Judge offers deadbeat dads choice - Page 2

ladysycamore · 06-10-2004, 06:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clodfobble
So, if we went by HIS opinion (of not wanting the baby), he gets out of paying support and if we went by HER opinion (wanting to keep the baby), he STILL gets out of paying support????

He also doesn't ever get to see his children, which is a horrifying thought to many men.

Really? I must not know those men. Seriously, I have not heard of too many men that are too broken up about not seeing their child (until it's years later when they finally decide that they are ready to be a father).

Clodfobble · 06-10-2004, 06:09 PM

Allowing the father to skip out on support if they avoid contact is punishing the child as much as the mother.

Only if the two parents can behave enough to make continued contact with both parents not a punishment for the child in and of itself. My theory is that not giving the child up for adoption is punishing the child if the parents will have eternal resentment towards each other.

Seriously, I have not heard of too many men that are too broken up about not seeing their child

Just a guess, you're talking to the women in these scenarios aren't you? I know several single mothers who genuinely believe their exes only take the kids for visitation to piss her off and torture her by having to be without them. These men love their children, and in turn think that she is doing everything she can to turn the kids against him. People in these situations notoriously don't have a damn clue what the other side's motivations are.

ladysycamore · 06-10-2004, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clodfobble
[i]
Seriously, I have not heard of too many men that are too broken up about not seeing their child

Just a guess, you're talking to the women in these scenarios aren't you?

Well, I couldn't even speak with the fathers because..they weren't around.

Quote:

I know several single mothers who genuinely believe their exes only take the kids for visitation to piss her off and torture her by having to be without them.

Ironically, I know someone who is actually going through that right now.

Quote:

These men love their children, and in turn think that she is doing everything she can to turn the kids against him. People in these situations notoriously don't have a damn clue what the other side's motivations are.

Well, the father of the child of my best friend *claims* to love his son, but everyone knows (including his own family) that he only takes the son for visitation just to spite her and keep her "in line" (in other words, keeping her from taking his ass downtown to have his wages garnished for child support). He has paid NOTHING towards this child's well being. He was supposed to pay for daycare, but couldn't do that, so the child was put out of the daycare, and left my friend in the lurch. Luckily, his sister is able to babysit. Granted, some things she brought on herself, but damn!

Troubleshooter · 06-10-2004, 07:41 PM

One point to consider is that all of these out of wedlock children are being born regardless of the consequesnces.

How many of them are really prevented by those consequenses?

Looking at the deadbeat dad list, I'd say not many.

Clodfobble · 06-10-2004, 07:50 PM

he only takes the son for visitation just to spite her and keep her "in line" (in other words, keeping her from taking his ass downtown to have his wages garnished for child support).

That makes no sense. She allows him to see his child, and therefore she feels obligated not to take him to court to get child support payments? Either way, you make a great case that this child is not in a good situation, and probably would have been better off in an adoptive environment.

Lady Sidhe · 06-10-2004, 07:54 PM

"So why should the woman be the only one who has to take responsibility?"

"Because she does not HAVE to take responsibility. She CHOOSES not to give the child up for adoption."

I think that what we hahv hyah....is a fail-yah to communicate...lol

What I meant was that people seem to have the concept that babies are disposable. Giving your child up for adoption is, from the point of view of nature, unnatural (the cuckoo notwithstanding). It is natural to keep the child. Therefore, she does not really choose NOT to give the child up, but to GIVE it up.

What I'm saying is that the men are just as responsible for the creation of the child as the woman is. She should not be required to give the child up merely because the man decides he doesn't want to help contribute to the child's upkeep, ie, take responsibility for his actions.

No offense to any of the men here, but men tend to sow their wild oats without care that they may be leaving behind a string of progeny. Allowing them to not pay child support will only encourage such irresponsible behavior on the part of the men, just as paying a lifetime welfare mother more for every child she has encourages her to have litters..

And having said that, I also think that it should be fairer. I've searched the web, and I can't find ANY rights for men who pay child support. They have NONE. It's pathetic. I think that if the man must pay child support, then the woman should have to contribute equally as well.

Sidhe

Clodfobble · 06-10-2004, 08:23 PM

just as paying a lifetime welfare mother more for every child she has encourages her to have litters..

So disregarding for a moment where the money comes from, why does money in the form of a child support check not introduce the same impure motivations for having the child?

Giving your child up for adoption is, from the point of view of nature, unnatural (the cuckoo notwithstanding).

By that token so is birth control. Nature wants us to have a baby once a year or so from the age of 12 to the age of 45. As an intelligent, reasoning species, we are capable of determining that that isn't the best thing for people's happiness and short-term survival. Giving a child up for adoption isn't "disposing" of it, it's allowing that child to be raised in a loving two-parent environment where it will be completely wanted and never fought over--these are two people begging to be responsible for the creation of the child. There are millions of these couples. There is no way that a single mother forcing her ex to give her money can come close to equaling that.

If a woman is not capable of caring for a child on her own, then I don't believe she'll be able to care for it adequately just because she's receiving an extra couple hundred dollars a month. Meanwhile, she'll be interacting with a man she hates on a weekly basis, who likely hates her as well, and that mutual resentment will be obvious to the child and he/she will suffer because of it.

Forced child support encourages the "single mother pride," which discourages adoption, and also makes a bad situation between the parents worse, which hurts the child. I still maintain that despite the difficulty of the decision for these mothers, these children would be better off being adopted.

ladysycamore · 06-10-2004, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clodfobble
he only takes the son for visitation just to spite her and keep her "in line" (in other words, keeping her from taking his ass downtown to have his wages garnished for child support).

That makes no sense. She allows him to see his child, and therefore she feels obligated not to take him to court to get child support payments? Either way, you make a great case that this child is not in a good situation, and probably would have been better off in an adoptive environment.

Yes she allows him to see the son, because if she didn't, he'd try to sue for custody, and not because he LOVES the boy so much either (again, he's very spiteful). As far as her not feeling obligated to take him to court...well it's not that, it's just that she hasn't. I have no idea why. She tends to be all smoke and no fire, if you get my drift. She'll say that she's going to do whatever, and doesn't do it.

And yes, this child would have been better off in a more stable relationship/home.

Lady Sidhe · 06-10-2004, 08:53 PM

"So disregarding for a moment where the money comes from, why does money in the form of a child support check not introduce the same impure motivations for having the child?"

You hardly make as much money from child support as you do from welfare.

"By that token so is birth control. Nature wants us to have a baby once a year or so from the age of 12 to the age of 45. As an intelligent, reasoning species, we are capable of determining that that isn't the best thing for people's happiness and short-term survival. Giving a child up for adoption isn't "disposing" of it, it's allowing that child to be raised in a loving two-parent environment "

"If a woman is not capable of caring for a child on her own, then I don't believe she'll be able to care for it adequately just because she's receiving an extra couple hundred dollars a month. Meanwhile, she'll be interacting with a man she hates on a weekly basis, who likely hates her as well, and that mutual resentment will be obvious to the child and he/she will suffer because of it."

Yes, but when the species becomes too plentiful, the animals have ways of not breeding.

And you'd be amazed at how much a couple of hundred dollars a month can help.

The point I'm trying to make here is that of responsibility. A man should not be able to duck his responsibility just because he doesn't want the kid and the mother decides to keep it.

Sidhe

Clodfobble · 06-10-2004, 09:38 PM

The point I'm trying to make here is that of responsibility. A man should not be able to duck his responsibility just because he doesn't want the kid and the mother decides to keep it.

It all comes down to what you define as responsibility. Everybody's responsible for trying to have the best outcome for the child. I believe giving the child up for adoption is responsible, and forced money exchange in an already unstable household is not, because the latter will not lead to a better life for the child.

Personally, I wouldn't consider that the father had lived up to his responsibility in the fullest unless he and the mother could be civil and he was a very active part of the child's life, in which case no child support would be warranted because the child would be spending as much time with the father as he would with the mother. (In the case that equally split time didn't happen, as an active parent I would expect him to help support the child monetarily--preferably by directly paying the daycare agency or in grocery store gift cards or something, but that's not always feasible. But I digress...) HOWEVER, if the father wanted nothing to do with the child, then his responsibility is to give the child up for adoption. If the woman refuses, that's her prerogative, but then she can't complain that he got her into this mess, and she shouldn't expect him to support the child any more than a stranger on the street should: he is in effect no longer that child's parent. If the woman can support the child by herself, great. If not, it is also her responsibility to give the child up for adoption.

A woman should not be able to duck HER responsibility just because she wants the kid but she can't afford to raise it.

Lady Sidhe · 06-11-2004, 06:35 AM

I still disagree. All of your scenarios are aimed at getting a person out of taking care of a child they helped to create, merely because they've decided that they want nothing to do with it. Doesn't matter if he wants it or not. That isn't the point.

The point is, one got oneself into a situation, and therefore one must take responsibility for that situation in the event that it doesn't turn out like one planned.

Besides, there doesn't have to be any contact between the mother of the child and the father of the child. That's what the USPS is for--or garnishments.

Sidhe

DanaC · 06-11-2004, 11:11 AM

I have to agree with Lady Sidhe on this one

Clodfobble · 06-11-2004, 11:17 AM

Yes, well, color me shocked.

ladysycamore · 06-11-2004, 12:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Clodfobble
HOWEVER, if the father wanted nothing to do with the child, then his responsibility is to give the child up for adoption. If the woman refuses, that's her prerogative, but then she can't complain that he got her into this mess, and she shouldn't expect him to support the child any more than a stranger on the street should: he is in effect no longer that child's parent.

Exactly. Therefore, he should not have the gall to show up years later expecting to be instant daddy.

I think this is how my friend should handle her situation...the father isn't really doing jack fuck shit for that kid anyway.

Clodfobble · 06-11-2004, 03:51 PM

Therefore, he should not have the gall to show up years later expecting to be instant daddy.

I totally agree. By definition, we shouldn't want people who "aren't ready to be a parent" to be parents in the first place. We should take their reluctance as a clear sign, and in fact work to keep them from being parents.

I think this is how my friend should handle her situation...the father isn't really doing jack fuck shit for that kid anyway.

See, but here's the question: what is your friend doing that's so great for the kid? People get so focused on how the father had better pay up that they lose sight of the overall picture: whether the kid is getting adequate care in the first place. From what it sounds like, she's letting the father take the kid off unsupervised. If he really is as awful as you seem to think he is, she's being irresponsible by letting him be alone with the child, threat of a custody battle or not.

This is my whole point--money from the father is irrelevant if the child is in an inadequate home to begin with. These women need to be educated about adoption and encouraged to do it, instead of having family members admonish them "you don't give up blood" and spending all their time bitching about how the father's not doing anything. If the mother were doing a good job it wouldn't matter what the father were doing.

06-10-2004, 07:41 PM	#4
Troubleshooter The urban Jane Goodall Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 3,012	One point to consider is that all of these out of wedlock children are being born regardless of the consequesnces. How many of them are really prevented by those consequenses? Looking at the deadbeat dad list, I'd say not many. __________________ I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle

06-10-2004, 07:54 PM	#6
Lady Sidhe That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.... Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Hammond, La. Posts: 978	"So why should the woman be the only one who has to take responsibility?" "Because she does not HAVE to take responsibility. She CHOOSES not to give the child up for adoption." I think that what we hahv hyah....is a fail-yah to communicate...lol What I meant was that people seem to have the concept that babies are disposable. Giving your child up for adoption is, from the point of view of nature, unnatural (the cuckoo notwithstanding). It is natural to keep the child. Therefore, she does not really choose NOT to give the child up, but to GIVE it up. What I'm saying is that the men are just as responsible for the creation of the child as the woman is. She should not be required to give the child up merely because the man decides he doesn't want to help contribute to the child's upkeep, ie, take responsibility for his actions. No offense to any of the men here, but men tend to sow their wild oats without care that they may be leaving behind a string of progeny. Allowing them to not pay child support will only encourage such irresponsible behavior on the part of the men, just as paying a lifetime welfare mother more for every child she has encourages her to have litters.. And having said that, I also think that it should be fairer. I've searched the web, and I can't find ANY rights for men who pay child support. They have NONE. It's pathetic. I think that if the man must pay child support, then the woman should have to contribute equally as well. Sidhe __________________ My free will...I never leave home without it. --House Someday I want to be rich. Some people get so rich they lose all respect for humanity. That's how rich I want to be. -Rita Rudner

06-10-2004, 08:53 PM	#9
Lady Sidhe That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.... Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Hammond, La. Posts: 978	"So disregarding for a moment where the money comes from, why does money in the form of a child support check not introduce the same impure motivations for having the child?" You hardly make as much money from child support as you do from welfare. "By that token so is birth control. Nature wants us to have a baby once a year or so from the age of 12 to the age of 45. As an intelligent, reasoning species, we are capable of determining that that isn't the best thing for people's happiness and short-term survival. Giving a child up for adoption isn't "disposing" of it, it's allowing that child to be raised in a loving two-parent environment " "If a woman is not capable of caring for a child on her own, then I don't believe she'll be able to care for it adequately just because she's receiving an extra couple hundred dollars a month. Meanwhile, she'll be interacting with a man she hates on a weekly basis, who likely hates her as well, and that mutual resentment will be obvious to the child and he/she will suffer because of it." Yes, but when the species becomes too plentiful, the animals have ways of not breeding. And you'd be amazed at how much a couple of hundred dollars a month can help. The point I'm trying to make here is that of responsibility. A man should not be able to duck his responsibility just because he doesn't want the kid and the mother decides to keep it. Sidhe __________________ My free will...I never leave home without it. --House Someday I want to be rich. Some people get so rich they lose all respect for humanity. That's how rich I want to be. -Rita Rudner

06-11-2004, 06:35 AM	#11
Lady Sidhe That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.... Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Hammond, La. Posts: 978	I still disagree. All of your scenarios are aimed at getting a person out of taking care of a child they helped to create, merely because they've decided that they want nothing to do with it. Doesn't matter if he wants it or not. That isn't the point. The point is, one got oneself into a situation, and therefore one must take responsibility for that situation in the event that it doesn't turn out like one planned. Besides, there doesn't have to be any contact between the mother of the child and the father of the child. That's what the USPS is for--or garnishments. Sidhe __________________ My free will...I never leave home without it. --House Someday I want to be rich. Some people get so rich they lose all respect for humanity. That's how rich I want to be. -Rita Rudner

06-10-2004, 06:09 PM	#2
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	Allowing the father to skip out on support if they avoid contact is punishing the child as much as the mother. Only if the two parents can behave enough to make continued contact with both parents not a punishment for the child in and of itself. My theory is that not giving the child up for adoption is punishing the child if the parents will have eternal resentment towards each other. Seriously, I have not heard of too many men that are too broken up about not seeing their child Just a guess, you're talking to the women in these scenarios aren't you? I know several single mothers who genuinely believe their exes only take the kids for visitation to piss her off and torture her by having to be without them. These men love their children, and in turn think that she is doing everything she can to turn the kids against him. People in these situations notoriously don't have a damn clue what the other side's motivations are.

06-10-2004, 07:50 PM	#5
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	he only takes the son for visitation just to spite her and keep her "in line" (in other words, keeping her from taking his ass downtown to have his wages garnished for child support). That makes no sense. She allows him to see his child, and therefore she feels obligated not to take him to court to get child support payments? Either way, you make a great case that this child is not in a good situation, and probably would have been better off in an adoptive environment.

06-10-2004, 08:23 PM	#7
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	just as paying a lifetime welfare mother more for every child she has encourages her to have litters.. So disregarding for a moment where the money comes from, why does money in the form of a child support check not introduce the same impure motivations for having the child? Giving your child up for adoption is, from the point of view of nature, unnatural (the cuckoo notwithstanding). By that token so is birth control. Nature wants us to have a baby once a year or so from the age of 12 to the age of 45. As an intelligent, reasoning species, we are capable of determining that that isn't the best thing for people's happiness and short-term survival. Giving a child up for adoption isn't "disposing" of it, it's allowing that child to be raised in a loving two-parent environment where it will be completely wanted and never fought over--these are two people begging to be responsible for the creation of the child. There are millions of these couples. There is no way that a single mother forcing her ex to give her money can come close to equaling that. If a woman is not capable of caring for a child on her own, then I don't believe she'll be able to care for it adequately just because she's receiving an extra couple hundred dollars a month. Meanwhile, she'll be interacting with a man she hates on a weekly basis, who likely hates her as well, and that mutual resentment will be obvious to the child and he/she will suffer because of it. Forced child support encourages the "single mother pride," which discourages adoption, and also makes a bad situation between the parents worse, which hurts the child. I still maintain that despite the difficulty of the decision for these mothers, these children would be better off being adopted.

06-10-2004, 09:38 PM	#10
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	The point I'm trying to make here is that of responsibility. A man should not be able to duck his responsibility just because he doesn't want the kid and the mother decides to keep it. It all comes down to what you define as responsibility. Everybody's responsible for trying to have the best outcome for the child. I believe giving the child up for adoption is responsible, and forced money exchange in an already unstable household is not, because the latter will not lead to a better life for the child. Personally, I wouldn't consider that the father had lived up to his responsibility in the fullest unless he and the mother could be civil and he was a very active part of the child's life, in which case no child support would be warranted because the child would be spending as much time with the father as he would with the mother. (In the case that equally split time didn't happen, as an active parent I would expect him to help support the child monetarily--preferably by directly paying the daycare agency or in grocery store gift cards or something, but that's not always feasible. But I digress...) HOWEVER, if the father wanted nothing to do with the child, then his responsibility is to give the child up for adoption. If the woman refuses, that's her prerogative, but then she can't complain that he got her into this mess, and she shouldn't expect him to support the child any more than a stranger on the street should: he is in effect no longer that child's parent. If the woman can support the child by herself, great. If not, it is also her responsibility to give the child up for adoption. A woman should not be able to duck HER responsibility just because she wants the kid but she can't afford to raise it.

06-11-2004, 11:11 AM	#12
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	I have to agree with Lady Sidhe on this one

06-11-2004, 11:17 AM	#13
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	Yes, well, color me shocked.

06-11-2004, 03:51 PM	#15
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	Therefore, he should not have the gall to show up years later expecting to be instant daddy. I totally agree. By definition, we shouldn't want people who "aren't ready to be a parent" to be parents in the first place. We should take their reluctance as a clear sign, and in fact work to keep them from being parents. I think this is how my friend should handle her situation...the father isn't really doing jack fuck shit for that kid anyway. See, but here's the question: what is your friend doing that's so great for the kid? People get so focused on how the father had better pay up that they lose sight of the overall picture: whether the kid is getting adequate care in the first place. From what it sounds like, she's letting the father take the kid off unsupervised. If he really is as awful as you seem to think he is, she's being irresponsible by letting him be alone with the child, threat of a custody battle or not. This is my whole point--money from the father is irrelevant if the child is in an inadequate home to begin with. These women need to be educated about adoption and encouraged to do it, instead of having family members admonish them "you don't give up blood" and spending all their time bitching about how the father's not doing anything. If the mother were doing a good job it wouldn't matter what the father were doing.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)