Deadbeat Dads (and moms)

[The Rabbi]

it is amazing ....conservatives are all about personal responsibility....till it hits close to home...

actually we're all about liberty.
Democrats want to make everyone criminals so they don't look so bad.

 

[spectrumc01]

They are breaking laws and putting a hurt on society.

I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is...under that guideline we can justify the government putting their nose into everything from child obessity to welfare to abortions. If you want smaller government you have to take the good with the bad.

I think you're blurring the lines for arguments sake

Not really, look at how our government opperates, and how they look for loopholes to get around the law. Eminent domain is a perfect example. Our government has a well documented history of taking a mile when given an inch.

 

[chanel]

I understand your cynicism about "government intrusion" but I know that it's the parents - not probation - who pushes enforcement. In fact if some of those people in government actually enforced the law from the get-go, they wouldn't be looking at 18 million in defaults.

 

[R.D.]

I'm not disputing that. What I'm saying is...under that guideline we can justify the government putting their nose into everything from child obessity to welfare to abortions. If you want smaller government you have to take the good with the bad.

I think you're blurring the lines for arguments sake

Not really, look at how our government opperates, and how they look for loopholes to get around the law. Eminent domain is a perfect example. Our government has a well documented history of taking a mile when given an inch.

I get that.

But in this case it's the deadbeats hoping for loopholes and the attempt to enforce the laws on the gov'ts part. Pay what you legally owe, no harm no foul

 

[Vel]

I'm conflicted in this issue. I believe that non custodial divorced parents ought to pay support for their child, but I also think that since we don't jail custodial parents when they lose their job and ability to provide support for the child, then we shouldn't jail the non custodial parent who is unable to provide support either. That being said.. I believe that child support laws should only apply to divorced parents not those with children born out of wedlock.

 

[chanel]

Wow. So a girl that gets knocked up outside of marriage is on her own? Interesting...

 

[Trajan]

New Jersey authorities have arrested hundreds of parents who collectively owe more than $18.7 million in child support.

The 1,074 arrests announced today by the Sheriff's Association of New Jersey were made by sheriff's officers and other law enforcement officials during a three-day statewide sweep conducted this week.

Officials say they've collected more than $211,000 in delinquent payments so far.
.

More than 1,000 arrested in N.J. sweep targeting parents who owe child support | NJ.com

Can someone do the math?

Is jail the best way to go? I'm conflicted on this, as I imagine many ex's are as well. They can't make money in jail, but if they're not supporting their kids anyway, then eff em. What say you?

they should garnisheer their wages if they work on the books and not at a level that drives them off.

even the mob doesn't bust knee caps unless its a last last resort.

 

[Anachronism]

So far as I'm concerned, regardless of gender, support of one's children is the HIGHEST priority that a person should have.

It doesn't matter if you weren't married to her when you got her pregnant. It doesn't matter if you used the condom and she was on birth control at the time. You got her pregnant. Or you got pregnant by him. That means the two of you have entered into a 19 year (minimum) contract to help support and provide for that child. I couldn't care any less whether you like each other. I don't care if you want each other to die. You have a responsibility to that child which cannot ever be undone so far as I am concerned.

To that end, I don't think jail is really the best way to go. I believe that the best thing to do FIRST is to garner their wages. Take 25% of the month's support payment directly out of their paycheck before they even see the check. Right along with the taxes. If they have proven they will not willingly fulfill their responsibility, then they need to be forced to do so. If that's not possible because they are unemployed... put them to work on a chain gang like prisoners of old. Make them earn the money to support their child, or they get nothing from the State at all.

 

[Vel]

Wow. So a girl that gets knocked up outside of marriage is on her own? Interesting...

I have to leave for work but I'll explain my reasoning this evening when I get back.

 

[R.D.]

I'm conflicted in this issue. I believe that non custodial divorced parents ought to pay support for their child, but I also think that since we don't jail custodial parents when they lose their job and ability to provide support for the child, then we shouldn't jail the non custodial parent who is unable to provide support either. That being said.. I believe that child support laws should only apply to divorced parents not those with children born out of wedlock.

We need fathers to realize that responsibility doesn't just end at conception

I happen to agree.

 

[Cecilie1200]

New Jersey authorities have arrested hundreds of parents who collectively owe more than $18.7 million in child support.

The 1,074 arrests announced today by the Sheriff's Association of New Jersey were made by sheriff's officers and other law enforcement officials during a three-day statewide sweep conducted this week.

Officials say they've collected more than $211,000 in delinquent payments so far.
.

More than 1,000 arrested in N.J. sweep targeting parents who owe child support | NJ.com

Can someone do the math?

Is jail the best way to go? I'm conflicted on this, as I imagine many ex's are as well. They can't make money in jail, but if they're not supporting their kids anyway, then eff em. What say you?

I think if they're working and earning money, the best way to go is to go to their employers and have their wages garnished. Not only does that take the "choice" to comply with the law and their responsibilities out of their hands, it provides a reprimand and punishment in the form of loss of reputation and respect from those they (probably) value, ie. their bosses and co-workers. If they're not paying because they don't have a job, then they should be treated like those on government job programs: they should be required to provide proof that they are earnestly seeking employment to the proper authorities. If they don't provide that proof/find a job and start paying, then yeah. They should be jailed, just like any other parent who neglects his children.

 

[strollingbones]

I'm conflicted in this issue. I believe that non custodial divorced parents ought to pay support for their child, but I also think that since we don't jail custodial parents when they lose their job and ability to provide support for the child, then we shouldn't jail the non custodial parent who is unable to provide support either. That being said.. I believe that child support laws should only apply to divorced parents not those with children born out of wedlock.

say what? why do you think this?

 

[Cecilie1200]

How does all this jive with the smaller government people? Hunting down deadbeat parents and jailing them because they don't want to financially support the family they created is government interference in the family.

We need to understand that if the government is allowed in our family for any reason they then will be involved in all aspects of the family. This is a in or out deal there is no room for middle ground.

Why is it every time someone suggests that the government do a job that leftists don't want done, ie. requiring people to be personally responsible, some dingbat trots out "smaller government", as though that's a talisman against EVER requiring ANYTHING from the government.

For the one-millionth time, in deference to the thinking- and memory-impaired among us, smaller government does not now mean, nor has it ever meant, NO government. Government has appropriate places and jobs, of which protecting the basic rights of its citizens, particularly those who are helpless to protect themselves (like children) is certainly one. Enforcing the law (of which court-levied child support is certainly one) is another.

Duuuhhh, Brain Trust.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'm conflicted in this issue. I believe that non custodial divorced parents ought to pay support for their child, but I also think that since we don't jail custodial parents when they lose their job and ability to provide support for the child, then we shouldn't jail the non custodial parent who is unable to provide support either. That being said.. I believe that child support laws should only apply to divorced parents not those with children born out of wedlock.

say what? why do you think this?

I think he's got a point. That's how things used to work: a woman who had sex and got pregnant outside of wedlock had no legal claim on the man's wallet, and a man who had sex and made a baby outside of wedlock had no legal right whatsoever to the child, so you didn't have any of these tragic legal spectacles of children being torn away from the only families they've ever known to be given to some stranger whose only claim to "parenthood" is a barely-remembered, tequila-fueled one-night stand.

Is it harsh? Yes, but life is harsh, and it at least had the effect of motivating people not to fuck like bunnies at the drop of a hat (or some other piece of clothing).

It is a sad thing that the so-called "sexual revolution" and its alleged "sexual freedom" have turned children into so much collateral damage.

 

[Anachronism]

It is a sad thing that the so-called "sexual revolution" and its alleged "sexual freedom" have turned children into so much collateral damage.

You are so right about that, Cecilie. I'm sure we've all heard and seen the horror stories about these divided families, whether it's by divorce or by non-marriage.

 

[shintao]

New Jersey authorities have arrested hundreds of parents who collectively owe more than $18.7 million in child support.

The 1,074 arrests announced today by the Sheriff's Association of New Jersey were made by sheriff's officers and other law enforcement officials during a three-day statewide sweep conducted this week.

Officials say they've collected more than $211,000 in delinquent payments so far.
.

More than 1,000 arrested in N.J. sweep targeting parents who owe child support | NJ.com

Can someone do the math?

Is jail the best way to go? I'm conflicted on this, as I imagine many ex's are as well. They can't make money in jail, but if they're not supporting their kids anyway, then eff em. What say you?

You are demanding a debtor's prison.
You are stopping any income source they have.
You are taking away any shelter they have.
You are taking away any license they own, such as driver's or professional license.
You are causing additional court & jail expenses to burden taxpayers.
You are affectively ruining their credit.
You are making yourself an enemy to fight with the rest of your life.

And when they come out of jail they are broke and homeless and you still are not being paid a dime. And chances are your vindictiveness will guarantee you are never paid a dime. And these people then become a burden on society with no incentive to work at a good paying job or establish themselves again. ~ Why should they try after you ruin them?

 

[Trajan]

Anybody see this comment from the OP?

In my case, the courts made sure I could never pay. They took 50%-60% of my income and left me unable to afford to travel to work and I lost the best paying job I ever had. The Family Court system is disgusting and these people should be in jail, not the fathers. They impoverish the fathers and make them unable to pay and then they punish them for being unable to do the impossible. The liars and feminist scum on here will tell you it's about the child being able to eat. Bull. It's almost never about that. It's about enriching the mother and the father's expense.

Is that common?

There is a formula ( at least here in cali) that the judge has in a computer to figure out child sppt etc....I am not familiar with it, I had a friend that went thru a divorce tell me though, when he objected as to how he could afford to pay rent etc etc with what was left the judge told him that having a second apt. was his problem, if they shared the same domicile that would be one big expense gone that he had to contend with...

I think the idea is, that the child is a totally shared responsibility and they pretend for calculation purposes as if you they are still there and it matters not what the expenses are of the absentee payer.

and I find that a little ridiculous...

 

[Moonglow]

Does anybody realize the complete moral destruction a person goes through in a divorce with children are involved?
When you ar divorced cause your spouse cheated on you and then divorced you and all you get is a bill for 0-18 years?
Many paying parents never get to see their kids and the spouse that has custody tries to turn those children against you.
The state has no right to be an agressive income collector for corrupt morals of spouses, it's adding salt to the wound. The amounts expected to be paid make the divorced parent poor, to the point of just giving up.

 

[Moonglow]

I'm conflicted in this issue. I believe that non custodial divorced parents ought to pay support for their child, but I also think that since we don't jail custodial parents when they lose their job and ability to provide support for the child, then we shouldn't jail the non custodial parent who is unable to provide support either. That being said.. I believe that child support laws should only apply to divorced parents not those with children born out of wedlock.

say what? why do you think this?

I think he's got a point. That's how things used to work: a woman who had sex and got pregnant outside of wedlock had no legal claim on the man's wallet, and a man who had sex and made a baby outside of wedlock had no legal right whatsoever to the child, so you didn't have any of these tragic legal spectacles of children being torn away from the only families they've ever known to be given to some stranger whose only claim to "parenthood" is a barely-remembered, tequila-fueled one-night stand.

Is it harsh? Yes, but life is harsh, and it at least had the effect of motivating people not to fuck like bunnies at the drop of a hat (or some other piece of clothing).

It is a sad thing that the so-called "sexual revolution" and its alleged "sexual freedom" have turned children into so much collateral damage.

The sexual revolution ended in the 70's, sexual freedom was curtailed by AIDS, you are way out of touch with society.

The AER study reports, "Our findings suggest that house prices have a significant effect on divorce shares." Divorce rates have declined over the past few years. The U.S. Census Bureau reported in 1996 that 50 percent of all marriages ended in divorce. Figures from 2009 showed a 46 percent divorce rate.

Realty Times - Divorce Rate Declines Alongside Home Prices

 

[shintao]

Does anybody realize the complete moral destruction a person goes through in a divorce with children are involved?
When you ar divorced cause your spouse cheated on you and then divorced you and all you get is a bill for 0-18 years?
Many paying parents never get to see their kids and the spouse that has custody tries to turn those children against you.
The state has no right to be an agressive income collector for corrupt morals of spouses, it's adding salt to the wound. The amounts expected to be paid make the divorced parent poor, to the point of just giving up.

The law is suppose to ensure the court order is "In the best interest of the child." So instead of placing the child in the household with the best environment and income, they do just the opposite. And the reason is it allows the state (who gets its cut ) to take a bigger slice from the divorced pie. If they placed the child in the richest environment, there would be more incentive for the other parent to get a job and try and make more money than the exspouse does, to regain the kids.