Child Support is unfair

[AmyNation]

You sited a stat that says on average it costs over $1,000 a month to raise a child in middle income families.

The cases you sites are not middle income families.

Who's to say how much security p. diddy's child may need or other costs that middle American children dont have.

The mother goes with the child, I'm sorry there is no way to ensure that the child only benefits and not the mother.

Non-custodial parents pay a portion of their income, so they aren't overburdened with child support costs. For most people, this works rather well as no one wants to pay the actual costs of raising a child.

 

[Aristotle]

1st, what you purpose is a huge burden on the state, added layers of government we dont need, intrusiveness/loss of privacy from both the government and the other parent, and the cost would be very high for something I see as unnecessary.

2nd, you seem to be under the impression non-custodial parents are often sending excessive amounts of money that need to be accounted for.

I seriously think you need to invest some time in researching how much it cost to care for a child, because your lack of knowledge in this topic is glaring.

I never indicated non-custodial parents are sending excessive amounts. I am aware that the court system looks at it from what both parents make. I am merely suggesting that if the non-custodial parent is paying child support, there is should be a cap, and a tracking of items being purchased. This elminates financial disputes as there is clear documentation of purchased items. This also eliminates a lot of the custody battles allowing the courts to be more available for other issues.

Not to be argumentative here, but your position seems to favor the non-custodial parent. Often the reason they are non-custodial, or refused joint custody is for their controlling behavior before and during divorce process. You wish to give them a hammer, when they already have been found with problems.

Well I did begin this thread stating that my position is to not defend irresponsible men (or women). I believe mishandled money can be the devastator of all relationships.

 

[Annie]

I never indicated non-custodial parents are sending excessive amounts. I am aware that the court system looks at it from what both parents make. I am merely suggesting that if the non-custodial parent is paying child support, there is should be a cap, and a tracking of items being purchased. This elminates financial disputes as there is clear documentation of purchased items. This also eliminates a lot of the custody battles allowing the courts to be more available for other issues.

Not to be argumentative here, but your position seems to favor the non-custodial parent. Often the reason they are non-custodial, or refused joint custody is for their controlling behavior before and during divorce process. You wish to give them a hammer, when they already have been found with problems.

Well I did begin this thread stating that my position is to not defend irresponsible men (or women). I believe mishandled money can be the devastator of all relationships.

problems with money handling would be evidenced during the divorce proceedings. If those were an issue, one would think the court would step in. When not, excessive controls are not only not appropriate, but uncalled for and insulting.

 

[Aristotle]

You sited a stat that says on average it costs over $1,000 a month to raise a child in middle income families.

The cases you sites are not middle income families.

Who's to say how much security p. diddy's child may need or other costs that middle American children dont have.

The mother goes with the child, I'm sorry there is no way to ensure that the child only benefits and not the mother.

Non-custodial parents pay a portion of their income, so they aren't overburdened with child support costs. For most people, this works rather well as no one wants to pay the actual costs of raising a child.

I used P. Diddy and Barry Bonds as examples because those are tremendous amount of money.

 

[Aristotle]

Not to be argumentative here, but your position seems to favor the non-custodial parent. Often the reason they are non-custodial, or refused joint custody is for their controlling behavior before and during divorce process. You wish to give them a hammer, when they already have been found with problems.

Well I did begin this thread stating that my position is to not defend irresponsible men (or women). I believe mishandled money can be the devastator of all relationships.

problems with money handling would be evidenced during the divorce proceedings. If those were an issue, one would think the court would step in. When not, excessive controls are not only not appropriate, but uncalled for and insulting.

Well with the rate of single mothers mostly young, I believe control is what's needed.

 

[Annie]

Well I did begin this thread stating that my position is to not defend irresponsible men (or women). I believe mishandled money can be the devastator of all relationships.

problems with money handling would be evidenced during the divorce proceedings. If those were an issue, one would think the court would step in. When not, excessive controls are not only not appropriate, but uncalled for and insulting.

Well with the rate of single mothers mostly young, I believe control is what's needed.

Why 'single mothers'? Why 'young?'' You are talking about divorce, not paternity.

 

[Aristotle]

problems with money handling would be evidenced during the divorce proceedings. If those were an issue, one would think the court would step in. When not, excessive controls are not only not appropriate, but uncalled for and insulting.

Well with the rate of single mothers mostly young, I believe control is what's needed.

Why 'single mothers'? Why 'young?'' You are talking about divorce, not paternity.

Eh, I don't think my intent was to focus on divorce per say, but if that is what's being implied I apologize for the confusion.

As far as single mothers they are the most common in the U.S as far as having babies out of wedlock and are the most common recipients of state/federal mandated assistance programs.

 

[koshergrl]

Well I did begin this thread stating that my position is to not defend irresponsible men (or women). I believe mishandled money can be the devastator of all relationships.

problems with money handling would be evidenced during the divorce proceedings. If those were an issue, one would think the court would step in. When not, excessive controls are not only not appropriate, but uncalled for and insulting.

Well with the rate of single mothers mostly young, I believe control is what's needed.

Control by both parties, before a pregnancy ensues.

But control of one party by another, nope. You are divorced. You don't get to control from afar.

 

[koshergrl]

Well with the rate of single mothers mostly young, I believe control is what's needed.

Why 'single mothers'? Why 'young?'' You are talking about divorce, not paternity.

Eh, I don't think my intent was to focus on divorce per say, but if that is what's being implied I apologize for the confusion.

As far as single mothers they are the most common in the U.S as far as having babies out of wedlock and are the most common recipients of state/federal mandated assistance programs.

Except that's not what this conversation is about. This conversation is about how you think child support is unfair because non-custodial parents don't get to dictate how child support is applied in the household it's paid to.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The ebt doesn't track like you seem to think it does.

How does it declog our court system?

Who's going to pay for this new system of tracking you want?

And if the monies the primary parent spend far exceed the amount the other parent sends, are they then required to reimburse the primary parent?

The State can track what you spend and limit spending on items that are non-essential to sustenance. For example, with the EBT card you can track your balance and purchases you've made. I propose the same with child support. Have the state set standards of what is essential to the welfare of the child. Making purchases of alcohol and/or items not essential to the well-being of the child off limits.

Example:

The primary custodian must indicate how much rent they pay a month, have whatever amount that is agreed upon, and allow any monies to be deducted to go towards the rent and/or utilities. The purchasing of any or new items which causes debt, non-essential to the welfare of the child is off limits. The purchasing of alcohol or tabacco is off limits. The purchasing of adult clothing and/or gift bags is off limits. Any money that is taken out via ATM transaction must have follow up documentation as to why monies were taken out.

Sounds like work doesn't it? I gurantee you, if you employ this standard in divorce decrees or custody disputes the courts would be less clogged with domestic issues than they are now. As far as exceeding the amount all you have to do is come to an agreeable standard of payment per month or bi-weekly, put that amount on the card and have that person use that amount on that card.

If additional money is needed, social workers must be contacted, the person requesting an additional amount must document why he/she needs additional money and based on the request, the one paying child support must provide additional financial support. This eliminates custody disputes regarding finances.

The state cannot track private funds paid from one private citizen to another absent evidence of abuse, neglect, or some other criminal activity. That would violate due process doctrine and constitute a presumption of guilt on the part of the CP; citizens are not required to ‘prove’ they’re not doing anything wrong.

You’re also confusing public assistance with private party child support; the state can track the former as stewards of public monies.

And yet again: if the non-custodial parent believes there is abuse, neglect, or other inappropriate activity on the part of the CP, he/she can bring that evidence to the authorities and petition the court for a modification of the order.

Otherwise, it’s nonsense to propose a CP be subject to ‘tracking’ because he/she ‘might’ do something wrong.

And the anecdotal ‘evidence’ you provided in subsequent posts does not justify creation of a blanket tracking policy for all custodial parents.

 

[Aristotle]

Why 'single mothers'? Why 'young?'' You are talking about divorce, not paternity.

Eh, I don't think my intent was to focus on divorce per say, but if that is what's being implied I apologize for the confusion.

As far as single mothers they are the most common in the U.S as far as having babies out of wedlock and are the most common recipients of state/federal mandated assistance programs.

Except that's not what this conversation is about. This conversation is about how you think child support is unfair because non-custodial parents don't get to dictate how child support is applied in the household it's paid to.

Right and as I stated, any person who works for a living ought to have some say so as to how their money is being spent. I don't know any rational man who pays child support is careless as to how their money is being spent.

 

[koshergrl]

That doesn't make sense. Anyway, you have control over your money until the moment you send it off. Then it isn't your money anymore, and your power over it ends. As has already been pointed out, if your children are being abuse or neglected, THEN you may have a leg to stand on when it comes to custody...but that is a separate issue from child support, except as it applies to re-calculating.

You aren't going to find a judge in this country that will maintain that you have a *right* to tell your ex how to spend the child support income.

 

[Annie]

Well with the rate of single mothers mostly young, I believe control is what's needed.

Why 'single mothers'? Why 'young?'' You are talking about divorce, not paternity.

Eh, I don't think my intent was to focus on divorce per say, but if that is what's being implied I apologize for the confusion.

As far as single mothers they are the most common in the U.S as far as having babies out of wedlock and are the most common recipients of state/federal mandated assistance programs.

No argument, thought has not a twit to do with child support and divorce.

 

[earthmuffin]

Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.

I don't think it's discrimination. As they say, it takes two to tango.

 

[earthmuffin]

If a woman does not want a child then she should use protection, take the pill, or not have sex. She should NOT be able to get an abortion to…. Oh wait, your example is meaningless

When men start getting pregnant and have to face everything that comes with it, this argument will be valid.

 

[earthmuffin]

So its ok that a woman squander's the money on herself?

Yes it is.

The woman pays rent, buys food, buys clothing, pays the utilities. If she takes the child support and blows it, she's still paying the bills.

This, times a million.

Child support is not about budgeting exactly what it costs to raise a child, if that were the case, everyone would get the same amount, regardless of any other factors.

And who's to say that a mother getting her nails done can't benefit the child. Contributing to peace of mind contributes to good parenting also.

 

[earthmuffin]

One of my clients ended up a father from a one night stand and she assured him that she was on the pill. He faithfully paid child support for 18 years. Periodically the mother took him to court to get an increase. And tried several times to force this man to visit the child, send Christmas and Birthday presents but he never did. The mother fought for and got a court order for visitation and shared vacation times. She just could not get an order forcing him to visit or have the child for six weeks during the summer or alternate holidays. He paid, every month, what the law said he had to pay. No more, no less. He understood that he made a mistake and had to pay for that mistake. He did it without complaint. Raising the child was entirely the mother's responsibility. She chose to get pregnant. She chose not to take the pill as she said she did. He bore no responsibility beyond financial restitution for his momentary lapse. He never saw the child, never spoke to the child, never accepted any letters with regard to the child or from the child when she got old enough. It was a fair resolution.

If that gets him through the night, more power to him. I think it was a coward's way out. He had sex, pregnancy can result from sex. He punished a kid because of his weakness. That is the sign of a pussy.

It's shitty, but if he wants nothing to do with the child, they are probably better off without him, anyway. Definitely a cruel thing to not even answers letters from the child, however. I could see not wanting to be involved during childhood, but refusing all contact just seems cold.

 

[earthmuffin]

You're talking as if every woman out here is responsible. Remember majority of the single mothers are young. In addition to that, a lot of these single mothers are getting help from mommy or daddy or grand.mother. Spare me the sob story of what women pay. The system is unfair and I have challenged that and you have not demonstrated otherwise, you can't come through with the answer, typical of a steelers fan.

And you're speaking as if the average MOTHER doesn't put her CHILD first.

 

[earthmuffin]

Well with the rate of single mothers mostly young, I believe control is what's needed.

So essentially, young mothers cannot be trusted? And we should invade their privacy purely because of that?

 

[koshergrl]

Actually, he's asserting that once a woman marries someone, even if they are divorced, if she gets the children, he shouldn't have to pay child support unless he can determine what it's spent on.

It's a control thing.