patrick.net

Bigsby says

jkaldi1 says

Bigsby says

And the men have the legal benefit of not having to play any role in the rearing.

Do women not have that right ?

And when they decide to raise the child? That doesn't force the father to also put in the time to raise it, does it?

then we should change that law if that's not the case.

i don't get it when women want symmetry in +ves but not symmetry in -ves. don't we all want symmetry in everything?

Bigsby says

And when they decide to raise the child? That doesn't force the father to also put in the time to raise it, does it?

So what?
It forces a burden on him that the mother is not forced to take.
Therefore it's discrimination.

It's really simple and any reasonable person will admit this is blatantly unfair.

Heraclitusstudent says

So what?

It forces a burden on him that the mother is not forced to take.

Therefore it's discrimination.

It's really simple and any reasonable person will admit this is blatantly unfair.

What? The mother both raises the child and has partial financial responsibility. An absentee father is required to step up with a degree of financial support. Who faces the greater burden? The mother is the one who still gets the short straw. If the child is given up for adoption, then the responsibility switches to the state or the adoptive parents.

jkaldi1 says

when the man decides to raise the child ?

And how often does that happen? And if it does, then the woman should be obliged to give the appropriate financial support.

Bigsby says

esponsibility switches to the state or the adoptive parents.

i think the law should be changed such than both are forced to only put time if both decide to raise a child.

if one of them decides to not raise the child , the other can do the same or raise on their own with no support from other.
completely symmetric law with no mention of a man or woman.

jkaldi1 says

Bigsby says

esponsibility switches to the state or the adoptive parents.

i think the law should be changed such than men are forced to only put time just like women if both decide to raise a child.

What is that even supposed to mean?

Bigsby says

jkaldi1 says

Bigsby says

esponsibility switches to the state or the adoptive parents.

i think the law should be changed such than men are forced to only put time just like women if both decide to raise a child.

What is that even supposed to mean?

it means money is not involved. kid spends time 50% at mom and 50% at dad. of course voluntarily ,any one of them can take the option of taking full financial support responsibility and 0% raising or just not raise the kid at all.

And you think that's practical?

Bigsby says

And you think that's practical?

what does that have to do with the law ? practicality is not an argument for discrimination ?
people have been arguing that both men and women working is not practical for ages...did we not solve the issue or just live with the consequences ?
equal rights take precedence over everything else !

either you solve the issue or live with it but you cannot discriminate ...period !

equal rights for women is not more special than equal rights for men. everybody should get equal rights !

the best way to write the laws involving a man and woman is to write it with no mention of the word woman or man. if its done that way, it means its completely symmetric law and fully non-discriminatory.

Not having your idea of forcing every child to live with each parent 50% of the time written into law is not an issue of discrimination. There is flexibility in custodial arrangements for obvious reasons.

Bigsby says

Why should the financial responsibility be switched solely to the women or often the tax payer to support that child just because you think fathers should have the right to avoid contributing money to the raising of their own child?

nobody is forcing her to take on the responsibilty ...its a CHOICE she is making.

Bigsby says

Once the pregnancy is carried to term, she has every right to seek financial aid to help raise that child. T

WHY ?

Both should have the right to raise the child on their own or not raise at all.
1) Any one of the partners can completely say no to any responsibility.
2) Any one of the partners can raise the child completely on their own.

If both say no to all responsibilities , child goes to foster care.

I am not using woman and man above so its completely just to both sides.

Bigsby says

Why should the financial responsibility be switched solely to the women or often the tax payer to support that child just because you think fathers should have the right to avoid contributing money to the raising of their own child?

You are being totally irrational, ignoring the whole point about having a choice. The women can of course choose to have a child. If the man doesn't want to have the child, why should he be dragged into it against his will?

I know an example where, right now, a woman is trying to get pregnant from a guy, while the guy is ignorant of this fact. I know because she told her girl friends. She is totally planning to stick the guy with child support. Of course this is totally legal.

Do you think this is fair to the man?
And do you think this is a good way to bring children into this world?

If yes then you are an incredibly sexist and evil person. That's all there is to it.

jkaldi1 says

Both should have the right to raise the child on their own or not raise at all.

1) Any one of the partners can completely say no to any responsibility.

2) Any one of the partners can raise the child completely on their own.

If both say no to all responsibilities , child goes to foster care.

I am not using woman and man above so its completely just to both sides.

Re-phrased:

Any one of the partners can take responsibility while the other partner pays child support.

If both say no to all responsibilities , child goes to foster care.

I am not using woman and man above so its completely just to both sides.

And this version actually makes sense.

ch_tah2 says

Any one of the partners can take responsibility while the other partner pays child support.

If both say no to all responsibilities , child goes to foster care.

I am not using woman and man above so its completely just to both sides.

And this version actually makes sense.

agreed....lets apply that to pregnancy as well while we are at it.
one person cannot terminate a pregnancy if the other party is willing to support.

unjust for child but completely just for both partners :

1) Any one of the partners can completely say no to any responsibility.

2) Any one of the partners can raise the child completely on their own.

3) both partners can get into 50:50 arrangement either financially or taking care.

If both say no to all responsibilities , child goes to foster care.

or

Best care scenario for child and completely just for both partners :

1)Any one of the partners can take responsibility while the other partner "has to" pay child support.

2) Any one of them can take financial responsibilty while the other person "has to" care of the child.

3) both partners can get into 50:50 arrangement either financially or taking care.

If both say no to all responsibilities , child goes to foster care.

completely symmetric in all angles

jkaldi1 says

1) Any one of the partners can completely say no to any responsibility.

I can't agree to that. It's not fair to the other partner. You can't completely give up responsibility. If you are responsible for creating a child, then you are responsible for supporting that child.

My version was fine as is.

ch_tah2 says

If you are responsible for creating a child, then you are responsible for supporting that child.

My version was fine as is.

then why is a woman free to abandon the child ?

ch_tah2 says

I can't agree to that. It's not fair to the other partner.

the other partner can be either a man or a woman so it cannot be unfair.its a choice.
its only unfair to the child not to partner.

Maybe I missed it, but where is the outrage about alimony?

A woman makes the case to maintain financial support from the man, while no longer providing spousal support to her (now) ex-husband.

Good deal if you can get it.

jkaldi1 says

the other partner can be either a man or a woman so it cannot be unfair.its a choice.

its only unfair to the child not to partner.

Try raising a child on your own, and then tell me what is fair and what isn't. I couldn't imagine doing it.

ch_tah2 says

Try raising a child on your own, and then tell me what is fair and what isn't. I couldn't imagine doing it.

Yes...but its a choice ! you cannot force other partner for one persons choice.
There is no mention of the gender here so its just to both partners.

jkaldi1 says

2) Any one of them can take financial responsibilty while the other person "has to" care of the child.

Sorry, you can't force someone to care for a child. You have to keep in mind it isn't just words that matter. Yes, you can write a sentence that is symmetrical, but you have to actually think about what the effect is in the real world. If you have a mom who isn't fit to be a mother, the fact that the father wants to pay her to care for the child, should not force her to do it. It's not good for the mother or the child. The same would be true if flipped (mom wanting to pay dad to raise the child). There's no need to come up with new versions, my version is fine - oh, by the way, that's how the law is.

jkaldi1 says

Yes...but its a choice ! you cannot force other partner for one persons choice.

There is no mention of the gender here so its just to both partners.

I said this in my previous response - we're talking about more than just words. If a mom wants to raise a child, she shouldn't be forced to choose no financial assistance or giving up the child. In the real world, this would be terrible. You'd either have mothers who can't afford basic things like food/shelter or you'd have an overloaded social services system. The other party created the child, they should support the child. Your suggestions all wind up putting a greater burden on the state - bad idea.

Call it Crazy says

Heraclitusstudent says

I know an example where, right now, a woman is trying to get pregnant from a guy, while the guy is ignorant of this fact. I know because she told her girl friends. She is totally planning to stick the guy with child support. Of course this is totally legal.

Do you think this is fair to the man?

Firstly, this guy is thinking with the wrong head..

Second, if he isn't absolutely making sure he can't father a child, then he gets what's coming to him, entrapment or not!

Yep, ignorant pretty much sums him up!

Sounds like this guy should see a urologist ASAP!

Forget who posted this here on PatNet a while ago but it was one of my favorites:

Vasectomy: $400. Speechless look on her face: priceless.

http://www.craigslist.org/about/best/sea/274495936.html

jkaldi1 says

Both should have the right to raise the child on their own or not raise at all.

1) Any one of the partners can completely say no to any responsibility.

2) Any one of the partners can raise the child completely on their own.

If both say no to all responsibilities , child goes to foster care.

I am not using woman and man above so its completely just to both sides.

And your option 1 is basically what we have now when a father isn't involved in child raising except that he has to make a financial commitment to raising the child. Why should he avoid his responsibilities and place them at the foot of the general tax payer or abandon the women to take all responsibility?

Heraclitusstudent says

I know an example where, right now, a woman is trying to get pregnant from a guy, while the guy is ignorant of this fact. I know because she told her girl friends. She is totally planning to stick the guy with child support. Of course this is totally legal.

Do you think this is fair to the man?

And do you think this is a good way to bring children into this world?

We all have 'one example.' That man has made a choice to be with such a woman. He has, presumably, made a further choice to have unprotected sex. Why should society as a whole be stuck with the consequences of his actions if he is capable of meeting the child support payments for his own child?

It's the child that has the right to the child support not the custodial parent. I agree that this FACT is taken advantage of by some custodial parents. However, the right of the child shouldn't be what is in dispute. IMHO, what you should be disputing are the following:

1) Arbitrary support tables, which aren't based on economic realities but income percentages that have little basis in said reality.

2) Establishing needs vs. wants. Court ordered child support should be about providing for the needs of a child. No one should be able to order anyone to pay for "wants." We don't force parents of intact families to pay for extra curricular activities, therefore, we have no business forcing divorced parents to pay for it either.

3) The assumption that the calves belong with the cows. Thanks to equal rights, father's roles have changed considerably over the last 60 years. Sure there are still fathers who don't see their roles in caregiving, but there are plenty of fathers who do. The laws need to reflect that. IMHO, there should be a presumption of 50/50. Automatic unfitness by the father shouldn't be the presumption.

4) Fiduciary responsibility. Even with a presumption of 50/50, there's the issue of one parent having greater means than the other. In order to make sure that the parent with the least ability to pay isn't shouldering all the financial responsibility for the child's needs, child support is still appropriate. HOWEVER, currently, there is no accountability on the part of the recipient parent. Basically, the way things work now, the person receiving child support could spend the money remodeling the kitchen or gambling in Vegas if he/she chose to. IMHO, this has to stop. There should be strict accounting guidelines for how child support is spent. Since the money belongs to the CHILD, any overages should be accounted for, and at the very least, saved on behalf of the child or returned to the person paying the support.

5) You have the Bradley Amendment to thank for some seriously perverted laws: Unlike any other debt, child support cannot be forgiven. So, if you lose your job, there are no retroactive reductions allowed. The amount can be lowered going forward, but we all know how long the court system might take. In the meantime, you're screwed. The Bradley Amendment: automatically triggers a non-expiring lien whenever child support becomes past-due; overrides any state's statute of limitations; disallows any judicial discretion, even from bankruptcy judges; and requires that the payment amounts be maintained without regard for the physical capability of the person owing child support.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Amendment

I hear your complaints, and I think there's some validity. I just think you'd be better off focusing NOT on whether you have an obligation to your child, but on how that obligation is defined. Child support has been around for a long time. That has not changed. Where they got you was in the details. It's the details that need adjusting, not the overall fact that both parents are responsible for the needs of their child.

can the man take up the child and force the woman for child support ?
I don't know so i am asking.

Call it Crazy says

Firstly, this guy is thinking with the wrong head..

Second, if he isn't absolutely making sure he can't father a child, then he gets what's coming to him, entrapment or not!

People having sex represents in no way an agreement to have a child.
And whether the guy is naive or not is irrelevant. We are discussing the law.

If that's not enough for you, what about this case I already posted in an other thread: http://rollingout.com/shame-on-you/woman-uses-sperm-oral-sex-get-pregnant-force-man-pay-child-support/

Bigsby says

Why should society as a whole be stuck with the consequences of his actions if he is capable of meeting the child support payments?

Why should society - or the man - be stuck with the consequences of the action of that women?
Your sexism is on display at every post.

jkaldi1 says

can the man take up the child and force the woman for child support ?

I don't know so i am asking.

I would say yes unless someone can point to a CA code that says otherwise.

Heraclitusstudent says

Bigsby says

Why should society as a whole be stuck with the consequences of his actions if he is capable of meeting the child support payments?

Why should society - or the man - be stuck with the consequences of the action of that women?

Your sexism is on display at every post.

It's not sexism to say that the man should be responsible for the consequences of his choices. Why should he be the one to avoid all consequences of his actions and it to be left to the woman or society as a whole to pick up the slack?

turtledove says

It's the child that has the right to the child support not the custodial parent. - However, the right of the child shouldn't be what is in dispute.

The very fact that there is a child should be subject to choice of both partners.

If a woman decides to have a child, the man should:
- first, be informed of the fact within time for abortion
- second be given the choice to have this child or not
- if yes, then he takes join responsibility to support the child
- if not, then the woman is free to have the abortion or raise the child without his support.

This stuff is simple.

Bigsby says

It's not sexism to say that the man should be responsible for the consequences of his choices.

Except it's not his choice - As we discussed ad nauseam since you intruded on this thread.

Your deliberate dishonesty is as obvious as your sexism.

jkaldi1 says

can the man take up the child and force the woman for child support ?

I don't know so i am asking.

It's possible and gaining a little momentum, but in general it is fairly hard for a man to get alimony in court, even if his ex-wife/partner made a lot of money. That's why alimony should be completely thrown out, one basic FIXED amount for child support instated (adj. yearly), and balanced between the two depending on income. Any other arrangements would have to be custom contracts, mutually agreed upon.

Call it Crazy says

Are you saying he should have free will to stick his dick where ever he wants without any responsibility of the outcome?

Women have the freedom to have sex and avoid the consequences.

To say that men shouldn't have this right while women should have it is pure sexism.

Heraclitusstudent says

Bigsby says

It's not sexism to say that the man should be responsible for the consequences of his choices.

Except it's not his choice - As we discussed ad nauseam since you intruded on this thread.

Your deliberate dishonesty is as obvious as your sexism.

Oh, I intruded on a thread in a public forum, did I? Good grief. And you can cut out the baiting crap for a start.

It is his choice to have unprotected sex. It is also not necessarily the choice of the woman to get pregnant either. She has a choice of carrying it to term or getting an abortion. You live in a country where the latter is still heavily frowned upon. The mother further often bears the responsibility of raising the child. The father should be obliged to meet part of the financial obligations of that. Now you can argue over what that amounts to, but I believe that he has a responsibility to that child.

Bigsby says

She has a choice of carrying it to term or getting an abortion.

Bigsby says

The father should be obliged to meet part of the financial obligations.

1. Having unprotected sex, which may result in pregnancy, was a mutual decision of a man and a woman.
2. Whether or not a child conceived in that action is granted the right to live is solely the choice of the woman.
3. The man has no choice but to provide financial support to the child.

Does that sum it up?

Heraclitusstudent says

Women have the freedom to have sex and avoid the consequences.

I feel like this has been repeated several times - in what way (other than abortion) can a woman avoid the consequences that a man cannot do as well?

control point says

Bigsby says

She has a choice of carrying it to term or getting an abortion.

Bigsby says

The father should be obliged to meet part of the financial obligations.

1. Having unprotected sex, which may result in pregnancy, was a mutual decision of a man and a woman.

2. Whether or not a child conceived in that action is granted the right to live is solely the choice of the woman.

3. The man has no choice but to provide financial support to the child.

Does that sum it up?

3. He has the obligation to provide partial financial support but can also completely renege on any of the normal responsibilities of child raising.

As for 1, that is generally the case.

The only alternatives to 2 are allowing a man to force the termination of the fetus growing in another adult or making abortion illegal. I'm opposed to both of those alternatives.