View Full Version : Why do fewer people marry today?
Jenny
02-01-2007, 03:56 PM
I might also add that women can and do (knowingly) pay to support other women's children. Suprised? You shouldn't be. I financially support another woman's child. He is my stepson, and I love him very much. I would take on the full responsibility of raising this child if something happened to one or both of his parents. I buy him food and clothes and toys and shelter and medicine.
I know plenty of women who sacrifice financially for other women's children. Why would men be any different? If you love a child, what difference does it make whose DNA made that child?
Well, also in Deogol's facts the guy had been the acknowledged father of the child for, presumably, a fair period of time. Like imagine your wife has a baby, the baby reaches 10 and there is no question that you are the father. You get divorced, ordered to pay child support, wait two years, don't pay and then demand a paternity test. Does that mean you shouldn't be responsible for the back payments that the child was relying on (even if you are relieved of future payments)? Maybe; there is a good argument for it - but there is no question that those are very specific facts, and an order to pay does not amount to a general necessity for every guy and every kid. Like I said before - very specific facts.
Deogol
02-01-2007, 05:47 PM
Honey - this is idiotic. You can't honestly be saying that you see no difference between subjecting someone to surgical invasion and making them sign a cheque (wait a minute - you probably can. I forgot. You're pretty hostile to women having options). This is a difference that is acknowledged at every level of the social and legal system - it is not just in regards to abortion. As for your odds - I would lay odds that you don't know very much about what most women consider when they are having abortions. Consider the number of poor women who don't have abortions and the number of (relatively) wealthy women who do. There is NO DIFFERENCE in financial responsibility for a born alive child that is claimed by one or both parents. That is - if the woman abrogates custody to the father, he absolutely can (and should) claim child support. The difference is not in terms of child support, but in terms of bodily integrity. Trying to equate the two is a losers game, and will never win an equality argument, because there is NO inequality until men get pregnant, want to terminate and cannot and women can.
You are right honey, it is idiotic.
If she does want the baby, she can have it and he pays for it.
If she doesn't want the baby, she can abort it and he has no say about it.
Better get use to my attitude about men having a right regarding parenthood - it's a growing movement no matter how much you like it with your making all the choices.
Deogol
02-01-2007, 05:48 PM
Well, also in Deogol's facts the guy had been the acknowledged father of the child for, presumably, a fair period of time. Like imagine your wife has a baby, the baby reaches 10 and there is no question that you are the father. You get divorced, ordered to pay child support, wait two years, don't pay and then demand a paternity test. Does that mean you shouldn't be responsible for the back payments that the child was relying on (even if you are relieved of future payments)? Maybe; there is a good argument for it - but there is no question that those are very specific facts, and an order to pay does not amount to a general necessity for every guy and every kid. Like I said before - very specific facts.
It happens to often to be "specific."
Yekhefah
02-01-2007, 06:14 PM
Since you're so keen on making everything fair, which invasive, painful, life-threatening surgery shall we impose upon each male who wants to exercise his alleged right to an "abortion"?
christian211
02-01-2007, 06:31 PM
Hmm. You mean a woman has never looked at her financial situation and thought "Better I don't have this kid!"
Abortion is a financial decision. I would lay odds it is a financial decision nearly every time outside of rape or deformity.
Women do decline on financial responsibility. It's silly to think not! Meanwhile it is "no choice" for men who find themselves in the same situation as the woman does.
Yeah, the woman might think, "better I don't have this kid", b/c she knows the father's a douche and won't contribute his fair share of the upbringing. Also, there are plenty of women who have plans and have somewhat advanced in their career to a point that they couldn't fathom a child at that second in their life.
You must not have children, because as much of a financial issue it is, it is more a patience, attention, and devotion issue. Those three are much tougher to bear than your argument of 'financial burden'.
Deogol
02-01-2007, 06:45 PM
Since you're so keen on making everything fair, which invasive, painful, life-threatening surgery shall we impose upon each male who wants to exercise his alleged right to an "abortion"?
You are totally missing what I am saying. If she wants to have the baby, he should have the right to refuse parenthood -- just as every woman in the United States (save South Dakota) has a right to do today.
I am not saying anyone should be forced into an abortion - that is just the soft minded posters trying to massage my words into an argument they can win.
But, if it is such a painful life-threatening surgery - perhaps we should ban it. Then everyone would be on equal footing about taking it or putting it up for adoption.
Yekhefah
02-01-2007, 06:51 PM
No, you missed what I'M saying. You're saying that an abortion is no more than "refusing parenthood," so a man ought to have the same right as a woman. My point is that no matter what the woman chooses, whether birth or abortion, she faces some very real risks of injury or death. She also must suffer extreme pain and bodily invasion, regardless of the choice she makes.
Currently, her extra burden gives her an extra say in the decision-making process. You seem to feel that is unfair, and that men should have an equal say. They can't have equal privilege without equal burden, so how should he suffer physically and what risks to his life and person should he endure so that we can completely level the playing field?
christian211
02-01-2007, 06:53 PM
My one issue is , say the guy wants to have the baby and the woman's hell bent on an abortion... What do you do then?? If she does go along w/ the abortion, then his rights are kinda trampled at that point. That's my one issue w/ abortion and women's rights...
Deogol
02-01-2007, 06:53 PM
No, you missed what I'M saying. You're saying that an abortion is no more than "refusing parenthood," so a man ought to have the same right as a woman. My point is that no matter what the woman chooses, whether birth or abortion, she faces some very real risks of injury or death. She also must suffer extreme pain and bodily invasion, regardless of the choice she makes.
Currently, her extra burden gives her an extra say in the decision-making process. You seem to feel that is unfair, and that men should have an equal say. They can't have equal privilege without equal burden, so how should he suffer physically and what risks to his life and person should he endure so that we can completely level the playing field?
True.
I am taking a Pro Life stance in the next election.
It is the only thing to be fair - to mother, father and child.
Yekhefah
02-01-2007, 06:58 PM
No, that's still not fair either, at least not by the "total equality" standard you seem to espouse. Even if both parents are forced to raise the child, the woman is still the ONLY one who is suffering a deep invasion of her body, intense pain, and a serious risk to her life and health.
Deogol
02-01-2007, 07:03 PM
No, that's still not fair either, at least not by the "total equality" standard you seem to espouse. Even if both parents are forced to raise the child, the woman is still the ONLY one who is suffering a deep invasion of her body, intense pain, and a serious risk to her life and health.
Yea. Biology is so unfair. It's not like your bodies are actually made for giving birth.
Listen, the conversation is over on this topic as far as I am concerned. I am simply a little less pro-choice now. I am still game for the mother's health and extreme deformity.
Otherwise, I am a pro-lifer now. Ya all convinced me this dangerous and unfair procedure should be banned. It is the only way to balance safety and rights.
Yekhefah
02-01-2007, 07:25 PM
YOU are the one saying it's unfair, not me. I'm simply pointing out that we are going to be entitled to an extra say-so as long as we are bearing extra burden.
And the point I was making, if you had bothered to actually read my post, was that both abortion AND CHILDBIRTH are risky, painful, and sometimes fatal. The pregnant woman is at risk no matter what she chooses, whether she aborts or not. And while a child can be expensive financially, a man is simply not at risk of injury or death at ANY point in the process.
I'm not sure what that has to do with pro-life vs. pro-choice, but I'm sure it makes sense to you somewhere in your own head.
Jenny
02-01-2007, 10:06 PM
You are right honey, it is idiotic.
If she does want the baby, she can have it and he pays for it.
If she doesn't want the baby, she can abort it and he has no say about it.
Better get use to my attitude about men having a right regarding parenthood - it's a growing movement no matter how much you like it with your making all the choices.
Oh gosh. You're completely retarded. Like we knew you weren't smart, but this is over the edge. As I pointed out - she has ONE choice the father doesn't have for the specific reason that she gets pregnant and he doesn't. All other choices are equally applied to both sexes. So she has a choice to deal with a problem that he doesn't have. But she DOESN'T have the right to refuse to pay child support - which is the right you're saying the man should have. So you're arguing to introduce an inequality because men don't get pregnant. It is completely retarded on every possible level.
Further you're attitude is anything but new - do you really think this attitude that men should get to choose which children to claim is revolutionary? Oh god, you really do, don't you? Oh god, this is sad. And finally - the only change that will happen in this area of law would delineate around men being able to bar women from getting abortions. The state is not likely to allow parents to refuse to provide for their children, because the state will have to make it up. That won't happen on a sheer efficiency level. So the last thing I'm worried about is your "movement" - which I must stress is completely regressive - gaining ground.
Deogol
02-02-2007, 08:27 PM
I'll just snip out about 60% of your quote because it focuses on unimaginative name calling and is simply "noise."
As I pointed out - she has ONE choice the father doesn't have for the specific reason that she gets pregnant and he doesn't. All other choices are equally applied to both sexes.She has a choice of not having a child or having a child.
The man does not have a choice of having a child.
That is not an equally applied choice.
So she has a choice to deal with a problem that he doesn't have. But she DOESN'T have the right to refuse to pay child support - which is the right you're saying the man should have. She can put the child up for adoption or the father can take custody of it. There are plenty of options there for her to not be financially responsible for it. I know many men who have sole to 80% custody of their children because the woman is a flake.
Being responsible 18 years for a child one had no choice in having is hardly "a problem he doesn't have."
And finally - the only change that will happen in this area of law would delineate around men being able to bar women from getting abortions. The state is not likely to allow parents to refuse to provide for their children, because the state will have to make it up. That won't happen on a sheer efficiency level. If that was true, the adoption option wouldn't be available. Try to think these things through a little more fully before embarrassing yourself.
The state is there to insure equal opportunity of responsibility and outcome. The mother has the choice of not being responsible for a child for 18 years. The father does not.
It does not take a banning of abortion to balance opportunities.
So the last thing I'm worried about is your "movement" - which I must stress is completely regressive - gaining ground.You sound like a 1950's guy laughing at the women's right's movement about how it's not going to go anywhere. I am sure in your mind men control everything, so it's a bit curious your thinking men won't be looking out for men. After all, it's a good old boy's club right?
Jenny
02-02-2007, 08:59 PM
She has a choice of not having a child or having a child.
The man does not have a choice of having a child.
She has the choice to terminate a pregnancy, because she is the only one pregnant. But the extant child, they both have the same choices.
That is not an equally applied choice.
Because it is not an equally applied situation. Men don't get pregnant. They don't have pregnancies to terminate. If they did, I would absolutely think they should have the right to do so.
She can put the child up for adoption or the father can take custody of it. There are plenty of options there for her to not be financially responsible for it. I know many men who have sole to 80% custody of their children because the woman is a flake.
A lot of men of custody of children. That doesn't mean that the woman doesn't have to pay child support. I might add that nobody will ever force a man to have custody of a child.
Adoption is only an option if the father surrenders his parental rights. If instead of doing that he wants custody, she has to pay child support. Like I said - she has the option to terminate a pregnancy because men don't have pregnancies to terminate. Collapsing it into "she has the choice to have a child or not to have child" is essentially saying that adoption, abortion and not having custody are all the same thing, more or less. They're not. Paying child support - which again, nobody will ever force a man to have custody, to be a parent, to visit - all they have to do is pay. Forcing someone to sign a check and forcing them to DO something, especially to their body, is considered AT EVERY LEVEL to be very, very different. Every level, every scenario, it is different.
Being responsible 18 years for a child one had no choice in having is hardly "a problem he doesn't have."
Yes, but terminating a pregnancy is a problem he doesn't have because he doesn't get pregnant. You need to learn the difference between paying for something and bodily integrity. And once again - that is ONE choice, not several. Surely you can count, at least.
If that was true, the adoption option wouldn't be available. Try to think these things through a little more fully before embarrassing yourself.
Again - difference between making people pay and making them do things. Nobody is going to force someone to parent. If you leave your kid on a streetcorner with a sign saying "unwanted" they might track you down for a variety of reasons, but one won't be to force you take them back. Adoption also assumes, at a basic level, that another private citizen will voluntarily take on the financial burden. That's the whole point. That's what adoption means. So I'm not embarrassed. You're just still dumb.
The state is there to insure equal opportunity of responsibility and outcome.
Where in the world do you even get this idea? Like, even if we bought your idiotic theory. The state is there, in this context, to ensure that child is provided for; the logical place to look for these provisions is the parents. It is not a moral stance, from the state point of view. It is not punitive. The reason women have this choice is because it is central to their bodily integrity; not because they "deserve" another choice. Men, for obvious reasons, can't have options when it comes to abortions. Outside of that particular and sui generis issue, men and women have identical choices. Adoption requires consensus - failing that consensus, they both pay.
It does not take a banning of abortion to balance opportunities.
Opportunities? What are you on about? These are responsibilities, not opportunities. They aren't intended to be opportunistic. And the responsibilities are balanced, as much as they can be in a system where one sex bears the young. You need to learn the social and legal difference between finance and bodily integrity. I keep saying this, and I'm not sure if you don't believe it or don't understand it - but fundamental difference, and not just on my own private ethical level.
You sound like a 1950's guy laughing at the women's right's movement about how it's not going to go anywhere. I am sure in your mind men control everything, so it's a bit curious your thinking men won't be looking out for men. After all, it's a good old boy's club right?
Because it is isn't an issue of men looking out for men. It's a matter of children cost money, and it has to come from somewhere. If it were, as you suggest, a punitive measure against men, I would honestly doubt that child support would even exist, especially for children that men have not chosen to claim. It would be very inefficient for the state to take on the additional burden of impoverishment, and that is truly not going to happen. This is not joy, because it isn't a moral or ethical stance. It is sheer efficiency, and honestly, I hate efficiency models of anything. I find it kind of dated. But it is still a fact. The state is not going to take on the financial burden that it can ascribe to parents. If in 50 years I turn out to be wrong, well, I'll feel silly.
Now I did call you dumb, so I get you ignoring it - but seriously, do you actually think this stance of "men should get to choose which of their children to claim, and eschew the others; illegitimate children have no fathers" etc., is new and progressive? Like you realize this is an incredibly regressive idea, right?
Deogol
02-02-2007, 09:16 PM
All those words and yet still they do not explain why men have no choice in becoming (legally) a father of a child while a woman does have a choice of becoming a mother.
It does not take a forced abortion for a man to not become (legally) the father of a child. Just as a woman has a legally acceptable means of skipping out on that responsibility so should a man. All it should take is a slip of paper in a courthouse drawer.
If you think equal rights regarding parenthood is regressive, then perhaps you are not as progressive as you would like to think yourself to be.
Yekhefah
02-02-2007, 10:20 PM
Deogol, you can rail against biology all you want, but it's a simple fact. Once a woman is pregnant, there is nothing she can sign that will eliminate the risk she faces. No matter what she chooses - to abort or give birth - her life is in danger and her health is at risk. Since she is the one facing actual physical danger, she gets to pick which kind.
Is it fair? Nope. Biology isn't fair. If it really bothers you this much, then I suggest you take it up with Designer. But you really sound stupid when you repeatedly insist that a man's position in this matter should be completely equal to a woman's, when there is no biological way that could be possible.
Deogol
02-02-2007, 10:35 PM
Deogol, you can rail against biology all you want, but it's a simple fact. Once a woman is pregnant, there is nothing she can sign that will eliminate the risk she faces. No matter what she chooses - to abort or give birth - her life is in danger and her health is at risk. Since she is the one facing actual physical danger, she gets to pick which kind.
Is it fair? Nope. Biology isn't fair. If it really bothers you this much, then I suggest you take it up with Designer. But you really sound stupid when you repeatedly insist that a man's position in this matter should be completely equal to a woman's, when there is no biological way that could be possible.
How can I make it more simple?
Perhaps I will use shorter sentences.
A woman is free to become a mother.
A woman is free not to become a mother.
Yekhefah is happy!
No one is forcing a woman to have a baby.
No one is forcing a woman to have an abortion.
Yekhefah is happy!
A man can be forced to be a father.
A man has no decision in becoming a father.
Deogol calls bullshit on this.
Jenny
02-03-2007, 07:13 AM
Deogol, you can rail against biology all you want, but it's a simple fact. Once a woman is pregnant, there is nothing she can sign that will eliminate the risk she faces. No matter what she chooses - to abort or give birth - her life is in danger and her health is at risk. Since she is the one facing actual physical danger, she gets to pick which kind.
Is it fair? Nope. Biology isn't fair. If it really bothers you this much, then I suggest you take it up with Designer. But you really sound stupid when you repeatedly insist that a man's position in this matter should be completely equal to a woman's, when there is no biological way that could be possible.
I don't even think equal is the appropriate word here. I think the appropriate word is "the same". Equality doesn't mean the same. Men don't have the SAME choices as women because they don't have the same bodies as women; that is men are not FACED with the same choices as women. It doesn't mean that they are treated unequally.
Deogol, honey - the problem is not making it more simple. The problem is that you are (deliberately) looking at it simplistically. We see what you are saying. We are responding by pointing out FLAWS in what you are saying (in this case obvious and intuitive flaws that you can only ignore because of your silly obsession with the delusion that white, straight men are a persecuted minority). You can't answer those flaws by ignoring them in favour of your simplistic view. Or, maybe in your little world you can. We're all used to having to make sense and stuff, even when we disagree. I can see how things would be much more comfortable your way.
Yekhefah
02-03-2007, 01:04 PM
Thanks, Jenny. That's a better way of explaining it.
Optimist
02-03-2007, 02:25 PM
Instead of getting worked up after the fact why not get a vasectomy! You can have your procedure giving you the right to avoid pregnancy.
JustJayda
02-03-2007, 02:28 PM
A man can be forced to be a father.
A man has no decision in becoming a father.
Deogol calls bullshit on this.
Unless you are raped, or someone is behind you, pushing your ass while you are thrusting in out out, and then releasing, you're not forced to do anything.
You get to decide before you have sex, whether you want to risk being a father or not. Women get a choice before and after. Like it was said, take it up with the designer. Biology may not be fair, but it is fact.
In the meantime, keep your sperm to yourself, simple.
Katrine
02-03-2007, 05:02 PM
Unless you are raped, or someone is behind you, pushing your ass while you are thrusting in out out, and then releasing, you're not forced to do anything.
You get to decide before you have sex, whether you want to risk being a father or not. Women get a choice before and after. Like it was said, take it up with the designer. Biology may not be fair, but it is fact.
In the meantime, keep your sperm to yourself, simple.
Thank you!!!!! Its amazing that a person oversimplies everything except for the simplest fact of all! If you don't want to become a father, don't fuck a woman!
Paris
02-03-2007, 06:05 PM
All those words and yet still they do not explain why men have no choice in becoming (legally) a father of a child while a woman does have a choice of becoming a mother.
Wow. I mean WOW. Yes, men have a choice. He either choses to put his penis in a womans vagina or not. That is where his choice is made. Frequently women don't have this option as men are generally ( as a rule) larger and can force such and encounter. Even in married couples.
The man simply choses to not put his penis in the woman's vigina, then there is no issue. Or did you not know that men actually have a choice to turn down sex?
So, a guy has a choice of going and jerking off into a sock instead of becoming a parent. The sock won't get pregnant and won't sue for child support. Maybe you can give each other head instead of having sex. This is absurd.
The man makes his choice to be or not be a parent in the bedroom, not in the maternity ward.
Jenny
02-03-2007, 06:12 PM
The man makes his choice to be or not be a parent in the bedroom, not in the maternity ward.
I think there is an interesting intersection and use of the word "parent" here. By the way Paris, I'm not arguing with anything you said, just bouncing off it. If we define "parent" as a biological term - like a child exists who shares your genes - being "spared" or exonerated from from child support doesn't change the fact that the guy is a parent. Whether the child is entirely supported by the mother, or another couple or the state he is still a "parent".
If we're defining "parent" as "having parental responsibility" I think we need to keep in mind that the responsibility in question is strictly limited - that is no court is ordering the father to babysit, to play with a child, to EVER SEE the child or communicate in any way. All he has to do is pay. So the "responsibility" in question is strictly and specifically defined.
Deogol - do you honestly not see that men wanting to choose which of their children (by which I mean genetic offspring) to validate and legitimate is sort of old-fashioned? That there are the bastards and the "real children"? Do you really not see how this is regressive? Do you really not see, or do you just not want to deal with the problem?
Nicolina
02-03-2007, 06:24 PM
I don't know. If I got pregnant by someone who was that dead-set against being a dad, I'd either:
a) get an abortion
or
b) Tell the sorry bastard good riddance, and turn to family and friends for support.
And to answer the original question: I agree with whoever it was who said that fewer people get married today because these days, nobody feels like they have to get married. Women didn't used to have much of a choice in this matter. Now they do. A certain percentage are going to opt out.
Optimist
02-04-2007, 12:54 AM
^^^^^Ahhh yes that would be me!!! Opting way out.
Judge Judy says something pretty important, the child support is not yours to refuse. It's the child's. The child is entitled to it so it's encumbent upon you to accept that money on their behalf. You're his or her advocate.
VenusGoddess
02-04-2007, 08:01 AM
The thing that most people do is take that child support money and spend it on themselves.
My cousin (as nice as she is still pisses me off). Moved into a more expensive apartment...not insanely more expensive, but still. Also, the last few months, she's used the child support money to pay her car. She keeps telling me that she's going to try and get more money from him to put their daughter in private school (the kid just turned 1). I told her that she's a fucking idiot. If she saved the money that wasn't hers anyways, she would be able to afford private school. That money is for the baby and not a means to increase her way of living. ::)
As for the original topic: I just got married in December...and Joe waited (patiently, thank you) for over 4 years for me to finally committ. Why didn't I before? I think it was because everyone said that we had to get married sooner because I got preggers. I've never been one to do something because someone else tells me it needs to be done. I wanted to do it when I was ready and on my own terms. But, honestly, the marriage license means nothing to me. It's just a piece of paper I had to pay $20 for so some judge could tell me that I could now be married. ::) I'm with Joe because I love him. I don't need a license to make me stay. And, the license wouldn't make me stay if I didn't want to be here. I wasn't ever worried about something happening to Joe and me being left high and dry because we have Wills and all that, and I am the beneficiary on everything...so I would have been taken care of even if we never married.
It's true...since people don't NEED to get married anymore...it's just one more way of feeling like they can control the instances in their lives.
Nicolina
02-04-2007, 09:56 AM
Judge Judy says something pretty important, the child support is not yours to refuse. It's the child's. The child is entitled to it so it's encumbent upon you to accept that money on their behalf. You're his or her advocate.
Perhaps. But sometimes the babydaddy is such an asshole that it's conceivably in the child's best interest to just leave him out of the picture.
You hear those stories about men who killed their children to get out of paying child support. If a guy is that angry about it, let him the fuck alone and take care of your kid yourself.
I've also heard stories of women who spent so much money on legal fees trying to get the guy to pay his share that they actually ended up homeless. Is that in the best interest of the child?
Deogol
02-04-2007, 12:01 PM
You all crack me up with your wanting the cake and to eat it too.
So while women can fuck and yet decide to be a parent - men should just abstain.
Or better yet - while women can use a procedure to not have a child and remain having a choice in the future - men should just in effect cut their balls off.
All this talk about "it's my body" is bullshit because everything I am talking about happens AFTER THE FACT REGARDLESS OF WHAT SHE CHOOSES TO DO. This is more about a man having the right to give up the child to adoption and being done with it.
Then - add to the conversation this whole idea that laws should not be equally made or enforced up on people by virtue of their gender... holy fuck can I troll on that idea but will spare you all... until the topic comes up in another thread. Then I will be bringing out the bookmark about how the law should apply to people differently depending on their gender.
Sometimes reading stripper web is a bit like watching retards sound out long words. Sad on one hand but Dee Dee Dee funny in other ways.
Yekhefah
02-04-2007, 12:28 PM
:laughing: Getting a vasectomy is "cutting their balls off"? Do you hear violin music when you post, Deogol?
I'm so sorry that you feel that human biology is so unfair. Believe me, I agree. You should petition the Designer for a revision in human anatomy, and see if there's some way of making BOTH parents get pregnant so that everything will be exactly the same.
Deogol
02-04-2007, 12:32 PM
:laughing: Getting a vasectomy is "cutting their balls off"? Do you hear violin music when you post, Deogol?
I'm so sorry that you feel that human biology is so unfair. Believe me, I agree. You should petition the Designer for a revision in human anatomy, and see if there's some way of making BOTH parents get pregnant so that everything will be exactly the same.
I'm sorry, Yekhefah, I had so much more respect for you before this thread.
After reading posts like this, I can understand why I am successful enough to own (not lease) a BMW and you are always wondering why you can't pay your bills.
Who's world view is out of skew and impractical?
Yekhefah
02-04-2007, 12:53 PM
LOL... BFD, you wasted money on an overpriced car and I struggle financially. I'm also much younger and in a different field. That has sweet fuckall to do with anything, but it was a nice try at deflection. At least I know what a vasectomy is.
Nicolina
02-04-2007, 12:55 PM
The thing that most people do is take that child support money and spend it on themselves.
My cousin (as nice as she is still pisses me off). Moved into a more expensive apartment...not insanely more expensive, but still. Also, the last few months, she's used the child support money to pay her car. She keeps telling me that she's going to try and get more money from him to put their daughter in private school (the kid just turned 1). I told her that she's a fucking idiot. If she saved the money that wasn't hers anyways, she would be able to afford private school. That money is for the baby and not a means to increase her way of living. ::)
But VG, don't you think that the child benefits from the car and the nicer apartment? I realize she's just a baby now, but in general, I don't think that moving to a larger apartment in a nicer neighborhood with better schools necessarily counts as a custodial parent "spending money on themselves."
And without a car, you're forced to take public transportation everywhere, which is not particularly easy or safe with an infant in tow. (When I say safe, I'm thinking of all those germs, and the possibility of getting stranded someplace if you miss a bus, etc...). Reliable transportation also improves the custodial parent's ability to get and keep a job.
It's different if the custodial parent is buying jewelry or fancy handbags or concert tickets or other stuff that is of no benefit to the child. But things as basic as rent and transportation? As long as the child is not being deprived of food or clothing so that the parent can drive a Lexus or something, this seems legitimate. If the parents were living together, the dad would presumably be contributing to the rent and the car payment, and so the apartment and the car would be of better quality than the mom could afford on her own. Right?
ArmySGT.
02-04-2007, 05:02 PM
The thing that most people do is take that child support money and spend it on themselves.
My cousin (as nice as she is still pisses me off). Moved into a more expensive apartment...not insanely more expensive, but still. Also, the last few months, she's used the child support money to pay her car. She keeps telling me that she's going to try and get more money from him to put their daughter in private school (the kid just turned 1). I told her that she's a fucking idiot. If she saved the money that wasn't hers anyways, she would be able to afford private school. That money is for the baby and not a means to increase her way of living. ::)
Wow Thanks for posting that. illustrstes my point on accountability in how the money spent.
Ok the more expensive apartment? Was this more expensive than the housing she shared with the EX? Or more expensive than housing she provided for herself with Child before the Court ordered payments?
Next the Car.... Pay her car what? Payments? Insurance? Hopefully it is something practical like a minivan and not something fun like a Mustang. Both are transportation the latter cannot be argued as beneficial for the Child. I would like to see the Child go to Private School myself rather than .gov indoctrination centers.
Any funds left over should go into a no load mutual fund to pay for the private schooling down the road.
As for the original topic: I just got married in December...and Joe waited (patiently, thank you) for over 4 years for me to finally committ. Why didn't I before? I think it was because everyone said that we had to get married sooner because I got preggers. I've never been one to do something because someone else tells me it needs to be done. I wanted to do it when I was ready and on my own terms. But, honestly, the marriage license means nothing to me. It's just a piece of paper I had to pay $20 for so some judge could tell me that I could now be married. ::) I'm with Joe because I love him. I don't need a license to make me stay. And, the license wouldn't make me stay if I didn't want to be here. I wasn't ever worried about something happening to Joe and me being left high and dry because we have Wills and all that, and I am the beneficiary on everything...so I would have been taken care of even if we never married.
It's true...since people don't NEED to get married anymore...it's just one more way of feeling like they can control the instances in their lives.
first Congratulations! i don't think I posted that anywhere else. Second doesn't a Marriage license smell of a Tax. A tax that does nothing but, support a Bureacracy that is unnecessary.............
ArmySGT.
02-04-2007, 05:30 PM
But VG, don't you think that the child benefits from the car and the nicer apartment? I realize she's just a baby now, but in general, I don't think that moving to a larger apartment in a nicer neighborhood with better schools necessarily counts as a custodial parent "spending money on themselves."
Apartment is not synonymous with better neighborhoods or schools. This supposes that with higher price comes "nicer"....... Of course what new draconian laws would be inflicting on ourselves;if one had to get permission from the courts to move. That after an economic feasibility study that a move would benefit the child and assessments on spending. This is a ticklish bit. What is enough? What is extravagant? What is poor and accomplishes nothing. What is adequate support? Adequate support can be argued (and has here) from a hundred different perspectives with all the variations of cultural and religious backgrounds just to flavor it some more. Think about what support means to you? I think it maybe hard to get any two people to agree once you start becoming specific. For instance some would be horrified to even consider raising a child in an apartment.
And without a car, you're forced to take public transportation everywhere, which is not particularly easy or safe with an infant in tow. (When I say safe, I'm thinking of all those germs, and the possibility of getting stranded someplace if you miss a bus, etc...). Reliable transportation also improves the custodial parent's ability to get and keep a job.
One public transportation sucks in America. I do envy the Europeans in this regard. Madrid Spain was awesome when i lived there. I quit using my truck because it was so easy to take a bus or the metro: and I got tired of my "American" ford Ranger being vandalized.
Second Don't worry so much about germs. By Virtue of evolution you are immune to most all of them. The few deadly ones are pretty much unknown in North America or Europe. It is just advertising by makers of anti microbial/bacterial soaps/lotions/wipes that have created this hysteria. Just wshing your hands before you eat and not sticking fingers into orifices is enough in most regards. Enforce handwashing... You know what disturbs me? No place to wash your hands when entering a resturaunt. How many dirty hands used all the untensils at the salad bar?
It's different if the custodial parent is buying jewelry or fancy handbags or concert tickets or other stuff that is of no benefit to the child. But things as basic as rent and transportation? As long as the child is not being deprived of food or clothing so that the parent can drive a Lexus or something, this seems legitimate. If the parents were living together, the dad would presumably be contributing to the rent and the car payment, and so the apartment and the car would be of better quality than the mom could afford on her own. Right?
This is my rant ........ No accountability for the money spent. Unfortunately cohabitation at this time can presume nothing.
JustJayda
02-05-2007, 10:37 AM
If we're defining "parent" as "having parental responsibility" I think we need to keep in mind that the responsibility in question is strictly limited - that is no court is ordering the father to babysit, to play with a child, to EVER SEE the child or communicate in any way. All he has to do is pay. So the "responsibility" in question is strictly and specifically defined.
I think "Parent" should be listed under the new category of words called a "verb-noun".
You have to do the damned verb, before and whilst, and then you can be called the noun!!8)
TheSexKitten
02-05-2007, 01:09 PM
Kind of in the same strand of thought as VG's post, my mom's ex makes 125,000 a year, and when he divorced his wife he was forced to pay 2000 each month in child support (for two almost grown teens) and 1000 to his lazy ex-wife EACH MONTH. For his son's 17th birthday, his mom bought him......
wait for it.......
a videogame.
That's what? 60 bucks? Needless to say he was pissed.
stripperMBA
02-05-2007, 01:30 PM
You know the solution seems simple to me. If someone does not want to pay child support they should just not have kids. Birthcontrol pills, condoms, and vasectomy are all available fairly unexpensive through places like planned parenthood. Right or wrong child support was something me and my siblings relied on as children. If the parent does not pay child support who pays for the undoubtably expensive cost of raising a child. The rest of us taxpayers??
ArmySGT.
02-05-2007, 06:32 PM
You know the solution seems simple to me. If someone does not want to pay child support they should just not have kids. Birthcontrol pills, condoms, and vasectomy are all available fairly unexpensive through places like planned parenthood. Right or wrong child support was something me and my siblings relied on as children. If the parent does not pay child support who pays for the undoubtably expensive cost of raising a child. The rest of us taxpayers??
I tried to get the vasectomy option while I was in the Army. No Doctor would perform the operation unless I had to living children already. ::) I don't know what civilian Doctors may do however this is elective surgery, and runs the risk of infection. Do gooder Pro Lifers are anti vasectomy too in some places. Gods will and all that.
Condoms
When in love wear the glove.
Looks wet put on a raincoat.
Don't send your soldier into combat without his helmet.
OSHA requires all occupants must wear appropriate safty equipment:O
Wrap that rascal
Casual Observer
02-07-2007, 10:05 PM
Really? What reproductive rights do you think men should have that they don't? I mean the only disparity I'm aware of is that women have access to abortion, and cannot be forced to have an abortion - and I'm sure you can't be suggesting that women should abortions on demand from men, or only on tolerance from men. That's not really a disparity, because men don't get pregnant. That's just a basic acknowledgement of reality
That's a pretty fucking big disparity, even if it's the only one. And we won't even talk about men that pay child support for children that aren't their own, nor the idiocy of present alimony laws. I'm not saying men should have the sole choice with regard to issues of pregnancy or child support--no one here is saying that. But some choice is preferable to no choice.
Life is full of double standards, and this is one of them. Unfortunately.
blondhottie
02-08-2007, 05:04 PM
I just wanted to echo what a few people said. I think people don't get married as often today because:
-they don't need to-women are making more money now and can support themselves
-the stigma of being an unmarried mother isn't there as much anymore
-in some people's minds (not saying the following are true), everything goes downhill after you get married: wives let go of themselves and become fat since they no longer have to worry about landing a man, wives become bitchy and nagging, sex goes downhill, etc.
Some people just don't like the idea of marriage. I'm one of them. I'm 28 and I don't think I'll ever get married. I'm happy being single and I enjoy my freedom. I was engaged at 23 to a guy who treated me well, but deep down I knew I didn't want to get married, so I broke things off.
Jenny
02-08-2007, 10:41 PM
That's a pretty fucking big disparity, even if it's the only one. And we won't even talk about men that pay child support for children that aren't their own, nor the idiocy of present alimony laws. I'm not saying men should have the sole choice with regard to issues of pregnancy or child support--no one here is saying that. But some choice is preferable to no choice.
Life is full of double standards, and this is one of them. Unfortunately.Well. You said men had none. And as it turns out, they have exactly one less than than women. And the disparity is great because, well, the disparity is great. Men don't get pregnant and therefore cannot terminate a pregnancy. There is no equal choice being denied to men there; they just don't get pregnant. Nobody is telling them they can't have abortions. They just don't need them. It's sort of like me claiming that my doctor is discriminating by not giving me a vasectomy. ("Snip it! Right now! What, this is just because I'm a woman? You assume that I'll WANT children someday? That I don't really mean it? That I just broke up with someone and I'm all emotional? Fuck you, you sexist pig! I want you to snip my penis tube NOW! I'll sue!") So, back to your original post in which you said decried the state of men's "reproductive rights" - what rights do you think they should have that they don't have? How would you implement "some choice" in this matter? Like what compromise do you think would be fair? Keeping in mind that there is a significant difference between a) a pregnancy and a child and b) paying for things and being forced to do things (again - these aren't my personal views. there are views that delineate in every level of our social and legal system. So you can't just pretend that they're not there). I mean what I asked for before was a proposal - it doesn't have to be cohesive or perfect, but if you are going to crybaby about reproductive rights of any kind you need to know what you want.
salsa4ever
02-09-2007, 07:26 AM
Well. You said men had none. And as it turns out, they have exactly one less than than women. And the disparity is great because, well, the disparity is great. Men don't get pregnant and therefore cannot terminate a pregnancy. There is no equal choice being denied to men there; they just don't get pregnant. Nobody is telling them they can't have abortions. They just don't need them. It's sort of like me claiming that my doctor is discriminating by not giving me a vasectomy. ("Snip it! Right now! What, this is just because I'm a woman? You assume that I'll WANT children someday? That I don't really mean it? That I just broke up with someone and I'm all emotional? Fuck you, you sexist pig! I want you to snip my penis tube NOW! I'll sue!") So, back to your original post in which you said decried the state of men's "reproductive rights" - what rights do you think they should have that they don't have? How would you implement "some choice" in this matter? Like what compromise do you think would be fair? Keeping in mind that there is a significant difference between a) a pregnancy and a child and b) paying for things and being forced to do things (again - these aren't my personal views. there are views that delineate in every level of our social and legal system. So you can't just pretend that they're not there). I mean what I asked for before was a proposal - it doesn't have to be cohesive or perfect, but if you are going to crybaby about reproductive rights of any kind you need to know what you want.
I'm with you Jenny.
Those arguing for more rights for men ("the guys") are suggesting that men ought to have the right to terminate financial obligations to the child because that is de facto the result that occurs for the woman when she undertakes abortion.
But the men don't have to undertake painful pregnancy and childbirth. For them to get the same rights is ostensibly saying they ought to have a free lunch. That is; they don't go through the pain, but they get the privelege of a "finanacial abortion" as someone described. Well, that's not fair either. Are the guys saying that women ought to receive no quid pro quo for what they go through?
So, that said I'd like to see some changes. First I'll take up the point about accounting for child support. As somebody who studies family law I think the system is patently unfair and open to abuse. I think both parents should be made to contribute to a trust account held in joint name of the parents in trust for the benefit of the child. For now, I'll start with equal contribution (I haven't come up with anything better yet). Both parents contribute an amount determined by the court to be a fair amount for the comfortable living and nurturing of a child, allowing for reasonable luxuries. Lets say this comes to $2000 a month (the figure doesn't matter). Both parents have to put in $1000 a month to the account. All expenses pertaining to the child then come from this account, includinng food, schooling, books, supervision, etc. There would be a list of "allowable reimbursements". I mean, you'd have the bare essentials + lets say 1 music/dance lesson a week, a toys budget, etc.
The parent that is in custody has to contribute too. But he or she gets a set amount from the child's trust account (say $150 a week) for supervision. They also get board from the child, out of their account. They can then get reimbursed for the child's food expenses and whatever other money spent on the child as well. Now I acknowledge there are problems with my proposal. But hey at least it's a starting point.
The advantage of such a system is that all the stuff attributable to the child is reimbursed back to the custodial parent. But she still has to contribute her share to the child. If she feeds the child peanut butter sandwiches she still has to pay $1000 and gets back $1 per sandwich. If she spends a lot on the child she could get back the entire $1000 she paid. If she buys a BMW that's with her own money. But she gets back something (like $x per trip) for using that car to transport the kid. We compensate for taking care of the child physically. The money not spent on the child stays in the child's trust account for their future use.
salsa4ever
02-09-2007, 07:56 AM
Now let me pose a rhetorical question for "the guys": King Solomon type dilemma. Who here would choose to exchange roles with the woman if that was possible?
Either 1) You get periods, pregnancy, childbirth, abortions, and the right to terminate the child and not have to be subjected to the financial obligations stemming from it or
2) none of the above, and no means to avoid the financial obligations besides exercising better judgement before fucking
What I'm saying is, don't look at it with blinkers. If you honestly think the aggregate lot of the woman is better than that of the man in this sphere, well then I guess everyone's entitled to an opinion
And Jenny, you asked for a sketch of a proposal. Well, here's what I've come up with. I deal with the four possible scenariors.
1) WOMAN doesn't want child. MAN doesn't want child:
Foetus is aborted. The man pays the woman $10,000 for the pain and suffering of an abortion
2) WOMAN doesn't want child. MAN wants child:
Woman has right to unilaterally abort and get nothing
OR
If the man agrees, the woman gives birth. Woman signs paper to do "financial abortion". The man pays woman $30,000 for the pain and suffering of pregancy and childbirth and man gets to keep the child and is solely responsible for it.
3) WOMAN wants child. MAN doesn't want child:
Man gets right to sign paper for "financial abortion". Whether the woman decides to keep the child or not, the man pays woman $20,000 for the pain and suffering of either pregancy and childbirth or an abortion. If born, the woman gets to keep the child and is solely responsible for it.
4) WOMAN wants child. MAN wants child.
Great. The status quo is fine.
*NOTE: the danger here is a chicken game of each party holding out for the other party to do the physical/financial abortion first. Therefore, at 1 month (or some arbitrary time) in the pregancy, any partner can force the other to meet in front of a magistrate, where in front of him, both man and woman simultaneously writes down whether they "want child" or "not want child". They only get one chance, and they're stuck with their choice.
Basically my proposal is to give basically the same right to the man and the woman of a financial abortion. But now there's nothing to compenstate the woman's extra burden so I've substituted money as a quid pro quo. Money is the best that an imperfect legal system can offer. The figures of $10-30k is just off the top of my head. I think it's a workable, if imperfect compromise.
Jenny
02-09-2007, 08:49 AM
So, that said I'd like to see some changes. First I'll take up the point about accounting for child support. As somebody who studies family law I think the system is patently unfair and open to abuse.
First - I would like to stress something that you well know if you do, in fact, study family law. The vast majority of "abuse" in this system is by non-custodial parents. So implementing vast systematic changes to protect very few people in a system that is designed to be flexible and fact specific (that is, capable of remedying on a case by case basis) may be a waste of resources, and throwing out the proverbial baby. Not that I think changes are bad - but implementing vast changes to specifically combat the "abuses" put out in this thread is swatting a fly with a sledgehammer.
Second - your contention is interesting in some ways but it doesn't account for some things. Like what if the parents don't have equal means? If one parent (whether custodial or non-custodial) makes 4x the money of the other, should both the parents have equal contributions? You suggest that a parent may be able to claim board from their child (which I don't know if they legitimately can, but anyway); what if the "board" doesn't adequately contribute to more than, say, a 1 bedroom apartment? Who is served by limiting the amount of support that is dedicated to rent? Is the custodial parent? The child? No. Neither of those. Similarly what if (as happens rarely) the custodial parent makes much more money than the non-custodial parent? Should the non-custodial parent have to "match" the custodial parent's contributions? Expecting parents to pay according to their means is considered the most appropriate method for good reasons. Also - child support is not intended to be used "for the child's future". Earmarking the money for that undermines the entire purpose of child support. Nobody is obliged to give their kid money after he or she is grown.
I also think you are underestimating or wholly discounting the sheer work involved in your scheme. The custodial parent already has a disproportionate "work load"; having them account for every sandwich is adding significantly to their work week. Working out your kids exact share of household expenses (well Suzy spilled some jam last week and really used more than her half of the paper towels...) is kind of ridiculous and very, very burdensome. Keep in mind that adding this fairly onerous responsibility may be justified in specific cases - but as a systematic change it is not a proportionate response to the kind of problem that exists. If you suggest paying a stipend to the custodial parent to compensate for that work, keep in mind that you are still imposing quite a lot of labour with no negotiation AND that is very, very inefficient - you will have non-custodial parents paying custodial parents in order to pay them. It is also inefficient use of the court system. I mean, if parents get together in ADR or a contract negotiation, that is entirely separate from the family court system. No family court judge wants to be involved in minutely monitoring such a system, and creating a government body to monitor the way child support is spent - again, expensive and inefficient as these people will be deeply, deeply involved in people's daily lives.
Finally - the custodial parent is (and I have mentioned this before) already in a fiduciary relationship with the child. In our society it is strongly assumed that the parents know what is best for their children (yes, this assumption can be displaced, but you have to work for it). You do not need to be licensed to have children and people don't need to raise their children by community vote. So we assume, very strongly, both legally and socially, that the custodial parent is, in fact, actively protecting the best interests of the child. Displacing that assumption is a REALLY BIG DEAL. I capitalize to emphasize - displacing the assumption that parents (in this case custodial parents) know what is best for their children fundamentally changes what we understand as the family unit. This also goes back to the efficiency issue - if we displace the fiduciary relationship, someone has to oversee these accounting mechanics you suggest, and these mechanics you suggest are fairly detailed and minute.
I would also suggest that these methods would be ineffective for combatting the extremely rare cases of abuse that they are trying to combat. Who is going to police what the child is eating on a daily basis and compare it to what is claimed? Who is going to check the mileage of this hypothetical BMW (which, I've noticed a lot of single mothers driving) and ensure that the mileage the custodial parent is claiming was actually spent on the child? Which actually takes us back to the beginning - if you actually study family law you know that this kind of abuse is so rare and so minor so as to not constitute a real social problem. This is not to say that it is not a problem for the individuals involved in these rare cases - however, those individuals may seek individual remedy (which family law is well equipped to provide).
Jenny
02-09-2007, 09:29 AM
And Jenny, you asked for a sketch of a proposal. Well, here's what I've come up with. I deal with the four possible scenariors.
1) WOMAN doesn't want child. MAN doesn't want child:
Foetus is aborted. The man pays the woman $10,000 for the pain and suffering of an abortion
The problem with this conception is that pregnancy is not a tort.
2) WOMAN doesn't want child. MAN wants child:
Woman has right to unilaterally abort and get nothing
OR
If the man agrees, the woman gives birth. Woman signs paper to do "financial abortion". The man pays woman $30,000 for the pain and suffering of pregancy and childbirth and man gets to keep the child and is solely responsible for it.
Okay my issue here is that you are mixing contract and family law. Pregnancy is still not a tort, and buying babies is not legal (that is it is not enforceable).
3) WOMAN wants child. MAN doesn't want child:
Man gets right to sign paper for "financial abortion". Whether the woman decides to keep the child or not, the man pays woman $20,000 for the pain and suffering of either pregancy and childbirth or an abortion. If born, the woman gets to keep the child and is solely responsible for it.
Again - pregnancy is not a tort. There are no obligations to a person because she is pregnant. This is again, the difference between pregnancy and children. That is, I cannot see any principle that justifies a claim simply for being pregnant. Also - you are throwing around some fairly significant sums. You do realize that most people will be judgement proof against this, right? I also question how this is different than the extremely regressive understanding that men simply get to choose which children to legitimate and illegitimate. Outside of characterizing pregnancy as a tort (which is wholly impracticable), how exactly is this different than Deogol's proposition that men should simply be able to decide which children are their's and which are the bastards?
4) WOMAN wants child. MAN wants child.
Great. The status quo is fine.
Oh wow. You're a little naive, considering the issue we just had with child support.
*NOTE: the danger here is a chicken game of each party holding out for the other party to do the physical/financial abortion first. Therefore, at 1 month (or some arbitrary time) in the pregancy, any partner can force the other to meet in front of a magistrate, where in front of him, both man and woman simultaneously writes down whether they "want child" or "not want child". They only get one chance, and they're stuck with their choice.
Are you joking with this?
Basically my proposal is to give basically the same right to the man and the woman of a financial abortion. But now there's nothing to compenstate the woman's extra burden so I've substituted money as a quid pro quo. Money is the best that an imperfect legal system can offer. The figures of $10-30k is just off the top of my head. I think it's a workable, if imperfect compromise.
I think I've pointed out the first couple of problems. Okay - a compromise - a change has to make us BETTER off than we are now. This doesn't, if for no other reason that it is imposing tortious liability for making a chick pregnant. Keep in mind that there is no such thing as "financial abortion". It's a catch-phrase invented to try to equate the choice to pay child support with the choice to continue a pregnancy. These things are not the same, medically, legally or socially. There is an inherent difference between a pregnancy and a child. A woman does not have the (legal) option to terminate a child; nor does she have an option to not pay child support to the other parent (also keep in mind that adoption is no longer unilateral. Both parents need to surrender parental rights).
Keep in mind that family law is different than contract - that is contracts and agreements regarding some issues like pregnancy and children are not enforceable. So there is some question about whether or not one parent is capable to surrendering the right to child support for the child (under any kind of legal umbrella).
I do appreciate the genuine effort though.
VenusGoddess
02-09-2007, 11:06 PM
But VG, don't you think that the child benefits from the car and the nicer apartment? I realize she's just a baby now, but in general, I don't think that moving to a larger apartment in a nicer neighborhood with better schools necessarily counts as a custodial parent "spending money on themselves."
Sure, she deserves to grow up in an area that is safe...and be driven around in a car that is safe and reliable. However, my cousin is depending on this money to afford this nicer apartment (there was nothing wrong with the old one. It was 850 sf as opposed to 1100 sf...and yes the rent is much higher now). As for the car, I would say that she should get a car that she can afford...without the child support payments. She does spend money on herself because in the end, she didn't make this move to a "better school system" for her daughter, she did it for show. The car she got is nice and dependable, but so was her old car (which wasn't that old and in perfect condition). It's about CONTROL. Her ex cannot say where/when/how she spends the money. She also knows that if she petitions for more money, she'll most likely get it, even if it puts her ex in a bad spot.
The problem with child support payments (and I say this because I was in law for many years and saw this happen in divorce cases) is that there is absolutely no accountability what-so-ever on how the money is spent. None. That money is CHILD support payments...not alimony, not spousal support, but child support payments. It is supposed to go towards off-setting the cost of diapers, formula, child-care (which my cousin used to use and then switched to using her mom...for free). It is to go for clothing, food, etc. It is NOT to go for car payments, rent, etc. While in "reality" it would seem that it is beneficial there...the fact is that too many people think that they can use this money however they want...and then when the time comes to spend extra money (unexpectedly) on something the child needs, they freak and then try to get more money from the child support paying parent.
Which is what my cousin is thinking she'll do. She'll spend the money that she gets from child support...and then when she gets a "really big unexpected bill" she'll twist the arm of her ex under the guise that he's got to pay for this (or a portion of it). I just found out that she returned from a Vegas vacation. 4 days of gambling (what money??) while leaving her 1 year old with her 80+ year old mom. Nice, good, sound financial planning there. ::)
And without a car, you're forced to take public transportation everywhere, which is not particularly easy or safe with an infant in tow. (When I say safe, I'm thinking of all those germs, and the possibility of getting stranded someplace if you miss a bus, etc...). Reliable transportation also improves the custodial parent's ability to get and keep a job.
Reliable, yes. More extravagant than needed so you can show that you're "well off", no.
It's different if the custodial parent is buying jewelry or fancy handbags or concert tickets or other stuff that is of no benefit to the child. But things as basic as rent and transportation? As long as the child is not being deprived of food or clothing so that the parent can drive a Lexus or something, this seems legitimate. If the parents were living together, the dad would presumably be contributing to the rent and the car payment, and so the apartment and the car would be of better quality than the mom could afford on her own. Right?
In the divorce decree, if the CS paying parent were going to be required to contribute to the rent and car payment of the custodial parent, they would have been ordered to pay Spousal Support or Alimony. When a parent is ordered to pay child support, it is with the thought that the cusodial parent is making enough money to support themself (rent/car/utilities, etc) and that the Child Support payments are to go towards care of the child. Does that make sense? So, no...Child support should NOT be used for anything BUT for the needs of the child. Rent and car are supposed to be cared for by the custodial parent.
Call me a cynic, but I've seen WAY too many people take advantage of the CS paying parent because they want to "work less" or whatever. So, they use the money that is supposed to be used for the child to pay the rent/car/etc. only to bitch and complain that they don't have money to get the things the child needs (unexpected expenditures, etc). That's just bullshit.
Nicolina
02-09-2007, 11:32 PM
In the divorce decree, if the CS paying parent were going to be required to contribute to the rent and car payment of the custodial parent, they would have been ordered to pay Spousal Support or Alimony. When a parent is ordered to pay child support, it is with the thought that the cusodial parent is making enough money to support themself (rent/car/utilities, etc) and that the Child Support payments are to go towards care of the child. Does that make sense? So, no...Child support should NOT be used for anything BUT for the needs of the child. Rent and car are supposed to be cared for by the custodial parent.
Oh, okay. I didn't know that.
Still, though, it doesn't seem quite fair: It seems to me that the custodial parent might reasonably require a larger apartment, with a separate bedroom for the child, due to the fact that he or she is living with the child. In other words, the "extra" cost of the extra space for the child should probably be split between them.
The alternative (in the simplest case) is that you expect the custodial parent to make enough money to afford a two-bedroom apartment on his or her own, while the non-custodial parent needs only afford a one-bedroom apartment. Meanwhile, the custodial parent is the one who has to deal with the logistics of arranging child care, finding a job that fits the child care provider's schedule, taking days off when the child is sick, etc.
It's more difficult to keep a high-pressure, high-income job when you are also a full-time single parent. So a little help on the rent, at least, would seem like a reasonable thing to ask from the non-custodial parent (who, as a single person, has lower basic living expenses, and often has a greater ability to be successful in a demanding job.)
That said, most of the single moms I know get ZERO support from the children's fathers, so I guess I just have a different perspective on this.
Deogol
02-10-2007, 07:26 PM
Well, ArmySgt, reading through all these messages I think we have an answer to your original question.
American women are incredibly selfish demanding their pound of flesh from a man and loyal only to the dollar (brilliantly illustrated by post numer 145 ). Love is only for fantasy novels and movies.