Jump to content

Debtor's prison for dads


jbg

Recommended Posts

[quote name='TimG' date='25 January 2011 - 08:28 AM'

If you reject fines as an option then please enumerate exactly what lighter punishments you would support. Losing custody and jailtime are the nuclear options and, as a result, are not effective deterrents.

Perhaps community service of some kind, unpleasant community service? Maybe we could bring back the stocks and stick them in the middle of shopping malls (wouldn't want to be cruel vis a vis chilly weather). I wager a few hours spent in the stocks being ridiculed by teenagers would prod recalcitrant custodial parents into cooperating with court orders.

Then there's the Singapore option. A cane applied to the rear end probably teaches a few lessons in respect, and wouldn't cost the family anything nor harm the child.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 181
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Then there's the Singapore option. A cane applied to the rear end probably teaches a few lessons in respect, and wouldn't cost the family anything nor harm the child.

Perhaps the cane should be applied by the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent's read end? Maybe bringing some kinkiness into the relationship will set things back to rights and custody will no longer be an issue... :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest American Woman
What is the difference between a $1000 fine levied on the custodial parent and the delay of a $1000 support payment? In both cases the family has $1000 less to pay for expenses.

There is a difference. In the instance of a fine, it's levied against the parent. In the delaying of child support, it's levied against the child. Furthermore, a fine would be a set fine, the same for everyone. Child support payments, on the other hand, are not the same for everyone.

But again. The support is for the child. The court orders it for the child. How does it make any sense at all for the court to delay something it ordered for the child to punish the parent?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a difference. In the instance of a fine, it's levied against the parent.
In practice it is irrelevant.
Furthermore, a fine would be a set fine, the same for everyone.
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.
But again. The support is for the child. The court orders it for the child. How does it make any sense at all for the court to delay something it ordered for the child to punish the parent?
Would you ditch this nonsense about child support being 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. 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. Child support is better described as a 'caregiver's allowance' - a wage paid to the caregiver in return for looking after the children.

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.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ab-so-lutely not.
Is that because you prefer to believe in politically correct delusions even when the pratical reality says otherwise?

Child support will be 'for the children' when and only when a receiver is compelled to show that the money was actually used 'for the children'. As long as the custodial parent is free to do whatever they want with the money then the money is nothing but a tax free income supplement for the custodial parent.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is that because you prefer to believe in politically correct delusions even when the pratical reality says otherwise?

Child support will be 'for the children' when and only when a receiver is compelled to show that the money was actually used 'for the children'. As long as the custodial parent is free to do whatever they want with the money then the money is nothing but a tax free income supplement for the custodial parent.

The practical reality is that the amount demanded for child support would not likely cover even half of the cost of raising children, in spite of 'reaching for the average' being the goal of the guidelines.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fcy-fea/lib-bib/tool-util/apps/look-rech/index.asp?Income=40%2C000&Children_No=2&Province_ID=6&Search=Lookup

You did catch that: the goal of the guidelines is to name average cost of raising a child, for folks of particular income levels, so "If it was really child support... the amount would be based on the amount it costs to raise a child" is how the number is determined. However, since the amount folks spend on their children varies with their income level, the part about " and not on the income of payer" can't, in practical reality, be accommodated.

Edited by Molly
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are far worse things than having one parent or the other wander or be pushed out of a childs day-to-day life.

For the child, sure, there are worse things. What about for the parent, a parent who deeply loves their child and wants to be a part of their life and yet is prevented from doing so?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The practical reality is that the amount demanded for child support would not likely cover even half of the cost of raising children, in spite of 'reaching for the average' being the goal of the guidelines.
It really depends on who is doing the calculating and the income of the payer. Part of the problem is way too many people insist that non-essentials like dance lessons are essentials.
You did catch that: the goal of the guidelines is to name average cost of raising a child, for folks of particular income levels
The 'average cost' includes a lot of non-essential expenses. There is no justification for including non-essentials as a cost of raising kids - what should be included are the incremental cost of housing, food and wal-mart clothing. Nothing more.

In any case, court rulings court ruling have made it clear that child support is designed to give the custodial parent (and therefore the kids) the same standard living as they would have had if the marriage stayed together. You can see this pernicious social engineering mindset in shared custody cases where the kids live half the time with a richer parent - the richer parent still pays 100% of the child support in addition to paying 1/2 of the cost of raising the kids when they with him. If it was really about the cost of raising kids his support payments would take into account the money he spends directly supporting them.

A reasonable discussion on child support much start with an acknowledgement of what it really is and how there is a huge difference between the noble sounding theory and real life.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 'average cost' includes a lot of non-essential expenses. There is no justification for including non-essentials as a cost of raising kids - what should be included are the incremental cost of housing, food and wal-mart clothing. Nothing more.

Yea, lets not enrich the kid , better to keep it a troglodyte.

In any case, court rulings court ruling have made it clear that child support is designed to give the custodial parent (and therefore the kids) the same standard living as they would have had if the marriage stayed together.

You're confusing spousal support with child support

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For the child, sure, there are worse things. What about for the parent, a parent who deeply loves their child and wants to be a part of their life and yet is prevented from doing so?

What about 'em? Those parents have options, particuarly including the right to challenge custody, and become the one in that driver seat.

Don't get me wrong here, Bonam- I have huge sympathy for folks in such a situation. I've never been in the situation, but folks I care about have been. It's a truly awful place to be, often with no real solutions, and no good answers... but what is the states interest? How do 'the neighbours' benefit by putting up tax money to... monitor and enforce that relationship.. to, in effect, babysit the babysitters?

The state benefit and obligation in the cash transaction is obvious, but in the social arrangement? Not so much. It is always in a childs interest to be provided for (and the state could be stuck picking up the shortfall if the parents don't do it), but the company of an estranged parent is not always a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, lets not enrich the kid , better to keep it a troglodyte.
If they were really essential they would be part of the school system. They are a luxery and you know it. A parent should be entitled to decide if that luxery is something worth paying for.
You're confusing spousal support with child support
No I am not. A man in Ontario who went on to become a millionaire after the divorce challenged the increase to his support payments. He was involved in his kids lives, he clearly indicated that he would make sure that they would benefit from his success. But he lost the case. The court ruled that the kids have a right to enjoy a standard of living that they would have enjoyed if the marriage stayed together and that requires that their mother's standard of living be raised with higher child support payments. Spousal support payments don't automatically go up if one's income goes up.

Here is the case:

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/fcy-fea/lib-bib/legis/cl-jur/jur/jur3073.html

Court noted that key objective of Guidelines was to enhance children's post-separation standard of living to approximate, to extent possible, standard children would have experienced had parents continued living together - Children's potential enjoyment of household standard that was substantially higher than would have been case under previous method of calculating support did not make table amount "Inappropriate"
Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Tim... I think Guyser has given you a pretty straight answer.

Providing for your children to bare survival levels, regardless of your means? That's not worthy of respect. It's mean and grasping and self-absorbed.

However, I don't know if you checked out that link. I plugged in $40,000 gross income and two kids, in Ontario- probably pretty common, if not leaning a little to the plush side for young parents... and came out with $600 and some odd, which wouldn't pay half the rent on a mediocre two bedroom apartment, much less provide food, clothing- Walmart or otherwise, entertainment, transportation, glasses and dentistry and the odd prescription... just wouldn't even come close, even at a subsistence rate. Never mind dance lessons, or a pet.

How much less should be asked?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If they were really essential they would be part of the school system. They are a luxery and you know it. A parent should be entitled to decide if that luxery is something worth paying for.

Schools cannot afford to provide, hockey, baseball , ballet, flute, summer camp,soccer.....

Parents should be able to but sometimes one parent becomes a dick and says no to make life diffulcult for the custodial parent.

"dont be the dick"

No I am not. A man in Ontario who went on to become a millionaire after the divorce challenged the increase to his support payments. He was involved in his kids lives, he clearly indicated that he would make sure that they would benefit from his success. But he lost the case. The court ruled that the kids have a right to enjoy a standard of living that they would have enjoyed if the marriage stayed together and that requires that their mother's standard of living be raised with higher child support payments. Spousal support payments don't automatically go up if one's income goes up.

Child support is based on income.

If he "went onto become a millionaire" he should have had his support raised accordingly. I will presume he never said a thing to his wife and then got found out.

Yes, the ex would riase her standard of ;living since the opther would pay more, but the only recourse against that would only hurt the kids. So moms standard gets raised as a vicarious by product, and he has to suck it up for his kids sake.

Again.....

"Dont be a dick" (not that you specifically are)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Providing for your children to bare survival levels, regardless of your means? That's not worthy of respect. It's mean and grasping and self-absorbed.
We are talking about the money paid to the custodial parent. Nothing stops a non-custodial parent from making the choice to pay for dance lessons or whatever - just like any parent does while their are married.

The problem with the child support calculations is they take spending that used to be choices and turned it into compulsary payments. That is wrong and an unacceptable intrusion into the private lives of people by the government.

and came out with $600 and some odd, which wouldn't pay half the rent on a mediocre two bedroom apartment, much less provide food, clothing
A 40K family income is tough to live on no matter what. At lower income levels the child support guidelines will not provide enough to meet basic expenses and they are nothing but an attempt to make the best of difficult situation for the kids. It is at the higher incomes where child support becomes an exercise in income redistribution between spouses rather than a means to provide support for the kids.
How much less should be asked?
There should be an upper limit on mandatory child support.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Parents should be able to but sometimes one parent becomes a dick and says no to make life diffulcult for the custodial parent.
Why do you assume that saying "no" means the parent is "being a dick"? There are many good reasons to refuse to pay different activities that have nothing to do with wanting to hurt your kids. For example, Suzie Orman - a cable TV financial advice guru - always tells people that they have to look after their own retirement and there is nothing wrong with telling your kids to get student loans if they want to go to university. You may disagree with that opinion but it is ridiculous for you to characterize it as nasty or selfish.

If an expense is optional while people are married it should be optional after they divorce. Why is that so difficult to understand?

Yes, the ex would raise her standard of ;living since the other would pay more, but the only recourse against that would only hurt the kids. So moms standard gets raised as a vicarious by product, and he has to suck it up for his kids sake.
If the dad is still making the original support payments then the kids are only "hurt" in the mind of a wannabe communist. The only question should be is whether the payments are adequate to meet the basic needs of the kids. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We are talking about the money paid to the custodial parent. Nothing stops a non-custodial parent from making the choice to pay for dance lessons or whatever - just like any parent does while their are married.

Dance lessons will be shared as per the incomes of the parents. No more no less. That they may be bourne by one does not mean they should be or have to be

The problem with the child support calculations is they take spending that used to be choices and turned it into compulsary payments. That is wrong and an unacceptable intrusion into the private lives of people by the government.

Choices made in a marriage or not the same as choices in a divorce.

Child support are for ordinary items, housing food and clothing. How one can universally declare this is intrusion is beyond me.

Intrusion if believeable is there because two adults cannot act like adults and do things the right way. History of relationships shows that, otherwise who needs the courts except to rubber stamp it?

It is at the higher incomes where child support becomes an exercise in income redistribution between spouses rather than a means to provide support for the kids.

There should be an upper limit on mandatory child support.

I cannot agree with that.

Spouses split and each make minimum and now one (non custodial) earns a million. So you adocate that the kids still live in a flea bag apartment, jeans from Goodwill and mac and cheese 4 nights a week? But on alternate weekends they enjoy the jacuzzi , steaks from Pusateri's and the use of the Jaq ?

Gee MR/MRS Non-Custodial, what a great parent you are.

I sure hope not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about 'em? Those parents have options, particuarly including the right to challenge custody, and become the one in that driver seat.

Don't get me wrong here, Bonam- I have huge sympathy for folks in such a situation. I've never been in the situation, but folks I care about have been. It's a truly awful place to be, often with no real solutions, and no good answers... but what is the states interest?

The state's only interest, via the courts, should be justice. If an individual is placed in an unjust situation, then that situation should be remedied. I do not care for wealth redistribution and social engineering schemes, but I do care for justice. That is the proper function of government.

You seem to agree that the situation is "awful", and yet you seem to think that it is not worthy of the state addressing it. Why is the "awful" situation of a child not having enough money to go to dance lessons any more worthy of state intervention than the awful situation of a parent being stripped of the right to be involved in their child's life?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why do you assume that saying "no" means the parent is "being a dick"? There are many good reasons to refuse to pay different activities that have nothing to do with wanting to hurt your kids.

All well and true, but likely its done cuz one wants to be a dick.

If the kid was in the activity before, he/she should be in the same now. At times both parents may realize that it is something neither can afford, and thats fine. Since both parents have to contribute to said activity , presumably they discuss the idea..."can we afford the private piano lessons this year? Im having a hard time coming up with $xx and you are too!"

For example, Suzie Orman - a cable TV financial advice guru - always tells people that they have to look after their own retirement and there is nothing wrong with telling your kids to get student loans if they want to go to university. You may disagree with that opinion but it is ridiculous for you to characterize it as nasty or selfish.

My personal opinion? Any parent who saddles their kid with student loans is lacking something and likely big time selfish. BUt this is not a relevant part of the discussion .

If an expense is optional while people are married it should be optional after they divorce. Why is that so difficult to understand?

It isnt, and no one has said it is.

If the dad is still making the original support payments then the kids are only "hurt" in the mind of a wannabe communist. The only question should be is whether the payments are adequate to meet the basic needs of the kids.

Yup , mac and cheese for you, no name brand this time kids...oh and heres some water to wash it down.

But hey 'parent'...I want some steak like you are.

Sorry kid, I dont want to be called a communist.

Ok, but after dinner can I use one of the cars in the driveway to visit Sherry?

Sorry, you have a bus token.

Tim, Im not trying to be a smart ass, but damn man, you are either a cold hearted prick (in the nicest possible way) or you have an ex-spouse who burned you bad.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Child support are for ordinary items, housing food and clothing. How one can universally declare this is intrusion is beyond me.
Spare me the strawman. 10K per month for ordinary items? It is income redistribution.
Spouses split and each make minimum and now one (non custodial) earns a million. So you adocate that the kids still live in a flea bag apartment, jeans from Goodwill and mac and cheese 4 nights a week? But on alternate weekends they enjoy the jacuzzi , steaks from Pusateri's and the use of the Jaq ?
Another strawman. The minumum would obviously be enough to pay for decent housing, meals and clothing. However, the idea a child is "owed" a equivalent standard of living 7 days a week is rediculous. Income inequality exists it is not up to the government to eliminate it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spare me the strawman.

What strawman?

10K per month for ordinary items? It is income redistribution.

Not sure where the 10k comes from but anyhow, I know may people that 10k a month is less than they pay for child support, hell the mortgage payment alone is almost that. The amount of money is meaningless to talk about but the percentage is.

Ergo, a formula for child support takes in the persons income related to a percent chart.

Another strawman. The minumum would obviously be enough to pay for decent housing, meals and clothing. However, the idea a child is "owed" a equivalent standard of living 7 days a week is rediculous. Income inequality exists it is not up to the government to eliminate it.

What strawman? Geebus .

You're goddamn right a child is owed an equivalent standard of living 7 days a week. Otherwise the Non-C spouse is a dick.Now, we could discuss the merits of equivalent, meaning not everything can be equal, but for the most part it should be.

The only reason that "Mr. Suddenly Millionaire" does not want to improve his kids standard of living up to their own is to keep the balance of power in Mr court.

Dont be a dick!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Be careful to not confuse "standards of living"

It does not mean if I live in a 5000sf house and she lives in a 2800sf house that one either moves her up or me down.

As in children, you have your standards of attempting achievement or schooling. That one child may excel and one barely pass is proof of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the kid was in the activity before, he/she should be in the same now. At times both parents may realize that it is something neither can afford, and thats fine. Since both parents have to contribute to said activity , presumably they discuss the idea..."can we afford the private piano lessons this year? Im having a hard time coming up with $xx and you are too!"
Spouses often have different ideas on what can be afforded. Sometimes the non-custodial parent is a dick. Other times the custodial parent is a gold digging bitch. Neither is the governments concern provided the children recieve support to meet their basic needs.
My personal opinion? Any parent who saddles their kid with student loans is lacking something and likely big time selfish. BUt this is not a relevant part of the discussion .
A seperate thread, perhaps. But Orman's argument is: your kids will have more time to pay it off than you will have to save for retirement. If you are able you always can help pay down the loan after university. It is reasonable argument as far as I am concerned and it is choice denied to non-custodial parents.
Tim, Im not trying to be a smart ass, but damn man, you are either a cold hearted prick (in the nicest possible way) or you have an ex-spouse who burned you bad.

Just a libertarian who does not believe that governments should be telling people what they should spend on their kids simply because they get divorced. If it was a choice before divorce it should be a choice after divorce. Edited by TimG
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...