Child support should not exist. Tax payers should not pay for other people's kids. Split the time between the parents. When the kid is with you, do the best you can to take care of them.
Yes. Help reduce his payment.
Opinion
23Opinion
Understand that the government isn't interested in what is fair, right, or reasonable. The state makes a ton of money from child support payments, so instead of doing what is best for the child (much less the parents), the state is focused on how much they can get by imposing as much child support as they can on (in nearly all cases) the man.
The state makes reductions in support almost impossible - they don't want a pay cut, even if the mother is fine with it - and the state certainly doesn't intend to pay out as long as they have a man they can go after.
They're perfectly happy to take everything a man has, and throw him in prison, in order to get their money.
This is why I think guys are insane for having children with some random girl or some chick you bang but would never commit to. The government will destroy you.
u The child support payment should be calculated on the amout the guy is capable of earning. If there is a temporary interruption which is not his fault, the law in my state does provide for temporary relief, but the government (that is, taxpayers) should not be required to support your baby because you are a bad financial manager.
The problem here is you suggested tax payers cover it, that is not a good thing.
The child support system has a lot of problems and need to be majorly revamped. This is written not as if it is a man but the person paying, which usually is the man but can be the woman.
However I do support cutting it down if he can't afford it, cause anyone that knows details of how the system actually works, knows that to get it reduced you have to hire an attorney, go to court and get it cut down.
If you only have a net pay check of $12 dollars a pay period cause they are taking too much cause you switched jobs, good luck hiring an attorney and in the meantime they keep getting further and further behind.
If the person paying support is making a certain amount but decides to change fields/careers and the next job pays less, the court won't let them reduce it because they view that as trying to avoid paying support. The system wants to force them into staying at a dead end job that they may hate or has no future.
If they get fired, same result... cause they did something to get fired, the only 'acceptable' reason is if they get laid off through no fault of their own. Then it can be reduced.
My state, if a man and woman is married and the woman cheats and gets pregnant the husband is automatically put on the birth certificate of the baby and if he divorces her due to her cheating, now has to pay child support for a kid that isn't his... even if the birth father wants to be part of the Childs life he is cut out too. This can be changed but it is tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and years of going to court.
The state goes after people who are behind aggressively, no bankruptcy no nothing but don't pay can get thrown in jail. Mothers who deny visitation and get contempt of court never get thrown in jail for it, but a man behind on child support will.
In one case a man found out his kid wasn't his two months after he turned 18 and spent 40k going to court and finally won to get his name off the birth certificate and the mother was ordered to pay all those legal fees, the 40k and 120k or so in child support, due to him defrauding him. First thing she did was file bankruptcy on it, since it was a civil matter.
These are all example so why the system needs to be majorly revamped... and why I support Row Vs. wade for me, the concept of not forcing a man to raise a child he is not interested in. As I have seen first hand when a father who wants nothing to do with a child, takes them for visitation, then ignores them, damages them mentally... telling the mother, let me sign over my rights so I don't have to pay support and I'll stop taking the child.
That is not in the best interest of the child to be used as a pawn like that.
So yeah if a man doesn't want anything to do with his kid, don't make him. If I was ever a single mother, I sure as hell wouldn't even tell the father if he told me before hand he wanted nothing to do with any children and didn't want them, I'd be fine without him.
Where I’m from the parent who doesn’t have their child living with them 50% of the time will have to pay child support to the other parent. The parents are encouraged to decide on an amount themselves but if they can’t agree then there is a minimum standard amount for everyone set by the government.
If the parent who’s supposed to pay doesn’t pay or can’t pay at least the minimum amount, for whatever reason, then the government pays it directly to the parent who’s entitled to child support and sends a bill to the parent who have to pay the child support. If they have no or a low income they can apply to have the bills reduced temporarily but then the rest, that they can’t pay now, builds up as debt to the government.
So no matter what, the parent who the child lives with the most will get the child support one way or the other - either directly from the other parent or from the government, and the parent responsible for paying will have to pay one way or the other - directly to the other parent or to the government (either now or in the future). I think this is a good system.
These payments are actually supposed to be made to the child (ren), so just letting him avoid them via agreement with the mother isn't realistic (nor would mothers agree to them).
But there should be some reforms. First of all, throwing a father in jail for being unable to make payments is counterproductive and hurts the child (ren) as well. It's not possible to earn money and pay back child support while jailed and he now has a criminal record which will make getting a job very difficult, plus he isn't able to see his child (ren). And there are a number of valid reasons why a man can't afford child support, such as medical problems or a bad economy. Or maybe paternity fraud has occurred.
It's better to have the government make the payments so that they flow uninterrupted to the child (ren) and then recoup them from the father That said, there would need to be safeguards to prevent abuse.
Let’s start from the beginning. DNA tests should be mandatory. No man should ever have to pay for a kid that’s not his. If he is the father, he should have options for opting out of parenthood just like women do. If he is the father, and he wants to help raise the kid, he should have all the same rights as the mother, not just responsibilities. In this perfect, imaginary society, parents who are struggling to care for their kids would move to the front of the line for free or reduced cost job training, higher education and childcare while they’re learning. NOBODY would be put in jail for underpayment of child support. The welfare system absolutely should be tiered and progressive to motivate families to get off the system permanently as quickly as possible. And anyone who ends up in the system more than once should face mandatory sterilization.
No way. Two reasons.
If we are irresponsible enough to get a woman pregnant and make her life infinitely harder and completely wreck her financial situation, it is not fair that you get a break because you have issues doing the bare minimum; paying her some money every month.
Two, it's also about responsibility. If you cannot afford to pay child support, and don't want to care for a child with her, keep your pants on and don't have sex. It takes two to tango and you can't push all responsibility onto her for having sex with you, when you are the only reason she has had a kid in the first place.
Child support is not for the woman that you knocked up. It's for that child that you helped bring into the world. It's the cost that clothe child sending to the doctor feed child. To put a roof on their head. I had a brother-in-law that was a lazy ass hole who deserted his wife his children. He took employment and cash only. Social security could not catch up with him. He tucked himself in the mountains of Idaho. He basically lived off the land. So man up take responsibility.
The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be "deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law." If the government takes my property, they should compensate me for it. If they want to take my child and give it to a female, then they can PAY ME, bitches.
Remember, we are the government.
So what ever comes from the government comes out of your pocket and my pocket.
Go get another job or two, they are plentiful and many are very flexible with their schedules.
To be fair, it's your problem - not the states problem.
But you should get a better lawyer if you want to come off the problem a little.
Responsibilities don't give a shit how much you're struggling.
No he still has to care for his child. If he had full custody and was still with the mother. They would have to figure out a way to afford taking care of the child anyways.
Clearly, two thirds of this community haven't seen the Bradley amendment in action. The way the system's set up is nothing short of criminal.
I'd first want to see how much it is. If they have joint custody then I'd abolish it altogether.
Why don't they share equal custody and the baby mamma's get a job instead of being a deadbeat mom?
u I don't like the idea of enabling irresponsibility
the fact that he is struggling financially doesn't negated that he has a child that he needs to take care of.
Another taxpayer funded bailout? And who gets to decide who qualifies?
Having the "government pay" means the taxpayers get stuck with the bill. Haven't the productive been fleeced enough?
I support the idea of women not getting pregnant by losers.
You can also add your opinion below!
Most Helpful Opinions