CPAC: Consevatives Vote for Ron Paul

Remove all ads!

Men (and I use the term loosely) do it all the time. This is nothing new, NOG. I'm not saying they should do it but they can if they choose.

 

I think it's illegal not to pay child-support, isn't it? I don't know how well enforced that rule is, but it is the law, right?

 

I don't know about in the States, but it's enforced pretty strictly up here -- if you are a decent citizen, that is. If you just drop off the radar, then the enforcement isn't so hot, but it's not that easy for a civilized person to do that.

Chandos, I'm a little unclear -- you seriously believe that if a guy fathers a child he should just be able to sign a paper and then never have to take any responsibility for the financial or social welfare of that child again?

 

Ok, yes. When I was married to my ex-wife she would always start-up about this. Every time her ex would miss a child support payment, she wanted him to sign his rights away to me (they hated each other), and have me become her daughter's legal parent. I never thought it was a good idea and I was glad I never went for it. I know when I lived in Ohio people did it all the time as well, so it's not just Texas.

They really don't do much to a guy who doesn't pay support, at least here. Why? A judge's reasoning is that if you put him in jail, he can't make any money anyway, so what's the point? Their first thought is how things affect the child. Usually, they garnish their wages, and that's pretty effective.

 

Yeah, but a lot of these guys just go under the table and move around so much that garnishing their wages is next to impossible. Here in Canada, some of these guys move around so much it's next to impossible to keep up with them. They can't renew their licences or get a passport, but they cheerfully drive around with no licence or insurance, and when they get caught, our catch and release system does nothing.

The solution of the courts is to brutally penalize the guy with a stable job who makes every effort to make his payments on time while still letting the dirtbags run free and pay nothing. Yeah, that's really logical

 

Well, Chandos, garneshed wages isn't exactly 'acting like they never had a child'.

 

That's beside the point. You don't think "dads" don't do that? My wife's biological dad left his family when she was child, like 7 or 8. She is in her mid-30's now and has never heard from him since. So much for the "dad's rights," at least in some cases.

 

Reason!

So the law is actually counter-productive to the idea of ensuring or enforcing child support, and consequently not being consequently applied - then why retain it? Assumption: Because it feels good to have tough laws, never mind their utility.

 

Well, garnishing wages, while not 100% effective, is usually adequate to ensure the mother gets something for the child, which, even if it is less than what the father would normally pay is better than the nothing he would be paying otherwise. Granted, the few instances I am aware of where the guy had his wages garnished were scenarios where he had a stable job, where he was on payroll, and paying taxes. If the guy in question is working odd jobs and getting paid under the table, there really isn't anything you can do.

 

Let me share something with you, though I am ashamed to say it. My brother is a deadbeat. 100% no question. He floats from job to job and address to address. Maintenance Enforcement won't really get serious until he owes over $100,000 in back payments, so he can get away with it. Of course, he cannot get a passport, renew his licence, get car insurance, or do several other things. But no big deal to him. As long as he gets his fixes he's happy. In the meantime his wife is left holding the bag. The bill has gotten to be so high (still less than $100,00, I reckon) that there's no likelihood of him ever paying it, so our weak willed government does little to nothing on it and lets my sister-in-law suffer extreme financial hardship.

I say that what he does is utterly reprehensible and should be punished as brutally as possible. I would cheerfully pay an extra 4% sales tax if I knew the money was going toward punishing (via long term incarceration) this sort of crap. I know it wouldn't get my sister-in-law any money, but it would teach my brother, in maybe the only way he knows how to be taught, that you can't just walk away from your responsibilities.

This is my brother, and I love him, but justice and decency should never be overshadowed by blood.

I understand what you are saying, Ragusa, but it just doesn't wash with me -- those who do not make any effort at all to fulfill their duties must be punished.

Now, how about the guy, like me, who calls maintenance enforcement all the time to ensure that payment was received. I have called them on the 25th of the month to tell them that payment might be 1 day late because of a car accident or similar unavoidable situation. They know that I am a decent person and can see my track record of on time payments, but do they cut a decent, hardworking guy any slack at all? Nope. PUNISHMENT must be levied against those who are trying their darndest to do the right thing, while NOTHING is done to the dregs of society. Yeah, that makes total effing sense.

 

Because child support is not about punishment, it's about responsibilty (hoping that the father will build a relationship with his children). So if you put the guy in jail, he can't hold any kind of steady job and it also makes it that much harder for him to get one. I suppose a child could come to the County Jail to visit, but it's the mom who usually puts him there. The idea is what is best for the child, not about punishing the guy because he is a dead-beat.

I remember how my ex would always rant about putting the guy in jail for non-payment, and I could tell it really upset her daughter when she would get started. My ex would always go on to explain about how he was a dead-beat and a crappy dad for not paying support. Obviously that didn't help much either. She was never able to put him in jail though, but his wages were garnished, since he had a steady job. But I remember she was always trying to get more money out him.

 

In Germany courts have of lately limited the amount of child support a mother could receive because child support is for the child and not for the mother i.e. is no surrogate for her getting a job (i.e. the court said basically that having had children is no entitlement for an income) - the idea being that if she can get a job, she is obliged to do so to reduce the burden put on the father. If she can or could get a job, but doesn't want to she gets less because of her choice. In the end it is rather consequent, after all, it merely reflects the flip side of emancipation.

That doesn't mean a children's biological father is not obliged to pay for his children. But that is a civil law obligation, that can be enforced far better with civil law instruments like enforcement of court orders and garnishing income. Jail for people who don't pay child support is the modern day equivalent of them medieval 'Schuldturm' and as such an anachronism.

As Chandos said, it's not just that if you put the guy in jail he can't hold any kind of steady job while in jail- it also makes it that much harder for him to get one once out of jail, further reducing the long term prospects for the generation of child support.

 

Well, this thread has gone off-topic so many times that I don't suppose it really matters any more, but by point in bringing this whole issue up is that the current legal system gives the woman a chance to change her mind after the fact (of conception), but not the man. It's a bit of a double standard, but I guess that's nothing new in the family courts.

 

Agreed that other remedies should be applied before jailing the guy, but if those remedies are not working -- that is to say, the payment is still not being made -- then I don't think that jail is anachronistic at all.

And Chandos, I have to disagree with you -- in many cases child support is used by the woman to punich the man for his shortcomings. Inability to pay or inability to pay what she thinks is the right amount is not taken into account, and the men are punished for having dared to defy the will of the almighty bra burning whore.

In theory it is "about the children", but in practice it is often about screwing the man over royally despite his best efforts

 

I agree, it is a double standard, but it is so by necessity. There is no compromise position to be reached when one parent wants to have the child and the other one does not. You cannot have half a child, so whatever the outcome one person gets their way and the other one does not. So there's no real way around the issue - one parent's wishes by necessity have to take priority over the other, as there is no middle ground to be had. It's set up so that the woman has the decision authority, which makes as she has to do more of the work.

 

The answer to that is obvious: That would require the use of the woman's body. Like I said, the day that the guy can have a baby with his own body, he's welcome to it. Again, you are forcing the woman into involuntary servitude by forcing her to have a baby, and the use of her body, for someone else. I can't think of anything more private than your own body, except maybe your mind.

Yes, that was my point about my ex, who relished punishing and tormenting her ex, and she was a sceaming, uneducated, Texas, Republican/conservative-loving, "gentlewoman." She was hardly a "bra burning" feminist, unless one was in it.

 

Wow, I just checked in and didn't expect to see a discussion about childcare payments.

This strikes me as relating a bit to our thread in AoDA about women lying in courts. Drifting slightly off topic and mainly by men over what is proper or not.


For my many of you seem to have decent points.

There are people who are deadbeats and get away with it.

There are women who simply look at payments for it as a way to hit the ex (probably just one of many ways).

And the system is silly/dysfunctional if it doesn't try to allow flexibility for people who try to be good for their children but ignores those who don't.

This last issue looks like a problem that could actually be addressed by reasonable people and at least some sort of solution gone for.

Though a counter cultural way of dealing with it may be to argue for awarding children to the husband/father more often. Though I can speak of a couple of situations involving real human beings where I think of that as a bad idea (father shouldn't be raising the child). But exceptions to that generality do exist and perhaps should be recognized as such more often.

 

I have a situation like this in my family. My wife's sister married a man who had two children from a previous marriage. They have primary custody over the children, even though the ex-wife also remarried and had another child of her own.

 

The middle ground would be requiring the mother to go it alone unless she had some form of promise of committment from the man (i.e. marriage). If she has sole authority over what happens to the child (keep, abort, give up), she also has sole responsability.

And for those complaining that that would harm the child, remember that adoption is a very viable alternative, especially for newborns.

Again, unless she was raped, she volunteered for it. That we aren't letting her back out mid-way (and ending an extablished/eminently potential life) isn't the same thing as 'using her as a breeder'.

 

Cut the bull, NOG. Where did she "volunteer" for it if it is against her will to have a child?