patrick.net

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.

Bigsby says

It is his choice to have unprotected sex. It is also not necessarily the choice of the woman to get pregnant either.

BS.
Even if she didn't choose to get pregnant, it is still her choice only (not his choice) to have the child and not terminate the pregnancy.

You can't claim that having sex is a choice to have a child and responsibility follows from that. Otherwise the exact same rule should apply to the woman, and abortion should be forbidden.

We are going in loops. The difference of treatment is obvious. And your arguments are extremely sexist. You're essentially telling us that you see men as walking wallets to be used as the whim of a woman reproductive decisions.

ch_tah2 says

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?

She can have an abortion.
She can abandon the child at birth legally.
She can give up the child for adoption.
In all of these cases she did avoid the responsibility after conceiving a child.
And a man of course has none of these choices.

Heraclitusstudent says

And your arguments are extremely sexist.

No, they aren't, but hey, enjoy yourself tediously repeating it.

Heraclitusstudent says

You're essentially telling us that you see men as walking wallets to be used as the whim of a woman reproductive decisions.

And you appear to be saying women have to be solely responsible for both the wallet aspect and the rearing one. Shall I accuse you of being sexist?

Bigsby says

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

Does he have any paternal rights? Can he chose where that child lives, where he/she goes to school, where (if) he/she attends church, what activities he/she participates in?

Can he determine when/how much time he is allowed spend with his child? If yes to any of these, does the mother retain veto rights on any?

Bitcoins arent the future? says

Heraclitusstudent says

People having sex represents in no way an agreement to have a child.

This seems to be the mainstream line of thought. I find it painfully incorrect. It seems to me many people are in denial that sex and procreation are linked, probably just wishful thinking?

If you think having sex is by nature a decision to have a child and responsibility to support the child follows, then you should apply the same rule to the woman.

Absent that, it's a sexist rule.

control point says

Does he have any paternal rights? Can he chose where that child lives, where he/she goes to school, where (if) he/she attends church, what activities he/she participates in?

That is for the court to decide. There is such a thing as joint custody. If he doesn't want to have any involvement in physically raising the child, then why should he determine the things you listed?

Bigsby says

And you appear to be saying women have to be solely responsible for both the wallet aspect and the rearing one. Shall I accuse you of being sexist?

When you have a choice, you have the responsibility for what follows. It's no one else responsibility.

This is so obvious that I don't why this even needs to be discussed.

Heraclitusstudent says

She can abandon the child at birth legally.

She can give up the child for adoption.

In all of these cases she did avoid the responsibility after conceiving a child.

And a man of course has none of these choices.

Ok, so other than that being completely false and wrong, what else you got? By false and wrong, I mean a man can do those things just the same.

Edit:
I think your sexism is what is preventing you from realizing that a man can abandon a child at birth legally and give up the child for adoption. There is an assumption you are making for one side but not the other which is why your choices are flawed. The only option a woman has that a man doesn't have is abortion.

Bigsby says

That is for the court to decide. There is such a thing as joint custody. If he doesn't want to have any involvement in physically raising the child, then why should he determine the things you listed?

Because he is providing financial support. That is basic contract law - in exchange for this, you get that.

My basic question remains - as an example, if he has joint custody, and does not want his child to go to catholic church, is the mother in violation of the law if she takes the child to catholic church?

Heraclitusstudent says

Bigsby says

And you appear to be saying women have to be solely responsible for both the wallet aspect and the rearing one. Shall I accuse you of being sexist?

When you have a choice, you have the responsibility for what follows. It's no one else responsibility.

This is so obvious that I don't why this even needs to be discussed.

Oh, I thought that in most societies a child was considered the responsibility of BOTH the biological mother and father. What you are basically leading to is that (quite possibly in a large number of cases) it is actually society as a whole that should fit the bill for child care ahead of the biological father. I personally think that is the responsibility of both of the parents if possible. That often doesn't happen, so if the father doesn't wish to participate then some financial obligation seems an inherently obvious solution. That may not be perfectly balanced in your narrow 'non-sexist' perspective of things, but we are talking about a commitment to a child not the semantics of what actually constitutes 'equal rights' in such a situation. There are never going to be 'equal rights' when only one of the parties is carrying and giving birth to the child.

control point says

My basic question remains - as an example, if he has joint custody, and does not want his child to go to catholic church, is the mother in violation of the law if she takes the child to catholic church?

What is the point of arguing that? That is for the mother and father to work out between them. You may as well talk about the mother wanting the kid to go to football practice and the father baseball. That's not something you need to legislate for. It's called raising a child.

If the father is involved in the custody of the child, then they'll have to thrash that out. If he never sees the child and doesn't want to, then common sense suggests that the mother's wishes will prevail.

Heraclitusstudent says

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

I hear ya. However, support guidelines are about the rights of the child. The child has no say as to whether he/she is born. The child is the concern, as it should be. However, I agree with you that, in an unfortunately large number of cases, the wants of the custodial parent are flown under the flag of "the needs of the child." Given that, child support is easily used as a punitive measure against biological fathers.

For example, it is against federal law for child support orders to be self-executing. Prior to this change, support orders could say something like, "you are required to pay $1,000 per minor child until said minor child reaches majority, marries, dies, etc." So, if you had two children, you would be expected to pay $1,000/child for a total of $2,000/month. When the older child reached the age of 18, you would then pay $1,000/month for the remaining minor child. The reduction in support was self-executing.

That is not allowed any longer. Support orders written after the law required that support amounts be written as a total amount for all children. In order to reduce the amount after the first child turns 18, the obligor must petition the court. If your children are close in age, this could mean that the court wouldn't even hear your case while the issue-at-hand is still relevant. In other words, the second kid could turn 18 before you have a chance to make a change to the support amount.

Now, how ridiculous is that? This is a clear example of child support being used to punish the obligor. Either he pays more than he's supposed to, or he pays an attorney to file a petition and maybe can get before the court in time to make a difference.

Clearly, there is a lot of unfairness in the law. However, when you say that fathers should be able to opt out, you forget that the child has rights and didn't choose to be born... The state isn't going to take up the slack of fathers choosing to opt out. Tax payers are never going to say, "no worries. you didn't really want the kid. we'll pay for him/her." From a court's point of view, it's a losing argument.

IMHO, if you want to actually win and make positive changes to the law, you should instead focus on the many unfair details that make up the law. There are plenty to choose from.