporarily, does not serve the child who's well being is the primary objective.
Clearly just being laid off is not a get out of jail card but neither is it a jail sentence.

The best option, IMHO, is a work release program. The "deadbeat" is allowed and encouraged to work and remains incarcerated except to do so. The length of the sentence being defined by the amount of arrears.

 

[prometeus]

The best option, IMHO, is a work release program. The "deadbeat" is allowed and encouraged to work and remains incarcerated except to do so. The length of the sentence being defined by the amount of arrears.

I am perfectly fine with that in case of a deadbeat, not a good parent who has an unfortunate setback.

 

[Lursa]

If -- and this is just hypothetical -- if there was a way that men could opt-out after a pregnancy started that didn't cost the taxpayer (and the child didn't suffer) -- would you support it?

I would really like to hear your answer to that.

Absolutely. Apparently you havent been reading very well because I have written that many times in this thread.

By no means do I believe in being punitive here. I dont give men or women a pass on this issue.


However, since you emphasized 'if' and 'just hypothetical,' are you saying you dont really see any such way?

 

[Lursa]

What's the difference between a woman's bodily sovrienity and a man's? On the one hand, you refuse to allow someone to dictate what a woman can can't do with her own body (pro choice), but on the other hand, post choice, you refuse to allow a man the same right?

As to the answer to the question, mine is the same as yours, when asked it in an abortion thread.

I refuse neither. The decision is theirs, man and woman. But if they proceed, then BOTH have to accept the consequences. They both know the risks. ANd aman's body is not involved *at all* post-pregnancy.

Is there a reason why either cant refrain in order to protect themselves?

 

[Lursa]

please explain why men cant protect themselves from unwanted fatherhood by making their choice before having sex? WHy is that unacceptable, esp. since it is the only way to do so? By no one ever answering this, you all end up looking like victims....unable to control yourselves and at the mercy of women. Is that really the case? Men cant decide not to take that risk?

?

As to the answer to the question, mine is the same as yours, when asked it in an abortion thread.

Yeah, I say women can refrain from sex to protect themselves from unwanted motherhood and that it's acceptable.

So, then you agree that it's not unfair to men, because they can protect themselves 100% from unwanted fatherhood. And if they choose to have sex, then they pay the consequences, if there are any.

Just like women.

So I'd say, finally, we're done here. Men have no more to complain about than women when they make choices about sex and paying for any later consequences.

 

[Lursa]

An abortion is over with relatively quickly, and is statistically VERY low risk, by Lursa's own links. A pregnancy is over with in a year and a half (recovery time, that ****s no joke).

Child support is forced for 18 years. 18 years of being afraid to leave a job to get a better one, because if you go too long on unemployment for too long, jail time. Get too far behind, jail time. For a child he'll never get to see, won't have a say in upbringing, and won't have a relationship with. Over a choice he wasn't allowed to weight in on.

If you don't think that's just a little ducked up, there's something wrong with you.

Biology determines the choices. It's not fair. Biology isnt fair. Life isnt fair...are you claiming that you think life is fair? :doh

If a man doesnt want to risk 18 yrs of child support, he has 100% fool-proof way of avoiding it, doesnt he? So...why not? And knowing the risks, how can a man whine about the consequences after? Because 'it's not fair?' Maybe some men need to grow up if they think they can act anyway they please and then not be responsible for the consequences.

You cant make this fair. Women know this...we risk our bodies, even our lives. And we know we have to pay the consequences if there's a pregnancy. Seems like women have a much more realistic view of life.

Here's the reality today for men: have sex, risk pregnancy, risk child support. Since a man has 100% of preventing this, there is no way in Hell they should complain when it happens.

 

[Fenton Lum]

Should the fathers of the unborn have a say in the process? We are held responsible for support, even when the child turns out not to be biologically yours, so why don't we get an equal say?

This is left up to the states, have you reviewed the laws of all 50 states?

 

[Fenton Lum]

I refuse neither. The decision is theirs, man and woman. But if they proceed, then BOTH have to accept the consequences. They both know the risks. ANd aman's body is not involved *at all* post-pregnancy.

Is there a reason why either cant refrain in order to protect themselves?

If the decision is indeed theirs, you get nothing to say about any of it.

 

[Lursa]

Incorrect. Those who DO NOT pay go to jail. The court system doesn't care why they're not paying -- only that they're not paying. Look up the laws in your own state.

Educate yourself before making additional stupid comments.

https://www.thespruce.com/incarceration-for-non-payment-of-child-support-2997983

If you dont have a job, no income, they put you in jail for not paying child support?

 

[Lursa]

Actually in the State of Texas an unemployed non-custodial parent can be sent to jail for contempt of court for failing to pay child support. There’s no statute of limitations on back payments. The only thing a noncustodial parent can do if they become unemployed is RUN, not walk, to the Attorney General Office, Child Support Division and ask for legal aid to get the court to revise the orders. But an accruing amount of support will continue based on what the person would pay if earning minimum wage. That is to be paid when the parent becomes employed.

However, unless the court changes the “Parent - Child Relationship Order, the custodial parent can hit with contempt of court for withholding visitation as specified in the orders.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/cs/handbook-for-non-custodial-parents

Wow. OTOH, pretty much anyone can get a minimum wage job flipping burgers cant they?

I dont have alot of sympathy for people that can work, but dont. But if you have some disability or other issue that keeps you from working, I'd hope they'd revise the order.

I dont want child support to be viewed as punitive, and I'd hope that a man or woman would want to connect with their child besides that.

Edit: if you arent working, arent you likely getting some kind of public assistance? Or unemployment? Surely they could use those as leverage rather than jailing someone?

 

[Removable Mind]

I am perfectly fine with that in case of a deadbeat, not a good parent who has an unfortunate setback.

In Texas, there is little distinction. Like student loans, there’s no forgiveness. Only death ends their obligation.

The only way to prevent the worst case scenario is to immediately seek a change in the conditions of the custody order.

 

[Lursa]

If the decision is indeed theirs, you get nothing to say about any of it.

Very true, but I was using his phrasing to answer the question.

 

[jet57]

Should the fathers of the unborn have a say in the process? We are held responsible for support, even when the child turns out not to be biologically yours, so why don't we get an equal say?

They went through that in a court case already and no, men have no say so. BUT when she decides to keep the baby men get stuck for 18 years of child support; it's such a fair system.

 

[Removable Mind]

Wow. OTOH, pretty much anyone can get a minimum wage job flipping burgers cant they?

I dont have alot of sympathy for people that can work, but dont. But if you have some disability or other issue that keeps you from working, I'd hope they'd revise the order.

I dont want child support to be viewed as punitive, and I'd hope that a man or woman would want to connect with their child besides that.

Edit: if you arent working, arent you likely getting some kind of public assistance? Or unemployment? Surely they could use those as leverage rather than jailing someone?

Well yes, anyone could get minimum wage job to pay child support, but if you’ve maintained living standard based on earning $100K a year and with dedicated persistence attempting to acquire a near equal employment so as not to totally lose everything.

And yes, employment hunting as a first job and a minimum wage job is possible as a second job if all of the cosmic stars align.

While looking for employment, the court is compelled by law to create a new payment amount based on minimum wage earnings that will be allowed for a specific period, but must be paid according to the new orders.

But the support payer is never forgiven for any back payments. Thus it’s important to immediately seek a change of orders with the court.

Sticking one’s head in the sand or evading is a certain contempt of the court ruling and a quick ride to jail.

Life can be hard. Consequences for unexpected, unwanted events can be brutal. The unexpected and the unwanted aren’t strangers to most people. Along life’s journey - people learn that somethings that are unexpected and unwanted are preventable (in part or whole). It’s the knowledge and lessons we learn about minimizing the negative impacts of unexpected and unwanted events, situations, and circumstances are the things that are imperative to teach our kids as soon as possible.

 

[HowardBThiname]

You need to improve your reading comprehension before you make more stupid assertions that are clearly not supported.

You stated that only those who did not want to pay went to jail.

You were wrong. It's really that simple.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

If you dont have a job, no income, they put you in jail for not paying child support?

Sometimes, yes. If you lose your job, you need to petition the court immediately. The tab does not stop until the court order it stop. If you are in arrears, the debt cannot be discharged -- even by a judge. If the court finds that you're voluntarily underemployed, then can refuse to modify support based not on what you've actually earned but on your earning potential. Men are commonly jailed for failure to pay and then shamed as "deadbeats."

It's often the second job that really closes the trap. A man might be struggling to pay rent and child support, so he goes to get a second job to make ends meet. He has to report that new income to the state, and the custodial parent will be notified and given the option to pursue more child support based on the new income level. Now, the guy is trapped working two jobs and still struggling, but if he quits or loses one -- whether due to burnout of scheduling conflicts or whatever -- he's established a higher earning potential and is likely to fall into arrears.

 

[Lursa]

Well yes, anyone could get minimum wage job to pay child support, but if you’ve maintained living standard based on earning $100K a year and with dedicated persistence attempting to acquire a near equal employment so as not to totally lose everything.

And yes, employment hunting as a first job and a minimum wage job is possible as a second job if all of the cosmic stars align.

While looking for employment, the court is compelled by law to create a new payment amount based on minimum wage earnings that will be allowed for a specific period, but must be paid according to the new orders.

But the support payer is never forgiven for any back payments. Thus it’s important to immediately seek a change of orders with the court.

Sticking one’s head in the sand or evading is a certain contempt of the court ruling and a quick ride to jail.

Life can be hard. Consequences for unexpected, unwanted events can be brutal. The unexpected and the unwanted aren’t strangers to most people. Along life’s journey - people learn that somethings that are unexpected and unwanted are preventable (in part or whole). It’s the knowledge and lessons we learn about minimizing the negative impacts of unexpected and unwanted events, situations, and circumstances are the things that are imperative to teach our kids as soon as possible.

That would suck.

I also always looked at unplanned motherhood as a nightmare and so I always used birth control. Always, every single time, including a 13 year committed relationship. And I couldnt use the Pill.

So I do understand that there's a burden and a responsibility if you dont want to be a parent.

More men could avoid child support if they were willing to take all that into consideration before deciding whether or not to have sex.

 

[HowardBThiname]

Absolutely. Apparently you havent been reading very well because I have written that many times in this thread.

By no means do I believe in being punitive here. I dont give men or women a pass on this issue.


However, since you emphasized 'if' and 'just hypothetical,' are you saying you dont really see any such way?

I like your answer -- and, yes, I believe there will one day be a way that is acceptable to males and to taxpayers. I understand some of the flaws in my current proposition, but, as a race, we are quickly developing new technology and making what was once cost-prohibitive for many -- affordable. I think we'll not only come up with something, I think we'll one day have free birth control for all -- even if it's surgical.

 

[Lursa]

Sometimes, yes. If you lose your job, you need to petition the court immediately. The tab does not stop until the court order it stop. If you are in arrears, the debt cannot be discharged -- even by a judge. If the court finds that you're voluntarily underemployed, then can refuse to modify support based not on what you've actually earned but on your earning potential. Men are commonly jailed for failure to pay and then shamed as "deadbeats."

It's often the second job that really closes the trap. A man might be struggling to pay rent and child support, so he goes to get a second job to make ends meet. He has to report that new income to the state, and the custodial parent will be notified and given the option to pursue more child support based on the new income level. Now, the guy is trapped working two jobs and still struggling, but if he quits or loses one -- whether due to burnout of scheduling conflicts or whatever -- he's established a higher earning potential and is likely to fall into arrears.

Please see my post to RM about this but also realize that that nightmare you describe can also be the same or similar to a single woman trying to raise a kid or kids.

She made a decision: to have a kid, and it didnt work out the way she hoped..now it's 18 years of struggle (one hopes things get better)

Same for men: decision to have sex, it didnt work out the way he hoped...now it's 18 yrs of struggle (and one hopes that he also gets to make the most of being a father to the kid and things get better)

 

[HowardBThiname]

If you dont have a job, no income, they put you in jail for not paying child support?

Yes, they do. The article I linked to previously detailed how the person under arrest could go about taking steps to employ him/herself while still in jail.

Too many guys are true deadbeats -- if they earn any money -- it may be cash, which makes it impossible to garnish their wages. They certainly do go to jail.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

Please see my post to RM about this but also realize that that nightmare you describe can also be the same or similar to a single woman trying to raise a kid or kids.

She made a decision: to have a kid, and it didnt work out the way she hoped..now it's 18 years of struggle (one hopes things get better)

Same for men: decision to have sex, it didnt work out the way he hoped...now it's 18 yrs of struggle (and one hopes that he also gets to make the most of being a father to the kid and things get better)

I never meant to imply that single-parenthood is easy street. But there are distinct way in which fathers and mothers are treated by the state (in practice, as there are cases of fathers getting primary custody, but they are relatively uncommon still). The state will extend help to the custodial parent, will offer rent assistance, food assistance, job assistance, etc. They will not be threatened with jail when times are tough. They will not be made to pay back child support for life. They are not forced to register their home address and employment status with the state at all times.

Meanwhile, non-custodial parents will be given no benefits, no help, and no leeway. Heck, the state won't even enforce visitation for non-custodial parents. The suicide rate for fathers is through the roof. These people are discarded from their children's lives, stripped of their self-worth, then forced into indentured servitude.

 

[Lursa]

I never meant to imply that single-parenthood is easy street. But there are distinct way in which fathers and mothers are treated by the state (in practice, as there are cases of fathers getting primary custody, but they are relatively uncommon still). The state will extend help to the custodial parent, will offer rent assistance, food assistance, job assistance, etc. They will not be threatened with jail when times are tough. They will not be made to pay back child support for life. They are not forced to register their home address and employment status with the state at all times.

Meanwhile, non-custodial parents will be given no benefits, no help, and no leeway. Heck, the state won't even enforce visitation for non-custodial parents. The suicide rate for fathers is through the roof. These people are discarded from their children's lives, stripped of their self-worth, then forced into indentured servitude.

The main claim here in the thread is that men and women are not treated equally on this issue.

The law regarding the child does treat both equally. If the woman is the non-custodial parent, the same applies to her. In the past, women were often given priority when it came to custody, but that is changing. The law is still the same for both and hopefully, current family court judges will become more open to fathers getting custody. It's hard to force that change but the law is up-to-date.

IMO men should definitely get an equal and fair chance at custody.

 

[GhostlyJoe]

The main claim here in the thread is that men and women are not treated equally on this issue.

The law regarding the child does treat both equally. If the woman is the non-custodial parent, the same applies to her. In the past, women were often given priority when it came to custody, but that is changing. The law is still the same for both and hopefully, current family court judges will become more open to fathers getting custody. It's hard to force that change but the law is up-to-date.

IMO men should definitely get an equal and fair chance at custody.

In practice, it's hardly equal. The vast majority of support goes to women, who also initiate the vast majority of divorces. But that's a red herring, because the law itself needs to change to protect all parties. No one should be jailed for being poor or struggling to make ends meet. That's an injustice that needs addressed.

As to the OP, it's certainly true that women are given total control over reproductive issues beyond the initial sexual encounter. My advice to men would be not to have sex with women at all. Of course, that's unrealistic, but sex, and especially marriage, are political liabilities for men. The law is too unfair, and the stakes are too high.