Child Support - When Does Child Support End?

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Paula" wrote in message
...
On Nov 21, 1:35 am, "teachrmama" wrote:

What I find disgusting about it is that the advocates for the lifestyle
of
the children have such a narrow view. Nobody else counts--just the
specific
children considered by the CS order. No other human beinf breathing
air
makes any difference compared the need for a lifestyle for that child.
Witness those advocating sports and school pictures

Do you just make this stuff up?!? Or do you intentionally
exagerate?

No, I don NOT make it up. The advocates for lifestyle CS, rather than
basic
needs CS, say that the chuld of the order has a right to a specific
lifestyle. You do understand that that is what the system says, right?
Think about it, Paula. Nobody came to me and told me that my children
"had
a right to" after school sports and that I had better pony up and provide
them. But they did figure an amount for such things into the CS they
charge
my husband for his oldest daughter. Because she "has a right to" such
things.

Try it this way. If I handed you a stack of pictures of children and
asked
you to divide them into piles: Those who have a right to after school
sports and those who do not, what would you do? Would you be able to do
it?
I wouldn't. But the system does.

If I handed you a stack of pictures individuals, of men, women, and
children, and asked you to divide them into piles by priority, of those
who
deserve a warm, comfortable place to live, food to eat, and clothing to
wear, how would you divide them?

If, in my classroom, I treated all girls as good, unless they did
something
extremely bad, and all boys as misvhievous, unless they did somethign
extremely good, would you want your child in my classroom? But that is
what
the system does. "NCPs need to be forced, because they *will not* do the
right thing otherwise." Most of the children in my classroom are well
behaved, some need just a bit of guidance, and very few need sterner
discipline. Adults are the same way.

The above is precisely why there ought to be NO "child support"
industry.......... NONE!
The idea of CP/NCP should also be tossed in the trash. Both setups are
nothing more than a breeding ground for injustices and corruption. They
serve absolutely NO other purpose.

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
"teachrmama" wrote in
:


"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Paula" wrote in message
news:7f5aef0e-591b-437d-b0b5-f971ff998312
@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.co
m...
On Nov 20, 5:21 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message


news:ad17acb7-2eea-49c3-95a3-

...

On Nov 20, 10:32 am, "Gini" wrote:

Actually, parents can still be financially responsible after
their rights
are terminated.
I hope you're not a lawyer.

Can you provide more information regarding this? I know
that I've seen techrmama say that her DH's rights were
terminated prior to even being aware of his daughter and
that he's still been ordered to pay support. I realize that
the logic of the State is often illogical, but this just really
doesn't wash ... how does this happen?

It's an honest question, and I'm not looking to argue ...
so please hold the flames. Thanks!

His rights were terminated because he was not in the child's
life--I don't
know what the logic behind termination the rights of a man who
did not even
know he was a father was.

Exactly ... none of it seems logical. If he didn't know
how could he provide support (either by maintaining
the relationship or financial support)?

This is one area in which we agree ... these women
who conceal the child and then go for arrearages
when they've *orchestrated* the situation ought to
either lose custody straight-away for not encouraging
and supporting the child's right to their other parent
or be disallowed from collecting back support.

So if he had wanted to fight for custody, he
would have had to first re-establish his parental rights, then
establish
a
relationship with the child, then apply for custody. But the
time he could
have taken all of those steps, she would have no longer been a
minor,
so
we
did not do so. Besides which, there was no money to travel to
where
she
lives for the necessary court appearances--and no money to bring
her to
us
for visitation.

Shouldn't, logically, some of the CS go toward travel
expenses for visitation?

The CP uses the CS money to support her household--there is no $$
left for
travel--or for after school sports or other things that the order
says she
is entitled to.


Child support pretty much put us in a position of living
month-to-month. We haven't even had a real vacation since CS was
established, except to use the very limited savings we did have
to go meet
her the summer after support was established.

I'm sorry that the system has had such a detrimental
effect on your lives! I know that doesn't help ... but
I hope you know that I honestly feel for you.

I know you do, Paula. And I feel the same for CPs who are stuck in
situations where their child is deprived of both father and any help
with the basics. I do believe that the basics should be
required--comfortable basics, not bare bones.

You also believe in having a "child support" system, and therein lies
the problem. Who ought to define "comfortable basics" and why?

Foster care is supposed to pay for basics. How about taking the
amount paid in the area for foster care and splitting it in half, each
parent required to pay 50%. I do believe in boht parents being
responsible for their choices. But I also believe that unmarried
parents should be dealt with differently than divorced parents.


Why? Don't *all* parents have the obligation to support their children?

It depends. If a woman has a child and keeps that child secret from a man
for several years, then the man should be totally and forever off the hook
for any sort of support. If the mom had wanted the child to have a dad (and
not just money for herself) she would not have kept the child secret. A man
has 6 months (in some places) to contest paternity. A woman should have
only that same amount of time to declare paternity. If women have the right
to walk away from a newborn just by dropping it off at a place of refuge, a
man should have the exact same right. If a woman names a man as father to
her child, the automatic default position of the courts should be 50/50
joint custody. If the woman relocated during her pregnancy, she should have
to move back to where the father is so that the 50/50 joint custody can be
accomplished. The system needs to be balanced so that each parent has equal
rights and responsibilities. If this were done, we would see far fewer
out-of-wedlock births, and far fewer single parent households.

"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
"DB" wrote in
:


"Sarah Gray" wrote in



Why? Don't *all* parents have the obligation to support their
children?

No, not if they are forced into parenthood with zero
choices!!!!!!!!!!!!1

To say that *all* unmarried fathers would abandon their children if
given the opportunity is doing them a great disservice.
That argument works for married fathers, too, you know. With the laws as
they are now, *no* man has any choice over whether he becomes a father,
at least not post-conception.

Of course there should be choices. But right now there are not any choices
for the men. Of the man chooses fatherhood, and marriage is not an option
for whatever reason, then 50/50 joint custody should be the default.

"teachrmama" wrote in
:


"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
"DB" wrote in
:


"Sarah Gray" wrote in



Why? Don't *all* parents have the obligation to support their
children?

No, not if they are forced into parenthood with zero
choices!!!!!!!!!!!!1

To say that *all* unmarried fathers would abandon their children if
given the opportunity is doing them a great disservice.
That argument works for married fathers, too, you know. With the laws
as they are now, *no* man has any choice over whether he becomes a
father, at least not post-conception.

Of course there should be choices. But right now there are not any
choices for the men. Of the man chooses fatherhood, and marriage is
not an option for whatever reason, then 50/50 joint custody should be
the default.




Oh, I agree completely with that. I just don't hang with the idea that
because men have a raw deal vis a vis choice and custody, that they
should have less responsibility towards their children.

"teachrmama" wrote in
:


"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
"teachrmama" wrote in
:


"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to
have custody of such child]
"teachrmama" wrote in message
...

"Paula" wrote in message
news:7f5aef0e-591b-437d-b0b5-f971ff998312
@c30g2000hsa.googlegroups.co
m...
On Nov 20, 5:21 pm, "teachrmama" wrote:
"Paula" wrote in message


news:ad17acb7-2eea-49c3-95a3-

...

On Nov 20, 10:32 am, "Gini" wrote:

Actually, parents can still be financially responsible after
their rights
are terminated.
I hope you're not a lawyer.

Can you provide more information regarding this? I know
that I've seen techrmama say that her DH's rights were
terminated prior to even being aware of his daughter and
that he's still been ordered to pay support. I realize that
the logic of the State is often illogical, but this just
really doesn't wash ... how does this happen?

It's an honest question, and I'm not looking to argue ...
so please hold the flames. Thanks!

His rights were terminated because he was not in the child's
life--I don't
know what the logic behind termination the rights of a man who
did not even
know he was a father was.

Exactly ... none of it seems logical. If he didn't know
how could he provide support (either by maintaining
the relationship or financial support)?

This is one area in which we agree ... these women
who conceal the child and then go for arrearages
when they've *orchestrated* the situation ought to
either lose custody straight-away for not encouraging
and supporting the child's right to their other parent
or be disallowed from collecting back support.

So if he had wanted to fight for custody, he
would have had to first re-establish his parental rights, then
establish
a
relationship with the child, then apply for custody. But the
time he could
have taken all of those steps, she would have no longer been a
minor,
so
we
did not do so. Besides which, there was no money to travel to
where
she
lives for the necessary court appearances--and no money to
bring her to
us
for visitation.

Shouldn't, logically, some of the CS go toward travel
expenses for visitation?

The CP uses the CS money to support her household--there is no $$
left for
travel--or for after school sports or other things that the order
says she
is entitled to.


Child support pretty much put us in a position of living
month-to-month. We haven't even had a real vacation since CS
was established, except to use the very limited savings we did
have to go meet
her the summer after support was established.

I'm sorry that the system has had such a detrimental
effect on your lives! I know that doesn't help ... but
I hope you know that I honestly feel for you.

I know you do, Paula. And I feel the same for CPs who are stuck
in situations where their child is deprived of both father and any
help with the basics. I do believe that the basics should be
required--comfortable basics, not bare bones.

You also believe in having a "child support" system, and therein
lies the problem. Who ought to define "comfortable basics" and why?

Foster care is supposed to pay for basics. How about taking the
amount paid in the area for foster care and splitting it in half,
each parent required to pay 50%. I do believe in boht parents being
responsible for their choices. But I also believe that unmarried
parents should be dealt with differently than divorced parents.


Why? Don't *all* parents have the obligation to support their
children?

It depends. If a woman has a child and keeps that child secret from a
man for several years, then the man should be totally and forever off
the hook for any sort of support. If the mom had wanted the child to
have a dad (and not just money for herself) she would not have kept
the child secret. A man has 6 months (in some places) to contest
paternity. A woman should have only that same amount of time to
declare paternity. If women have the right to walk away from a
newborn just by dropping it off at a place of refuge, a man should
have the exact same right. If a woman names a man as father to her
child, the automatic default position of the courts should be 50/50
joint custody. If the woman relocated during her pregnancy, she
should have to move back to where the father is so that the 50/50
joint custody can be accomplished. The system needs to be balanced so
that each parent has equal rights and responsibilities. If this were
done, we would see far fewer out-of-wedlock births, and far fewer
single parent households.

I think that 50/50 should be the default for nearly all situations. In
the case of the mother keeping the fact that a child existed a secret,
though, a man should not be held responsibel years after the fact, for
sure.

On Nov 28, 6:29 pm, Sarah Gray wrote:
"DB" wrote :



"Sarah Gray" wrote in

Why? Don't *all* parents have the obligation to support their
children?

No, not if they are forced into parenthood with zero
choices!!!!!!!!!!!!1

To say that *all* unmarried fathers would abandon their children if
given the opportunity is doing them a great disservice.
That argument works for married fathers, too, you know. With the laws as
they are now, *no* man has any choice over whether he becomes a father,
at least not post-conception.

I don't see this as correct...if a man is not educated on how
conception happens, than that is different. Realistically, if they did
not want to have a child its not because they didn't know! If you do
the deed, there is a chance!

"Very Determined!" wrote in message
...
On Nov 28, 6:29 pm, Sarah Gray wrote:
"DB" wrote
:



"Sarah Gray" wrote in

Why? Don't *all* parents have the obligation to support their
children?

No, not if they are forced into parenthood with zero
choices!!!!!!!!!!!!1

To say that *all* unmarried fathers would abandon their children if
given the opportunity is doing them a great disservice.
That argument works for married fathers, too, you know. With the laws as
they are now, *no* man has any choice over whether he becomes a father,
at least not post-conception.

I don't see this as correct...if a man is not educated on how
conception happens, than that is different. Realistically, if they did
not want to have a child its not because they didn't know! If you do
the deed, there is a chance!

So I take it that you oppose the current (in the U.S.) legal situation
that allows women, but ONLY women, to make the post-conception reproductive
choices. After all, if WOMEN "do the deed, there is a chance!"

Am I the only person who is astonished at the inability of so many women
to see the point that, if THEY are to be given post-conception reproductive
choices (via abortion, adoption, or new-born drop-off laws), men also should
have such choices (via the ability to renounce their paternal rights and
responsibilities, such as 18+ years of "child support")?

"Kenneth S." wrote in

So I take it that you oppose the current (in the U.S.) legal situation
that allows women, but ONLY women, to make the post-conception
reproductive choices. After all, if WOMEN "do the deed, there is a
chance!"

Am I the only person who is astonished at the inability of so many
women to see the point that, if THEY are to be given post-conception
reproductive choices (via abortion, adoption, or new-born drop-off laws),
men also should have such choices (via the ability to renounce their
paternal rights and responsibilities, such as 18+ years of "child
support")?

At the time my Ex girlfriend got herself knocked up, I wasn't aware of these
options!

--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
3.102...
"teachrmama" wrote in
:


"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
"DB" wrote in
:


"Sarah Gray" wrote in



Why? Don't *all* parents have the obligation to support their
children?

No, not if they are forced into parenthood with zero
choices!!!!!!!!!!!!1

To say that *all* unmarried fathers would abandon their children if
given the opportunity is doing them a great disservice.
That argument works for married fathers, too, you know. With the laws
as they are now, *no* man has any choice over whether he becomes a
father, at least not post-conception.

Of course there should be choices. But right now there are not any
choices for the men. Of the man chooses fatherhood, and marriage is
not an option for whatever reason, then 50/50 joint custody should be
the default.




Oh, I agree completely with that. I just don't hang with the idea that
because men have a raw deal vis a vis choice and custody, that they
should have less responsibility towards their children.

That's because you lack a fundamental, but crucial, understanding of the
concept of responsibilities being inseparable from RIGHTS.

"Chris" wrote in message
...


--
[Any man that's good enough to support a child is good enough to have
custody of such child]
"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
3.102...
"teachrmama" wrote in
:


"Sarah Gray" wrote in message
. 33.102...
"DB" wrote in
:


"Sarah Gray" wrote in



Why? Don't *all* parents have the obligation to support their
children?

No, not if they are forced into parenthood with zero
choices!!!!!!!!!!!!1

To say that *all* unmarried fathers would abandon their children if
given the opportunity is doing them a great disservice.
That argument works for married fathers, too, you know. With the laws
as they are now, *no* man has any choice over whether he becomes a
father, at least not post-conception.

Of course there should be choices. But right now there are not any
choices for the men. Of the man chooses fatherhood, and marriage is
not an option for whatever reason, then 50/50 joint custody should be
the default.




Oh, I agree completely with that. I just don't hang with the idea that
because men have a raw deal vis a vis choice and custody, that they
should have less responsibility towards their children.

That's because you lack a fundamental, but crucial, understanding of the
concept of responsibilities being inseparable from RIGHTS.


BUT, Chris, when it comes to a married couple splitting up, the man had long
sice ACCEPTED responsibility for the children, so just refusing to see them
any more does not negate those responsibilities. In the case of
never-marrieds, there needs to be far more equity than there is today.