Who's yer daddy? No daddy; no check

[Luissa]

Read more: Time to ensure dads are in kids' lives--Editorial - NYPOST.com



This should be a model for every state in the union. Comments?

So the only one who will really pay the price is the child. Do you really think a dead beat dad cares about what the child is getting?
It took me eight months to get the state to put my son's father on his birth certificate. Plus his name on the certificate didn't push his dad to be more involved. If they are going to be an absent father, this will do nothing to change it.
This is is a pretty dumb idea, and I love how Chanel is for more government involvement in SOMEONE else life.

Yep. My ex walked out before my twins were born. He actually had me served with papers demanding I NOT put his name on their birth certificates and asking for a private contractual agreement in place of the State support system because he did not consent to having two children at the same time and didn't think it was fair to have the usual law apply to him "under the circumstances". What a fucking dumbass, but still they were eight months old before it was all worked out and his name added to their BC's. It was two years before I saw a penny of support, and five before he had a job with a paycheck that could be garnished.

Like I said, there are all kinds of fact patterns and reasons for no father to be named. In those circumstances, a lot of mothers would easily have been cowed or simply said "screw you". *shrug*

The only reason why I get money now, is because they take it out of his unemployment check.

My son's father was also in rehab when my son was born, it would have been a little hard to put him on the birth certificate. Then when he was out, he was an ass about it. I ended up having to have him served by the state and they had to do a DNA test, because he wouldn't just sign it. We didn't even go to court until he was eight months old, and we didn't get the new birth certificate until two months after that. Yeah, this is a good plan.

 

[goldcatt]

Yes, it is the children who suffer in many ways. Let's face it, any program that is state or government funded IS "one size fits all." I think the councilman is onto something - it may need some tweaking - but it might work. These support enforcement agencies from coast to coast are pretty much a joke - they all work just as the councilman described - nothing or too little, too late.

My youngest daughter is supposed to get her child support through DCSE. Early on, the only way she got it was to put in a personal appearance and raise holy hell to get the employees up off their asses. She got an order for the support to be taken right off the top of his paycheck. Right now her ex is some $40,000 in arrears and DCSE has finally taken action to get him to court. My daughter doesn't have to be in court, but she will be - and it's going to be the same circus she's always had. Her ex is going to ask for all three of his continuations before the case is ever actually heard. In the meantime, her ex got the boss's daughter pregnant on a one-night-stand. He's in arrears to her as well. He wouldn't go back to work for the boss - and the boss would welcome him back - but the ex knew the boss would deduct every penny of child support for both children.

Solution: don't work at all or work for yourself because you won't subtract any support from your own paycheck.

The boss's daughter has now married and her husband wants to adopt her child. She asked my daughter's ex to sign away his parental rights (he never sees the child anyway).

Solution: I'll sign away my rights if you pay off my child support arrears.

AND he and his girlfriend and her two children live off all the welfare benefits she can get for herself and her children. That's how that works. Guess who is paying for this.

Tweaks to the basic idea could be: don't know the father's name? tubal ligation; raped? produce police report AND ER record of the assault; quits job? go to jail - gives a chance for some thinking things over - no pay, no freedom. There are lots of ways that could be considered to undo the "one-size-fits-all" situation.

IF there were built in workarounds for the different situations (that were legal and did not involve things like forced sterilization), THEN there might be something here. But it's still not going to address the underlying problem, which is the difficulty involved in collection and the unwillingness on the part of some noncustodial parents to be a parent.

It's sad that your youngest has to go through all that, but not much of it is even that unusual unfortunately. As I posted before, I'm not a fan of the system in general - except that it's better than anything else we've been able to come up with.

 

[xotoxi]

I think I'm going to start a business called "Bruce Swenson".

$100 and you can put my company's name on the birth certificate, but a legally binding contract must be signed which states that Bruce Swenson gives up all parental rights to the child, including all finiancial obligations.

NICE!

 

[Ravi]

Yes, it is the children who suffer in many ways. Let's face it, any program that is state or government funded IS "one size fits all." I think the councilman is onto something - it may need some tweaking - but it might work. These support enforcement agencies from coast to coast are pretty much a joke - they all work just as the councilman described - nothing or too little, too late.

My youngest daughter is supposed to get her child support through DCSE. Early on, the only way she got it was to put in a personal appearance and raise holy hell to get the employees up off their asses. She got an order for the support to be taken right off the top of his paycheck. Right now her ex is some $40,000 in arrears and DCSE has finally taken action to get him to court. My daughter doesn't have to be in court, but she will be - and it's going to be the same circus she's always had. Her ex is going to ask for all three of his continuations before the case is ever actually heard. In the meantime, her ex got the boss's daughter pregnant on a one-night-stand. He's in arrears to her as well. He wouldn't go back to work for the boss - and the boss would welcome him back - but the ex knew the boss would deduct every penny of child support for both children.

Solution: don't work at all or work for yourself because you won't subtract any support from your own paycheck.

The boss's daughter has now married and her husband wants to adopt her child. She asked my daughter's ex to sign away his parental rights (he never sees the child anyway).

Solution: I'll sign away my rights if you pay off my child support arrears.

AND he and his girlfriend and her two children live off all the welfare benefits she can get for herself and her children. That's how that works. Guess who is paying for this.

Tweaks to the basic idea could be: don't know the father's name? tubal ligation; raped? produce police report AND ER record of the assault; quits job? go to jail - gives a chance for some thinking things over - no pay, no freedom. There are lots of ways that could be considered to undo the "one-size-fits-all" situation.

IF there were built in workarounds for the different situations, THEN there might be something here. But it's still not going to address the underlying problem, which is the difficulty involved in collection and the unwillingness on the part of some noncustodial parents to be a parent.

It's sad that your youngest has to go through all that, but not much of it is even that unusual unfortunately. As I posted before, I'm not a fan of the system in general - except that it's better than anything else we've been able to come up with.

Yes it is...and it's better than what third world countries do (nothing). I have noticed a lack of big families in third world countries.

IMO, this is about nothing more than punishing people.

 

[goldcatt]

So the only one who will really pay the price is the child. Do you really think a dead beat dad cares about what the child is getting?
It took me eight months to get the state to put my son's father on his birth certificate. Plus his name on the certificate didn't push his dad to be more involved. If they are going to be an absent father, this will do nothing to change it.
This is is a pretty dumb idea, and I love how Chanel is for more government involvement in SOMEONE else life.

Yep. My ex walked out before my twins were born. He actually had me served with papers demanding I NOT put his name on their birth certificates and asking for a private contractual agreement in place of the State support system because he did not consent to having two children at the same time and didn't think it was fair to have the usual law apply to him "under the circumstances". What a fucking dumbass, but still they were eight months old before it was all worked out and his name added to their BC's. It was two years before I saw a penny of support, and five before he had a job with a paycheck that could be garnished.

Like I said, there are all kinds of fact patterns and reasons for no father to be named. In those circumstances, a lot of mothers would easily have been cowed or simply said "screw you". *shrug*

The only reason why I get money now, is because they take it out of his unemployment check.

My son's father was also in rehab when my son was born, it would have been a little hard to put him on the birth certificate. Then when he was out, he was an ass about it. I ended up having to have him served by the state and they had to do a DNA test, because he wouldn't just sign it. We didn't even go to court until he was eight months old, and we didn't get the new birth certificate until two months after that. Yeah, this is a good plan.

Like I said, whoever wrote it is obviously completely unfamiliar with the real issues that are often involved. Ongoing litigation being another one I hadn't mentioned, but a common one.

It just isn't as black and white as "There's no dad listed so she's a ho". It rarely if ever is that simple IRL, ever.

 

[xotoxi]

I think I'm going to start a business called "Bruce Swenson".

$100 and you can put my company's name on the birth certificate, but a legally binding contract must be signed which states that Bruce Swenson gives up all parental rights to the child, including all finiancial obligations.

NICE!

$175 for twins! That's $25 OFF!!!

 

[goldcatt]

I think I'm going to start a business called "Bruce Swenson".

$100 and you can put my company's name on the birth certificate, but a legally binding contract must be signed which states that Bruce Swenson gives up all parental rights to the child, including all finiancial obligations.

NICE!

$175 for twins! That's $25 OFF!!!

Dammit, toxi! Where were you and your company when I needed you, huh? Too little too late.

 

[Granny]

why should the child suffer cause the mother is a ho? its not the mother you are punishing but the child.

Why should society pick up the tab for irresponsible behavior? Take the kid away from her.

And give it to who?
Society will not be apying for foster care or orphanage care for the child?

And when she has another?
Are you for forced sterilization?

Society has been paying the costs of foster homes and orphanages for decades. The administrator of the orphanage I was in wrote a sugar coated book about the orphanage while I was there - early to mid 50s. There was a chapter about costs (a plea for more financial support). According to the book the cost was $28,000 per child per year. When I went back to the Home for the annual Homecoming in the '70s the cost had jumped to a six-figure number, per child, per year. God only knows how much it might cost today. Example: my mother paid the Home $25 per month for my care and support ... leaving the rest of the $28,000 to be paid by private donations and public assistance, child labor means, etc.

There was NEVER a time when I spent $28,000 per child, per year, to raise my children - let alone paying 6 figures per child. How many ordinary people actually make those kinds of expenditures?

 

[rightwinger]

I think I'm going to start a business called "Bruce Swenson".

$100 and you can put my company's name on the birth certificate, but a legally binding contract must be signed which states that Bruce Swenson gives up all parental rights to the child, including all finiancial obligations.

NICE!

Are you going to get the State to sign off on that? The birth mother cannot sign away the obligation a father has to the State if the State is paying for his childs support

 

[goldcatt]

Why should society pick up the tab for irresponsible behavior? Take the kid away from her.

And give it to who?
Society will not be apying for foster care or orphanage care for the child?

And when she has another?
Are you for forced sterilization?

Society has been paying the costs of foster homes and orphanages for decades. The administrator of the orphanage I was in wrote a sugar coated book about the orphanage while I was there - early to mid 50s. There was a chapter about costs (a plea for more financial support). According to the book the cost was $28,000 per child per year. When I went back to the Home for the annual Homecoming in the '70s the cost had jumped to a six-figure number, per child, per year. God only knows how much it might cost today. Example: my mother paid the Home $25 per month for my care and support ... leaving the rest of the $28,000 to be paid by private donations and public assistance, child labor means, etc.

There was NEVER a time when I spent $28,000 per child, per year, to raise my children - let alone paying 6 figures per child. How many ordinary people actually make those kinds of expenditures?

It depends which costs you're factoring in. In a family home some of the overhead isn't apparent. For example, the parents aren't paid staff with salary and benefits. The mortgage or rent and property maintenance would be paid regardless for the parent to have a place to live. The home would be heated regardless. These are solely attributable to the child in an institutional facility. Don't forget every child in an institution or foster care being on medicaid, so all of their health care expenses are included. And so on. When all of those are directly and solely tied to the child's expenses and not those of the parents or family in general it adds up fast.

 

[xotoxi]

I think I'm going to start a business called "Bruce Swenson".

$100 and you can put my company's name on the birth certificate, but a legally binding contract must be signed which states that Bruce Swenson gives up all parental rights to the child, including all finiancial obligations.

NICE!

Are you going to get the State to sign off on that? The birth mother cannot sign away the obligation a father has to the State if the State is paying for his childs support

The company will be in another state. Plus, it will be a corporation and will be protected. And there will be lobbyists.

 

[Granny]

Punishment is the object - some men (or women) are SO intent on punishing their ex that they fail to see they are punishing their child as well. It's easier to go out and buy a $1,000 guitar, or x-box, or whatever else - they "support" their children by getting them the "good stuff" while the custodial parent has to say "I can't afford to get you ___." I've seen plenty of tears shed at birthdays and Christmas because the custodial parent has to get their child cheap stuff - mainly necessities such as a shirt or new pair of pants.

 

[Si modo]

It isn't a good plan. It is punishing the child even more by depriving the child of its mother.

While I agree that it is not a good plan, I don't agree that is the reason.

I know plenty of adopted persons and all are quite happy that they were "deprived of [their] mother".

That is a bit different than the government deciding you aren't being parented properly.

Only, that's not what you said. I disagree with what you said, not what you are now saying.

See how that works?

 

[Ravi]

While I agree that it is not a good plan, I don't agree that is the reason.

I know plenty of adopted persons and all are quite happy that they were "deprived of [their] mother".

That is a bit different than the government deciding you aren't being parented properly.

Only, that's not what you said. I disagree with what you said, not what you are now saying.

See how that works?

I see that you're being an idiot if that's what you mean.

 

[goldcatt]

Punishment is the object - some men (or women) are SO intent on punishing their ex that they fail to see they are punishing their child as well. It's easier to go out and buy a $1,000 guitar, or x-box, or whatever else - they "support" their children by getting them the "good stuff" while the custodial parent has to say "I can't afford to get you ___." I've seen plenty of tears shed at birthdays and Christmas because the custodial parent has to get their child cheap stuff - mainly necessities such as a shirt or new pair of pants.

What you're saying here is 100% true. The only problem I have with it is the assumption on some posters' part that it's always or even most of the time entirely the custodial parent's fault so that she should be the one punished, or that putting a name on a piece of paper will change anything in most of these situations. If you want to address the real cause, address the support collection system and the ways a noncustodial parent can fly under the radar or abuse the court process to avoid all efforts at assessment and collection. And be willing to throw a whole bunch of money at it, too.

 

[Claudette]

Did anyone ever hear of brith control??

If your someone who engages in sex use birth control or demand your partner wear a condom.

Imagine how much that would save the taxpayers of America.

Imagine how much better the ladies would feel if they didn't have to worry about getting pregnant.

Just plain old common sense. Jeeze.

 

[Luissa]

Did anyone ever hear of brith control??

If your someone who engages in sex use birth control or demand your partner wear a condom.

Imagine how much that would save the taxpayers of America.

Imagine how much better the ladies would feel if they didn't have to worry about getting pregnant.

Just plain old common sense. Jeeze.

condoms are not 100% effective, and I have two friends who got pregnant while on birth control.

 

[Claudette]

While I'm sure that can happen I don't believe its that common. It certainly wouldn't account for all the births that welfare covers.

Believe me when I was a young thing I did my share of bed hopping. I always used birth control and never worried about an unwanted pregnancy.

 

[rightwinger]

While I'm sure that can happen I don't believe its that common. It certainly wouldn't account for all the births that welfare covers.

Believe me when I was a young thing I did my share of bed hopping. I always used birth control and never worried about an unwanted pregnancy.

I'm not sure I believe you. You are going to have to provide more details

 

[goldcatt]

While I'm sure that can happen I don't believe its that common. It certainly wouldn't account for all the births that welfare covers.

Believe me when I was a young thing I did my share of bed hopping. I always used birth control and never worried about an unwanted pregnancy.

Believe it or not there is a certain percentage of those births to "unmarried" mothers who were in fact married at the time of conception but due to divorce or death are not at the time the child is born. It's not the majority by any means, not even close, but it certainly happens and probably more often than you think. Which is why it's specially written into laws like DOMA.

Once again, every situation is different. And not every single parent who needs to turn to any sort of welfare benefits at any point or for any length of time before her child is 18 is deserving of "punishment". Which is precisely why the one size fits all bumper sticker isn't the solution.