Should child support be abolished?

[SolitarySolace]

No

Yes

[1073sucks]

not abolished completely because then how sad would it be for those who just want to up and leave without a care for the child and if the other parent can't provide enough for the family it would be tragic for those kids, BUT it should be fixed and be handled to be more FAIR. more often than not it is a very unfair system and what sucks is that sometimes in those unfair cases, the spouse that's getting all the help doesn't even give that help to the kids and uses it for themselves. it should be more fair and more strict

[SolitarySolace]

How do you suggest it be fixed?

[1073sucks]

ah it's too much to look into before I can even sate something. you have first be well informed about how it all works to fix the issues that make the system fail the children and the parent paying. I don't know much about it since I've never been on it nor put someone on it, but I do know many get screwed over for it so I know it has to be fixed not eliminated.

[wolfcat87]

Most child support doesn't cover food or living expenses, so the idea that the parent is spending it on their self is propaganda. The parent is already paying for their child's expense and just finally has some money left over now that the second parent is helping.

[JacobJordan]

not necessarily. what child support should be is changed. the money from it should go into a state created bank account with a state issued debit card with no cash withdrawals. The payer can only deposit into that account but can also see all things paid for with the money. the payee can use the card to purchase things with the restriction that 100% of that money be used on the child and only on the child. in addition consist underuse of funds would result in a reduction to the amount of child support. this prevents the payee from abusing the payer by constantly requesting more and more child support while spending all that money on themselves and neglecting the children. we do this and the amount of child support will plummet

[wolfcat87]

That's ridiculous. Maybe they just need to pay rent and utility bills. Then, they'd still go off and use the free money of their own they now have to use as they please.

[JacobJordan]

@wolfcat87 that isn't for the child. Child support is support for the child. As in clothes for the child, toys, shoes, food for the child. Child support is not an income to be used to pay for a place to live. One should be able to provide the funds for that regardless of child support. If the person receiving it can't keep a roof over their own head they should not be receiving child support or have custody of the child. Thank you for proving precisely why child support should be the way I described.

[wolfcat87]

A child's home and utilities aren't for the child? Do you expect them to be homeless? Ridiculous. I used my child support to actually buy my daughter a house. According to you, that shouldn't be possible. How short sighted. You are why child support is not so over monitored.

[JacobJordan]

@wolfcat87 I didn't say they should be homeless the funds for housing is the parents responsibility. If you as a parent can not afford to keep a roof of yourself and your child's head then you should not have custody of the child. The entire point of child support is that it is meant to be used to support the child such things as clothes, toys etc. In addition the amount provided should be enough for that if there is more than what should be covered which again are things for the child only. then the person receiving it is abusing that system and should be charged and have to pay the abused the funds they over received. The fact that states have implemented special debit cards or track spending to ensure that bad parents can not use child support for themselves is evidence that not only am I right but that even the government is realizing that certain parents are abusing the system just to rob their ex partner and needs further oversight to further reduce it. In fact currently there are even multiple changes and potential changes to child support across the US to stop the constant abuse of 1 parent when it comes to custody and child support. The failure of 1 parent to provide housing does not entitle said failure to further child support. With all of this reality is child support shouldn't even be needed if people actually got married before having children and didn't treat marriage the way society does now. But that is a failing of society. I am quite proud of the fact I not only waited until marriage but have made the right moral choice to be present for my kids and wife.

[wolfcat87]

You think toys are supporting a child and make more sense than buying them a house? Talk about bad priorities. Kids are happy playing with a stick and a cardboard box. You're the type of parent who hands a kid the whole amount every month and tells them to have fun without teaching them anything about responsibility. That's bad parenting.

Who says the other parent can't cover housing? Why shouldn't they spend the money to get even better housing than their child would have had on just their income? It's still benefiting the child. Or, are you so spiteful that your child should have a worse house but with more toys and more expensive clothes just because you think they should? That makes no sense.

What states do isn't always right, so it's not proof that you are right. States do dumb things every day.

Yes, a few a people abuse anything and everything. But, if the child has everything they need then nothing is being abused because the money is goign to the child's care.

If the parent is homeless, the child has no clothes or food, etc, and the money is being wasted, then they are abusing it and shouldn't have custody. That's exceedingly rare though.

[JacobJordan]

@wolfcat87 lol don't make the mistake of thinking you know me, my life, or my kids sad little brat. also not to call you out on everything you think you know but 25% is not a few. see unlike you I made good choices in life and got married before having kids. in addition I got married to a good woman we have had 3 kids and I have been present every day from the first day of pregnancy to when they were born. we are both retired because I made smart financial choices so I am in my children's lives 100% of the time. In addition we homeschool our children because the public school system has absolutely failed. your assumptions are hilarious and also so far out of left field you proved that not only do you have no clue what you are talking about but you also proved that you are not worth further time. you have a nice day.

[wolfcat87]

I was engaged with my first kid and met my husband before she was even born. So, my choices are pretty sound.

While your life choices may be sound, your advice for others is not when advising to waste money on toys and clothes rather than housing that children could inherit later. Perhaps it's from lack of experience.

Do you have a source to prove that 25% of parents in the U. S. getting child support are abusing it and how? Or, is it a number you just made up?

[JacobJordan]

@wolfcat87 wife response: child if he is advising people to spend money on clothes that is intelligent unless you want your children running around naked. secondly he didn't say not to buy a house he said child support is not meant for that and it isn't. if you were to look at child support laws they even imply that the funds are meant to be used for things like food, clothes, school supplies, toys, among other things. no it doesn't state that you can't use it for a house which is an innovative thing to do. I actually disagree with him saying child support should change I think it should be removed completely so people that would be bad parents can't abuse the finances of others. it would also force women to take accountability and either remain with the partner they choose to be intimate with or go it alone. men are not given a choice when it comes to the pregnancy so women shouldn't have the option to get child support if she elected to keep the child while not financially ready. I checked the stat he listed and it is actually closer to 66% of men who pay child support are unable to afford it so not only is it higher than 25% it is high enough we can say it is a majority. sources are various. though primarily admin of children and families which tracks all stats related to children. abuse, finances, housing, among other things. like my husband I will not be wasting further time on you. you have a nice day

[wolfcat87]

What laws say not to use child support on housing? My state specifically says to if you speak to any judge for the exact reasoning listed above. Anything the child uses is clearly for the child. House, bills, car, food, etc. They use all of these things, and often these things need to be more expensive to adjust for them.

Child support is meant to give a child the chance to have the quality of life they deserve based on the income of both parents had they stayed together. My state computed based on a percentage of the income of each parent makes and based on how much time the child spends with each parent.

So, if a woman is with a child molester she's supposed to keep her child there and stay married to him or leave and not be able to afford her child? Most women obviously don't know this before marrying. She expects the child and mother to suffer alone because the mother wants to protect the child while the father faces no further responsibility? This is wrong thinking on soooo many levels.

Women are already accountable, child support makes sure the men are too. Women being accountable as parents has never been a serious issue in the U. S. Men not taking responsibility has been and continues to be. That's why the government stepped in to make sure BOTH parents are taking responsibility no matter their gender.

That 66% of men should not have had children they could not afford. Maybe child support will encourage them to "take accountability and either remain with the partner they choose to be intimate with" or not have sex without protection. Saying men don't have a choice on pregnancy is dishonest when they all had a choice to not get any women pregnant.

In no way does that stat show any abuse of the child support system like we are discussing.

[rigmarole]

Yes. Child support is amoral. It taxes one person to give it to another so that the second person can have total control over parenting a child. It's human slavery. Child custody should be evenly split between parents if they divorce unless one parent has a criminal record of being abusive toward the child or is currently incarcerated and has been removed from society. When in the custody of the parent, they should be responsible for care of the child's well being. You should take care of your kids, not pay a tax to your ex-wife and be removed from your child's life. The current legal arrangement is detrimental to the welfare of children.

[wolfcat87]

Courts generally try to be fair and take the welfare of the children and what's best for them into account. Your wallet is not the highest priority and shouldn't be. Custody should never be split evenly just to save you money. I had a dad who got custody of me just to try to save money and not pay child support. When he realized that having a child live with him cost him more it pissed him off. Men who think this way are the worst.

[rigmarole]

@wolfcat87 Whatever gold digger. You're a brainwashed loser. It has nothing to do with "saving money", it has to do with being part of your child's life and raising them the way you see fit when they are with you, not being a slave to some woman you are no longer involved with and losing parental influence when it comes to the value you instill in your child. The only thing you can even comprehend is the money aspect of it because your Mom was a whore, so like her you grew up to be a whore as well.

[rigmarole]

@wolfcat87 No father wants their child to grow up like you.

[wolfcat87]

No, child support doesn't even cover the expenses of raising a child in most cases. If people don't want to pay it, then they should use more birth control or not have sex. But, punishing the kids after they are born is the wrong answer.

[wolfcat87]

@rigmarole I have money, and women pay child support as well.

Your bad attitude and lack of empathy and understanding of where I'm coming from makes it unlikely you'd be a good parent. Your behavior here shows parenting zero value and why the child is better of with their mom. You're abusive.

[Static_In_The_Attic]

Bring a child into this world isn’t cheap & as for child support it shouldn’t be abolished but it should be fair & people shouldn’t take advantage of it.

[Billlewis]

What? Are you kidding? Hell, no it shouldn't be abolished!

[Pohjolan]

Since she has the option to kill it then he might as well have the option not to finance it.

[Snakeyes7]

Yes, especially if there was no reason for the divorce to happen

[Apple1996]

No that's not fair to make kids suffer

[SimpleGreen]

Only a monster would even ask this question.

[Luckycharms12]

Of course not.