Weather it's a father or mother . I think for what ever reason they might have for not paying or being in there kids life can be talked about. And if you can come to terms with everything for all the right reason the child need both parent s. But.. if the none paying parent is just being a dick about it and never follows through with what they say there going to do it's court time.
I think all kids should have there parents in there lives. Not unless something is not right with that parent .
. But let's say the dad It's not going to be a child support because he does not like giving his ex wife money because he's a dick And he thinks the money that he gives her. She's going to take and spend on herself. ..
She's buying food and clothes It has a rough over the kid's head She has that right to do whenever she wants with the money But there are guys out there that think that way abd it's wrong. And there are women that think that way
And the thing is it's the kids that suffer from this. So I say yes and no It just all depends on the situation.
Kids don’t need fathers who can’t even provide them.
Don’t provide it means don’t care.
@ohsheeT Thank you for reminding me (and everyone else) that neglectful mothers exist just as neglectful fathers do.
As a woman, it's easy for me to forget this because of and when I have a baby I know I'll devote myself absolutely to my child.
I enjoy childcare and helping others and abandoning my own child is unthinkable to me
Nope, and same goes for women. A parent shouldn't see their kid if they do not. I see it equal to being abusive.
The only time I agree with not paying for child support is if the father made it clear he didn't want the kid in the first place before it was even born.
If protection failed that's not his fault and her not wanting an abortion is not his fault so why does he have now the burden of a kid to pay? Anyway that's not what your question was on about but just to give my overall idea of how it should work.
The kid’s needs should be paid 50:50 by each parent if the parents are separated, it doesn’t matter if one of them earns more or less. If a kid needs 1k a month, it means the dad should give them 500/month and same with mom.
Don't see how that's relevant to what I said. But I'll go with it, no that logic don't really work.
Let's say the dad is on jobseeking allowance, and the mother is a millionare.
Unlikey but in this example it would be utterly ridiculous to think the dad should be paying 50%.
If anything you would hope the mother is understanding and nice enough to give the father money but to spend on activities or presents for his kid.
So the dad don't become the one who seems to not care though he does.
Don’t have kids if you are financially unstable, poor people shouldn’t have kids. Kids are expensive
That heavily depends on a number of factors:
1. Were the couple actually, legally married at any point? You can have children without being married
2. If they were married, in the divorce process, was custody split or was one parent given primary custody? If the latter, what requirements were set in place for visitations by the other parent?
3. Does the wife make more money than the husband, thereby disqualifying him from making child support payments?
4. Do they live and work in the same general region of the world?
5. Does the kid even want to see both parents?
6. Do the parents respect the wishes of their child if it goes against the legal custody arrangement?
7. Did the father forfeit his legal parental rights?
There’s a lot of questions I need answers to before I can answer the original one you asked.
If both parents make similar among of money. No one should need to pay. Both parents continue to raise the child in two separated homes.
when the child sees the father, the father does have to spend money on the child. And vice versa.
In terms of healthcare, depends who has the better healthy care for the child… then take turn … these should be agreed upon…
but hey… if people are so kind and logical… there wouldn’t be so many messed up kids/child adults out there running around lost. Because most people are mean and use their kid as a tool to hurt the other parent.
Even if the mom makes more the dad still have responsibility to pay the kid needs 50:50.
?
Mom makes more. Dad pays to be 50/50?
I am not good in math but this is not making sense.
I know it seems you are. Dad has to pay 50:50 with mom because they are the kids parents and have the same responsibility as mom.
Being father is not just to share the seeds, but responsibility. If you just share seeds and DNA and don’t pay the kids needs or provide them even some animal like Penguin are better than you.
In my case, ex hubby and I make roughly 60/40… him making 60…
Share time? He insisted share… but his mom did more of the babysitting…
I learned from the court system how screwed up this is… I decided to not part take… and do what’s best for our kids…
Ex is a good guy since I picked him… no one is perfect…
But i do have most of the same schedule as kids since I am a school teacher…..
at the end… when the mom is doing the best for the children and work with the dad… the kids will see that they are still loved…
It’s been 10 years and both moved on … kids see positive with this arrangement… 2 homes, 2 dads and 2 moms.
I hope us humans can do better for our future generations vs… fighting over things and raising awful kids due to their own “mistakes”
Child support? A system to fail all of US!! Especially to kids.
Women!! Pick a good man to have kids.
And be self sufficient!
Opinion
29Opinion
based on my story, I’d say that, a father isn't just someone who shares dna , it's about being there, providing, and making a child feel safe and loved. if a man chooses to step away, never supporting, never showing up in the ways that truly matter—then the child doesn’t owe him a place in their life just because of blood. a real bond is built on presence, effort, and love, not just biology
Exactly, some people think they are the parents just because they leave their seeds on woman.
I think the child has the right to know their parents. Both of them.
Child support should be paid retrospectively - 50% of expenses covered by receipts for items the child needs. It's not there to support the other parent's lifestyle. It's for the child.
Unless there is evidence of abuse which would result in a court finding the man guilty then custody should be 50:50 all the time.
Real Men WANT a relationship with their kids to the point they put up with the shit the deadbeat mothers that weaponise the time they get with their kids rather than lose the kid.
And remember 80% of divorce cases are initiated by the woman, not the husband.
Absolutely! But that also depends on if he's a good guy or not. And if he actually loves the child. If he's not a good guy and you can't trust him with the child absolutely no way. But my ex-husband is a great guy. He loved our boys. But there was no way in hell he was giving me child support. And for 20 years I only received what he thought I should have. As if it was a gift. Always felt like I was begging him for help. And I hated feeling that way. But taking a Fall away out of a child's life is just not always the right answer. Children grow up and they see their parents for who they truly are and they make their own opinions.
I'm not sure. it really depends on how much the child already knows about his biological father. If they've never met and the child believes any adult man he sees on the street could be his father, then yes, deny the biological father contact.
If he's shown he cannot be responsible for his child financially, that shows he's not a good role model for his son.
He should be ordered to have no contact and face civil and/or criminal penalties if he violates.
On the other hand, if the child has already developed a relationship with his biological father that's a different matter, especially it the child's own wishes are to have contact with the man who donated the seed that grew him in your womb.
You are either a father or not. There is no such thing as a part-time dad.
Yes, that should be given a chance to get their life together and pay what is owed, but once that time runs out, sorry, but they should be cut off 100%.
it's a kid's right to see and spend time with both parents... and this right shouldn't depend on paying child support...
It’s child's right to be supported and provided by the father. If you don’t even care about the kids healthcare, nutrition, and education cost which will support the kids future. Why would you even think that you are still a parent? 🤔
emotional support is not less important than financial
as there are no details why the father is not paying... and I personally know situations when father was jobless, so couldn't provide money, but was going to watch every kid's game, every theater play, every singing contest, he was helping with homework and school projects... do you think the kid hated it? that it didn't have emotional value for this kid, that father gave them positive attention, built positive self-esteem and helped when needed?
I know fathers who didn't trust their exes, so didn't give money... they were paying bills delivered by their ex, buying clothes, books, paying tuition... and to do it, they needed to be active in their kids lives... so they knew what is needed... do you think those kids hated that?
both parents positive attention is needed for proper mental development of their kids... and kids' right to have full contact with both parents shouldn't depend on parent financial situation but on their involvement and effort they do with contacts with their kids...
Emotional support is important, but financial support also important.
You can’t pay kids education cost and college with only emotional support. Kids are expensive.
of course, but not paying doesn't mean the kid doesn't deserve the father in their life... you know... it's not some way of punishing father by taking him away from the kid's life... those things aren't connected... even if father doesn't pay, still can offer mental integrity for the kid and it's priceless
People who can’t afford kid’s needs don’t deserve the kids. Poor people shouldn’t have kids
if mother chose poorly a father for her kid she must face the consequences... the kid deserves father in their life... and nothing will change it... kid's needs are more important than any adults disagreements
Depends on the situation.. Like if the mother is making more money, or if she won't let him see his child.. It could be more complicated.. Plus, the support usually just goes to the mother.. But I do think that a loving father would at least try and support his kid in anyway..
This is a terrible question! Nobody should have the right to deny the child of having contact with either of the parents!
Personally I think people who are using the child as a tool to win a divorce should be punished with jail time.
Good parents never use the child as leverage. It's selfish and criminal of you don't put your child in the first place.
Many woman believe they have the right the deny the father from seeing his children and it's a selfish criminal act
That’s a tough call, but I would have to say no. The current law I think doesn’t agree though.
If a mother can't provide for her child, then she shouldn't have one. Stop demonizing men to justify legal kidnapping.
Even though the mom can fully provide the kid, the dad still has responsibility to provide the kid, because he is the father. Or just say he is not, because he can’t provide the kid. It’s the same like you said, if a dad can’t provide the kid, he shouldn’t have one. So just say you don’t have one, if you can’t provide them. Snd don’t need to meet them because you have no kid.
You don't any sense at all and you're just using this platform to demonize men, so i'm not even going to argue with you. You know damn well she walks out and takes the child and holds it for ransom money. Yeah? Also, a kid is a baby goat, whereas a baby human is called a child.
I appreciate your dumb opinion 😉
Meh, you know I'm right. Why not leave the child with their father? Because there's no money in it.
No one leave the children with the father, read properly the question, if your brain still work.
Bye i don’t debate with dumb people 🥱
@Star_Namer why didn’t you just ask your own question if you really curious about it?
They are separate issues. Visitation is for the benefit of both the parent and child. Someone who refuses to pay support is subject to other sanctions. If they have regular employment, then support is usually withheld by their employer.
m they shouldn't even call themselves fathers but, oh well...
It is his child just as much as it's hers. I do think a guy that doesn't support his children is a scumbag lowlife.
Nope. Lost all fatherly priveleges when he decided to not support the child.
It should automatically be 50/50 custody. Anything else and the woman is abusive.
I think it's entirely up to the woman. Paying for anything for a woman should be considered a privilege in and of itself, and the more bills she lets me pay, the better.
Yes. It’s just as much his kid as it is hers. What about all the women who abuse child support, and use it for themselves? Don’t see you having anything to say about that, huh? Interesting 🤔 Dishing out money to another person whom you are no longer with is not what defines whether or not you’re a good parent.
Yes.
Do you think a woman without an income is best suited to be the primary care giver of a child after a divorce?
yeah they have the right to contact them
custody is something else entirely different tho
I wish that was the sanction that too many men fear instead of welcomed. Yes. No $upport? No vi$itation!
If you wanted more than anything else in the world to see your dad for a few hours and your mom said no because she didn't get several hundred dollars deposited into her account would you care?
Yes, you are right. This could be done but in this case the kid can't see the dad neither and influence him to pay again. Or show his/her anger towards him. A kid won't fight by lawyer.
I really don't think he has the right to see the child but when I see those cases I always wonder if the girl or the woman didn't have a chance to date this man and realize that he was such a horrible person to begin with
That's for the judge to decide. Everybody has their own interpretation of the law, and in cases of child custody it can get ugly.
It is the child or children right to see their father.
Except if he abused them sexually or violence.
Also goes for age of child too. Teenagers will see him weather the mother likes it or not
If he is the legal father, yes, unless the courts preclude it.
Yes, they do, especially if the woman initiated the divorce, which is usually the case.
If it's the opposite way, do you think that the mother have the right to see her kids?
They do, but, it should be regulated. Something republicans hate, but, needs to happen
Divorces are complicated, I don't judge as an outsider.
I think it depends on how much money each individual makes and how much time each one has with the child/children, ie; visitation.
Absolutely not
No unless he has no money then yes
Agreed
No...
I pay 60%. I get the authority right?
It depends on their financial situation
I don't think so
No I don’t
nooo
You can also add your opinion below!
Holidays 
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
