Child Support Payments - How Should They be Handled?

[jabarto]

As usual, this was prompted by my readings on another forum. The topic in question was the inequality in rights afforded to men and women during pregnancies - i.e, the woman can choose to have the kid or not and the man has to go along with it and pay support along the way. But it's the latter aspect of this that really interested me (though I will share my opinions on the matter if requested).

I don't know exactly how common it is, but you're probably heard horror stories about child support payments, for both men and women. On the woman's side, there's the chance that the man is too poor to make support payments, and the child foes without the services he needs. On the man's side, child support payments can occasionally be so egregious that he will be ruined for life (that's the U.S. justice system for you ). This doesn't even touch on the fact that having kids can be a death sentence to one's career, expecially in the case of single mothers. So you can see how this situation can ruin lives very easily.

But what made me post this thread was reading about an idea that I had never entertained before; having the government subsidize childcare (and allow better maternity leave laws, but that's secondary to what I'm trying to discuss here). If this were done, the morther could return to work and benefit society, the father would be safe from punitive damages, and the child would have a source of steady income for his basic needs - the idea is that only vital requirements like food and healthcare would be subsidized.

This concept already exists in the EU (I believe France is among the nations that does this), so it's not like it's an untried idea. As far as I know, this forum has a fairly high percentage of European posters, so I'm curious to see how those in particular feel about this concept.

So the question is, do you think that government subsidized childcare is the way to go, and if not, what should be done to rectify the deplorable situations outlined above?

[Samurai Waki]

If you're going to do the deed, better be prepared to deal with the subsequent consequences. Of course, Child Support costs should be fair, and any good Civil Defense Attorney that specializes in helping men in Divorces, should be able to cut you a fair deal in the proceedings. Of course, that doesn't happen often, since many guys try to find just any ol' Lawyer who does Divorces. The Government should play absolutely zero role in the welfare of the child, unless sed child is not meeting a standard minimal criteria of care. As far as the Child Support Payments go, if they can't be met by the payer, then the allotment should be lowered as required so that the Parent can actually make a decent living. It's not a good system, and admittedly it should be reformed, but I don't want to be paying for other people's mistakes. Period.

[Banquo's Ghost]

In many parts of Europe, we have swathes of young girls who have children with any local moron so that they can get "government childcare" for the rest of their lives. It doesn't encourage them to work, quite the opposite. It's a career in itself.

In addition, they have to have government provided housing, creating ghettos of deprivation. Their children don't grow up with any aspirations beyond the welfare state handouts, and the whole cycle starts again. The government gets to subsidise the crime this generates as well.

Make it far more punitive to have children without planning and remove all subsidies for government support on welfare for those who wilfully rely on the state. Of course, this means one needs much better sex education, contraception available from an early age and sensible abortion policies. People with a sense of personal responsibility would help too - I favour a parenting licence, myself.

[Papewaio]

In Australia Child Support is paid for by the parent who is not with them (generally the dad).

Free education (technically) for all until finishing the first undergraduate degree.
30% rebate on childcare (before school age)
And approx $5k for having a baby...

[jabarto]

If you're going to do the deed, better be prepared to deal with the subsequent consequences. Of course, Child Support costs should be fair, and any good Civil Defense Attorney that specializes in helping men in Divorces, should be able to cut you a fair deal in the proceedings.

I think we're in agreement here...

The Government should play absolutely zero role in the welfare of the child.

Eh? I'm getting the distinct impression from you that personal responsibility is more important than the wellbeing of the parties involved.

In many parts of Europe, we have swathes of young girls who have children with any local moron so that they can get "government childcare" for the rest of their lives. It doesn't encourage them to work, quite the opposite. It's a career in itself.

I'm not quite ready to believe this. I can't speak for Europe, but here, the whole "Welfare Queen" thing is largely just a load of crap that Reagan made up to keep the poor poor and the rich rich. There will always be people mooching off the system, but subsistance living is not desirable, and to insinuate that people are happy there is pretty ridiculous. Now maybe they're getting handouts beyond what would be considered "subsistence", but that's not what I'm advocating.

In addition, they have to have government provided housing, creating ghettos of deprivation. Their children don't grow up with any aspirations beyond the welfare state handouts, and the whole cycle starts again. The government gets to subsidise the crime this generates as well.

What about the crime that's generated from the kids of deadbeat dads who can't make their support payments? Under a govt. subsidized system, that wouldn't happen.

Make it far more punitive to have children without planning and remove all subsidies for government support on welfare for those who wilfully rely on the state. Of course, this means one needs much better sex education, contraception available from an early age and sensible abortion policies. People with a sense of personal responsibility would help too - I favour a parenting licence, myself.

Again with the personal responsibility. I don't see a problem with fostering a sense of individulaism and responsibility, but remember that most of this stuff happens when people are young, stupid and drunk. It's not really fair to punish them for decisions they made before they have it all together, and DEFINITELY not fair to punish the would-be child.

[HoreTore]

My opinion?

The government acts as a middleman between the parents. The state pays out the child support to the parent with the care, and the one without care pays the state. The one with care still gets the payment regardless of whether the other one actually pays or not, thus ensuring that the child will never be a burden financially. This leaves the responsibility of collecting the money to the state, and the single parent can concentrate on living his/her life instead of worrying about some loser not paying.

And if there is one thing the state is good at, then it's collecting money from its citizen....

This can of course be expanded further with subsidies. If the one without care simply cannot pay what the child needs, then the state should still be able to pay out what is needed, and then collect what is possible.

But the support shouldn't be so high that the single parent doesn't need to work, of course. The child support money is for the child, not the parent. I don't support housewives, everyone able to work should do so. A kid is no excuse not to work now that we have kindergartens.

[Furunculus]

In many parts of Europe, we have swathes of young girls who have children with any local moron so that they can get "government childcare" for the rest of their lives. It doesn't encourage them to work, quite the opposite. It's a career in itself.

In addition, they have to have government provided housing, creating ghettos of deprivation. Their children don't grow up with any aspirations beyond the welfare state handouts, and the whole cycle starts again. The government gets to subsidise the crime this generates as well.

Make it far more punitive to have children without planning and remove all subsidies for government support on welfare for those who wilfully rely on the state. Of course, this means one needs much better sex education, contraception available from an early age and sensible abortion policies. People with a sense of personal responsibility would help too - I favour a parenting licence, myself.

to back up banquo, my sister works in a benefits payments section of a big city council, and describes how the more feckless of the single mum variety can be relied upon to have a child EVERY eight years, because that is when the substantial benefits for the previous child run out.

[Fragony]

If you make some things like child-healthcare, schooling, books, daycare etc free you don't need as many rules, it isn't like we aren't already paying the state enough for their hobby's so it might at least be of any use. So stop Child support and streamline that budget and offer fascilities, child support isn't just impractical it is also prone to fraud.

[Whacker]

If you're going to do the deed, better be prepared to deal with the subsequent consequences.

No. (And Yes.)

No, in that many people enter into relationships that involve the physical aspect, and both parties agree that they do not want children. That means birth control, and if that ever fails (which it can), then the morning after pill or something along those lines will be used. The issue is, oftentimes the woman will decide for whatever reason she wants to keep the child, and the male party is now completely hosed. I personally know several situations where that has happened, one of them happens to be my wife's friend and former co-worker whom I'm around quite often.

Yes, I do agree that understanding the risk is something every responsible adult needs to accept and take appropriate measures to deal with. The major problem I have is when people make an agreement initially, I don't care if it's verbal or not to be honest, and then the other party reverses when the rubber hits the road and the guys are stuck with it.

[Beskar]

My opinion is this -

The woman has the ultimate veto on whether or not the child is born (or not). As such the males should be given the choice of having legal responsiblity of the child or not. If they want legal responsibility (have any over any matter concerning the child) they should give support, and if the male and female aren't together, then the man such make support payments for the child.

The third responsibility is the state and as such, the state should make sure the child is cared for and in event it is only responsiblity, the state should raise the child.

[Kralizec]

The Netherlands does subsidize kids. Until the mid 90'ties, the payments you got for your second child was higher, the third was even higher etc. It's the same now for each kid, I forgot how high it was but it's not exactly a jackpot. It's the same amount of money regardless if the parents are together or how rich/poor they are.

The payments wich one spouse should pay the other for raising the kids after a divorce is referred to as child alimony. If the one raising the kids is also on social security, she's expected to squeeze his/her former spouse for money or otherwise be penalize with a reduction on said social security.

[seireikhaan]

No. Absolutely not.

To clarify: The part of me that is logical and reasoning feels that the government already has an immense pressure upon its budget. Currently, the divorce rate in the United States is roughly 50% of all marriages. Obviously not all of these involve children, but many do. Simply put, it would be a fiscal nightmare when the budget is already twirling out of control.

Secondly, the part of me that is the offspring of two divorced parents is flat angry. I'm just gonna say that divorce REALLY sucks for the kids, more than the parents realize, I think. Giving state support in child payments just encourages more parents to divorce, leaving more kids raised by a single parent. Which, to reiterate, sucks. A lot.

[Samurai Waki]

Eh? I'm getting the distinct impression from you that personal responsibility is more important than the wellbeing of the parties involved.

You're right. Unless the physical well being of one party has been compromised by the other party. Divorce is a mind , I know very few people who haven't come out of such things mentally scarred in some way or another.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

It seems that people are, in this thread, talking much more harshly about those making the payments than those receiving them, even though we don't know that the man (who generally is paying) is wrong in these cases, or rather more wrong than the woman (who is generally receiving).

What I would like is a total overhaul of the family court system to make it at least appear like a male has a fighting chance without having to resort to the most expensive lawyer he can find.

[Beskar]

or cases where Mothers won't allow decent fathers access to their own children, just because they are utter .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

or cases where Mothers won't allow decent fathers access to their own children, just because they are utter .

That too. If the mother refuses the father access the father should be able to immediately cease support payments.

[rvg]

That too. If the mother refuses the father access the father should be able to immediately cease support payments.

Sadly, that would only hurt the child.

[Beskar]

Sadly, that would only hurt the child.

I would think the distress where the mother goes "Daddy doesn't love you, don't go near him!" and her preventing all contact, and if he goes near them, she pulls them away from her, threatening to phone the police. The nights where the child cries in the pillow wanting daddy and a whole domestic situation.

That would be far worse than stopping any payments.
(This paragraph is in regards to the situation painted where the mother i just a , I am fully aware of other situations.)

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Sadly, that would only hurt the child.

Yes. Ideally the child would be given to the father in that case (unless there was a very good reason for the child not to be) with the mother allowed to see the child only at the father's discretion, and would have to pay child support either way.

[HoreTore]

Secondly, the part of me that is the offspring of two divorced parents is flat angry. I'm just gonna say that divorce REALLY sucks for the kids, more than the parents realize, I think. Giving state support in child payments just encourages more parents to divorce, leaving more kids raised by a single parent. Which, to reiterate, sucks. A lot.

Well, it didn't really suck when my parents divorced...

Sure, there was a couple of troubling years. But the last 5-10 years I've seen that divorce was the best situation. Both my mom and dad are very happy on their own, more than they would've been if they didn't divorce. And that's ultimately what counts. I do not believe that it would've been better for anyone if they stayed together.

[KukriKhan]

So: the guy has the sex.

The girl has the baby.

And I (Mr. Taxpayer) has the bill for 20 years?

Doesn't sound right.

[Strike For The South]

So: the guy has the sex.

The girl has the baby.

And I (Mr. Taxpayer) has the bill for 20 years?

Doesn't sound right.

Should've wrapped your tool cowboy. Not the whole bill but a part.