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.
And you can't expect a man to pay for a kid he never wanted. If the women can choose to be a parent or not through abortion a man should be able to do the same through a financial abortion.
@nathanp97 if a guy dont wanna be a dad then he shouldn't be cumming in a girl. Men choose to impregnate a women by doing that. Women aren't controlling there ovulation, they are choosing to get pregnant the same way guys are
So then if a women doesn't want a kid she shouldn't let a guy come in her. She has a choice to, so why should she get an extra out that a guy doesn't have? That's just sexist.
@nathanp97 cuz she's the one that has to sacrifices her life for the baby. Not just like her litterally life but everything for women gets put on hold. Men can live freely and don't have to worry about any real issues from having a child except money. I dont think someone's life and dreams is even comparable to money.
Being tied to a kid you don't want isn't free. Fear of jail time if you can't or won't pay isn't free. If a women can't pay she gets government assistance, whiles the guy ends up behind bars. If you can't afford a kid don't have one. Obviously, most single moms can, so they should get an abortion, or try to survive with no assistance. If they can't than they lose their kid.
It is basically child abuse to bring one into the world that you can't afford, especially when the father wants nothing to do with it.
@nathanp97 I had my son at 17 and couldnt afford him. I really dont see anything wrong with it. I got on government assistance until his dad decided to step up and get a job to support us. Everything worked out fine and my kids and husband are both happy now. Some of us just need financial help sometimes and that is totally okay. People who have never been in the situation can't see how it really is so they dont understand all this stuff.
@nathanp97 I don't think money is valuable so yeah I really dont care that I used government assistance considering that's what it's there for. I shouldn't be getting judged considering there a tons of people that abuse it and stay on that shit forever. Like I used it and got off when I could afford too.
Ya, but fi you chose not to have a kid you wouldn't have needed to take hard earned money away from other people. And I know people abuse it, but so did you by going on it when you had other options.
If money isn't valuable then why did you take it. In the first place?
@nathanp97 obviously cuz I needed the medical for my son. I wasn't gonna go through a pregnancy and have a child without insurance. I wasn't taking any money I was just on programs that helped me with medical and food
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
Food, medicine, diapers, and groceries IS supporting a child. Those things are not given for free or growing on trees. These costs are what makes raising a small child so expensive. And they only get more expensive the older they get.
This right here. And it's sickening that courts are stacked with crooks that demand zero accountability from everyone - except the man paying. Who can get thrown in jail for paying *too much*! Except, the amount can be changed on a whim, and he's not entitled to know! Which.. is ENTRAPMENT!
Family courts are really anti-family courts. They have done more to destroy incentive to start families, or actually help struggling families remain intact, than any other force. They are supposed to be there to help families in need. Instead, they are all about destroying the family. And they are one reason that so many women face pressure to get involved with the abortion industry - which destroys women while pretending to help them.
It's all one big, orchestrated racket. The only reason they won't allow your strategy to be implemented, is because it makes too much sense. After all: if the mother doesn't spend child support money on children, but on worthless things like tattoos and smokes, then CPS can build a case against her any time it wants to. And then those children can wind up in a foster home. As long as they're in one, CPS gets paid, per a measure signed into (f) law by Bill Clinton that has never been repealed (Congress refuses to repeal it.) Meaning, they don't care if the foster home is infinitely worse, as long as they get paid. If the children get sex trafficked later, they couldn't care less.
They are exactly the subhumans that are condemned in no uncertain terms in Amos 5 - a book almost no one reads. Women who extort their exes for tattoo money and imagine these (anti) family courts to be their allies, are fools in the end.
Far too many of them eventually graduate to abusing painkillers, including opioids, in their arrogance. And then, the very system that let them revel in their extortions for so long, betrays them to the broken prison system. Where they may serve dead time after their sentences for any number of "reasons" and technicalities, facing endless abuse. And yet the courts will continue to extort the man she had them extort, when the grounds for that extortion are rendered hollow in her absence.
It is like the felon "Rock" said to Dinesh D'Souza: "Real criminals get elected, or appointed as judges and prosecutors. Only morons go to jail. And everyone thinks they're the former, when they're the latter, until they get caught."
@Daniela1982 Yes, but how many whores spend the child support checks on booze, going out, clothes for the mom, their new boyfriends, and anything but the children.
@Daniela1982 Let alone letting them go to higher schools. Also here in Germany you have buy your books. When I was at a high-level school, we had almost nothing to buy. The [public] school provided it (financed by taxes) and there was a signature required in the book that you take responsibility about it (returned damaged by you, you pay a new copy).
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? 🤣
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?
My daughter won't fall into poverty because of her "step-father" (not yet done, that is why in quotes) earns enough money to support her. And I for some time had only social money as income and still "earned to much".
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.
But she did pay for your room and board so and clothes, etc. so in a sense she was spending it on you. Unless you went to school naked or went to bed ( that's right, she provided a bed for you) hungry.
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
Child support should go into an account and only be used for a percentage of bills and should be ensured that it is spent on the children. Otherwise you end up paying for the woman and her new mans lifestyle and your kids get 1 pair of shoes and a few hundred dollars of clothes a year. Trust me I know.
My stepfather paid child support + alimony to his ex-wife for many many years, some of which was alloted by the courts to be for his two kids' university educations. She instead spent all of the money herself. They had to pay for their own educations. This is absolutely wicked.
And then there's my father. He refused to pay child support once he and my mother split. He rarely paid for anything, rarely even gave me money directly. He was angry that my mother left him to be with another man. So my stepfather ended up having to support me, much to his chagrin.
Both situations are terrible. Both acted very poorly. But no one has a monopoly on righteousness when it comes to this stuff. What can be done? Both parents need to provide for their kids' upbringing. Often they don't. The courts do what they can to make sure children are cared for. Many situations slip through the cracks.
All you male downvoters can suck it. You think I'm biased? You don't know shit about me, yet you make blanket assumptions. You'd rather live on your false ideas than expand your mind to even consider another way of interpreting or looking at something.
Statistically speaking there are more mothers raising children, and more fathers who do not live in the household. Whoever has the child has the lion's share of the responsibility. The same cannot be said of the absent person. So of course child support needs to exist. Two people fucked, therefore two people are responsible for the economic welfare of the child.
(msc545 this is not directed towards you. You were polite.)
The thing is tho, that child support is an incentive for women to enter single motherhood instead of work on the relationship. Relationships fail because of both people, not just the guy.
There are more women statistically raising their kids because the courts will typically award the woman custody all things being equal between the man and woman.
@LightEnd You are correct. Most Judges are extremely biased against fathers. It is beyond me how a guy with three years of law school somehow is an expert on what is in "the best interests of the child".
@roland77 Thank you, Roland. I appreciate that. Doesn't it just piss you off when some people assume that someone else cannot think level-headedly or even-handedly about a complex subject. I admit that sometimes my writing can be poorly worded, or appears one way and not another, and I do take responsibility for that and potential miscommunications, but what I do resent is the implication that I am incapable of seeing another side. As my example showed, I know both sides of this coin very well. We are all adults here (well most of us.) It should not be beyond any of us to have a reasonable discussion.
@AmandaYVR I would like to apologize if some of us come off as rude when discussing this subject. I think it comes from the fact that this whole system is unjust and doesn't take into account the needs of the father. In my opinion is not in the best interest of the child for the father to live a meager existence in order that the mother, whom he used to be in a relationship with, should benifit financially.
a lot of us have a piss poor attitude because for one, we all know the majority of this money is not spent on the kids, secondly the children do not add that much more to the expenses. For instance, a couple will almost always need 2 cars, so car expense should not be included, also children add very little to the added cost to run a household which would still need to be run without the children.
For child support of 1600/month. My children are probably adding a cost of approx 5-600 dollars a month for food and utilities.
Take into account that she is also their parent and is "supposedly" responsible for half of their support and that should bring my obligation to 3-400 a month. Give or take.
All the 1600 dollars a month does is improve her and her new partners lifestyle, nicer cars. Pave the driveway, etc etc.
She has children from 3 fathers now and is collecting child support from 2 men, plus is married and her husband works. This woman has 2 men on wage slavery and one in the home.
This should be illegal.
Meanwhile, I have no time, it is all spent working. I have no money because uncle Sam and her take the majority of it.
The rest covers my living expenses and they are meager.
This is the reason a lot of men are acting enraged about this topic. Because society has succeeded in brainwashing everyone into thinking that is is "just" and what a man is supposed to do, but in reality it just allows women to game the system.
So this system also drastically lowers the "eligible" pool of men that women can select from and is also one of the reasons so many 30 ish year old women cannot find suitable partners. a lot of us are to busy working and have no money to pursue other women.
But, this system is PERFECT for lowering the birth rate to reduce the overall world population and is probably the primary reason it is being enforced.
Thank you, everyone (especially you, @LightEnd). I am very proud of us all for getting through that and hearing each other out. This is another shining example of how things can, and should, be discussed on GAG (and all social media.) I respect you all. I will remember this thread.
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.
Ok? I've made it very clear what my point is, if you were willing to scroll down the page a little bit. I never once stated that I think it should all fall on one person. It's my belief that men should have a means out like women, and there's no need for the government to be involved.
Dude, why not do some sort of an update so that people can understand where you are coming from? Right now, it just looks like a poorly conceived notion.
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.
0
0 Reply
Anonymous
(36-45)
+1 y
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.
Yes, and that is really A LOT! I couldn't make a living with it. Here in #Germany / #NRW we have a "Duesseldorfer Tabelle" (search for it, please) and I guess my income would be cut down to 880 EUR/month. Hard to make a living with it when your rental fee is 420-450 already + 40 phone/Internet + 120 gas/water + ~120 EUR for supermarkets/grocery.
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.
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.
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
That’s why you don’t believe her and use a condom anyway. Lol. And the condom is 99% effective. It drops down to 96% effective due to HUMAN ERROR. Learn how put one on properly, and how to store one properly.
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.
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.
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.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
91Opinion
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.
And you can't expect a man to pay for a kid he never wanted. If the women can choose to be a parent or not through abortion a man should be able to do the same through a financial abortion.
@nathanp97 if a guy dont wanna be a dad then he shouldn't be cumming in a girl. Men choose to impregnate a women by doing that. Women aren't controlling there ovulation, they are choosing to get pregnant the same way guys are
So you are pro-life than?
@nathanp97 noo defo not. I almost aborted my son but kept him cuz his father wanted me to
So then if a women doesn't want a kid she shouldn't let a guy come in her. She has a choice to, so why should she get an extra out that a guy doesn't have? That's just sexist.
@nathanp97 cuz she's the one that has to sacrifices her life for the baby. Not just like her litterally life but everything for women gets put on hold. Men can live freely and don't have to worry about any real issues from having a child except money. I dont think someone's life and dreams is even comparable to money.
Being tied to a kid you don't want isn't free. Fear of jail time if you can't or won't pay isn't free. If a women can't pay she gets government assistance, whiles the guy ends up behind bars. If you can't afford a kid don't have one. Obviously, most single moms can, so they should get an abortion, or try to survive with no assistance. If they can't than they lose their kid.
It is basically child abuse to bring one into the world that you can't afford, especially when the father wants nothing to do with it.
@nathanp97 I had my son at 17 and couldnt afford him. I really dont see anything wrong with it. I got on government assistance until his dad decided to step up and get a job to support us. Everything worked out fine and my kids and husband are both happy now. Some of us just need financial help sometimes and that is totally okay. People who have never been in the situation can't see how it really is so they dont understand all this stuff.
I understand that you used other people's hard earned money to raise a kid that you couldn't on your own, when you had a choice not to.
@nathanp97 I don't think money is valuable so yeah I really dont care that I used government assistance considering that's what it's there for. I shouldn't be getting judged considering there a tons of people that abuse it and stay on that shit forever. Like I used it and got off when I could afford too.
Ya, but fi you chose not to have a kid you wouldn't have needed to take hard earned money away from other people. And I know people abuse it, but so did you by going on it when you had other options.
If money isn't valuable then why did you take it. In the first place?
@nathanp97 obviously cuz I needed the medical for my son. I wasn't gonna go through a pregnancy and have a child without insurance. I wasn't taking any money I was just on programs that helped me with medical and food
Here’s an interesting article that explains why a guy doesn’t always realize his exposure (girl impregnates herself after oral): www.google.com/.../
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
Food, medicine, diapers, and groceries IS supporting a child. Those things are not given for free or growing on trees. These costs are what makes raising a small child so expensive. And they only get more expensive the older they get.
This right here. And it's sickening that courts are stacked with crooks that demand zero accountability from everyone - except the man paying. Who can get thrown in jail for paying *too much*! Except, the amount can be changed on a whim, and he's not entitled to know! Which.. is ENTRAPMENT!
Family courts are really anti-family courts. They have done more to destroy incentive to start families, or actually help struggling families remain intact, than any other force. They are supposed to be there to help families in need. Instead, they are all about destroying the family. And they are one reason that so many women face pressure to get involved with the abortion industry - which destroys women while pretending to help them.
It's all one big, orchestrated racket. The only reason they won't allow your strategy to be implemented, is because it makes too much sense. After all: if the mother doesn't spend child support money on children, but on worthless things like tattoos and smokes, then CPS can build a case against her any time it wants to. And then those children can wind up in a foster home. As long as they're in one, CPS gets paid, per a measure signed into (f) law by Bill Clinton that has never been repealed (Congress refuses to repeal it.) Meaning, they don't care if the foster home is infinitely worse, as long as they get paid. If the children get sex trafficked later, they couldn't care less.
They are exactly the subhumans that are condemned in no uncertain terms in Amos 5 - a book almost no one reads. Women who extort their exes for tattoo money and imagine these (anti) family courts to be their allies, are fools in the end.
(To be continued...)
Far too many of them eventually graduate to abusing painkillers, including opioids, in their arrogance. And then, the very system that let them revel in their extortions for so long, betrays them to the broken prison system. Where they may serve dead time after their sentences for any number of "reasons" and technicalities, facing endless abuse. And yet the courts will continue to extort the man she had them extort, when the grounds for that extortion are rendered hollow in her absence.
It is like the felon "Rock" said to Dinesh D'Souza: "Real criminals get elected, or appointed as judges and prosecutors. Only morons go to jail. And everyone thinks they're the former, when they're the latter, until they get caught."
@Daniela1982 Yes, but how many whores spend the child support checks on booze, going out, clothes for the mom, their new boyfriends, and anything but the children.
@Daniela1982 Let alone letting them go to higher schools. Also here in Germany you have buy your books. When I was at a high-level school, we had almost nothing to buy. The [public] school provided it (financed by taxes) and there was a signature required in the book that you take responsibility about it (returned damaged by you, you pay a new copy).
@KrakenAttackin Probably plenty. In those cases it is only hurting the children and those so called "mothers" should lose custody.
@Daniela1982 They should but they don't.
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? 🤣
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?
My daughter won't fall into poverty because of her "step-father" (not yet done, that is why in quotes) earns enough money to support her. And I for some time had only social money as income and still "earned to much".
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.
Seed* not sees
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
But she did pay for your room and board so and clothes, etc. so in a sense she was spending it on you. Unless you went to school naked or went to bed ( that's right, she provided a bed for you) hungry.
She didn't do that. my father did.
@leahzrc - true. At least my country has made a few laws to ensure this.
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...
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.
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.
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
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.
Yes, except women can spend it on whatever they want. There is no accountability.
Child support should go into an account and only be used for a percentage of bills and should be ensured that it is spent on the children. Otherwise you end up paying for the woman and her new mans lifestyle and your kids get 1 pair of shoes and a few hundred dollars of clothes a year. Trust me I know.
I would be overjoyed to pay if this was the case. Right now it's just a crock of horse shit
@msc545 Well that is true.
My stepfather paid child support + alimony to his ex-wife for many many years, some of which was alloted by the courts to be for his two kids' university educations. She instead spent all of the money herself. They had to pay for their own educations. This is absolutely wicked.
And then there's my father. He refused to pay child support once he and my mother split. He rarely paid for anything, rarely even gave me money directly. He was angry that my mother left him to be with another man. So my stepfather ended up having to support me, much to his chagrin.
Both situations are terrible. Both acted very poorly. But no one has a monopoly on righteousness when it comes to this stuff. What can be done? Both parents need to provide for their kids' upbringing. Often they don't. The courts do what they can to make sure children are cared for. Many situations slip through the cracks.
All you male downvoters can suck it. You think I'm biased? You don't know shit about me, yet you make blanket assumptions. You'd rather live on your false ideas than expand your mind to even consider another way of interpreting or looking at something.
Statistically speaking there are more mothers raising children, and more fathers who do not live in the household. Whoever has the child has the lion's share of the responsibility. The same cannot be said of the absent person. So of course child support needs to exist. Two people fucked, therefore two people are responsible for the economic welfare of the child.
(msc545 this is not directed towards you. You were polite.)
I didn't downvote you.
The thing is tho, that child support is an incentive for women to enter single motherhood instead of work on the relationship. Relationships fail because of both people, not just the guy.
There are more women statistically raising their kids because the courts will typically award the woman custody all things being equal between the man and woman.
@LightEnd You are correct. Most Judges are extremely biased against fathers. It is beyond me how a guy with three years of law school somehow is an expert on what is in "the best interests of the child".
Hell hath no fury as a woman scorned backed by the Government.
@LightEnd Perfect!
@msc545
@lightend your comments were not visible when I posted my second and third.
You both make valid points.
Thank you for being open minded and polite
Yes thank you AmandaYVR
Everyone is biosed in some way 😉
The Male Down Voters are So Triggered...
@Gsm24diecast Apparently you don't have to pay child support. Yet.
Maybe you should learn who you talk to first @msc545 I can’t have children due to medical problems from birth.
@msc545 get triggered
@Gsm24diecast sorry to hear that but that is hardly a justification for your unfortunate opinion
What’s my opinion? Did I state anything about child support? no sit kid
@msc545 get triggered kid
@LightEnd Very much agreeable! Otherwise it will be abused for leisure reasons where the child does not benefit from it.
@AmandaYVR Thank you for being open to it. This is nothing against mothers who don't abuse the financial child support, German "Unterhaltsgeld".
@roland77 Thank you, Roland. I appreciate that.
Doesn't it just piss you off when some people assume that someone else cannot think level-headedly or even-handedly about a complex subject. I admit that sometimes my writing can be poorly worded, or appears one way and not another, and I do take responsibility for that and potential miscommunications, but what I do resent is the implication that I am incapable of seeing another side. As my example showed, I know both sides of this coin very well.
We are all adults here (well most of us.) It should not be beyond any of us to have a reasonable discussion.
@AmandaYVR I'm in for a reasonable discussion, not shaming someone (no offense to you).
@AmandaYVR I would like to apologize if some of us come off as rude when discussing this subject. I think it comes from the fact that this whole system is unjust and doesn't take into account the needs of the father. In my opinion is not in the best interest of the child for the father to live a meager existence in order that the mother, whom he used to be in a relationship with, should benifit financially.
a lot of us have a piss poor attitude because for one, we all know the majority of this money is not spent on the kids, secondly the children do not add that much more to the expenses. For instance, a couple will almost always need 2 cars, so car expense should not be included, also children add very little to the added cost to run a household which would still need to be run without the children.
For child support of 1600/month. My children are probably adding a cost of approx 5-600 dollars a month for food and utilities.
Take into account that she is also their parent and is "supposedly" responsible for half of their support and that should bring my obligation to 3-400 a month. Give or take.
All the 1600 dollars a month does is improve her and her new partners lifestyle, nicer cars. Pave the driveway, etc etc.
She has children from 3 fathers now and is collecting child support from 2 men, plus is married and her husband works. This woman has 2 men on wage slavery and one in the home.
This should be illegal.
Meanwhile, I have no time, it is all spent working. I have no money because uncle Sam and her take the majority of it.
The rest covers my living expenses and they are meager.
This is the reason a lot of men are acting enraged about this topic. Because society has succeeded in brainwashing everyone into thinking that is is "just" and what a man is supposed to do, but in reality it just allows women to game the system.
Let's add the fact that not only must you live like this for almost a decade or more. But what woman would want to join you in this type of life.
Not many at all. So not only do you have to live like shit, you have to live like shit ALONE.
This is why male suicide rates are so high.
So this system also drastically lowers the "eligible" pool of men that women can select from and is also one of the reasons so many 30 ish year old women cannot find suitable partners. a lot of us are to busy working and have no money to pursue other women.
But, this system is PERFECT for lowering the birth rate to reduce the overall world population and is probably the primary reason it is being enforced.
Thank you, everyone (especially you, @LightEnd). I am very proud of us all for getting through that and hearing each other out. This is another shining example of how things can, and should, be discussed on GAG (and all social media.) I respect you all. I will remember this thread.
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.
Ok? I've made it very clear what my point is, if you were willing to scroll down the page a little bit. I never once stated that I think it should all fall on one person. It's my belief that men should have a means out like women, and there's no need for the government to be involved.
Dude, why not do some sort of an update so that people can understand where you are coming from? Right now, it just looks like a poorly conceived notion.
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.
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.
50% ? Wow, that is a lot over there!
That's half of your monthly income.
Yes, and that is really A LOT! I couldn't make a living with it. Here in #Germany / #NRW we have a "Duesseldorfer Tabelle" (search for it, please) and I guess my income would be cut down to 880 EUR/month. Hard to make a living with it when your rental fee is 420-450 already + 40 phone/Internet + 120 gas/water + ~120 EUR for supermarkets/grocery.
Abandon away!
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.
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.
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
If he never wanted the kid in the first place, then he should’ve worn protection. It takes two to make a baby. Just saying.
@Angie221994 nope. There is no 100% guarantee. And also she could have lied and claimed to be on the pill.
That’s why you don’t believe her and use a condom anyway. Lol. And the condom is 99% effective. It drops down to 96% effective due to HUMAN ERROR. Learn how put one on properly, and how to store one properly.
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.
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.
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.