Jump to content

Debtor's prison for dads


jbg

Recommended Posts

Guest American Woman

In England they are on the hook for support payments:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7125895.stm

I've heard of that happening and can't say that I agree with it. But then, I'm not sure how I feel about the idea of sperm donors. I can't imagine, if I were a man, putting my sperm out there for some unknown woman to create a child with. I feel the same way, as a woman, about donating an egg to an unknown couple. But then, people put their kids up for adoption and aren't required to support them monetarily, so seems to me that that's the category donating sperm/an egg should fall under. Other people are the child's parents by choice.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I couldn't agree with you more. What I take issue with is that this is a gender issue; that it doesn't work both ways -- and that both mothers and fathers can be, and are, at fault/guilty.
A government agency that treated denying access as a harm equal to not providing support would go a long way to address my grips with the system. What is needed is an enforcement mechanism that has teeth but is more flexiable than a contempt of court conviction. e.g. denying driver's licenses or holding supporting payments 'in trust' (in the payments would be made but they would not be released until the custodial parent lives up to the terms of access agreement).
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

A government agency that treated denying access as a harm equal to not providing support would go a long way to address my grips with the system.

I'm in complete agreement. "Visitation" is every bit as important as money.

What is needed is an enforcement mechanism that has teeth but is more flexiable than a contempt of court conviction. e.g. denying driver's licenses or holding supporting payments 'in trust' (in the payments would be made but they would not be released until the custodial parent lives up to the terms of access agreement).

Withholding payment still hurts the child; I think a custodial parent who denies visitation to the other parent should lose their custody status.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple is being made to pay maintenance by the Child Support Agency (CSA).

Law ought to be changed and make the stupid dykes work.

Actually it's idiotic to even allow them to have children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Withholding payment still hurts the child; I think a custodial parent who denies visitation to the other parent should lose their custody status.
That is not always an option. In many cases, the non-custodial parent may have a job that makes full time custody impractical. Or perhaps the non-custodial parent is simply not up to the job of caring fulltime for kids and only wants/needs regular access.

In anycase, your response is a perfect example of the tyranny created by 'best interests of the child' meme. In this case, witholding payments is simpliest solution but imposes some short term harm on the child. By refusing to accept the simple solution you are effectively saying there should be no punishment for denying access but the most complicated solutions will often harm the child too.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

He should quit the job and have the ex-wife pay.
Why not simply withhold support payments until the custodial parent complies. It easy to do. Minimally disruptive and provides the necessary incentive to ensure compliance in most cases without government intervention.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

That is not always an option. In many cases, the non-custodial parent may have a job that makes full time custody impractical. Or perhaps the non-custodial parent is simply not up to the job of caring fulltime for kids and only wants/needs regular access.

Of course it's always an option. It may not be the easiest option, but it's an option. The non-custodial parent may not choose it/want it, but it's an option. Parenting isn't done on the basis of what's practical. Sometimes being a parent is anything but practical. But if the non-custodial parent doesn't want custody, then they are partly responsible for the consequences by virtue of their custody preference/choice.

In anycase, your response is a perfect example of the tyranny created by 'best interests of the child' meme. In this case, witholding payments is simpliest solution but imposes some short term harm on the child. By refusing to accept the simple solution you are effectively saying there should be no punishment for denying access but the most complicated solutions will often harm the child too.

You're way off base. What I said is that the parent denying visitation should lose custody status. That's hardly saying there should be no punishment for denying access. Far from it.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're way off base. What I said is that the parent denying visitation should lose custody status. That's hardly saying there should be no punishment for denying access. Far from it.
The current situation with contempt of court charges means the only option is the 'nuclear option' (i.e. jailing the custodial parent). As result, the court almost never enforces its orders. This effectively creates an environment where custodial parents can withhold access with impunity. What you propose is nothing but another 'nuclear option' that will never be used except in the most extreme cases. This means you are really saying that custodial parents should not face any penalties - I realize you don't believe you are saying it but that is only because you are ignoring how these kinds of rules get implemented in practice.

If you really believe that custodial parents should face consequences you would agree with me that there needs to be a sliding scale of punishments where the lightest of them can be imposed after two or three denials. If you don't like witholding support then suggest some other minimally invasive punishments that can be imposed after minor infractions.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

The current situation with contempt of court charges means the only option is the 'nuclear option' (i.e. jailing the custodial parent). As result, the court almost never enforces its orders. This effectively creates an environment where custodial parents can withhold access with impunity. What you propose is nothing but another 'nuclear option' that will never be used except in the most extreme cases. This means you are really saying that custodial parents should not face any penalties - I realize you don't believe you are saying it but that is only because you are ignoring how these kinds of rules get implemented in practice.

What I'm saying is that it should be enforced; it shouldn't be ignored. If the custodial parent isn't responsible enough to respect and act on a court order, it should be reflected in their custody status. So I'm saying that it should be enforced and people who are denied access should see that it is enforced by taking it up in court. How many people do you think actually do that vs. how many simply complain about it? People need to take action to demand that their rights are granted when they are being denied.

If you really believe that custodial parents should face consequences you would agree with me that there needs to a sliding scale of punishments where the lightest of them can be imposed after two or three failures. If you don't like witholding support then suggest some other minimally invasive punishments that can be imposed after minor infractions.

No, I don't have to agree with you in order to really believe that custodial parents should face consequences. I'm not obligated to believe what you believe. I've stated quite clearly that I believe there should be consequences and I've stated quite clearly what I believe the consequences should be.

I believe that denying court ordered access is as serious an offense as not paying a child support order, and I believe that the consequences should reflect that. I don't, therefore, believe the consequences should be any more "minimal" than the consequences for not paying child support.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I'm saying that should be enforced and people who are denied access should see that it is enforced by taking it up in court. How many people do you think actually do that?
Do you have any idea how long it takes to do that? It takes months, if not years. And once the case is heard the custodial parent can evade punishment by providing access while the court case is on. Once that is over the denial can start all over again. For most non-custodial parents taking it to court is a waste of money that will not actually solve their problem.

You need to stop pretending that the law is some hypothetical construct that works the way it is written on paper. Life is never that simple. If the law only provides a 'nuclear option' then that is effectively the same as having no law at all because it will never be enforced. If you really want see the law enforced then their must be a must broader range of punishments made available. Your attempt to 'blame the victim' for not going to court does help resolve these issues.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Do you have any idea how long it takes to do that? It takes months, if not years. And once the case is heard the custodial parent can evade punishment by providing access while the court case is on. Once that is over the denial can start all over again. For most non-custodial parents taking it court is a waste of money that will not actually solve their problem.

Without anything to back that up, it's simply your opinion. But your solution is not an appropriate solution since the support money is for the child, and therefore withholding it is punishing the child for the parent's actions. It would be the same as saying a custodial parent has the right to withhold access to the child if a child support payment is missed. That would make the children not only pawns in the parents' games, but legally pawns, and the law doesn't work that way; thankfully the law doesn't condone such behavior, much less act on it.

You need to stop pretending that the law is some hypothetical construct that works the way it is written on paper. Life is never that simple. If the law only provides a 'nuclear option' then that is effectively the same as having no law at all because it will never be enforced.

If the "nuclear option" for not paying child support is enforced, and that's what this thread/the OP is about, it can just as easily be applied to not following court ordered visitation. If access to the non-custodial parent is just as important as the court ordered money, and it is, it can be, and should be, treated as seriously by the courts.

If you really want see the law enforced then their must be a must broader range of punishments made available. Your attempt to 'blame the victim' for not going to court does not help anyone.

There's a huge difference between "blaming the victim" and holding someone accountable for their actions/inactions. If someone is dissatisfied with their situation, they have to actively pursue changing it rather than simply complaining about it. Simply complaining about it does not help anyone, while your solution hurts/punishes the child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a huge difference between "blaming the victim" and holding someone accountable for their actions/inactions. If someone is dissatisfied with their situation, they have to actively pursue changing it rather than simply complaining about it. Simply complaining about it does not help anyone, while your solution hurts/punishes the child.

Much more harm will come to a child from having parents that are constantly battling each other in court and hating each other compared to having a bit less money. An emotionally stable and supportive environment is much more important than anything else, provided that the child and the "custodial parent" have food and a roof over their heads, which they will with or without alimony payments, courtesy of our social safety net.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Much more harm will come to a child from having parents that are constantly battling each other in court and hating each other compared to having a bit less money. An emotionally stable and supportive environment is much more important than anything else, provided that the child and the "custodial parent" have food and a roof over their heads, which they will with or without alimony payments, courtesy of our social safety net.

Harm will come to a child whose parents are constantly denying/being denied visitation rights, and the ensuing fights. That's hardly an emotionally stable and supportive environment. And "a bit less money?" Are you suggesting that the money that the non-custodial parent provides amounts to just a bit of the total picture?

But it's called child support because it's for the child. Therefore, withholding it for the parent's actions is not only inappropriate, it's punishing the child. There's no getting around that.

As for the social safety net, why should the taxpayers fork out the money when there's a parent in the picture who's obligated to support their child? And where did alimony enter into the discussion? We've been discussing child support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harm will come to a child whose parents are constantly denying/being denied visitation rights, and the ensuing fights. That's hardly an emotionally stable and supportive environment. And "a bit less money?" Are you suggesting that the money that the non-custodial parent provides amounts to just a bit of the total picture?

It was a manner of speech. Obviously the proportion varies from situation to situation depending on the relative means of the two parents. And I absolutely agree, the denying/being denied is also emotionally destructive. That's why that situation should be avoided, which it can only be if there is an enforcement mechanism that can be quickly implemented in a realistic scenario.

Again though, I categorically reject the notion that visitation rights as commonly implemented are in any way sufficient to have what could be considered a true parental role in a child's life. If the other parent gets a new partner that they live together with, that partner will realistically play the role of the 2nd parent, and the non-custodial birth parent will just be an occasional and uncomfortable visitor.

But it's called child support because it's for the child. Therefore, withholding it for the parent's actions is not only inappropriate, it's punishing the child. There's no getting around that.

It's for the child in name. Who gets the money and gets how to spend it? The other parent. What the money actually ends up being used on is up to that other parent. The same parent who fought in court to prevent non-custodial parent from having a real role in the lives of his/her own children. You are forced to pay money to the person who inflicted one of the deepest possible emotional wounds on you.

As for the social safety net, why should the taxpayers fork out the money when there's a parent in the picture who's obligated to support their child?

That is another issue. You said it was a matter of harm to the child, but if there is an adequate safety net, the child is not actually harmed. What the taxpayer is paying for is justice, which is part of the proper function of government. If the parent who is paying child support is put into an unjust situation, a remedy which costs the taxpayer money is just part of what it could mean to be living in a society which has a publicly funded justice system.

And where did alimony enter into the discussion? We've been discussing child support.

A slip on my part. Not completely unrelated in any case.

Edited by Bonam
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TrueMetis

It's for the child in name. Who gets the money and gets how to spend it? The other parent. What the money actually ends up being used on is up to that other parent. The same parent who fought in court to prevent non-custodial parent from having a real role in the lives of his/her own children. You are forced to pay money to the person who inflicted one of the deepest possible emotional wounds on you.

This depends, I receive the child support payments from my father, have since I was 16, though I have a somewhat unique situation. Hasn't stopped him from complaining about it of course. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This depends, I receive the child support payments from my father, have since I was 16, though I have a somewhat unique situation. Hasn't stopped him from complaining about it of course. <_<

Yeah once the child reaches a certain age they can receive payments themselves, but there are many years before that happens, depending on the age of the child when the separation/divorce happens. Anyway, you put "receive" in the present tense. You still receive payments? Are you still a "child", then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest TrueMetis

Yeah once the child reaches a certain age they can receive payments themselves, but there are many years before that happens, depending on the age of the child when the separation/divorce happens. Anyway, you put "receive" in the present tense. You still receive payments? Are you still a "child", then?

No, but because I'm going to school I'm still eligible for payments, not that the 128 dollars a month means a lot.

Edited by TrueMetis
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the law only provides a 'nuclear option' then that is effectively the same as having no law at all because it will never be enforced. If you really want see the law enforced then their must be a must broader range of punishments made available.

Too true. Contempt is such a drastic "nuclear option" that courts shrink from imposing it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Without anything to back that up, it's simply your opinion.
JBG is a lawyer in the US. He agrees with me on how a law with only a 'nuclear option' is rarely enforced (see post above).

Think about it: for years wives had the option of getting court orders if their exes refused to pay. Yet the government realized that simply putting exes into jail did not solve the problem. Instead they turned to a variety of less harsh remedies which were more likely to solve the problem.

How can you possibly insist that a regime that has failed for child support can possibly work for child access? What is wrong with defining a range of penalties that will give recalcitrant spouses an incentive to obey the law long before the situation deteriorates to point where someone is thrown in jail? If you don't like with holding support then propose something else. The current system is unfair and unworkable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

Too true. Contempt is such a drastic "nuclear option" that courts shrink from imposing it.

A "drastic 'nuclear option'" is the focus of this thread, so evidently they do get imposed or this thread/article is nothing short of sensationalism.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

JBG is a lawyer in the US. He agrees with me on how a law with only a 'nuclear option' is rarely enforced (see post above).

So he's another person agreeing with you, yet he started this thread, which is about a "drastic 'nuclear option.'" How else could one refer to "debtor's prison for dads?" His agreement isn't any more proof of yours/his claim than a poster who happened to work in the medical profession in Toronto who claimed that wait times in Canada are dangerously long would be proof that Canada's wait times are dangerously long. I have no idea what kind of lawyer jbg is, what he specializes in, or if his jurisdiction is a typical jurisdiction, or if his opinion is just reflective of his mainly dealing with one side of the issue, or if he just happens to be a lawyer with little experience in this area who agrees with you. In other words, it really means nothing to me as far as any kind of "proof" goes.

Think about it: for years wives had the option of getting court orders if their exes refused to pay. Yet the government realized that simply putting exes into jail did not solve the problem. Instead they turned to a variety of less harsh remedies which were more likely to solve the problem.

Not just "wives;" men sometimes get custody and the wife is ordered to pay. Furthermore, this article is about a man who evidently was driven to suicide by those "other less harsh remedies." But think about it. In regards to the other options the court has turned to, none of them involved taking visitation rights away from the non-custodial parent. By the same token, taking away child support payments isn't an option. The "punishment" has to be aimed at the "guilty," not at the child. You cannot get around that.

How can you possibly insist that a regime that has failed for child support can possibly work for child access?

There's a huge difference between being put in jail and having one's custody rights revoked. It's not a legitimate comparison for so many reasons. First and foremost, put a parent in jail and it doesn't solve the problem of 'no support money' at all. Give more custody rights to the non-custodial parent, and it does solve the problem.

What is wrong with defining a range of penalties that will give recalcitrant spouses an incentive to obey the law long before the situation deteriorates to point where someone is thrown in jail?

I never suggested that the custodial parent who denies court ordered visitation should be thrown in jail. I think custody rights should be revoked. If the parent given custody doesn't carry out the responsibilities involved, then they should be deemed unfit for custody.

If you don't like with holding support then propose something else. The current system is unfair and unworkable.

The current system for child support works only because of years of people actively dealing with the problem. I suggest dealing with this problem in the same intense way, but it's going to take people actively pursuing their legal rights in order for changes to come about. And I do see changes in that area.

One suggestion would be forcing the custodial parent to make up for any missed visitation. Another would be allowing the non-custodial parent to have a court/police escort to pick the child up. Laws should make it illegal to miss visitation in the same way it's illegal not to pay child support. Take away the custodial parent's drivers license. What's good for one legal violation is good for the other. Let them be subjected to the same "other less harsh remedies" as those not paying child support.

But whatever the consequences of denying visitation are, the punishment has to be aimed at the guilty, not at the child. As I already pointed out, denying visitation isn't a legal consequence of missed child support payments. That would be aimed at, and harmful to, the child; same as withholding support money would be. That would be the legal system using the children as pawns.

Edited by American Woman
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Take away the custodial parent's drivers license. What's good for one legal violation is good for the other. Let them be subjected to the same "other less harsh remedies" as those not paying child support.
You can't have a one size fits all solution (as the tragedy in the op illustrates). Revoking a drivers license will work for some but not others. There needs to be a range of tools that must include fines levied against the guilty. Of course, fining a single mom will impact her children but you did say the guilty had to be punished and a fine meets that criteria. I thought my option of temporarily withholding child support would be much better for the kids because mom gets the money if she complies. But you don't want that because you insist that that the punishment can't hurt the kids.

If you think about it your position is really absurd because any punishment levied against the custodial parent will hurt the kids in some way so the only real choices are 1) don't enforce access orders at all or 2) accept that the kids will suffer as long as their custodial parent breaks the access agreements. If you really think access orders should be enforce then you must accept 2). The no other rational position that you can take.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman

You can't have a one size fits all solution (as the tragedy in the op illustrates). Revoking a drivers license will work for some but not others. There needs to be a range of tools that must include fines levied against the guilty. Of course, fining a single mom will impact her children but you did say the guilty had to be punished and a fine meets that criteria. I thought my option of temporarily withholding child support would be much better for the kids because mom gets the money if she complies. But you don't want that because you insist that that the punishment can't hurt the kids.

What I insist is that the punishment can't directly involve the kids. The punishment can't be levied against the kids. The court orders child support for the children. To withhold it, therefore, is punishment directed at the children. Some of us were discussing earlier in the thread how too often the parents use children as pawns, withholding money, withholding visitation. To withhold child support for non-visitation is simply the courts using the children as pawns. Withholding something intended for the children is not an appropriate punishment for the parent.\

But you said there was a variety of "lesser punishments" levied at non-custodial parents not paying court ordered child support, and I'm suggesting that custodial parents who don't abide by visitation orders be held to the same punishments. If it's deemed appropriate for one situation, it should be just as appropriate for the other.

If you think about it your position is really absurd because any punishment levied against the custodial parent will hurt the kids in some way so the only real choices are 1) don't enforce access orders at all or 2) accept that the kids will suffer as long as their custodial parent breaks the access agreements. If you really think access orders should be enforce then you must accept 2). The no other rational position that you can take.

No, my position is not absurd. I agree that any punishment levied at the parents could hurt the children in some way, but the solution isn't to withhold court orders directed at benefiting the children. Making an order for the good of the children and then withholding the order to levy a punishment against the parent is what would be absurd.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...