Debtor's prison for dads

[TimG]

Cute. Extinguishes responsibilities... but not the rights, as opposed to extinguishing claims to children, but not responsibility for them.

I am talking about the absurd situation where a mate hopping mom can collect child support from multiple "dads" for the same kid (i.e. the biological one plus as many step dads she can ensnare). What I am saying is each child can only have 1 man who faces mandatory support payments. This is the biological father by default but if a step dad chooses to adopt then the step dad gets the obligation and the biological dad is off the hook.

I am assuming the that parent rights are already lost when a child is adopted so this is not an issue.

Edited January 28, 2011 by TimG

[Guest American Woman]

In practice it is irrelevant.

In principal it's very relevant. It would be ludicrous for the court to withhold money that the court ordered for the child in order to punish the parent. I would like to know if you think withholding visitation would be an appropriate legal punishment for not complying with child support orders.

Fines would have be large enough to be deterent for rich families without beggaring poor families. This means there would be sliding scale that would likely correlate quite well with the monthy child support check.

There's not a sliding scale regarding fines for speeding or running a red light or drunk driving or any other infraction. Fines have nothing to do with the offender's income and likewise the amount of the fine in this instance should have nothing to do with the offender's income, much less the monthly child support payment.

Would you ditch this nonsense about child support being for the child.

You're the one who needs to ditch the nonsense. The court orders child support for the child. You may have a problem with that idea, but that's your problem. The order, the payment, is for the child's well-being. If you think otherwise, it's merely your opinion. Factually, it's for the child.

It is paid the to custodial parent and if she wants to spend on trips to Vegas with her new boy toy she will.

Where's this "her" coming from?

If it was really child support the payer would be entitled to decide how it will be spent and the amount would be based on the amount it costs to raise a child and not on the income of payer.

The lifestyle children live is based on the income of the parents. The children shouldn't suddenly have to do with less because the parents choose not to live together.

Child support is better described as a 'caregiver's allowance' - a wage paid to the caregiver in return for looking after the children.

Yes, of course. Because it costs nothing to raise children. It costs nothing to feed them, put a roof over their heads, provide heat and utilities, buy school clothes, pay for extra curricular activities, take them to the movies, take them on vacation, have friends over, drive them around, buy medicine when they're sick, take time off of work to care for them when they're sick, buy them car insurance, send them to college, and on and on it goes. Child support doesn't help pay for any of that. Oh no. It's a "wage" paid to the caregiver. The custodial parent is getting rich off of the child support.

Given that context you splitting hairs over who is paying the fine is irrelavant. Whether it comes out of support or a seperate fine the money is being paid by the custodial parent and it is punishing the custodial parent.

I can't begin to understand why you have a problem with the offending parent being fined. It makes no sense at all. If the parent is fined, he/she has to pay the money; and again, the fine, the punishment, is directed only at the guilty party. It's money out of their pocket, so why you would feel better about withholding child support is really difficult to understand.

[Bonam]

I can't begin to understand why you have a problem with the offending parent being fined. It makes no sense at all. If the parent is fined, he/she has to pay the money; and again, the fine, the punishment, is directed only at the guilty party. It's money out of their pocket, so why you would feel better about withholding child support is really difficult to understand.

Umm, the custodial parent has a certain income, which includes the child support payment from the non-custodial parent as well as any other income he/she might have. If you fine that parent, the total amount of money they have decreases. If you withhold a child support payment, the total amount of money they have decreases. The money they spend, both on the child and on anything else, comes out of the total amount of money that they have. If you fine them, they will have less money to spend, including in terms of spending on the child, just as they would also have less money to spend on the child if a support payment was withheld.

The fact that you try to pretend that different income streams are allotted to different purposes such as "for the child" and "for the parent" is blatantly untrue. Even governments have a hard time separating their income streams, everything tends to get dumped into "general revenue" and distributed as needed throughout the budget. An individual parent just has one budget, and they have money that they use, they don't keep different categories of money for different purposes: money is money.

[TimG]

I can't begin to understand why you have a problem with the offending parent being fined.

I don't. The amount of the fine must depend on income or it will be useless as a deterrent. Many court imposed fines have a range which the judge can choose from. Speeding and other common fines are exception as opposed to rule.

It's money out of their pocket, so why you would feel better about withholding child support is really difficult to understand.

The child loses the same in both cases but under "the withheld support" model that loss is only temporary. Under your model that loss is permanent. As I said, a fine equal to one months support payment addresses the problem. It is bizarre distinction you insist on making between a fine and withheld child support which I can't understand. Edited January 29, 2011 by TimG

[Bonam]

The child loses the same in both cases but under "the withheld support" model that loss is only temporary. Under your model that loss is permanent. As I said, a fine equal to one months support payment addresses the problem. It is bizarre distinction you insist on making between a fine and withheld child support which I can't understand.

There is one difference:

- a fine means the government gets the money from the custodial parent, but the non-custodial parent still pays the child-support payment

- a withheld child support payment means the non-custodial parent gets to keep their money, for a while anyway

Apparently, any pause in the financial destruction unleashed on the non-custodial parent is unacceptable to AW, even though either way "the child" will be losing the same amount of money.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Bonam

[TimG]

- a withheld child support payment means the non-custodial parent gets to keep their money, for a while anyway

Probably not a good idea because it creates the wrong incentives. My original suggestion was the money would get paid as required but it would be held in trust by the court until the custodial parent complies. Edited January 29, 2011 by TimG

[Bonam]

Probably not a good idea because it creates the wrong incentives. I was assuming the money would get paid as required but it would be held in trust by the court until the custodial parent complies.

Then it kinda creates the wrong incentives for the government though.

[TimG]

Then it kinda creates the wrong incentives for the government though.

Actually it better than fines in that respect since 'in trust' has special legal significance and the monies would not be revenue for the government. Edited January 29, 2011 by TimG

[Bonam]

Actually it better than fines in that respect since 'in trust' has special legal significance and the monies would not be revenue for the government.

Perhaps. However, if it is the non-custodial parent's rights that are being violated by the custodial parent denying them visitation, having them compensated financially in the form of some or all of the "fine" seems to make sense.

[TimG]

Perhaps. However, if it is the non-custodial parent's rights that are being violated by the custodial parent denying them visitation, having them compensated financially in the form of some or all of the "fine" seems to make sense.

Allowing some legimate payment delays would simply make things too complicated - especially if the payer is already in arrears. I think it is better to keep the payments and the access as seperate issue. The payer would get the moral victory knowing the ex won't get the money till access is provided.

[Bonam]

Allowing some legimate payment delays would simply make things too complicated - especially if the payer is already in arrears. I think it is better to keep the payments and the access as seperate issue. The payer would get the moral victory knowing the ex won't get the money till access is provided.

Moral victory is a bit hollow when you are being bled dry while not even being allowed to see your child.

[TimG]

Moral victory is a bit hollow when you are being bled dry while not even being allowed to see your child.

The point of these measures is to change the behavoir of the ex as quickly as possible. It is not about compensating the victim. It is a bad idea to let policies get distracted from their primary objective. Edited January 29, 2011 by TimG

[yarg]

Cute. Extinguishes responsibilities... but not the rights, as opposed to extinguishing claims to children, but not responsibility for them.

Would that also apply to biological mothers, or are we confining this conversation to single-income families in which the income earner is male and whose income is double or more that of the average household (not incdividual) in Canada.... and, of course, in which the women are cold-hearted money-grubbing bitches with something on the side, both in the marriage and out?

Yeah. Right. That's exactly the model we should use to write the laws.

How about if both parents decide they want those rights, but none of the responsibilities?

Well there are a significant number of women out there that are exactly that, the problem arises when those women still get to get custody of the kids, get alimony payments and the husband who loves his kids and would want them gets to pay out the nose. If i got divorced i would likely be broke, my child support payments alone would be well over 1k/month, now, i don't know about most people, but my kids do not cost me that much per month, not even close. Add in alimony and it would be impossible, if i sold everything we owned and lived in a tiny apartment maybe i would have money for food. But wait, if the kids lived with me i wouldn't have to pay child support, i could keep my house and afford to eat, but hey, the kids almost always end up with their mother no matter how good of a father you are. Most fathers love their children and want to take care of them, i have 3 male friends who have been divorced recently, all 3 support and spend as much time as they can with their children, none of them are bad people. Their wives cheated or plain old didn't want to be married anymore but they still got the kids and still get paid for it. The only divorced woman i know is far from being a model mother moving from one guy to the next and seems incapable of being a good mother, but of course, the kid lives with her.

[Molly]

TimG : The payer would get the moral victory knowing the ex won't get the money till access is provided.

Bonam: Moral victory is a bit hollow when you are being bled dry while not even being allowed to see your child.

Lots of folks would consider it a fair tradeoff. Lots do avoid seeking child support in order to erase that second parent form their own, and their child's lives.

From my own perspective, that 'moral victory' seems extra hollow, on the grounds that... well, the custodial parent wants you gone, so you comply by being even more absent from that child's life? In a dozen years when the kid asks, you say, "Your (custodial parent) didn't want me hanging around, so to spite them, I abandoned you completely."

It seems to me that a caring, loving parent would want to be making sure that child has what they need even if there is an impediment to day-to-day contact. I know that I woudl be worrying about my kids doing without.

Edited January 29, 2011 by Molly

[Guest American Woman]

I don't. The amount of the fine must depend on income or it will be useless as a deterrent. Many court imposed fines have a range which the judge can choose from. Speeding and other common fines are exception as opposed to rule.

Enlighten me, please. What court imposed fine has a range which the judge can choose from. Seems to me if fines for infractions such as speeding are fixed, and therefore "useless as a deterrent," this would be no different. Speeding puts others' lives at risk, so I'd say it's a pretty serious issue. The deterrent for the wealthy in that example is in the points system and the possibility of losing one's license if too many points are accumulated. The same could apply here. Ignore the court order often enough, get fined often enough, and you lose custody.

The child loses the same in both cases but under "the withheld support" model that loss is only temporary. Under your model that loss is permanent.

As well it should be. If a custodial parent knows they will eventually get the money, seems to me there's not much incentive to abide by the visitation order. If the non-custodial parent has special plans, the custodial parent can withhold the child, the plans are ruined, and when said parent needs the money, the compliance with the visitation order is adhered to at the custodial parent's convenience/whim -- and said parent gets the money. No real punishment/deterrent there.

As I said, a fine equal to one months support payment addresses the problem. It is bizarre distinction you insist on making between a fine and withheld child support which I can't understand.

There's nothing bizarre about it and I'm guessing you see that yourself in your refusal to address the question of whether or not the court withholding visitation would be an appropriate punishment for delinquent child support payments.

What a wonderful example that would all be for the child. The court withholds child support, which it ordered for the child, to punish their parent. The court withdraws visitation so the child can't spend time with their other parent to punish the other parent.

If I were in such a situation and if my money were ever withheld from my children to punish the other parent, I would be furious. I wouldn't want my child support used as a pawn regarding the other parent's behavior. "If the other parent behaves, then I'll support my children. If not, I want my support withheld." Or "If the other parent sends money, then you can see them and have a relationship with them. If they don't send money, then you can't see them." And that's all supposed to be punishment directed at the parents?? Like I said, you just want to go from parents using the kids as pawns to the courts using the kids as pawns.

The court orders, made in the best interest of the child, should in no way be withdrawn, withheld, or otherwise messed with to punish the parents. That you can't see the distinction, that you think the kids aren't capable of seeing that they will only be provided for/allowed to see the other parent if the parents behave is extremely difficult to understand. What a wonderful world that would make it for children already hurt by divorce.

[TimG]

Enlighten me, please. What court imposed fine has a range which the judge can choose from.

Try drinking and driving:

http://www.defencelaw.com/drinking-driving-1.html

Minimum fine $1000. Actual fine is at the discretion of the judge.

If a custodial parent knows they will eventually get the money, seems to me there's not much incentive to abide by the visitation order.

They don't get the money unless the do so they don't have a choice.

[Guest American Woman]

Try drinking and driving:

http://www.defencelaw.com/drinking-driving-1.html

Minimum fine $1000. Actual fine is at the discretion of the judge.

So that's "at the discretion of the judge," most likely according to the severity of the offense. It's not a situation where the offender is fined "according to income," which is what you were suggesting. I would like just one example where the fine is based on the offender's income.

They don't get the money unless the do so they don't have a choice.

Sure they have a choice, and I gave an example. They can withhold visitation when they want to and then abide by it again when they want the money. They've lost nothing.

But one more time. Do you think withholding visitation for delinquent child support payments is an appropriate punishment?

[guyser]

So what? Children are harmed by bad choices their parents make all of the time.

I casn certainly agree to that but I cant see how it is relevant. You are talking about a parent or parents who make decisions in the best interests of a child.That it may be wrong,is not eh same as being wrong from the outset.

. In this case, it was child's mother who made the bad choice of not informing the husband of a potential issue with paternity. If this means her child ends up with less support then so be it.

So...mom is a pretty shitty individual, she doesnt tell the husband of a marital affair, and your solution , once the child has had some time know his 'daddy' , is to punish the child.

I see it differently in that the child is innocent, the child see his daddy as his father (even tho that isnt the case)and as such , since some bonding has occured is to hold dad somewhat accountable.

There was a case last year (year before maybe?) whereby mom had an affair, the kid was now a teenager and dad found out he had to continue paying support. The judge ( a woman by the way) ruled that bonding had ocurred , any doubts that dad had about the DNA of the child was never followed up on (he had some doubts)so his window of opportunity was closed thru a ) time and b ) because the child only knew her dad, never knew the father.

She needs to live with the consequences of her choices. The husband is the innocent victim in this scenario because he was not given the chance to make a choice. Without that opportunity to make a choice he has no obligations.

She is.

He doesnt get the final choice. There are some things in this world that can never be fair. If a woman, once impregnated , wants to have the baby, you have no choice but to support. Well I guess you have a choice, but the court will impose theirs if you dont pick Door # right one!

Frankly, if we followed your logic to its rational conclusion we should be holding lotteries where the "winners" get to pay child support for a random child since all that matters is "what is best for the child" and forcing random men to support them is definitely "good for the child".

Sure knock yourself out on this one. Silly as it is, since one needs a few things to be roped into support for children....one being DNA, or two being sopme close familial approximation or three entered in to a adoption or family way

If you reject that notion then you accept that what is "good for the child" is not a universal trump card and sometimes what is good for other people comes first.

Im certainly not about to suggest that , in every case it works, but then again, i dont want kids suffering from some parent who insists that it is fun to be a dick.

[TimG]

There was a case last year (year before maybe?) whereby mom had an affair, the kid was now a teenager and dad found out he had to continue paying support. The judge ( a woman by the way) ruled that bonding had ocurred.

You see to have missed entire point of article on step parents I had posted. I could concede that there may be some cases where a non-bio dad should be deemed a father (i.e. implied consent by not following up on suspicions) but the problem with is with the court system which is willing to call any kind of civilized relationship with a child of a mate sufficient to incur support liability. These kinds of abuses are social wrong that trumps any kind of social wrong that might be caused by a kid discovering that he/she has no father. The only way to stop these abuses is to reject the notion that an adult can be held financial liable for child if they did not get consent. As long as the 'best interest of the child' is the primary criteria injustices will occur.

Im certainly not about to suggest that , in every case it works, but then again, i dont want kids suffering from some parent who insists that it is fun to be a dick.

A father who rejects a child after being deceived by the mother is not being a dick. He has absolutely no ethical or moral obligation to a child that his not his unless he was aware of the fact and knowlingly accepted the responsibility. Edited January 31, 2011 by TimG

[guyser]

You see to have missed entire point of article on step parents I had posted.

I dont bel;ieve I missed that part.

Courts look at the relationship, weigh it for value and interaction with the child and judge its merits based on that criteria.

A father who rejects a child after being deceived by the mother is not being a dick. He has absolutely no ethical or moral obligation to a child that his not his unless he was aware of the fact and knowlingly accepted the responsibility.

Ethical, moral.....meh...you forgot the third.....Legal.

He sure as hell has a legal one . Guess which one has the wight behind it?

Although for the most part he could be free of any obligation should he move fast enough. The problem is, most dont, cant or dont want to.

Extremely tricky to figure out if the baby is a result of an affair.

[TimG]

Courts look at the relationship, weigh it for value and interaction with the child and judge its merits based on that criteria.

No they don't. They look for someone with a wallet and they pick it. Justice is irrelevent. Part of the problem is you actually believe the courts are reasonable when it comes these issues. This is often not the case.

Ethical, moral.....meh...you forgot the third.....Legal.

Legal obligations that have no moral or ethical basis are not just.

Extremely tricky to figure out if the baby is a result of an affair.

That is why a women has to be compelled to disclose that an affair occurred and the parentage is in question as soon as possible. Once the disclosure is made the guy has a choice to get a DNA test (or not). The only way to do that is to have a system where failure to disclose means no child support obligations. Edited February 1, 2011 by TimG

[guyser]

No they don't. They look for someone with a wallet and they pick it. Justice is irrelevent. Part of the problem is you actually believe the courts are reasonable when it comes these issues. This is often not the case.

Which is it?

They do weigh all the options, otherwise they would be a rubber stamp clearinghouse...."your Honour, I found a guy outside and he looks like he has a little money" "Well, then pay up!"

Legal obligations that have no moral or ethical basis are not just.

I was being facetious. I maintain they have some moral or ethical basis for support.

That is why a women has to be compelled to disclose that an affair occurred and the parentage is in question as soon as possible. Once the disclosure is made the guy has a choice to get a DNA test (or not). The only way to do that is to have a system where failure to disclose means no child support obligations.

And once again we would be left with a child being abandoned.

We are talking children here, not adults who can make choices, right or wrong so we will always err on the cautious side.

[TimG]

We are talking children here, not adults who can make choices, right or wrong so we will always err on the cautious side.

Sorry. The hypothetical needs of the children do not trump the fundemental principals of juctice. In these cases the man is a victim and the law should recognize that.

[guyser]

Sorry. The hypothetical needs of the children do not trump the fundemental principals of juctice. In these cases the man is a victim and the law should recognize that.

Of course it does.

One not look further than a child charged , or rather should be, charged with a crime. Far different than an adult doing the same deed.

This is no different.

Do you really want to stick it kids? Yeah, I get the injustice part, but damn, they are kids and you seem to advocate they suffer because justice is mine!

I'd give a child my last meal if they were starving too.

[Bonam]

Of course it does.

One not look further than a child charged , or rather should be, charged with a crime. Far different than an adult doing the same deed.

This is no different.

Do you really want to stick it kids? Yeah, I get the injustice part, but damn, they are kids and you seem to advocate they suffer because justice is mine!

A society must hold the principles of justice paramount. Sweeping such things under the rug the moment you are confronted with a situation that involves a child is wrong. Furthermore, given the extent of the socialization of our society, the child can easily be provided for financially without causing this injustice.

I'd give a child my last meal if they were starving too.

My child, yes. Someone else's child, no.

Edited February 1, 2011 by Bonam