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.
I'm not the least bit conflicted on this. Imprisoning people because they owe MONEY is an antiquated and totally counter-productive response for failure to pay on ANY debt. The fact this particular debt is child support doesn't change that fact. Which is why we eliminated debtor's prisons in the first place. Throwing roadblocks in the way of those you actually want to PAY what they owe and making it even harder for them to do it -is a medieval and completely unproductive response. PERIOD.
Why should child support only apply to the divorced parents while giving a free pass to those who CARELESSLY reproduce and then expect to skip free of their responsibility for the new life THEY helped create? I don't like a system that rewards a woman with child support for her selfish decision to have a child outside of wedlock -but that wasn't a decision the child made. It was the decision of BOTH unmarried parents to not insure their consensual sex act did not result in the creation of a new life. BOTH must support that child and excuses a woman lied or deliberately got pregnant is bullshit. If a man doesn't want to pay child support for an out-of-wedlock child - HE can avoid that just as readily as a woman! But the child cannot be punished for their stupidity or deception or any other circumstances by which the child came into existence. You don't want to be supporting a child yet especially one born of out wedlock (which is an INCREDIBLY selfish thing to do a child since it is a known fact to be a significantly more harmful situation for the child to be reared) -in this day and age there is NO excuse for not taking the necessary precautions to insure you don't bring about the creation of an out-of-wedlock pregnancy then. The responsibility of a man is not lesser NOR greater than that of a woman and in order to for a woman to get pregnant with a child the father did not want to create -requires he abandon HIS responsibility to avoid that situation. HE pays for it -not the child.
As for the person who said they have no sympathy with the amounts non-custodial parents are told to pay that go above their ability to pay in the first place -get real.
My nephew and his wife have 2 kids 5 and 2. His wife started spending hours talking to a total stranger in Canada while he was working. She decided she was head-over-heels in love with this total stranger, refused family counseling and said what she thought would lead to her own greater happiness was far more important than the personal happiness of the other 3 people in the family. So she broke up the family and is now his ex-wife.
My nephew, who spent every non-working hour with his family has been told he may NOT spend any more than 3 hours with his children a week and that must only be on EITHER Saturday or Sunday but not both. The judge ruled it was because they are just too young at the ages of 5 and 2. They weren't too young to be in his care or spend the night under his roof before -but SUDDENLY the fact his wife wanted to go on a search for a more exciting life than she perceived hers to be the judge seems to think that somehow reflects poorly on his parenting abilities with his daughters NOW? The ex admitted he was a wonderful father and his kids adore him and she did not request such a ridiculous visitation schedule but it made zero difference. The judge is concerned about their FATHER in spite of testimony he has been a wonderful, loving and caring parent -BUT the judge didn't have a damn thing to say about the FACT the mother leaves her two kids for many times more hours with the dude living next door to her or with her brother when she goes bar hopping a couple of times a week. My nephew was told by his lawyer that this judge -a WOMAN of course and clearly one who sees a father as pretty irrelevant in the life of a child except as a paycheck -also made it nearly impossible for other noncustodial fathers to maintain a close relationship and play an active role in raising their children as well but made gave fathers the least amount of time with their daughters. Obviously SHE has a real hangup, significant mental issues and unreasonable prejudices -and she makes every father, especially fathers of little girls, pay for it. And his lawyer wants another $3000 to try and get that order modified so he he can see his children on a regular enough basis to actually BE a father to them.
That entire thing is bad enough -the guy who wanted to keep his family intact sees it destroyed instead along with getting a judge who did her best to insure he can't maintain a normal, parental relationship with his own children.
But it gets worse. My nephew was ordered to pay $500 PER child -$1000 a month in child support. For the person who said she has no sympathy with noncustodial parents being ordered to pay $500 a month -there really are people who aren't all making big bucks but were fully able to support their children on their income when married. His children were well dressed, well fed and well cared for. Maybe you really didn't know this but fathers aren't given a "group" rate when they have more than one child either -the amount is PER CHILD even though what it costs to support two children is NOT double what it takes to support one and what it takes to support three is NOT triple what it takes to support one. But there is no lump sum or group rate -child support is determined for one child and then multiplied by that same amount for any additional children.
So my nephew was ordered to pay $500 per child. But my nephew who earned just slightly more than his ex - only makes $9.50 an hour with zero reasonable expectations of changing that anytime soon in this economy. About $1650 a month. They had been comfortably albeit not extravagantly, providing for themselves and their children on two incomes -his is reduced to $1650 a month. But he was ordered to pay $1000 of it in child support now. You know anyone who can pay their rent, utilities, food, car payment and gas on $650 a month?
Let's get real here. This judge not only punished HIM for failing to make his ex-wife ecstatic every waking moment when she decided to yank the rug out from everyone else in that family for her own stupid fantasy of running off with some Canadian stranger -that judge -entirely due to her own personal hangups --deliberately destroyed his relationship with his children rendering him for all intents and purposes a non-existent person in the life of his kids.
And then deliberately set him up to be delinquent in his child support payments by setting it beyond his means insuring he would be unable to pay that amount and support himself at the same time. WTF kind of system is THAT where people are being deliberately set up like that? That judge knows good and well he is highly likely to fall behind. So I have to wonder about those who would still insist the proper response when he will inevitably fall behind is to....THROW HIM IN JAIL for it? Are you kidding? That benefits his children HOW? It not only won't create one additional dime he can pay, tossing him in jail for it will most likely cause him to lose his job entirely, making it impossible for him to pay ANYTHING at all. So what then? Throw him in jail LONGER? That will really teach him a lesson about what a truly unjust place the US has become, won't it? But it will NOT create more money for him to pay! It would only multiply the misery factor for this guy and guarantee he will regret for the rest of his life that ever met this woman, much less had children with her. Truly I wonder about the people acting so self-righteous that they would even suggest such a thing -much less support it. That mentality of jailing people for their failure to pay a debt belongs in the 15th century. Oh, or are we only going to imprison the ones someone else claims they could have paid but the ones saddled with amounts they can't pay on their salaries get sent home -but still ordered to pay amounts they still can't pay? Once you toss in the threat of jail with issues of failure to pay a debt no matter what that debt may be -justice is out the window. It becomes a means of one class to deprive others of their liberty and use it as their own personal weapon.
BTW -as soon as she told the Canadian online stranger she left her husband and wanted to move to Canada with her two kids to be with him -he told her to get lost. HER life is also turned far worse. She looks for that more exciting life in the neighborhood bars now and dumps her kids off with total strangers -male and female - so she can pretend she is a carefree single again with few responsibilities. Her life is actually even less exciting than ever -but she deserves it for her self-centered choices. Its her kids and ex-husband who didn't deserve it but do and will pay dearly for it.
