Do you think that child support should be abolished?

Question

akihon · Accepted Answer

Well there are a few points to this.

Firstly I find it infinitely amusing how many women say it's for the child and it's to protect the child, why is they are only so concerned about the well being of the child after the child has actually been born, if they are that concerned then why first off are the so willing to sleep with men they don't know that we'll and so willing to do it without effective contraception, of course women cannot be held accountable for their actions is why.

Another thing that bothers me is this, the number of people who have said it's for the benefit of the child but not one response or opinion have I yet seen that states it should be accountable to either the parent paying the support or the courts, how many for example pay over 500 per month and there isn't any record of where that money goes.

I personally then think this, if a woman gets pregnant and she names the father then first that father should be entitled to have a DNA test done to confirm he is the father, second if the mother wants to keep the child then she must involve the father early on so that he can decide if he's willing to actually be the father and if the parents aren't together then as much as the mother holds the right to terminate or adopt without any input of the father, this of course allows for those women who use the child as a weapon against the father, then the father should have the legal options to opt out, now of course if that happens then he loses any parental rights and responsibilities for the child.

I also think this would equalise things such that the mother would then lose the ability to weaponise the child against the father.

I also think that given there are enough green campaigners complaining about over population, that benefits related to children should stop outright, along with that a large information campaign launched by government to state that getting pregnant does not qualify for benefits. This would force girls to become more accountably for their actions and actually make them maybe think twice and instead keep their legs closed until they know the man better and know whether or not they actually want to start a family.

jgokgotit · Accepted Answer

Not abolished, but it does need some major changes. As child support stands right now, it is too easy for the custodial parent (most cases mother) to misuse it. I've seen women use it to get nails done, go to spas and other nonsense other than for the child. There is no way for the father to prove this misuse and no means to prevent the mother from misusing it. We just have to trust and hope she does the right thing with the money. This needs to change. Child support payments should go into an account that is monitored by the family court. The court needs to establish a list of things the funds can be used for and maybe even what places it can be allowed at. To use those funds anywhere else without court approval could be punishable by the mother losing custody, lose the child support or even get locked up for fraud. Also, the penalties surrounding child support need to be altered so that the father who shows good faith but has difficulty maintaining the payments does not go to jail or lose their ability to get a passport, especially with this new real ID law going into effect. If the father falls behind on payments, he should prove that he is struggling to survive. If he proves this then he should not be locked up or condemned for it. However, if he is just shirking payments he should pay the consequences as is. Finally, the courts need to give some power to the noncustodial parent so the mother cannot keep the father from seeing their child. Visitation rights do not get enforced enough and it is too much hassle to go to court everytime baby mama is pissed and wants to hold the child ransom.

MissGeorgia · Accepted Answer

You don't think both parents should to contribute to their child's security? Really? Is that how you would behave?

My ex partner and I have a little boy, and at first I thought that i was never going to take any money from him. It was a moral thing, it was a pride thing... and i guess in some respects, I thought that as long as I wasn't taking money from my ex, he didn't have anything over me. I wanted things on my terms. That was part of it.
Then I started to think that we may not be in dire need of that money, but why was I stopping my son from getting that little bit more than he needed. That little bit of extra security. I haven't asked for it, but i wish i had approached things differently from the start. I wasn't looking at it in the right way.

I have always believed that if a guy doesn't want to be a father, and he has made that clear, it shouldn't be forced on him in any way.

... but if both parents want to be involved, then it should be a joint effort to be do everything they can do give that child the best that they can.

Child support is paid by the parent earning the most money in most cases of joint custody, and in some circumstances, that is the woman.
It's all part of co parenting. It's not a gender thing.

Stacie3 · Accepted Answer

No.. child support is for the child.. regardless of if the father wanted the child it is still their child.. it takes 2 to make a baby.. and that child didn't ask to be here..
If a mother doesn't want the child but the father does.. she can give the child to he father but she to will have to pay support..
I do however think that the qay they calculate child support should be restructured..
I don't care how much you make or who makes more.. the parent paying support should not have to pay any more then 1/2 of the childs expenses.. I know men who were ordered to pay over $600 a month for a single child. It does not cost $1200 a month to raise a child.
I chose not to have the courts involved with child support.. it was more inportant to me that the father be a daddy then pay support.. we worked it out to benifit the child.. not me.. not him.. we co parented and wven tho my son is now 20yrs, his father, his new wife and I still attend our sons functions and get along as if we were old friends.

razelove · Answer

No, alimony is the one that makes no sense, there should be a system like wic, fsa, or food stamps the same that there's a system in every state to collect child support to ensure that it can only be spent on the children however.

MzAsh · Answer

No. It’s completely necessary in many cases.

rtlm368 · Answer

Abolished? No reformed yes. I pay taxes on all income so she the other parent its income so tax it. The other issue is i oay for myy son. But yet my ex has another child two years younger then my son she does not go after his father. Maily because it would be too embarrassing to haul three different guys in to get tested. I get my son every week. Amd soon je with be with me every other week the full week yet i will still have to pay because i make 60% more
Maily because she only works part time as a school bus driver. She wants her summers off. Like a school kid. She is 45 going on 16. Anyway is ir my fault she is lazy and won't get a full time job. My sons brother whom i treat as mine and love him as much as my son get no child support nor has his father in his life. Im not his father he has none of my dna im him. I did a swab test just for my own peace at mind. Tje same with her older daughter. She said as ling as he leaves us alone i won't go after him for support. But sunce i wamt to be im my sons life she makes me pay. No problem i em responsible for my child always was and always will be. I know how it is not having a father in your life. So no ot should be revised.

ObscuredBeyond · Answer

Reforms are definitely needed. The system as-is, is prone to all manner of abuse. And the worst abusers, are oftentimes the judges themselves. They don't act in accordance with actual law, the whole law, nor context of the situation. They instead act based on agendas, baseless opinions, "feelz," and use that to pick favorites.

I know of one woman who was treated horribly by a judge in a family court. Granted, her ex-husband was a total creep and pervert, who was doing horrible things to her underaged daughter, including activities that involved watching some pretty nasty porn, from what she told me. Also, he totally cheated on her. Many times.

But the judge decided to grant him more rights - and treat him with a lot more respect - in court. Why? Solely because the judge (and his attorney as well) were lesbians, and the woman fighting for sole custody rights of her daughter belonged to a church that doesn't recognize same-sex unions. Never mind that the family court case had *nothing to do* with homosexuality!

The judge set out to punish the wronged ex-wife and child, and reward the creepy man. Why? Because unrelated gay causes. Period.

That is a clear-cut case of judicial misconduct. Gay identity politics used to influence decisions in an unrelated case. Lack of fairness and impartiality.

But this is what happens when you don't pay attention to whom you elect, or their history. They stack the courts with judges who don't deserve their jobs. Who, in some cases, should be hanged for their perversions of the justice system!

Yet... judges are usually the last offenders to ever be held accountable. Since Marbury v. Madison, the fallacy has prevailed that judges are themselves somehow above the very law that they are to interpret cases according to. Which is why in this age, faith in the integrity of our courts has never been lower.

englisc · Answer

I don't think so. The children shouldn't have to suffer because of the dumb decisions of their parents. The guys talking about a "financial abortion" are really degenerates looking to avoid responsibility of their actions. Regardless of whether it's "fair" or not that women can have abortions, if you'd see a child you created by choosing to have unprotected sex go without just because you didn't want the child, you're obviously a moron.

The problem comes really when in certain areas men are expected to pay excessive amounts of child support, sometimes to the point where it ruins them financially as others have mentioned, and also that their rights to see their children aren't very well enforced.

I think that the the thing that would need to change is fathers rights to see their children. Better protection from vindictive mothers who choose to use their children as a weapon against a the man. Especially if the man is doing all he can to make sure his children are provided for.

If you look back, child support really came from the introduction of "The Tender Years Doctrine", which is default custody of the mother. Before this was put in place, in the case of divorce which was rare, because men were held financially responsible for the child the children would stay with him. After this was put in place, the children went to the mother but the man was still held responsible for financially providing for the children, therefore he paid child support.

Originally because he was held fully responsible he was given the authority over them, while afterwards he was still held fully responsible without any authority at all. That's where the issues above stem from.

standingUP · Answer

I have four children that I have had an obligation to pay child support for after the divorce. I see why it is setup and needed. I actually have no issue for that alone.
However how the system is designed and carried out is absolutely ridiculous.

During the marriage I was earning a lot of money which is what the base obligation dollar amount was set from. After the divorce the opportunity for growth was hindered. I needed a new place to live. She was awarded the house and kids. I was happy for all of them to stay comfortable. Soon after I was ordered to pay 65% of my earnings.
I said 65% !
This went on for over 14 years.
I was unable to afford a small apartment for myself. I soon found myself living with family. In basements and no chance to prosper.
My ex wife and kids moved away half a state away. Leaving the house to go into foreclosure. It was my responsibility to save it the bank requests. But the judge said I have no part in obtaining it. So it slipped away.
15 years later 3 of the 4 kids are off child support one decides after 18yrs old to move in with me.
So I am still supporting her everyday needs.
I'm ok with that that's what parenting is suppose to be. however the system absolutely destroyed any chance of prospering. I see why people run from it.

But I didn't.
Everything happens for a reason and it's all God's money anyway and my kids where taken care of by me anyway, so all is cool.

olderbutnotwiser · Answer

No but I have seen the system being abused..

Perfect example is an old friend that split up with his ex who is to put it nicely a nutjob.

He already gives a good chunk of his wage by law, this money isn't being used for what it is for so when he gets to see his girl he is also then spending the rest of his money to buy things that she hasn't been getting from the initial money and on top of that there is constant threats of give me money for this or that or ill make things more difficult for you.

The poor guy is working every hour under the sun and living in a squat house with little to no furnishing trying to juggle things and keep seeing his daughter.

So I think he should be able to spend the money himself rather than giving it straight to the mother then keep receipts to show the courts that he has infact spent £££ on his daughter and is contributing rather than the money going directly to the mother to spend it how she sees fit.

Now im not saying this is how things always go 9/10 its civil and the money is used for the kid but there is always those few cases where the man is being fleeced and he can't do nothing about it as he is afraid of losing any visiting privileges' if he rocks the boat.

ClosetHoe · Answer

No, but it should be changed. People abuse it all the time. Sometimes the mother doesn't even spend it on the child. She just uses it for herself. A lot of the time the guy is struggling to pay the child support. I also think that if a guy doesn't want to take care of a child he should be able to give up his parental rights. If women can have abortions so they won't have to take care of their child men should have the option to not take care of their kids too.

Brokenheartedx · Answer

My father didn't pay child support to us growing up, it was hell for my mum having to raise 4 kids with no money, my mum couldn't work because she hurt her back falling down stairs when she was pregnant and never recovered. We relied on unbranded food from a church charity and used our granddads washing machine to wash clothes, imagine being 10 years old carrying black bags of clothes to be washed at someone else's house. Our father raised and paid for another kid that wasn't even his. My mum and dad were married he waited nearly 15 years to tell my mum he didn't want us and fked off. so for you to ask this and me being and expert on child poverty having lived it, I think all feckless fathers best get their hands in the pocket and pay up what is owed otherwise they are just a bastard and waste of space. Don't want kids get the snip so you don't need to pay. But don't ever drag your kids into living life poor.

midnightmoon05 · Answer

Some states are making sure both parents work and contribute. So suppose to be equal. But the one who makes more, contributes more. But the other parent still has to work.
If one parent have been a stay home parent, they have to go back to work male or female.
At the end, children need love and support. The best is when both parents separated, but come together with the heart and best intention to raise the kids with love for thier better future.
I don't like that idea that only one parent pays more than 1/2 of their salary to the other who use children for the reason not be able to work.

sejla · Answer

What would be the alternative?

There is rarely custody situations were both parents have their child equal amounts of time and even if they do each have their child equal amounts of time there are shared bills for the child like medical expenses, school activities, clothing, etc.

The person who pays child support is only paying half the expenses and to be honest usually less than the parent who has the child most of the time.

Not having child support payments only works if both parents are diligent on their own about taking care of their child.

Daniela1982 · Answer

Hell no! Have you any idea what it costs to raise a child from an infant to age 17? It's like $300,000. Why should one parent bear the full financial burden of raising a child when it took two to create said child? Why should one skate to go off and impregnate other women while the woman gives up most of her life to raise the child? And it can also be the dad, instead, having to foot the bill while the woman goes her merry way. It is the most preposterous idea I have ever heard - at least today so far. You want to play then be prepared to pay!

DictumVeritas · Answer

Any spousal support in the form of money should be abolished. The father should pay directly for the child's needs on a per item basis and with the input of his own decisions about what is required and only within his means, as if he was still the live in dad. No money should have to be paid over to the mother to be apportioned as she wishes. This must go hand in hand with equal parental rights.

The family court is comically skewed in favor of the women to the detriment of men all with the excuse of "In the best interest of the child."

I personally think that a huge consideration in custody must be that the kids should go to the person who did not file for divorce. That means that the kids would end up with dad in about 80% of the cases because men aren't the modern home wreckers and amoral adulterers, women are.

xHeyUx · Answer

Do you think parental involvement should be required for each parent, post divorce? Economic studies have correlated essentially unwanted children with higher criminal activities and lower economic outcomes. While I do not have a fully formulated thought on the matter, I’m wondering if each parent should be obligated to spend a minimum amount of quality time (how do you measure / quantify this?) with each of their children or provide a suitable surrogate parent to do so. ... I know, unorthodox idea, but I’m thinking that fixating solely on fiscal responsibilities is missing the larger picture.

I understand divorced parents are sometimes frustrated by the size of court ordered payments, how they are actually used and the actual receipt of the payments ordered by the court. Financial stress can’t be good for anyone. The larger picture for children, I think, is feeling loved and having each parent there for them. Hopefully we don’t lose sight of that.

ChronicThinker · Answer

No. If you father a child, you should have the basic human compassion to help care for that child.

HOWEVER. Do I think child support costs should punish a man beyond his means to provide? No. I think the courts need to look at what a man makes and decide what he can pay feasibly to contribute to his child's life without completely ruining his own personal ability to survive. A father that works as a cash mule is not a father who can support and nurture a child affectively.

jiffyjeff1029 · Answer

Yes... to many women and some men leave the relationship and hurt the children because they have an easy out. To many people have kids simply to generate money for themselves. To many people milk the system because of all the handouts.

Child support should be a 50/50 deal.
If one parent works the other should work
If one parent has to pay insurance cost the other should have to pay them to.
The time with the children should be 50/50.

If we had the original welfare that the bible talks about people would stay together and form a trusting relationship in order to raise children in wedlock. Abortions happen because people have unprotected sex and dont want children.

If you play you pay

Why buy the cow when the milk is free.

This mentality has to stop.

rjroy3 · Answer

It should be changed, not abolished. A lot of deadbeats out there need to have their feet held to the fire. But the idea that a man is supposed to pay a court-ordered specific amount of money without respect to expenses for the child or his personal expenses. Solely being based on income and the current lifestyle of the child. That he's to pay this to the parent with no right to verify the money is going where it needs to or if there's leftover cash that could potentially carry over into the next month.

That's bullshit. That's why I say the terms of child support should change fundamentally, but not abolished because the kid does need that income.

LVbrando85 · Answer

No I think CHILD SUPPORT should be just that... CHILD SUPPORT! If $600 a month is enough to supply clothes, food, and some of the fees for room and board for your child, along with some play money for enjoyment (Toys, snacks, outings etc.) then that should be the Extent of if. But to some of these women who marry men and are getting 10 times what is needed is kind of ridiculous lmao. Russell Simmons pays $40,000 a month! I'd have a baby for that much.

For normal guys, I think if the father is actually a good father and is present in the Childs life (goes half on everything except rent) then he shouldn't have to pay any more than a couple hundred for unforeseen expenses. (field trips, doctors visits etc.)

Uannoyme · Answer

Not abolished, but definitely changed. Child support shouldn't be a thing in cases of shared parenting, for instance. Often times, the parent that has the child a day or two less every week ends up paying child support, even though that parent also provides all the same stuff at their home as well. In most cases, it's something the government should stay out of.

btbc92 · Answer

No, but it shouldn't be a free for all especially if it's proven that the woman or girl is at fault for knowing the sexual consequences. Like others have said and I personally know about this stuff, plenty of women abuse the system and play out men over the child and then manipulate the children too.

Apple1996 · Answer

No definitely not. Especially for the dads that dont even see their children. Like for real if we knew that dads could be able to provide things like diapers or clothes for the child then yeah sure get rid of it but you cannot expect a mother to pay for everything and also take care of the child.

Anonymous · Answer

Rather than a check, i think you should have to buy that kid some groceries/toys/medicine/diapers etc and bring it to the house. Cause lets face it, a lot of the child support doesn't actually go towards supporting the child

bamesjond0069 · Answer

Yes. In specific instances it may help but overall its very harmful. Having custody of the child is the benefit/priviledge. The parent who can best do that financially should have custody of the child. By forcing the non custodial parent to pay it causes a rift in the relationship that cannot be repaired many times. Also it causes more broken families. It incentivizes women to leave because they can safely assume they get kids and a check. Lastly, money is not the primary importance to children. Do they have food? Check. Roof over heads? Check. Clothes? Check. Well i can see $100 a month max... but how can you justify more than that? That's all going to moms expenses. Im a grown ass man and that as half would pay for most of my food and clothes. So im wondering wtf these kids doing like eating out at restaurants and wearing designer clothes? 🤣

Anonymous · Answer

No. I believe men who aren’t in their child’s life or aren’t doing anything to help with his sees should be put on child support. I don’t believe a bitter bm should be able to put her bd on child support. Welfare forced me to put my bd on child support even though he was already paying me way more than they’d ever make him pay and is a great father so when it came time for court, he was gonna have to pay me $500 a month and $3000 in backpay... I no longer qualified for Medicaid for my daughter so when she was taken off, I turned it all down so they’d stay tf out my business.

leahzrc · Answer

well my mother didn't use it on me so i think it would be good if the parent recieving the child support actually was a good parent

slatyb · Answer

Of course not. Child support is not there to punish non-custodial fathers, it's there to prevent children from falling into poverty and requiring government. If you father a child and for whatever reason you decide not to stay with the mother and child, why should you be allowed to shirk your financial responsibility TO THE CHILD?

Wolkmi · Answer

Maybe, if the woman can stand on her own, why does the man need to pay? Don't single mothers and fathers take care of their children? I understand paying the maintenance but the father (and mother sometimes) still has to pay rent, mortgage, his life... instead the mother has her salary and the extra maintenance, nowadays everybody works, if the children are older than 5 years there is really no excuse to work only part-time. Let's say that the father (example from my country, these are normal amounts) has a salary of 1000 euros and pays alimony of 100-150 euros, he still has to live, pay for his house, eat... I think that he has to go according to the salary, and those who have several children I can't imagine what they would pay...

RickPen · Answer

No, it should not be abolished, but should be equalized. The current trends seem to indicate that men are expected to pay child support without custody, or face jail time. Women don't seem to have as harsh of a time, and several responses on here ignore that women may need to pay child support.

Equalizing and setting up a realistic system is necessary. Stop the sexism against men.

RomanFishTrumpet · Answer

No, but family court does need reforms so as to grant fathers the same rights as mothers. Although this question does not have listed with it a reason as to why it is asked, I believe that you asked this due to how heavily abused the child support system is. Stronger state intervention in such cases is probably the best option, so as to make sure that child support payments are being spent on the child, and, even beyond that, in situations where the father is better suited to take care of the children, the mother is still oftentimes chosen as the primary caregiver. This is another way in which I believe family court needs to change.

WarDaddy1969 · Answer

No you should take care of your child most don't pay knowing they will be jailed if they get behind and still don't pay. But really it's wants and needs, see you WANTto drink beer but in reality you NEED to pay your child support see it's all about wants and needs. I payed child support for 21 years never missed a payment or went to jail. Also j keept insurance on both my children by different women wasn't the babies fault I payed 95.00$ on each child pluse almostv400$ a month insurance whoooo man it was hard I really suffered ç

AmandaYVR · Answer

What kind of a crazy idea is that? Child support is just that. For the child. You're obviously confusing this with the mother. They are two separate things.

JimmyQ · Answer

Do you have some sort of a point to make or do you think children should go to work in factories and raise themselves?

I do personally know of women who intentionally go about getting pregnant with as many guys as possible to collect off the state, but these are few and far between.

I mean, I want to give the benefit of the doubt here, but there's not much evidence to support your idea.

hellionthesagereborn · Answer

If women have the right to forgo motherhood then men should have the right to forgo fatherhood. Its the only fair and equitable thing to do. If however the woman is forced to give birth to the child then the man should also be forced to provide for that child, again, this is the only fair and equitable solution. Anything else is just an attempt to avoid responsibility.

Anonymous · Answer

It's no surprise that almost every female in the comment section said no other than saying that it's needed. I for one never got child support from my dad and I sure as Hell do not pay any type of amount to my ex. We do discuss what our child needs and split it down the middle. If she buys our child something that is a luxury then that's on her. I don't spoil my daughter with toys or anything of the sort simply said because she gets that from her grandparents. Simply put, if a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy without the consent of the father, then the man should have the right to abandon the child without having to pay 18 years and possibly more than 50% of their income.

CT_CD · Answer

If the man doesn't want anything to do with the child then he shouldn't be forced to pay for it for 18 years. Just like women aren't forced to give birth. Men should be able to opt out of all rights and responsibilities in the early stages of pregnancy. The woman can literally terminate the pregnancy if she decides she doesn't want the baby and the man can't do anything about it.

SirRexington · Answer

It should remain an available option but men who never wanted the kid in the first place and never agreed to having it should not have to pay for child support. This was the sole choice of the woman and not the man's.

Pro choice but that includes the choice for men too

andreasderjuengere · Answer

Hereabouts it is not uncommon that a father just buggers off and leaves the woman alone in the rain.
That's not right.
But it's also not right to make childcare a mere financial transaction.
The whole idea needs a proper re-work; but not an abolishment.

DJB72 · Answer

Not until men step up and be actual men, taking responsibility without having to be forced to by the courts.

We need a generation to become fathers to a list generation who grew up thinking all a man is is a sperm Donor, and that women should accept it. That's not feminism.

genericname85 · Answer

I would say if men got a veto right if a woman decides to have an abortion, that would create the equality that would make it acceptable for child support to exist. Also the man should not have to pay it if she betrayed him. A friend of mine is a father of a child he never wanted cause his ex girlfriend thought it was a good idea to stop taking the pill without telling him, to get a baby so that he would stick with her.

lucas262 · Answer

Child support is good. When it's used properly and isn't extreme.

The problem is its abused and it extort a people making them no better than slaves.

Almony should be abolished as it has nothing to do with the children but to ensure the ex can maintain the same level of lifestyle after the fact.

65% of marriage ends in divorce and 80% of cases filed by women. Because of no fault divorce you can get court raped at any moment for any reason so the risk isn't worth it.

crazy8000 · Answer

Yeah. both yes and no.
Depends on how the system works. some countries needs to trash what they have since it doesn't really work and creates other problems in the long run for society on a non financial level.
USA is a primary example of that disfunction.

TacocaT6969 · Answer

No. But in some cases child support should not be required such as men who are not allowed by the mother to see their kids.

simplelikeme · Answer

No I do not think it should be abolished. I think most men should get off their whiny ass and paid her child support like they're supposed to. Except to those women who abuse that right and make stuff up to ruin your life, then you should not have to pay child support for that nonsense and she should be sitting her little butt in jail thinking about what she did and how she seriously mentally emotionally and physically abused their children over her selfishness and being a narcissistic person

ciitruskiwi · Answer

No because if it is your child then you have a responsibility to take care of it.

DWornock · Answer

Yes, except as agreed between the parties. Those with custody receive all the benefits and should bear the cost. If there is no prior agreement between the parties or the parties cannot agree, children should be awarded to the parent that is best able to provide care and financial support.

s2firestar · Answer

There should be an option. If a guy is clear from the beginning that he does not want kids, does everything for protection, yet something happens and the woman decides to keep the kid, he should be able to opt out, with the caveat that he will never be able to claim fathership later. This would most likely stop women from manipulating the system. From there, it is their decision whether to keep the child with all costs or not.

Lukman99 · Answer

It depens who takes care of the child. If both parents are equally invloved there should not be a need for child support since both parents are equaly using their time and ressources to raise the child. However, if one parent invests more time into their child then the other I think they should have the right to child support.

stormbreaker06 · Answer

it just needs to be logical and have better laws and procedures.

some child support fees are unrealistic.

many women purposely trap men whether the child is his or not and the guy has to pay more than he is worth.

its all illogical.

KrakenAttackin · Answer

Child support is such a dual edged sword. I am all for supporting children, but I hate that child support funds are given to so many awful women, who make such bad decisions, and forget all about their duty to their child.

I wish there was a way to guarantee the child support dollars went directly to the children. I would pay extra tax dollars for some sort of supervision program to force women to collect receipts and turn them in for expenses against what the father has paid for kids.

Zumba_dancing_27 · Answer

No because some dads or moms are evil or not good people to be parents.

red324 · Answer

I think it should. The government doesn't need to tell me what I should pay to support my child. I can work that out on my own with the mom. Also I can pay for things myself to make sure it's paying for the benefit of the baby and not wasted by the mother.

kangy · Answer

No It shouldn't. It is necessary to keep the child protected and safe. A responsible adult will no matter what carry out their roles well to protect their child

Pamina · Answer

Abolishing child support would first and foremost hurt the child. So no.

Ceasar97 · Answer

Definitely not, but I do think that the court system can be a little bias towards the mother often and that can hurt the fathers. That said, I think that child support is important for the person that has the child more often.

grega239 · Answer

Yes.
Feminists have been demanding equality, so get it scrapped.
I'm specifically mentioning feminism because the overwhelming majority of child support recipients are women.

Also , male incarceration, homelessness and suicide rates would drop if we stop jailing men who are unable to pay it.

So yea.

jellyroo · Answer

No, but you should be able to opt out if you never agreed to a child and can prove it (which could be very difficult legally so that sucks).

cloud9vortex1234 · Answer

No, I think we can do it better. It would be more efficient if fathers could pay into an Automated Ordering System that sends what his children need straight to the mom's house. It's like Amazon, but for Child Support. You really want it going directly to what the kid (s) need. Still, nothing will be Fool-Proof. Guys who know what its like to go through Divorce Rape need to be running for office.

SydneySentinel · Answer

No, definitely not. But the money should only be used for taking care of the kids. It seems that would require more regulations.

msc545 · Answer

I think that child support should be changed such that it is not tied to custody time and is instead tied to income (as it supposedly is now). This would result in far fewer custody battles and more equitable distribution of custody time for both parents.

AynonOMouse · Answer

There should automatically be equal 50/50 custody so there would be no child support in the first place. Of course that would require the courts and women to stop being so sexist and stop stealing children from their fathers.

Do you think that child support should be abolished?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Should child support be abolished?

Do you think that child support should be abolished?

Most Helpful Opinions

Most Helpful Opinions

What Girls & Guys Said

Should child support be abolished?

We're glad to see you liked this post.