Step Parent Child Support Laws and Ethics

[TimG]

A man who holds your views should be banned from relationships with a woman with kids.

The words of a narrow minded zealot. Any relationship that does not conform to your terms must be banned. This is EXACTLY the same argument used to argue that gays should not adopt because their relationship does not conform to the accepted norms.

I am arguing that people should be free to determine for themselves what type of relationship they want and the courts should not interfere if informed people enter into a agreement prior to the start of a live-in relationship.

Why are you against two adults sitting down and talking about what kind of relationship they should have? Why does everyone's relationships have to meet your approval?

Edited June 13, 2014 by TimG

[jbg]

A step parent is involved (I would say intimately but BC would twist that into something other than what I meant, imagine if BC weren't around to twist our words) with the parent of the child/children. A sibling/grandparent/nanny is not. A step parent has moved in and taken on responsibility for the child/children. A step parent should not move in if they do not want to incur financial obligations. It's pretty simple to figure out for a potential step parent. And, I would assume that a single female parent would kick this dude to the curb anyway if his primary concern is supporting possible future step children.

In theory that sounds nice. In practice that would be a disaster, since remarriage after divorce or the death of a spouse would become financially perilous. Take me for example. My stepfather's first wife died in April 1972, with children then 21, almost 18, and 15. My father died in January 1973 when I was almost 16. Our respective financial needs for college education were unknown and unquantifiable at the time my mother and stepfather met in February 1973. They wound up marrying in June 1974 and remained married until my stepfather's recent death.

That remarriage never would have happened if my mother was responsible for the college education of my three stepsiblings.

[TimG]

That remarriage never would have happened if my mother was responsible for the college education of my three stepsiblings.

This is what is so puzzling about the position of the nanny state advocates. The law, as it stands, causes harm to children by discouraging people from forming new relationships because of the unbounded liability that is forced on them.

[Peter F]

In many cases with older kids the step parent relationship with the child was contingent on the relationship with the mother.

When the latter ends so does the former.

The trouble is the courts think that since the step parent improved the family's financial situation then the kids are now entitled to that financial support even after than relationship ends. This is a completely irrational position since the kids are only going back to where they were before the step parent - a position they would still be in if the step parent had realized the absurd nature of the law before starting the relationship.

with the departure of one of the parents (be they biological or step) the financial situation of those children is usually (not always) significantly reduced.

This reduction will have serious and significant impact on the childs life and stability. Why you beleive that is an insignificant result is of no concern to the courts is beyond my comprehension.

Edited June 13, 2014 by Peter F

[TimG]

This reduction will have serious and significant impact on the childs life and stability.

So what? Life is tough. Get over it. The question that we care about is what is fair? That is why random people walking down the street are not assessed support payments despite the fact that it would be "better for the kids" because it is not fair.

And it is also not fair to arbitrarily require that a step parent that had no obligation to start a relationship in the first place should required to support children that are not theirs after the relationship ends.

From a bigger perspective it is bad public policy because it means that fewer people will remarry and kids will be worse off. Why do you ignore the inevitable consequences of arbitrary and punitive support laws?

Edited June 13, 2014 by TimG

[guyser]

So what? Life is tough. Get over it. The question that we care about is what is fair?

For the kids, finally you get it! Its not whats in the bst interests of the adults, but it is for the kids.

As for the adults, So what? Life is tough, Get over it.

Ahhh...now that makes sense.

That is why random people walking down the street are not assessed support payments despite the fact that it would be "better for the kids" because it is not fair.

Your continued use of idiotic statements like this is bizarre.

And it is also not fair to arbitrarily require that a step parent that had no obligation to start a relationship in the first place should required to support children that are not theirs after the relationship ends.

De facto it doesnt. But when the Court is satisfied that one existed in length or whatever determination they make then pay up and dont be a tool about it.

One could refuse to get into the relationship , ya know.....date first, see if thats the one. if not move on, there will be NO SUPPORT granted, attempted nor sought.

From a bigger perspective it is bad public policy because it means that fewer people will remarry and kids will be worse off.

Your contradiction is noted, telling and last of all ridiculous.

First its harm to the kids because their life will improve, and then go back to what it was before X entered the picture, now the kids life will worsen since Parent y never dated person X.

Huh?

[TimG]

As for the adults, So what? Life is tough, Get over it.

The problem is the courts deny adults the option to make their own decisions before entering into a relationship. The court takes the myopic view that there must be no relationship or one that comes with all of the support obligations. There is nothing fair about taking away the right of a parent to decide what is best for his/her kids (i.e. a parent deciding that having a step parent that has no post break up obligations is better than having no step parent at all).

Why do you think that judges are better able to make parenting decisions?

Your contradiction is noted, telling and last of all ridiculous.

Pointing out the hypocrisy in your arguments is not my contradiction. My argument is adults should be free to make their own decisions and the nanny state should butt out. You are the one arguing that "what's best for the kids" is what matters despite the fact that your pet policies likely cause kids more harm than they prevent. Edited June 13, 2014 by TimG

[guyser]

The problem is the courts deny adults the option to make their own decisions before entering into a relationship.

You do realize...well I imagine you dont from your posts, but the Courts have the right to override contracts that do not follow the law(s) of this country.

If you do, why are you not railing against all the Non-compete clauses, Pre-Nup arrangements , contracts that violate the ESA guidleines and the like?

Chances are, you have experience in Family Court. And it didnt go well.

The court takes the myopic view that there must be no relationship or one that comes with all of the support obligations.

Not at all.

If your premise is true, please post evidence of some guy dating a mother of children for a few dates then being hauled into court for support.

If you cant, then got off that hill you are surely dying on.

There is nothing fair about taking away the right of a parent to decide what is best for his/her kids (i.e. a parent deciding that having a step parent that has no post break up obligations is better than having no step parent at all).

True that. But then again, the Court doesnt take away any right. If ya think so....post evidence. We can wait for that.....cuz we will wait a loooooong time.

Why do you think that judges are better able to make parenting decisions?

They dont. They make legal decisions.

Pointing out the hypocrisy in your arguments is not my contradiction. My argument is adults should be free to make their own decisions and the nanny state should butt out. You are the one arguing that "what's best for the kids" is what matters despite the fact that your pet policies likely cause kids more harm than they prevent.

You have flipped flopped and been caught out.

The isssue before the Courts is 'whats best for the children.'

"As for the adults, So what? Life is tough, Get over it."