• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Child support and the father.

Kal'Stang said:
When adults voluntarily have children, and keep them, they automatically give up a lot of the freedoms they had before they had children. We give up our privacy. And we give up the freedom to go where we want, when we want. It is the price we pay as parents. Any responsible and loving parent gladly does it also.
Click to expand...

While we are hypothetically limiting the range of custodial parents, are we also limiting the range of noncustodial parents? Or are we to assume that in order to be truly noncustodial, including no coerced support, one must forfeit the entire area within a 50 mile radius?
 
Celebrity said:
While we are hypothetically limiting the range of custodial parents, are we also limiting the range of noncustodial parents? Or are we to assume that in order to be truly noncustodial, including no coerced support, one must forfeit the entire area within a 50 mile radius?
Click to expand...

You are assuming something not in play here. We are talking about fathers WANTING to be with their children and the ex-wife wanting to keep the children away from the father while still demanding that he pay child support. So, why would the non-custodial parent be wanting to move away from their children when they're wanting to stay by them and see them?
 
Henrin said:
No woman worth the title would abort their children, but abortion is still legal.
Click to expand...

This has nothing to do with abortion. If you want to obsess over that, there's a sub-forum.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You are assuming something not in play here. We are talking about fathers WANTING to be with their children and the ex-wife wanting to keep the children away from the father while still demanding that he pay child support. So, why would the non-custodial parent be wanting to move away from their children when they're wanting to stay by them and see them?
Click to expand...

Well... it was already mentioned in the thread that fathers are sometimes not in the vicinity of a child when that child is born, or when the custody of that child is in dispute. So it doesn't seem too far-fetched to imagine a scenario in which the 50 mile radius is not in either party's favor (for really any reason at all). But, I see what you are getting at. I used the word 'forfeit' which implies a loss.

The question is: why order an arbitrary radius in the matter of child support? It's really ridiculous, you see. No matter where the parents are, they will still be the (biological, adoptive, etc) parents. So really, if we are imposing limits, the 50 mile radius should be applied to the custodial parent orbiting around the child, not the relationship between the two parents. You guys are so fixated on bringing two people together. It's quite gauche.
 
Kal'Stang said:
You are assuming something not in play here. We are talking about fathers WANTING to be with their children and the ex-wife wanting to keep the children away from the father while still demanding that he pay child support. So, why would the non-custodial parent be wanting to move away from their children when they're wanting to stay by them and see them?
Click to expand...

I would add I think you guys are not. Arguing the same things. There is a big difference between a man walking away pre viability and a parent willing at the time of birth to decide later he is no longer interested in his child


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
rocket88 said:
This has nothing to do with abortion. If you want to obsess over that, there's a sub-forum.
Click to expand...

I'm hardly obsessing on abortion. The point was that any man or woman worthy of the title wants what is best for their children, but government still allows women to abort and even allows men to give up sperm at a sperm bank. In the former case of abortion a child is killed by their mother, and in the later the man cares so little about his children that he is willing to give up his seed, his parental rights, and even his children's ability to ever find out who their dad is all so he can get a few dollars.
 
Henrin said:
I'm hardly obsessing on abortion. The point was that any man or woman worthy of the title wants what is best for their children, but government still allows women to abort and even allows men to give up sperm at a sperm bank. In the former case of abortion a child is killed by their mother, and in the later the man cares so little about his children that he is willing to give up his seed, his parental rights, and even his children's ability to ever find out who their dad is all so he can get a few dollars.
Click to expand...

You are obsessing. How are you not banned yet?

This thread has nothing to do with abortion, your personal crusade against lesbians, or your feelings on sperm banks.
 
rocket88 said:
You are obsessing. How are you not banned yet?

This thread has nothing to do with abortion, your personal crusade against lesbians, or your feelings on sperm banks.
Click to expand...

Again, the point is not over abortion. The point is over the principle you brought up and the principle behind child support. Does a government that permits abortion and endorses and assists in sperm donation actually believe men and women are to care for their children?
 
Kal'Stang said:
You are assuming something not in play here. We are talking about fathers WANTING to be with their children and the ex-wife wanting to keep the children away from the father while still demanding that he pay child support. So, why would the non-custodial parent be wanting to move away from their children when they're wanting to stay by them and see them?
Click to expand...

He is noticing that there is two sides to the coin. The idea proposed would lock them both within so many miles of each other making both parties effectively chained together. In order for either party to move the other party must move as well, and if this happens or not it will likely hold back career and life opportunities for at least of them in the process. The whole idea effectively puts then both in a prison of sorts and ends up being a punishment in and of itself. Besides, it's a terrible idea to let the government control freedom of movement like that.

I am not even mentioning the large degree of collateral damage that would happen to other parties either or how these arrangements would sometimes come into conflict with other child support living arrangements that spouses might have for children from prior relationships.
 
Last edited:
Kal'Stang said:
I can't count the number of times I have seen a man loose a custody battle for his children to the mother. Often despite evidence that the man would make a better father than the woman would make a mother. Then for quite a few ex-wives they either take the children to another state completely knowing that the man cannot follow due to other obligations (such as military) or convincing a judge that the father should be completely restrained from ever seeing the kids. And then, after the woman achieves custody they go after the father for every penny that they can squeeze out of them for child support. And lets face it/admit it, we've all heard examples of some mother using the kids to get revenge on the father.

And that I think is completely wrong. If the mother refuses or arranges it so that the father cannot at the very least see and spend a little time with his children then why should the father be forced to pay child support? It IS his children also after all.

Note: This is NOT about making it to where fathers do not have to pay child support. This is about making it to where vengeful ex-wives cannot use their children as a weapon.

Note 2: I am quite aware that there are men that do this also. I don't think that it is any more right than the ex-wives doing it. But I am focusing on the mens side more due to the fact that women seem to do it far more than the men do. Perhaps that is just a product of the way our system is in that it is disproportionately in favor of women when it comes to child custody battles. Either way, lets discuss it from the mans point of view to simplify this and while this might not accomplish anything beyond a simple debate here at DP we can assume that any law enacted regarding this would include both men and women equally.
Click to expand...

I did 10 years stay home dad, 5 years home school, did 80%+ of the raising of the kids in total, I was good at it and yet I am here to tell you that I disagree. THere is something genetic that makes women better with kids. On average I think all other things being equal that kid time should go 60/40 mother.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I can't count the number of times I have seen a man loose a custody battle for his children to the mother. Often despite evidence that the man would make a better father than the woman would make a mother. Then for quite a few ex-wives they either take the children to another state completely knowing that the man cannot follow due to other obligations (such as military) or convincing a judge that the father should be completely restrained from ever seeing the kids. And then, after the woman achieves custody they go after the father for every penny that they can squeeze out of them for child support. And lets face it/admit it, we've all heard examples of some mother using the kids to get revenge on the father.
And that I think is completely wrong. If the mother refuses or arranges it so that the father cannot at the very least see and spend a little time with his children then why should the father be forced to pay child support? It IS his children also after all.
Note: This is NOT about making it to where fathers do not have to pay child support. This is about making it to where vengeful ex-wives cannot use their children as a weapon.
Note 2: I am quite aware that there are men that do this also. I don't think that it is any more right than the ex-wives doing it. But I am focusing on the mens side more due to the fact that women seem to do it far more than the men do. Perhaps that is just a product of the way our system is in that it is disproportionately in favor of women when it comes to child custody battles. Either way, lets discuss it from the mans point of view to simplify this and while this might not accomplish anything beyond a simple debate here at DP we can assume that any law enacted regarding this would include both men and women equally.
Click to expand...

I strongly recommend the book of Helen Smith "Men on Strike".
 
Henrin said:
He is noticing that there is two sides to the coin. The idea proposed would lock them both within so many miles of each other making both parties effectively chained together. In order for either party to move the other party must move as well, and if this happens or not it will likely hold back career and life opportunities for at least of them in the process. The whole idea effectively puts then both in a prison of sorts and ends up being a punishment in and of itself. Besides, it's a terrible idea to let the government control freedom of movement like that.

I am not even mentioning the large degree of collateral damage that would happen to other parties either or how these arrangements would sometimes come into conflict with other child support living arrangements that spouses might have for children from prior relationships.
Click to expand...

When you're married and have children is it not the same? People have lost out on career opportunities due to marriage also.

Besides, is it any fairer to the father who wants to be with their child/ren but is denied it because the system won't let them due to a vengeful woman? Current standards are imo just as bad as what you and him are claiming here.
 
Last edited:
Hawkeye10 said:
I did 10 years stay home dad, 5 years home school, did 80%+ of the raising of the kids in total, I was good at it and yet I am here to tell you that I disagree. THere is something genetic that makes women better with kids. On average I think all other things being equal that kid time should go 60/40 mother.
Click to expand...

I currently AM a stay at home dad (and house bitch ;) ). And as much as I love my wife she doesn't have the patience to take care of the kids properly. When we had our first kid she stayed at her mothers over night for a visit and he was crying so much that she called me saying she wanted to shake him really hard. I immediate drove the 30 miles to take over and fully believe that the only reason she didn't is because she knew I was coming. Women are not always better at parenting than men. She's grown since then of course and would have an easier time of it than then. But she still raises her voice for even the littlest of things.
 
Yeah, I think men are better than women at parenting. Women are just as thin skinned as men, apparently.

The entire system is designed to accommodate women from insemination to birth and beyond. Men are treated like financial objects.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
I did 10 years stay home dad, 5 years home school, did 80%+ of the raising of the kids in total, I was good at it and yet I am here to tell you that I disagree. THere is something genetic that makes women better with kids. On average I think all other things being equal that kid time should go 60/40 mother.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Mothers and fathers are 50/50, yet what they each provide is different, not better or worse than the other. Together, they provide a complete upbringing. When necessary, one can make up for some of the other if the other is out of the picture, but they can't make up for it entirely.
 
Kal'Stang said:
I can't count the number of times I have seen a man loose a custody battle for his children to the mother. Often despite evidence that the man would make a better father than the woman would make a mother. Then for quite a few ex-wives they either take the children to another state completely knowing that the man cannot follow due to other obligations (such as military) or convincing a judge that the father should be completely restrained from ever seeing the kids. And then, after the woman achieves custody they go after the father for every penny that they can squeeze out of them for child support. And lets face it/admit it, we've all heard examples of some mother using the kids to get revenge on the father.

And that I think is completely wrong. If the mother refuses or arranges it so that the father cannot at the very least see and spend a little time with his children then why should the father be forced to pay child support? It IS his children also after all.

Note: This is NOT about making it to where fathers do not have to pay child support. This is about making it to where vengeful ex-wives cannot use their children as a weapon.
Click to expand...

I think it's tricky to write into law, because you risk creating an incentive structure where women will feel compelled to allow abusive or dangerous fathers to access their children in order to get the money necessary to support them.
 
Celebrity said:
It amazes me the extent that you would sacrifice others' personal liberties for "the benefit of the child."
Click to expand...

Yup. Parents rights are constrained by the child's. Children aren't adults.
 
cpwill said:
I think it's tricky to write into law, because you risk creating an incentive structure where women will feel compelled to allow abusive or dangerous fathers to access their children in order to get the money necessary to support them.
Click to expand...
Completely agree on this warning. It would need to be done in such a way that wouldn't encourage even more false allegations... which is already a serious problem because it's too easy.
 
radcen said:
Completely agree on this warning. It would need to be done in such a way that wouldn't encourage even more false allegations... which is already a serious problem because it's too easy.
Click to expand...

Honestly, I would be willing to entertain sharp restrictions on no-fault divorce when a couple has minor children, for exactly this reason. The requirement for demonstration of fault would help untangle a lot of this knot.
 
radcen said:
Completely agree on this warning. It would need to be done in such a way that wouldn't encourage even more false allegations... which is already a serious problem because it's too easy.
Click to expand...

It's tricky because you are compromising other people's rights. In this country, we have an endless system of appeals. When you provide a way for men and women to abuse each other, there will be abusive men and women that take advantage of other people. Appeals facilitate a process that drains resources. Whoever has the most resources will eventually win, because they have the better chance to support a lawsuit and support a child.

As of now, whoever has the biggest share of the child's life gets to legally or financially abuse the other party in proportion to their relationship with the child. I fail to see how increasing the legal restrictions on either party will solve the real problem which is that the court legitimizes abuse while it is appropriating the time and resources of involved parties.

The best solution would be to make child support voluntary.
 
Celebrity said:
The best solution would be to make child support voluntary.
Click to expand...

No, that subordinates the legitimate needs of the child to the preferences of the adults. This isn't alimony, where it's a straight negotiation between adults. Vulnerable Children caught in the middle should have their rights and needs come first.
 
cpwill said:
No, that subordinates the legitimate needs of the child to the preferences of the adults. This isn't alimony, where it's a straight negotiation between adults. Vulnerable Children caught in the middle should have their rights and needs come first.
Click to expand...

There is a functioning welfare system. I'm sure that you understand.
 
Celebrity said:
There is a functioning welfare system. I'm sure that you understand.
Click to expand...

There is a broken welfare system that traps children of single-parent households in poverty. I do understand.

The child(ren) come first. That's part of being a parent. It's not their fault they are in this crappy situation - it's the parent(s) fault. The parents' rights are thus subordinated, and rightfully so.
 
cpwill said:
There is a broken welfare system that traps children of single-parent households in poverty. I do understand.

The child(ren) come first. That's part of being a parent. It's not their fault they are in this crappy situation - it's the parent(s) fault. The parents' rights are thus subordinated, and rightfully so.
Click to expand...
I take issue with "the child comes first". One, it's become more of a buzzword to justify government micromanagement into family's lives, but primarily because I believe the child's best interests are also the parent's best interests. It's a package deal. It's intertwined. Pissed off and resentful parents aren't going to be good parents. One good parent and one resentful parent gives the kid(s) only half the effective parenting structure they need.
 
radcen said:
I take issue with "the child comes first". One, it's become more of a buzzword to justify government micromanagement into family's lives, but primarily because I believe the child's best interests are also the parent's best interests. It's a package deal. It's intertwined.
Click to expand...

I would non-concur in this instance.

For example, it is clearly in a non-custodial fathers' interest that he be allowed visitation whenever he pleases, and to be allowed to pay whatever child support he pleases. That is not a good plan for providing emotional or financial stability for a child.


The parents are the ones who created the situation where everyone's interests are no longer intertwined. Not least for that reason, their liberties are the ones which we rightfully subordinate to the childs' needs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom