Jump to content

Step Parent Child Support Laws and Ethics


Recommended Posts

The thing is child support and alimony are different. Undue hardship to you has little to do with child support. That's why they award alimony. Monies for the children are supposed to be used exclusively for the children. At the end of the day, regardless of how brief their relationship was, if he acted as a father to that child and disciplined the kid, brought the kid to see his extended family, and did other things that a parent would do for the child, then he was a stand in parent and that child becomes a child of his marriage. Maybe she did "prey" on him, but that's not the court's concern. He voluntarily entered that marriage and the marriage is a contract with certain rights and responsibilities. Since the court is awarding child support, he's entitled to ask for custody of the child. If he thinks she's unfit to parent, he can ask to be the primary guardian or even for sole custody. He doesn't have to be absent from the child and if she doesn't like it, she should have considered that before going after him for child support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 157
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I believe that courts do what they believe is the best for the child. Be it custody, visitation or child support, the aim of the court is to try to resolve a problem between two adults who cannot came to an agreement about the child that they both brought into the world. The innocent child has to be protected from being used as a stick for the parents to use against each other. Child support is not a penalty but an impartial assignment of responsibility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He voluntarily entered that marriage and the marriage is a contract with certain rights and responsibilities.

Sorry - there is nothing in the generally understood marriage contract that implies that one should be forever financially responsible for step children. In fact, many people find the idea that a step parent should be financially liable to be morally repugnant. For this reason you have absolutely no basis for claiming that anyone "volunteers" to take on that responsibility by simply choosing to marry since one has to be aware before one can "volunteer" and the majority of people are not aware of what the law says therefore they cannot be said to be "volunteers".

The law as it is written is violates any reasonable definition of justice or fairness and the "what's best for the children" platitude is not an excuse for what amounts to legalized extortion. If the government is going to impose these obligations on men then it should also be required to inform them of the obligations incurred at the time of marriage.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The innocent child has to be protected from being used as a stick for the parents to use against each other. Child support is not a penalty but an impartial assignment of responsibility.

For bio-parents sure. But step parents should not automatically be liable just because they act like a responsible adult while in a relationship with the children's bio-parent. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry - there is nothing in the generally understood marriage contract that implies that one should be forever financially responsible for step children. In fact, many people find the idea that a step parent should be financially liable to be morally repugnant. For this reason you have absolutely no basis for claiming that anyone "volunteers" to take on that responsibility by simply choosing to marry since one has to be aware before one can "volunteer" and the majority of people are not aware of what the law says therefore they cannot be said to be "volunteers".

The law as it is written is violates any reasonable definition of justice or fairness and the "what's best for the children" platitude is not an excuse for what amounts to legalized extortion. If the government is going to impose these obligations on men then it should also be required to inform them of the obligations incurred at the time of marriage.

It's really simple, Tim. If you act as a parent, you are a parent. If the family is disrupted by divorce, parents have a responsibility to continue providing for the children of their marriage. That is the term used in the legislation: child of marriage. You marry someone with children and act as a parent to their kids, those kids are children of your marriage. You have responsibilities to them. You're also conveniently ignoring the fact that you also have rights, such as asking for custody of those kids, when the marriage dissolves.

You may find it "morally repugnant," but what I find even more "morally repugnant" is the idea that someone can enter a child's life, act as a parent to that child by disciplining them, bringing them around to the extended step family, and otherwise treating the child as their own, then turning around and acting like they have absolutely no responsibilities to that child if the relationship with the mother ends.

You develop a relationship with that child as a parent, you're obligated to continue that relationship with that child as a parent. It's pretty simple. It doesn't matter what happens to the marriage, it's about your relationship with the child. You're on your high horse about things being morally repugnant, but what's morally repugnant here is abandoning a child that you acted as a parent towards.

Ultimately, the point is you shouldn't get divorced. Family disruption can have serious effects on children that last throughout their lives. It's completely appropriate for the law to disincentivize things that can be detrimental to society.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For bio-parents sure. But step parents should not automatically be liable just because they act like a responsible adult while in a relationship with the children's bio-parent.

Who said this takes the responsibility off the biological parent? The law is clear; you could have 3 or more parties all paying child support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ultimately, the point is you shouldn't get divorced.

Actually, no. What your twisted concept of morality means is people should never get married to someone with children from a prior relationship. I fail to see why creating a system where single parents are forced to remain single parents is good for children. Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, no. What your twisted concept of morality means is people should never get married to someone with children from a prior relationship. I fail to see why creating a system where single parents are forced to remain single parents is good for children.

My morality isn't the twisted one. Your morality is the one that advocates for parents turning their backs on their responsibility to their children.

But you're right. Maybe you shouldn't get married to someone with kids from a prior relationship because you clearly have no understanding of what it means to be a parent.

And single parents aren't forced to remain single; they should just avoid getting married to egotistical, self-centred people who think it's ok to be a parent to a child then turn their backs on them because their not biologically theirs. Don't worry, there's plenty of responsible and mature adults that understand that entering a marriage with step children means they're going to be a parent and have responsibilities to those children.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Your morality is the one that advocates for parents turning their backs on their responsibility to their children.

Sorry. Simply getting married to someone does not mean you choose to be a parent. Yet the courts have decided over and over again that unless you are a complete ass you are deemed a 'parent' even if you had explicitly stated that you had no intention of being a parent. The only fair way to resolve these conflicts between what people believe they agree to and what the court deems they agree to require written consent to being a parent to step children.

The premise that simply being a responsible adult in a child's life make you a 'parent' is absurd in itself. If your argument had any merit then uncles/aunts, grandparents or even friends who participate in child rearing should be required to pay support. But they aren't (at least not yet). The only thing that is guaranteed to to put someone on the hook for support payments is to sleep with a child's mother.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry. Simply getting married to someone does not mean you choose to be a parent.

If she has children, it does.

Common-law too.

Yet the courts have decided over and over again that unless you are a complete ass you are deemed a 'parent' even if you had explicitly stated that you had no intention of being a parent.

IIrrelevant.

The only fair way to resolve these conflicts between what people believe they agree to and what the court deems they agree to require written consent to being a parent to step children.

Ridiculous. You're there ... you parent.

The premise that simply being a responsible adult in a child's life make you a 'parent' is absurd in itself. If your argument had any merit then uncles/aunts, grandparents or even friends who participate in child rearing should be required to pay support. But they aren't (at least not yet).

Living in a conjugal relationship with the parent is key.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is the definition of best interest of the child?

Well that would depend on the situation, each one is unique to some degree.

As rich as they can get, as rich as they were during marriage, as rich as an "average 2 parent" child. Its a platitude unless there is context and definition......just saying something to mean actually I don't know but it sounds good is dishonest discussion.

I suppose you are unaware that courts have leeway to review and assess situations, and that courts in the criminal context have the same and dont hand out the same sentences for all the same situations......due in part all the mitigating factors.

Dishonest=reality I suppose?

Cuz thats where I am coming from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Setting aside the clumsy manner in which Trudeau said it, please tell me what the difference is between Harper and Trudeau on this issue:

Trudeau says - You can hold whatever views you wish but on the issue of abortion you must vote with the party in favour of women's rights above any anti-abortion feelings you may hold.

Harper says - The Cons will never open up this issue for a vote, so even if you hold anti-abortion views, there will never be legislation from the Conservative Party on this issue.

Essentially, both party leaders have forced their party into the same stance on abortion.

This was asked way back on page 4 I think......it was ignored since many need to ignore it to post their feelings.Thus 51 pages later.....

There is no difference.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that would depend on the situation, each one is unique to some degree.I suppose you are unaware that courts have leeway to review and assess situations, and that courts in the criminal context have the same and dont hand out the same sentences for all the same situations......due in part all the mitigating factors.Dishonest=reality I suppose?Cuz thats where I am coming from.

Depends is the ultimate cop out to meaningful discussion.....what makes them unique, what are the boundaries, did you just compare family court rulings to criminal sentences? Reality cannot be critiqued in your world as its too varied to describe......interesting. I'll keep that in mind in the next topic you post.

Edited by Bob Macadoo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Depends is the ultimate cop out to meaningful discussion.....what makes them unique, what are the boundaries, did you just compare family court rulings to criminal sentences? Reality cannot be critiqued in your world as its too varied to describe......interesting. I'll keep that in mind in the next topic you post.

Oh geez Macadoo. Its not a cop out of any kind, its reality.

How can one quantify the various considerations one has to take in to properly adjudicate a case ? We know they are there, we know they apply.

The parents means could be wildly disparate.

The child could have developmental problems.

One parent could have a screw loose

I could go on, but I think the point is made.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may play Devil's Advocate here, some of the reasons given in favour of step-responsibility would require very little logical work to extend to teachers and principals.

well in that case.....babysitters, nannies,Police Officers,neighbours,kids coach.....

Er....Nope.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is not a refutation of the point, that is just a statement of denial. What makes all of these things disanalagous?

I dont know.

I am pretty confident you couldnt make the case for teachers and principals......if that was the intention.

Now I am wondering if I read your post wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may play Devil's Advocate here, some of the reasons given in favour of step-responsibility would require very little logical work to extend to teachers and principals.

Did you have a lot of teachers and principals sleeping with your mother? Taking you to their family's homes for holidays? Looking at the option of adopting you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did you have a lot of teachers and principals sleeping with your mother?

Why is this even a criteria? Or are you arguing that every john for a woman working as a prostitute should obligated to provide child support? Your argument has no logical foundation unless you claim that every adult that plays a supervisory role in a child's life should be obligated to pay child support. Throwing in irrelevancies like who their mother is sleeping with or hypothetical discussions of adoption that rarely occur simply shows how weak your argument is.

At the core the laws are an immoral cash grab that are only effective because most men don't realize what could happen. If they did understand they would never choose to have a relationship with a woman with kids.

Edited by TimG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why is this even a criteria? Or are you arguing that every john for a woman working as a prostitute should obligated to provide child support?

just out of curiosity, do you try to create the worst strawman arguments possible or does it come naturally?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the amount of time children spend with their teachers, close enough to a third of the day, that can often turn out to be more time spent in the company of parents. Especially since most of the time teachers are with children they are supposed to be engaged with them, not just letting the kids go off and do their own thing. Beyond the curriculum teachers are expected to be role models and dispensers of "wisdom" , and to enforce discipline and be responsible while kids are on school premises, rather like second-string parents. There is every probability that a significant fraction of kids get more out of their relationship with their teachers than they do with their step parents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I may play Devil's Advocate here, some of the reasons given in favour of step-responsibility would require very little logical work to extend to teachers and principals.

No.

A conjugal and domestic relationship and shared finances.

.

Edited by jacee
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you look at the amount of time children spend with their teachers, close enough to a third of the day, that can often turn out to be more time spent in the company of parents. Especially since most of the time teachers are with children they are supposed to be engaged with them, not just letting the kids go off and do their own thing. Beyond the curriculum teachers are expected to be role models and dispensers of "wisdom" , and to enforce discipline and be responsible while kids are on school premises, rather like second-string parents. There is every probability that a significant fraction of kids get more out of their relationship with their teachers than they do with their step parents.

The responsibility for child support comes from the kid being a "child of the marriage". Teachers are not married to the parent, which is why betsy keeps bringing up the conjugal relationship. Does someone really need to explain to you the difference between a parent and a teacher?

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.


  • Similar Content

  • Tell a friend

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

    • Total Members
      10,713
    • 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...