Child Support

144 posts / 0 new
Last post
Francesca Allan
Child Support

I know this doesn't really belong in "babble banter" but I had no idea where it belonged. I just wanted to know what fellow babblers thought about this.

Was having a conversation with a friend today about "her body, her choice" and it kind of morphed into discussing an interesting hypothetical.

Say there's a teenage couple that get drunk and fool around. Girl gets pregnant and decides she wants to keep the baby. Guy wants her to have an abortion and doesn't want to be involved at all with her or the baby. Should this guy be forced to pay child support for 18 years based on a youthful, drunken indiscretion? We're both "her body, her choice," yet we both agreed that this hypothetical guy shouldn't have to pay. It's her body, her choice and entirely her responsibility.

Thoughts?

Francesca Allan

Disclaimer: I'm not "her body, her choice" when it comes to drinking alcohol or ingesting drugs when she's pregnant (assuming she's going to have the child, that is).

ETA: The ostensible standard for psychiatric commitment is "danger to self or others" and alcohol/drugs in pregnancy clearly is the latter. If we're free to lock up someone with mania on the basis of irresponsibility (wild spending, sexual sprees, etc.), then we're entitled to do the same in like situations too. On the other hand, if it's not okay to do so, then I would suggest that it's not okay to lock up the manic person. And if Internet Addiction is going to be a psychiatric disorder, then irresponsible pregnancy decisions should be treated similarly. [removed stupid and irrelevant last sentence]

cco

Many things about our child support and alimony systems seem to be holdovers from the Victorian era, where a single/divorced woman with children was considered "ruined" for other men and couldn't be expected to support herself or her children, and a "you play, you pay" mentality figured in when it came to men, no matter how young, stupid, or irresponsible they'd been during conception.

The US has taken this to ludicrous levels. In a recent case, a lesbian couple in Kansas split up, and when filing for social assistance, the biological mother of their child was forced to disclose the name of their sperm donor, who was then sued by the state for child support. In an older case, a young teen boy was raped by his babysitter and then forced to pay support for their child. In all cases, the state's rationale is similar: "Someone has to pay for the child, and it damn sure isn't going to be us."

MRA assholes have their hand strengthened by stuff like Québec's recent "Lola case", where the common-law mother demanded a private helicopter in addition to $35,000 a month in agreed child support and $56,000 a month in alimony (on top of a $50 million lump sum) so she could keep herself and her children in their "accustomed lifestyle".

Personally, I'd like to see the social safety net strengthened enormously so that no person ever has to feel that their decisions as to whether or not to carry a child to term, or whether to leave or stay in a relationship, should be a hostage of financial pressure. If state assistance were sufficient to raise a child alone, maybe we could chuck the ridiculous current system. In every province but Québec, living together for a year or more obligates one partner to provide "spousal support" after a separation, whether or not there are children involved. This puts pressure on people from both ends.

It's an ugly legal situation brought about by our unwillingness to fund social assistance at anything beyond a starvation level, and to recognize the changing nature of relationships and child-rearing in the 21st century.

Francesca Allan

Phew! I thought I'd be lambasted for my post. Thanks for the thoughtful contribution. I also have serious doubts about spousal support, except in extraordinary circumstances. Couple of examples: You can have an affair, leave your spouse and collect for years; this is part of the fall-out from "no fault divorce." A spouse can claim equalizing spousal support if the other spouse had the misfortune to pay a lot of money and slog away for years in university to become a doctor while perhaps he or she took a much easier route to become a secretary or bus driver. Spousal support is tripping up gender equality and is a perk we should forgo. In BC, after 2 years cohabitation, you're effectively married in that assets and debts will be split 50/50 upon separation. So if one partner bought the house, the other partner gets 1/2 of it despite contributing nothing to the purchase. I know for me this means that I won't be living with anyone ever again unless I have a bullet-proof Cohabitation Agreement (which I don't even know would be enforceable) or we take a break every two years to restart the clock.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

There needs to be more Fathers. As bad as the system seems, men are still largely at fault for abandoning the result of their urges.

 

If your friend in her own choice wants to absolve him of that responsibility, all the power to her. Until I can carry a baby to term, I lean to make the fucker (pardon the pun/and hetero-normative analogies) pay. I hear the sob stories, but who made them dip their wick without covering their prick?

 

Yes, it's entirely her body, her choice but ABSOLUTELY NOT her responsibility. Why aren't our future men taught it is their responsibility? They still stand to earn more, will never have to carry a baby and will never understand.

 

I like the idea of a better social safety net and peace on earth, but until then...

 

It's pretty easy for a guy to prevent this with the proper education. Perhaps, we need to educate our boys?

cco

You might very well still be lambasted (just not by me). Child support is a hot-button issue, in part because MRAs use it as a siren song, but mostly because child care costs still fall so heavily on women. In the world we currently live in, the abolition of child support would effectively increase women's burdens greatly. It's difficult to argue against child support when its abolition would hurt so many women living in poverty. Yet most ways of avoiding it (without increasing social spending, god forbid) either oblige men to pay for condom failures or -- worse still -- give men a role in abortion choice.

As for spousal support, it's ridiculous that couples should have to check their bank accounts and calendars every couple of years to avoid being automatically entered into legal arrangements. The state should provide a sufficient cushion for individuals so that whether you've been in a relationship for 11 months or 11 years, you're not kept there by fear of starvation.

RP, it's also easy for women to prevent this with proper education, yet we make allowances for the fact that life is seldom that simple. If a man says "trust me, I've had a vasectomy", or a woman says "trust me, I'm on the pill", the woman is the one who gets to control whether a fetus is brought to term. If you're drunk, or drugged, or simply an idiot, the law gives the right to the female partner from the moment of ejaculation. And rightly so, seeing as it's her body bearing the fetus. Women have fought hard for their abortion rights and I'd be the last person to call them into question. But I'd also like to see a world where state support is sufficiently strong that both partners can make free choices about whether they want to be involved, financially or otherwise, with a new life resulting from one night of indiscretion.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Francesca, not sure about BC, but here in Ontario alot of what you stated is untrue. Only gains from what you brought to the relationship are eligible.

 

And now I'm wondering why a woman is questioning some important gains women have earned. Don't fall for the odd cherry picked story where it seems like a woman won the lottery. More often than not, you wouldn't want to know the facts behind the decision for that woman.

 

 

Francesca Allan

RevolutionPlease wrote:
If your friend in her own choice wants to absolve him of that responsibility, all the power to her. Until I can carry a baby to term, I lean to make the fucker (pardon the pun/and hetero-normative analogies) pay. I hear the sob stories, but who made them dip their wick without covering their prick?

It's hardly a sob story. And aren't both of them equally responsible for using birth control?

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Yes, it's entirely her body, her choice but ABSOLUTELY NOT her responsibility.

Please realize I'm not talking about usual child support. What did you think about the sperm donor for the lesbian couple that cco mentioned above? Is he also responsible for not "covering his prick"?

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Why aren't our future men taught it is their responsibility?

They don't have to be taught responsibility. Family court and its Child Support Guidelines do that.

RevolutionPlease wrote:
I like the idea of a better social safety net and peace on earth, but until then...

I'm totally with you there.

RevolutionPlease wrote:
It's pretty easy for a guy to prevent this with the proper education. Perhaps, we need to educate our boys?

It's not just up to the boys. I can't imagine what more we could do to educate our youth about sex, pregnancy, STDs.

Francesca Allan

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Francesca, not sure about BC, but here in Ontario alot of what you stated is untrue. Only gains from what you brought to the relationship are eligible.

I haven't studied the case law, just basing my opinion on the deals negotiated in a lot of divorces.

RevolutionPlease wrote:
And now I'm wondering why a woman is questioning some important gains women have earned.

Because some of those gains are unjust.

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Don't fall for the odd cherry picked story where it seems like a woman won the lottery. More often than not, you wouldn't want to know the facts behind the decision for that woman.

Are you saying that over half of the time the fault lies with the man, e.g. he mentally or physically abused his wife?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

cco wrote:

You might very well still be lambasted (just not by me). Child support is a hot-button issue, in part because MRAs use it as a siren song, but mostly because child care costs still fall so heavily on women. In the world we currently live in, the abolition of child support would effectively increase women's burdens greatly. It's difficult to argue against child support when its abolition would hurt so many women living in poverty. Yet most ways of avoiding it (without increasing social spending, god forbid) either oblige men to pay for condom failures or -- worse still -- give men a role in abortion choice.

 

No, isn't the best chance of avoiding it, preventing it in the first place?

 

Quote:

As for spousal support, it's ridiculous that couples should have to check their bank accounts and calendars every couple of years to avoid being automatically entered into legal arrangements. The state should provide a sufficient cushion for individuals so that whether you've been in a relationship for 11 months or 11 years, you're not kept there by fear of starvation.

 

Good grief, the partner who's gracious and enables the other to succeed shouldn't share in their success? I thought that's why most of us can agree on "partners". And we wouldn't have a lot of successful people. It would be a rather sad world it's becoming.

 

Quote:

RP, it's also easy for women to prevent this with proper education, yet we make allowances for the fact that life is seldom that simple. If a man says "trust me, I've had a vasectomy", or a woman says "trust me, I'm on the pill", the woman is the one who gets to control whether a fetus is brought to term. If you're drunk, or drugged, or simply an idiot, the law gives the right to the female partner from the moment of ejaculation. And rightly so, seeing as it's her body bearing the fetus. Women have fought hard for their abortion rights and I'd be the last person to call them into question. But I'd also like to see a world where state support is sufficiently strong that both partners can make free choices about whether they want to be involved, financially or otherwise, with a new life resulting from one night of indiscretion.

 

And again I agree that it would be nice if we/the state would do our duty and pick up the cost of all children. I'll give you 10/1 it ain't happening in our lifetime. But again, you're throwing it back on women when all I'm asking is why can't we shift the responsibility to the boys? A little of that and I call BINGO! What's wrong with controlling ourselves or paying the consequences for our indiscretions?

 

I'd prefer it your way but what are we to do in the meantime?

cco

To be honest, I have no idea. I think I said clearly above that the problem with abolishing child support is that it would throw so much of the responsibility on women.

If we're talking about changing policy, then enhance social assistance and abolish child support. If the axiom is that we're stuck with the current system, then what are we doing here but complaining? Not that there's anything wrong with that. Complaining is my 2nd-favourite activity.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Francesca Allan wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:
And now I'm wondering why a woman is questioning some important gains women have earned.

Because some of those gains are unjust.

 

Like these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjU0xAZbZkA

 

Quote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Don't fall for the odd cherry picked story where it seems like a woman won the lottery. More often than not, you wouldn't want to know the facts behind the decision for that woman.

Are you saying that over half of the time the fault lies with the man, e.g. he mentally or physically abused his wife?

 

Yep. We got a long way to go.

 

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

cco wrote:

To be honest, I have no idea. I think I said clearly above that the problem with abolishing child support is that it would throw so much of the responsibility on women.

If we're talking about changing policy, then enhance social assistance and abolish child support. If the axiom is that we're stuck with the current system, then what are we doing here but complaining? Not that there's anything wrong with that. Complaining is my 2nd-favourite activity.

 

But why are you complaining then? There is something wrong with that. Debating sure, but complaining, why? When you acknowledge we're not about to change overnight. The thread was good bait. In the absence of solutions, I'm not long for the problem. Anyone?

 

I have reason to be biased here, I must acknowledge. I just hate how it was framed that life can be written off to an indescretion or drunken escapades. Some people call them blessings.

Francesca Allan

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Good grief, the partner who's gracious and enables the other to succeed shouldn't share in their success?

In many cases success comes before the relationship. Do you still think it should be shared? Should a doctor spouse really be sentenced to years of spousal support to equalize incomes with a bus driver? What about the expenses and effort of becoming financial successful?

RevolutionPlease wrote:
What's wrong with controlling ourselves or paying the consequences for our indiscretions?

I'm all for controlling ourselves and making responsible decisions as males or as females. I only put forward a hypothetical example. Should that guy really pay 18 years for a drunken hump? Would you change your mind if she had lied to him and said she was on the pill?

I want to make it clear that child support is essential upon the disintegration of a relationship but this isn't a relationship. I do think it should be based on the recipient's need, though, rather than the payor's income.

Francesca Allan

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Francesca Allan wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:
And now I'm wondering why a woman is questioning some important gains women have earned.

Because some of those gains are unjust.

Like these: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjU0xAZbZkA

Huh? Those are female voices. What does that have to do with spousal support or child support, for that matter? I'm not suggesting that women don't have a long way to go to equality; I just think that some of our policies are working against that goal.

Francesca Allan wrote:
Are you saying that over half of the time the fault lies with the man, e.g. he mentally or physically abused his wife?

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Yep. We got a long way to go.

Wow. Where the hell do you live?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Francesca Allan wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Good grief, the partner who's gracious and enables the other to succeed shouldn't share in their success?

In many cases success comes before the relationship. Do you still think it should be shared? Should a doctor spouse really be sentenced to years of spousal support to equalize incomes with a bus driver? What about the expenses and effort of becoming financial successful?

 

Again, I'm not sure you can quote but the odd caselaw where this is the case???

Quote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:
What's wrong with controlling ourselves or paying the consequences for our indiscretions?

I'm all for controlling ourselves and making responsible decisions as males or as females. I only put forward a hypothetical example. Should that guy really pay 18 years for a drunken hump? Would you change your mind if she had lied to him and said she was on the pill?

I want to make it clear that child support is essential upon the disintegration of a relationship but this isn't a relationship. I do think it should be based on the recipient's need, though, rather than the payor's income.

 

Of course he should pay for the drunken hump, even moreso, why aren't these boys educated? Why can't he wrap his hot dog? It's really no different kids, despite what you're pressured into believing and can be even better.

 

And fuck, why shouldn't the kid share in his father's wealth, who determines need? Dorothy, I want to go home.

Francesca Allan

RevolutionPlease wrote:
I have reason to be biased here, I must acknowledge. I just hate how it was framed that life can be written off to an indescretion or drunken escapades. Some people call them blessings.

That depends on the point of view of the participants. In the hypothetical example I gave, a potential life is certainly not a blessing to the drunken teenage boy.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Francesca Allan wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:
And now I'm wondering why a woman is questioning some important gains women have earned.

Because some of those gains are unjust.

Quote:
Huh? Those are female voices. What does that have to do with spousal support or child support, for that matter? I'm not suggesting that women don't have a long way to go to equality; I just think that some of our policies are working against that goal.

 

That song just nibbles at the nipple of responsibility you're trying to absolve men of.

Francesca Allan wrote:
Are you saying that over half of the time the fault lies with the man, e.g. he mentally or physically abused his wife?

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Yep. We got a long way to go.

Quote:
Wow. Where the hell do you live?

 

The World.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Francesca Allan wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:
I have reason to be biased here, I must acknowledge. I just hate how it was framed that life can be written off to an indescretion or drunken escapades. Some people call them blessings.

That depends on the point of view of the participants. In the hypothetical example I gave, a potential life is certainly not a blessing to the drunken teenage boy.

And you can state this, how?

Francesca Allan

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Francesca Allan wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Good grief, the partner who's gracious and enables the other to succeed shouldn't share in their success?

In many cases success comes before the relationship. Do you still think it should be shared? Should a doctor spouse really be sentenced to years of spousal support to equalize incomes with a bus driver? What about the expenses and effort of becoming financial successful?

 

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Again, I'm not sure you can quote but the odd caselaw where this is the case???

No, it's common. Just for one example, I know a divorced man who lost more than 50% of his house despite the fact that his wife didn't contribute a cent. She worked full-time, granted not at as high a wage as he did, but then again not at the education or stress level that he did either.

RevolutionPlease wrote:
What's wrong with controlling ourselves or paying the consequences for our indiscretions?

Francesca Allan wrote:
I'm all for controlling ourselves and making responsible decisions as males or as females. I only put forward a hypothetical example. Should that guy really pay 18 years for a drunken hump? Would you change your mind if she had lied to him and said she was on the pill?

I want to make it clear that child support is essential upon the disintegration of a relationship but this isn't a relationship. I do think it should be based on the recipient's need, though, rather than the payor's income.

Of course he should pay for the drunken hump, even moreso, why aren't these boys educated?

18 years of child support? Isn't that a little harsh?

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Why can't he wrap his hot dog?

Because he's drunk, young and stupid.

RevolutionPlease wrote:
And fuck, why shouldn't the kid share in his father's wealth, who determines need?

Because what matters (or what should matter) is what the kid needs. Just because dad makes $200k doesn't mean that mum needs $100k to look after the kid.

And, while we're on the subject (sort of), why does mum almost always get the kid?

Francesca Allan

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Francesca Allan wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:
I have reason to be biased here, I must acknowledge. I just hate how it was framed that life can be written off to an indescretion or drunken escapades. Some people call them blessings.

That depends on the point of view of the participants. In the hypothetical example I gave, a potential life is certainly not a blessing to the drunken teenage boy.

And you can state this, how?

First, you didn't address my question: What if she lied and said she was on the pill? Would you change your position then?

Now, I'm not sure if I understand what you're asking me. You appear to be asking how I can state that this potential life is not a blessing to the teenage boy. It's obvious: he wanted the girl to have an abortion and he doesn't want anything to do with her or the baby. He doesn't see this as a blessing. He sees it as an 18 year financial sentence and I'm inclined to agree.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

 

I can't work the quotes anymore. Again, do you have data or just innuendo? Pardon me Francesca, you're awesome btw, but can you cite me some real-life examples and demonstrate we should even have a concern about your extreme cases?

 

Treat that weapon in your pocket as a loaded gun. I'm not sure what's so wrong with expecting the boy to wrap it up. Again, I'll bet 10/1 less than 10% of teenage pregnancies are condom failure.

 

And drunk, young and stupid should matter how? when a woman becomes pregnant? He was pretty sober, mature and bright enough to do the deed with his own biological, indelible signature.

 

And hyperbole again. What woman gets 100k from a 200k income? And the Mom gets the kid because most men suck.

Francesca Allan

RevolutionPlease wrote:
That song just nibbles at the nipple of responsibility you're trying to absolve men of.

I didn't listen to the whole song as it was disgusting. And I don't see how the song is either the responsibility of men or relevant to this discussion. I don't think excessive support orders are a legitimate "responsibility."

RevolutionPlease wrote:
The World.

Well, I live here too and I just don't agree that more than 50% of relationships involve abuse of one form or another.

cco

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Some people call them blessings.

Yes. Like this guy:

Joe Donnelly wrote:
I struggled with myself for a long time but I came to realize life is that gift from God, even when life begins in that horrible situation of rape. It is something that God intended to happen.

RevolutionPlease wrote:

And drunk, young and stupid should matter how? when a woman becomes pregnant? He was pretty sober, mature and bright enough to do the deed with his own biological, indelible signature.


"Play and pay", again. Who knew that Rabble was so Baptist?

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Francesca Allan wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Francesca Allan wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:
I have reason to be biased here, I must acknowledge. I just hate how it was framed that life can be written off to an indescretion or drunken escapades. Some people call them blessings.

That depends on the point of view of the participants. In the hypothetical example I gave, a potential life is certainly not a blessing to the drunken teenage boy.

And you can state this, how?

First, you didn't address my question: What if she lied and said she was on the pill? Would you change your position then?

 

I knew better to wrap it. And no I wouldn't. It's just as much his responsibility as hers.

Quote:

Now, I'm not sure if I understand what you're asking me. You appear to be asking how I can state that this potential life is not a blessing to the teenage boy. It's obvious: he wanted the girl to have an abortion and he doesn't want anything to do with her or the baby. He doesn't see this as a blessing. He sees it as an 18 year financial sentence and I'm inclined to agree.

 

Seems obvious to you,

But you have no idea really, no? You're just guessing now?

Francesca Allan

RevolutionPlease wrote:
I can't work the quotes anymore.

Me either.

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Again, do you have data or just innuendo?

It is data, just not published, available data. I'm referring to the divorce settlements of people I know and what I saw working for a family lawyer years ago.

 

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Pardon me Francesca, you're awesome btw

Bless you, RP. I was afraid we were on the outs.

 

RevolutionPlease wrote:
but can you cite me some real-life examples and demonstrate we should even have a concern about your extreme cases?

I can't really post particulars beyond saying who got the house, what support is paid, etc. Really not extreme cases, I swear.

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Treat that weapon in your pocket as a loaded gun. I'm not sure what's so wrong with expecting the boy to wrap it up. Again, I'll bet 10/1 less than 10% of teenage pregnancies are condom failure.

I'm sure you're right. Most teenage pregnancies probably arise from not using any birth control at all. But what about if the girl lies and says she's on the pill? Please answer this one; I'm dying to know what you think.

RevolutionPlease wrote:
What woman gets 100k from a 200k income?

I'm so sorry, I got that way, way wrong. Child Support Guidelines on $200,000 mandate $1,693 a month. The wife, though, usually gets the house and the husband takes the debts. ETA: And that's child support only, doesn't include spousal support. Still, $1,693 is a fair chunk of change and I believe it's not tax deductible.

RevolutionPlease wrote:
And the Mom gets the kid because most men suck.

Oh, come on, now.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

cco, I'm pretty sure you can find plenty of evidence here that I ascribe to no dogma but drag rape in if that's all you got.

 

And Francesca, I thought that was a beautiful song, it was recommended to me by my sisters but meh...Again, you'd have to demonstrate these "excessive" support orders.

 

 

Francesca Allan

Francesca Allan wrote:

... What if she lied and said she was on the pill? Would you change your position then?

RevolutionPlease wrote:

I knew better to wrap it. And no I wouldn't. It's just as much his responsibility as hers.

Really? Even if the only reason he did it in the first place was based on her assurance that he wouldn't carry responsibility?

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Seems obvious to you,

But you have no idea really, no? You're just guessing now?

Of course I'm just guessing! We're just talking about a hypothetical. But it does seem clear that a guy who wants his drunken screw buddy to abort and leave him alone, this same guy isn't going to see the unwanted (by him) baby and 18 years of child support as a blessing.

Francesca Allan

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Again, you'd have to demonstrate these "excessive" support orders.

Google "excessive spousal support orders" and fill your boots.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Francesca Allan wrote:
 

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Pardon me Francesca, you're awesome btw

Bless you, RP. I was afraid we were on the outs.

 

Never, I hope. All the best Francesca, we need to think more, even if I'm wrong.

 

 

Quote:

I'm sure you're right. Most teenage pregnancies probably arise from not using any birth control at all. But what about if the girl lies and says she's on the pill? Please answer this one; I'm dying to know what you think.

Think I answered above.

 

RevolutionPlease wrote:
What woman gets 100k from a 200k income?

Quote:
I'm so sorry, I got that way, way wrong. Child Support Guidelines on $200,000 mandate $1,693 a month. The wife, though, usually gets the house and the husband takes the debts. ETA: And that's child support only, doesn't include spousal support. Still, $1,693 is a fair chunk of change and I believe it's not tax deductible.

 

Right, not tax-deductible that 10% of his income. Still gets $180,000, not that big a blow, eh? It would be when he gives to his church for his tithe.

RevolutionPlease wrote:
And the Mom gets the kid because most men suck.

Quote:
Oh, come on, now.

 

Well, what do you have in our defence? I could use the material.

Francesca Allan

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Right, not tax-deductible that 10% of his income. Still gets $180,000, not that big a blow, eh? It would be when he gives to his church for his tithe.

But who knows what his spousal support obligations are?

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Well, what do you have in our defence? I could use the material.

Well, a guy held a door open at the coffee shop for me today. Seriously, there are many devoted fathers, single or not, who do an awesome job.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Francesca Allan wrote:

... What if she lied and said she was on the pill? Would you change your position then?

RevolutionPlease wrote:

I knew better to wrap it. And no I wouldn't. It's just as much his responsibility as hers.

Quote:
Really? Even if the only reason he did it in the first place was based on her assurance that he wouldn't carry responsibility?

 

How can I get this across? It's just as much his responsibility as it is hers. 50/50. They both make a mistake, they abide by each others choices, you CAN prevent yourself from being in that situation. And if I'm pressed into a corner like you're doing, we should do something.

Quote:

Seems obvious to you,

But you have no idea really, no? You're just guessing now?

Quote:
Of course I'm just guessing! We're just talking about a hypothetical. But it does seem clear that a guy who wants his drunken screw buddy to abort and leave him alone, this same guy isn't going to see the unwanted (by him) baby and 18 years of child support as a blessing.

 

Never say never my friend, it happens.

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

Francesca Allan wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Right, not tax-deductible that 10% of his income. Still gets $180,000, not that big a blow, eh? It would be when he gives to his church for his tithe.

But who knows what his spousal support obligations are?

 

C'mon, start linking these horror stories?

Quote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:
Well, what do you have in our defence? I could use the material.

Well, a guy held a door open at the coffee shop for me today. Seriously, there are many devoted fathers, single or not, who do an awesome job.

 

I don't disagree but what does that have to do with why child support is necessary? I'd have a lot more respect for a campaign to raise all kids boats. This seems like the usual mens rights stuff.

 

And from my biased opinion, most parents these days are part-time, nevermind fathers but that's a whole other problem.

Francesca Allan

RevolutionPlease wrote:
How can I get this across? It's just as much his responsibility as it is hers. 50/50. They both make a mistake, they abide by each others choices, you CAN prevent yourself from being in that situation.

Well, if she lied to him about being on the pill, then I think it's certainly not his responsibility, that's for sure. As far as a simple mistake goes, I agree they're both 50% to blame but how they deal with it shouldn't be entirely her decision, beyond her decision whether or not to complete the pregnancy.

I've read elsewhere (Unionist, I think) that women shouldn't be hogtied to childbirth. I agree but I also think that a teenage boy in this situation shouldn't be hogtied to an 18 year financial obligation.

And, sure, teenage boys can prevent themselves from ever being in that situation by never having sex or having a vasectomy but I don't think teenagers are likely to make that decision.

RevolutionPlease wrote:
And if I'm pressed into a corner like you're doing, we should do something.

???

Back to thinking about the drunk teenagers. I believe both have some responsibility.The boy had sex without a condom. Sex without a condom can result in pregnancy. This is akin to driving drunk.

To add... If a male does not ant children he has to use a condom. He can only control the condom. If a female does not want children she has to use birth control she controls and not trust a male who can say.... Don't worry I am infertile

Francesca Allan

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Francesca Allan wrote:

RevolutionPlease wrote:

Right, not tax-deductible that 10% of his income. Still gets $180,000, not that big a blow, eh? It would be when he gives to his church for his tithe.

But who knows what his spousal support obligations are?

C'mon, start linking these horror stories?

http://www.fact.on.ca/news/news0003/np000328.htm

And, anecdotally again, I know a guy who makes close to $100,000 a year yet can barely afford his own expenses (his car is falling apart and he can't have it fixed, for example) because his wife takes almost all of it. She also takes an unfair majority of the child time. This situation will continue indefinitely as there is no incentive for his wife to pull her own weight.

RevolutionPlease wrote:

I don't disagree but what does that have to do with why child support is necessary?

I never said that child support wasn't necessary; I said it wasn't always appropriate or fair.

Quote:
I'd have a lot more respect for a campaign to raise all kids boats.

Don't know what this means.

Quote:
sems like the usual mens rights stuff.

But men do have rights. And one of them should be to decide, for example, to work hard to support his family without being slaughtered in court if the marriage disintegrates. I said in another thread that the question of whether a woman is worse off after divorce is irrelevant; the pertinent factor is whether she was worse off before she got married. In almost all broken marriages that I know of, this is the case. Perhaps marriage was a sweet deal for her -- is she really entitled to that same sweet deal if she had an affair and left him? I don't think so.

At the beginning of my acrimonious and ongoing divorce, I was told I could have the house and spousal support for the rest of my life. I declined on the basis that my disability (bipolar disorder) was not my ex's responsibility. I had that problem before we married and, surprise, I still did once we were apart. It's not my ex's problem nor should it be.

Quote:
And from my biased opinion, most parents these days are part-time, nevermind fathers but that's a whole other problem.

Now, that's interesting. I've been going on about that for years. I think if you have kids, there are going to be sacrifices. Expecting both spouses to work full-time might be too onerous. I think insisting upon having it all ultimately hurts the kid(s). Why complain about decreasing your income to have kids when you've got the advantage of having them? Of course it's going to cost you! Where did this appalling sense of entitlement come from? While most women are clamouring for subsidized daycare, I think it would be a better idea to have that money available to all parents, whether they want to use it for daycare or use it to enable one or both of them to work part-time. There are too many exhausted parents coming home from work plunking Junior in front of the TV and feeding him the quickest, easiest and therefore least nutritious dinner. There's not a lot of time or energy for their kid. I actually think the ADHD explosion is partially a result of this type of background.

Francesca Allan

[email protected] wrote:
Back to thinking about the drunk teenagers. I believe both have some responsibility.The boy had sex without a condom. Sex without a condom can result in pregnancy. This is akin to driving drunk.

Yes, but the decision to continue the pregnancy is entirely hers (as it should be). Should this hypothetical teenage guy pay for 18 years for one drunken mistake?

Francesca Allan

[email protected] wrote:
To add... If a male does not ant children he has to use a condom. He can only control the condom. If a female does not want children she has to use birth control she controls and not trust a male who can say.... Don't worry I am infertile

Condoms aren't foolproof. And "I'm not fertile" isn't a very common way to casual sex, I don't think. Anyway, if a guy had to lie and say he was infertile, that implies that the girl didn't want to get pregnant.

MegB

Francesca Allan wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
Back to thinking about the drunk teenagers. I believe both have some responsibility.The boy had sex without a condom. Sex without a condom can result in pregnancy. This is akin to driving drunk.

Yes, but the decision to continue the pregnancy is entirely hers (as it should be). Should this hypothetical teenage guy pay for 18 years for one drunken mistake?

If the same kid gor drunk and accidentally killed someone, should he spend years in prison for manslaughter because of one drunken mistake? Yes. When sex is consensual, drunk high or sober, both partners are equally responsible for any potential outcome.

Francesca Allan

Rebecca West wrote:
Francesca Allan wrote:

[email protected] wrote:
Back to thinking about the drunk teenagers. I believe both have some responsibility.The boy had sex without a condom. Sex without a condom can result in pregnancy. This is akin to driving drunk.
Yes, but the decision to continue the pregnancy is entirely hers (as it should be). Should this hypothetical teenage guy pay for 18 years for one drunken mistake?

If the same kid gor drunk and accidentally killed someone, should he spend years in prison for manslaughter because of one drunken mistake? Yes. When sex is consensual, drunk high or sober, both partners are equally responsible for any potential outcome.

Drinking and driving is a crime, though. And, although both are obviously 50% responsibility for a pregnancy, I disagee that the girl's sole decision to have the baby entitles her to force him to pay, just as though he had decided that too. I think that's terribly unfair: to have no say whatsoever in the ultimate outcome but be forced to pay 18 years of child support. This hypothetical girl should take responsibility for her decision to have the baby.

Tehanu

Holy crap, I thought I'd clicked on a Men's Rights Activist board for a second.

What's so outrageous in saying that if a man gets a woman pregnant he has to take responsibility? As it is, far too many don't voluntarily, and I'm betting plenty of them who evade responsibility do so quite successfully. Not everyone can go to the courts for child support, not everyone can spend 18 years chasing after a man, especially when they're trying to juggle raising a child and working, which is what single mothers have to do. .

You don't want to have to take responsibility for someone's pregnancy? I'll go farther than "wear a condom." Don't stick your penis in a woman's vagina. It's not the end of the world if you have to refrain from doing so. And if you do, then deal with it if there are unintended consequences.

That hypothetical 18-year-old? I agree we need better sex education and education for both boys and girls on birth control, and I'll throw in that we should be teaching young kids about alternative fun ways to have non penis-in-vagina sex that reduces the possibility of pregnancy or disease transmission. But sorry, everyone also needs to take responsibility for their actions. And if you father a child, you need to take responsibility. Period.

Otherwise we're building in inequity, and I'd add that if we want fatherhood to be taken seriously, then we need to be consistent about it, rather than "oh, well, it was a mistake and I asked her to get an abortion so I'm magically off the hook."

Honestly, I think part of the problem is that young men are consistently treated as though they're idiots, by society, by the education system, by the low expectation that everyone seems to have of them. "Boys will be boys" hurts the boys probably more than anyone else.

Quote:
Where did this appalling sense of entitlement come from? While most women are clamouring for subsidized daycare, I think it would be a better idea to have that money available to all parents, whether they want to use it for daycare or use it to enable one or both of them to work part-time. There are too many exhausted parents coming home from work plunking Junior in front of the TV and feeding him the quickest, easiest and therefore least nutritious dinner. There's not a lot of time or energy for their kid. I actually think the ADHD explosion is partially a result of this type of background.

Are you kidding me???

Great. Blame struggling parents in a crappy economic system. Hey, wouldn't it be better if one of them was at home full time! Sure, we can afford that! Hey, why don't we just go back to the fifties, apparently that was a golden era. We didn't have decent spousal/child support (boo-ya, marital rape wasn't even recognized!), and Mom was at home waiting with a martini ready for dear old dad, no ADHD kids causing a ruckus anywhere in sight.

Except of course that that's such a middle class, privileged viewpoint. As is the paragraph quoted above. And this was not the reality for lower-income families, people of colour, and oh, single parents ... who did indeed exist in those halcyon pre-second wave feminist days.

Women are "clamoring" for subsidized daycare? How incredibly dismissive. And handing money out as a benefit rather than providing public daycare is right out of the Conservative playbook.

Francesca Allan

Tehanu wrote:
Holy crap, I thought I'd clicked on a Men's Rights Activist board for a second.

Yeah, I was waiting for a comment like that.

Quote:
 And if you father a child, you need to take responsibility. Period.

Really, what about cco's example above where the boy was raped? Should he still pay child support?

Quote:
Otherwise we're building in inequity

We already have inequity: only females can get pregnant.

Quote:
Where did this appalling sense of entitlement come from? While most women are clamouring for subsidized daycare, I think it would be a better idea to have that money available to all parents, whether they want to use it for daycare or use it to enable one or both of them to work part-time. There are too many exhausted parents coming home from work plunking Junior in front of the TV and feeding him the quickest, easiest and therefore least nutritious dinner. There's not a lot of time or energy for their kid. I actually think the ADHD explosion is partially a result of this type of background.

Quote:
Are you kidding me???

No, that's what I see. Mum takes one-year mat leave and then throws her baby into daycare.

Quote:
Hey, wouldn't it be better if one of them was at home full time!

What about both of them being at home part-time?

Quote:
Hey, why don't we just go back to the fifties, apparently that was a golden era. We didn't have decent spousal/child support (boo-ya, marital rape wasn't even recognized!), and Mom was at home waiting with a martini ready for dear old dad, no ADHD kids causing a ruckus anywhere in sight.

Oh, come on now, Who said anything about regressing to the status quo decades ago? And surely you're not going to deny the ADHD explosion?

Quote:
Women are "clamoring" for subsidized daycare? How incredibly dismissive.

Really? Any more than referring to men talking about their court orders as "whining"? And yes, they are clamoring for subsidized daycare. Because they don't want the inconvenience of child rearing hampering their chasing the golden buck.

Quote:
 And handing money out as a benefit rather than providing public daycare is right out of the Conservative playbook.

Why? What difference does it make if you get a bus pass or cash instead to pay for your transportation?

Unionist

Tehanu wrote:

Women are "clamoring" for subsidized daycare? How incredibly dismissive. And handing money out as a benefit rather than providing public daycare is right out of the Conservative playbook.

Exactly. We've discussed that here for years. And all these useless political parties think that "free money" is so attractive, they can't fight it - even if it means no money for publicly subsidized and delivered child care.

Unionist, on April 19, 2006 wrote:

Here you go, Michelle, time to get ticked off:

 

quote:NDP Children & Youth Critic Olivia Chow (Trinity–Spadina) today called on the Conservative government to provide its promised $1200 family allowance tax-free, with no hidden clawbacks.

So the fight against the $1200 phoney child care substitute bribe is over. Now it's: "Make sure we get the full amount!!"

The leadership of this party is a travesty. Read the whole pathetic retreat on
the NDP website.

It'll be 8 years soon. Haven't heard the NDP say: "No more flat subsidies to parents. We'll spend that money on child care!"

 

Francesca Allan

Tehanu wrote:
And if you father a child, you need to take responsibility. Period.

Really, what about cco's example above where the boy was raped? Should he still pay child support?

ETA: And what about if a teenage girl lies and says she's on the pill? We give a "deal" in this society to the young and stupid; that's the basis for the Young Offenders Act. I really think that in my hypothetical example, the state should step in and pay the child support.

Francesca Allan

Unionist wrote:
And all these useless political parties think that "free money" is so attractive, they can't fight it - even if it means no money for publicly subsidized and delivered child care.

Is it necessarily "no money" for state daycare? Wouldn't those expenditures just be reduced as more parents opted to do it themselves?

Unionist wrote:
So the fight against the $1200 phoney child care substitute bribe is over.

Why is it a bribe? Isn't it fairer to call it money available to provide options to parents?

And I don't know why that subsidy isn't available to everybody. We could afford it if we spent tax money effectively. Why should we encourage creating children? We have too many people in the world as it is.

Unionist

Francesca Allan wrote:

Unionist wrote:
So the fight against the $1200 phoney child care substitute bribe is over.

Why is it a bribe? Isn't it fairer to call it money available to provide options to parents?

No. It was a bribe to make people forget about the promises about national child care and win votes. Or... you think Harper deeply felt the need to give parents money and provide them with "options"?

Quote:
And I don't know why that subsidy isn't available to everybody.

Yeah, I was thinking about that the other day. I pay taxes for health care, education, roads... whether I use them or not. What about OPTIONS???

Example: health care.

I figure governments (mostly provincial) spend about $150 billion per year on health care (and probably another $50 billion spent by the "private sector", like when you buy additional insurance, or medications, etc. etc.). And for simplicity, I'll pretend there are 30 million residents of Canada.

My modest proposal:

1. STOP all government spending on health care.

2. GIVE each and every person (all ages) $5,000 (tax-free) per year - call it a health bonus - to be used as they please. Parents could have proxies for minor children's bonuses.

3. Establish a new annual statutory holiday called FREEDOM DAY, where the birth of our new HEALTH-CARE OPTIONS are celebrated!

4. There is no #4.

Next: Education. I'm working on it. I'll get back to you.

 

 

MegB

I'm thinking that we should hire Unionist to teach a babble class - Bitter Sarcasm 101.

janfromthebruce

Rebecca West wrote:

 

I'm thinking that we should hire Unionist to teach a babble class - Bitter Sarcasm 101.

And twisted 202

Unionist

Now now, paolo, never butt in on a pile-on.

 

Wilf Day

Francesca Allan wrote:
Say there's a teenage couple that get drunk and fool around. Girl gets pregnant and decides she wants to keep the baby. Guy wants her to have an abortion and doesn't want to be involved at all with her or the baby. Should this guy be forced to pay child support for 18 years based on a youthful, drunken indiscretion?

It's not about the parents. It's about the child. The child will not, I hope, know that the father wanted to abort the child. The child is entitled to support from both parents. The child is also entitled to grow up knowing that both parents love the child. Dad may not want the child at first, but bribing him to stay away by saying "stay out of our lives and I won't make you pay" is unethical mothering. When he matures, he will most likely become a good father, like most men.

Francesca Allan wrote:
I want to make it clear that child support is essential upon the disintegration of a relationship but this isn't a relationship. I do think it should be based on the recipient's need, though, rather than the payor's income.

It is based on the support payor's income because, in an intact family, the amount the support payor would contribute to the child is higher if his or her income is higher. The child should continue to receive the same amount after the parents separate.

Francesca Allan wrote:
In the hypothetical example I gave, a potential life is certainly not a blessing to the drunken teenage boy.

When he grows up, he'll see it is. If the situation is handled properly. Or would you prefer that he go through life feeling guilty about the child who doesn't know him?

Pages

Topic locked