Current Events > How would you reform the child support system?

(+) Yeah! (+)

both sides should be held accountable. Basically, it's messed up to just arbitrarily decide that the man *always* has to pay

EdgeMaster posted...

spanky1 posted...

Have legal "male abortions", where a man can sign a paper and remove all right to being a father, including child support requirements. This also means he can't ever see the kid.

This. If the father wants nothing to do with it and the mother wants to keep it, is against abortion, and wants the father to pay for it, they can meet in the middle. Mother keeps it, mother pays for it.

Solves the "I didn't know I shouldn't take antibiotics on birth control" and lying about birth control problem.

If DNA tests prove it's not the father's, he's off the hook financially, if he wanted to keep it. If the father is a deadbeat trying to run from responsibility, well, he probably won't find the time or have his priorities right to show up and sign the paperwork at the courthouse either lol.

In the situation that both parents want to keep it but their relationship isn't working out for whatever reason, both the mother and father put some amount of money into a bank account for the child. Neither parent can ever withdraw money from it, the child can use that money for whatever at 16-18 years old.

nope, child support is(intended) to benefit the child. You can't just sling dick all around town and deny your responsibility to those kids.

I'm not saying the system is perfect or always works in a "fair" way. But you don't get to be completely off the hook just because you don't want anything to do with the kid. you should have thought about that earlier.
---

- remove the inherent bias against men
- whoever earns more gets custody
- custody owner can wipe their hands clean of the child via adoption
- child support payments and custody are reviewed every year
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

EdgeMaster posted...

spanky1 posted...

Have legal "male abortions", where a man can sign a paper and remove all right to being a father, including child support requirements. This also means he can't ever see the kid.

This. If the father wants nothing to do with it and the mother wants to keep it, is against abortion, and wants the father to pay for it, they can meet in the middle. Mother keeps it, mother pays for it.

Solves the "I didn't know I shouldn't take antibiotics on birth control" and lying about birth control problem.

If DNA tests prove it's not the father's, he's off the hook financially, if he wanted to keep it. If the father is a deadbeat trying to run from responsibility, well, he probably won't find the time or have his priorities right to show up and sign the paperwork at the courthouse either lol.

In the situation that both parents want to keep it but their relationship isn't working out for whatever reason, both the mother and father put some amount of money into a bank account for the child. Neither parent can ever withdraw money from it, the child can use that money for whatever at 16-18 years old.

nope, child support is(intended) to benefit the child. You can't just sling dick all around town and deny your responsibility to those kids.

I'm not saying the system is perfect or always works in a "fair" way. But you don't get to be completely off the hook just because you don't want anything to do with the kid. you should have thought about that earlier.

Did you even read my post or is reading comprehension not a strong point of yours?
---

EdgeMaster posted...

Did you even read my post or is reading comprehension not a strong point of yours?

EdgeMaster posted...

This. If the father wants nothing to do with it and the mother wants to keep it, is against abortion, and wants the father to pay for it, they can meet in the middle. Mother keeps it, mother pays for it.

What about this am I misunderstanding?

or were you just hoping the lame ass reading comprehension insult was gonna derail this?
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

I don't know enough about the child support system to give a good answer to that.


I would, however, eliminate alimony in all but the most extreme of circumstances. Alimony is complete outdated bull shit.

while there are things to change about alimony i wouldn't say it's outdated. you make life decisions together. i'll take care of the kids and you get your masters. 15 years later one spouse can make bank the other would be destitute with no real work experience because of decisions they made together.
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

EdgeMaster posted...

Did you even read my post or is reading comprehension not a strong point of yours?

EdgeMaster posted...

This. If the father wants nothing to do with it and the mother wants to keep it, is against abortion, and wants the father to pay for it, they can meet in the middle. Mother keeps it, mother pays for it.

What about this am I misunderstanding?

or were you just hoping the lame ass reading comprehension insult was gonna derail this?

Lol u mad?

In no way did I suggest that the father could just go around having unprotected sex without any repercussions.
---

Another World posted...

Solid Snake07 posted...

I don't know enough about the child support system to give a good answer to that.


I would, however, eliminate alimony in all but the most extreme of circumstances. Alimony is complete outdated bull shit.

while there are things to change about alimony i wouldn't say it's outdated. you make life decisions together. i'll take care of the kids and you get your masters. 15 years later one spouse can make bank the other would be destitute with no real work experience because of decisions they made together.

Like I said, I wouldn't eliminate it entirely. But it's complete insanity in it's current form. The fact that you can get stuck paying a woman monthly payments for the rest of your life just because you were married is completely ridiculous.

She should get her fair share of what they've built together. Doesn't mean he should have to pay her for the rest of their lives. they could be in their mid 30s after 15 years of marriage, meaning that guy could be stuck paying this woman for the next 40 years or more. that's rediculous.
---

EdgeMaster posted...

Lol u mad?

In no way did I suggest that the father could just go around having unprotected sex without any repercussions.

yes, you did. But sure, hide behind "u mad" instead of defending your position or admitting you didn't state it correctly.
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

Another World posted...

Solid Snake07 posted...

I don't know enough about the child support system to give a good answer to that.


I would, however, eliminate alimony in all but the most extreme of circumstances. Alimony is complete outdated bull shit.

while there are things to change about alimony i wouldn't say it's outdated. you make life decisions together. i'll take care of the kids and you get your masters. 15 years later one spouse can make bank the other would be destitute with no real work experience because of decisions they made together.

Like I said, I wouldn't eliminate it entirely. But it's complete insanity in it's current form. The fact that you can get stuck paying a woman monthly payments for the rest of your life just because you were married is completely ridiculous.

She should get her fair share of what they've built together. Doesn't mean he should have to pay her for the rest of their lives. they could be in their mid 30s after 15 years of marriage, meaning that guy could be stuck paying this woman for the next 40 years or more. that's rediculous.

It actually is harder to get alimony these days, especially if both work. Basically one party has to be bringing in all or the vast majority of the income for alimony to be awarded.
---

Don't know don't care
---

TheBestPostr posted...

both sides should be held accountable. Basically, it's messed up to just arbitrarily decide that the man *always* has to pay

Whoever has custody of the child gets paid.

When men win custody, they can hit the mother up for child support and they'll get it most of the time.

And the courts aren't necessarily biased against men in custody cases either. While women usually end up with custody, it turns out that the majority of the time men don't even ask for custody. If you study cases where men actually demanded / fought for custody, you'd find that it's very closely split down the middle that the man wins custody.

It's just that men for the most part realize that not having to raise a kid + being out money is probably a better deal than raising a kid + being out money that you'd spend on the kid.

My main issue is you have no control what it's spent on. I'd feel a lot better about child support if it was itemized like a business expense. I don't feel like anyone should have to cut someone a check for a child that they instead spend on cigarettes.

Hell. I'd even be down for making CS payments into a hedge fund for when the kid turns 18 they can use to go to college or some shit.
---

Solid Snake07 posted...

EdgeMaster posted...

Lol u mad?

In no way did I suggest that the father could just go around having unprotected sex without any repercussions.

yes, you did. But sure, hide behind "u mad" instead of defending your position or admitting you didn't state it correctly.

There's that bad reading comprehension again.

I think it's not right that a man can get roped into a shitty situation because a woman lied about being on birth control or got pregnant as an attempt to make him stay around.

Every situation is different, but if some low income/unemployed dead beat knocked someone up, there was no condoms used (especially if the woman wasn't on birth control), one or both parties were drunk, etc then signing the paperwork to release financial responsibility in addition to any rights to see the child wouldn't be an option. Tons of variables and I don't like to make blanket statements.
---

EdgeMaster posted...

Solid Snake07 posted...

EdgeMaster posted...

Lol u mad?

In no way did I suggest that the father could just go around having unprotected sex without any repercussions.

yes, you did. But sure, hide behind "u mad" instead of defending your position or admitting you didn't state it correctly.

There's that bad reading comprehension again.

I think it's not right that a man can get roped into a shitty situation because a woman lied about being on birth control or got pregnant as an attempt to make him stay around.

Every situation is different, but if some low income/unemployed dead beat knocked someone up, there was no condoms used (especially if the woman wasn't on birth control), one or both parties were drunk, etc then signing the paperwork to release financial responsibility in addition to any rights to see the child wouldn't be an option. Tons of variables and I don't like to make blanket statements.

That's all he said she said bullshit that has no place in a courtroom. you said a man should be able to sign away all responsibility and rights to a child if he doesn't want it. What about that am I missing with my "bad reading comprehension"
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

My main issue is you have no control what it's spent on. I'd feel a lot better about child support if it was itemized like a business expense. I don't feel like anyone should have to cut someone a check for a child that they instead spend on cigarettes.

Obviously, there are issues where some women spend child support on selfish things. It would be extremely difficult to itemize. How do you differentiate "her money" from "child support" once it's in her bank account? The child needs a place to live; child support goes toward that. Same for many shared expenses like food, gas, electricity, etc. It'd be a nightmare to try to restrict or itemize this stuff.

_Rinku_ posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

My main issue is you have no control what it's spent on. I'd feel a lot better about child support if it was itemized like a business expense. I don't feel like anyone should have to cut someone a check for a child that they instead spend on cigarettes.

Obviously, there are issues where some women spend child support on selfish things. It would be extremely difficult to itemize. How do you differentiate "her money" from "child support" once it's in her bank account? The child needs a place to live; child support goes toward that. Same for many shared expenses like food, gas, electricity, etc. It'd be a nightmare to try to restrict or itemize this stuff.

You don't. You get receipts for what she purchases and it needs to be within a small margin be spent on stuff for the child. Like how businesses do expense accounts.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

_Rinku_ posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

My main issue is you have no control what it's spent on. I'd feel a lot better about child support if it was itemized like a business expense. I don't feel like anyone should have to cut someone a check for a child that they instead spend on cigarettes.

Obviously, there are issues where some women spend child support on selfish things. It would be extremely difficult to itemize. How do you differentiate "her money" from "child support" once it's in her bank account? The child needs a place to live; child support goes toward that. Same for many shared expenses like food, gas, electricity, etc. It'd be a nightmare to try to restrict or itemize this stuff.

You don't. You get receipts for what she purchases and it needs to be within a small margin be spent on stuff for the child. Like how businesses do expense accounts.

Alright. You'll need (paid) humans to organize all of that. Verifying everything. Seems like a needless level of bureaucracy to me.

Also, how do you determine this margin?

_Rinku_ posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

_Rinku_ posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

My main issue is you have no control what it's spent on. I'd feel a lot better about child support if it was itemized like a business expense. I don't feel like anyone should have to cut someone a check for a child that they instead spend on cigarettes.

Obviously, there are issues where some women spend child support on selfish things. It would be extremely difficult to itemize. How do you differentiate "her money" from "child support" once it's in her bank account? The child needs a place to live; child support goes toward that. Same for many shared expenses like food, gas, electricity, etc. It'd be a nightmare to try to restrict or itemize this stuff.

You don't. You get receipts for what she purchases and it needs to be within a small margin be spent on stuff for the child. Like how businesses do expense accounts.

Alright. You'll need (paid) humans to organize all of that. Verifying everything. Seems like a needless level of bureaucracy to me.

Also, how do you determine this margin?

Margin is arbitrary. And we already have those humans in place. They're already there doing it for taxes.
---

ChromaticAngel posted...

_Rinku_ posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

_Rinku_ posted...

ChromaticAngel posted...

My main issue is you have no control what it's spent on. I'd feel a lot better about child support if it was itemized like a business expense. I don't feel like anyone should have to cut someone a check for a child that they instead spend on cigarettes.

Obviously, there are issues where some women spend child support on selfish things. It would be extremely difficult to itemize. How do you differentiate "her money" from "child support" once it's in her bank account? The child needs a place to live; child support goes toward that. Same for many shared expenses like food, gas, electricity, etc. It'd be a nightmare to try to restrict or itemize this stuff.

You don't. You get receipts for what she purchases and it needs to be within a small margin be spent on stuff for the child. Like how businesses do expense accounts.

Alright. You'll need (paid) humans to organize all of that. Verifying everything. Seems like a needless level of bureaucracy to me.

Also, how do you determine this margin?

Margin is arbitrary. And we already have those humans in place. They're already there doing it for taxes.

not against the idea, but you would definitely have to pay a lot of people to implement it. those people doing taxes already have jobs. also "people doing taxes" is incredibly vague.
---

Hmm... probably just add some rules about what the money can be used for, since I've heard there's not a lot of that.
---

fenderbender321 posted...

Honestly, we should have the courts order the parents to live together with the children, so long as there aren't any issues with violence and whatnot. It's way too expensive for parents to try and raise children while also having 2 mortgage/rent payments.

Do you want children and spouses to be murdered? Because that's what will happen in this proposition of yours.

1) DNA tests should be a court-ordered requirement in order for child support to even be an option. There are plenty of men who are being forced to pay child support for kids that aren't even theirs just because the mother put their name down as the father. Here's two really fucked up examples.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH9fnRnEcr0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S26wVc437Is

2) After DNA is established, custody should be awarded 50/50 to both the mother and father. This in and of itself will eliminate a lot of child support payments. In the event that this is not possible (parents live too far away and/or in different states, one of the parents is a danger to the child or irresponsible) then custody should be awarded to whomever the court deems better fit to take care of child (physically and financially). Non-custodial parent will have visitation rights (which shall not be infringed on by the custodial parent or else they'll face stiff penalties)

3) Child support should be based on child care expenses, not lifestyle expenses. The non custodial parent should be on the hook for HALF of child related expenses such as the incremental costs associated with having to own a 2 bedroom instead of a 1 bedroom house/apt, food, clothing, medical. Child support payments should be capped at somewhere around $1500 a month per child no matter how much the father makes (this amount is probably too high and I'm willing to take it down with a little bit of convincing). Again, this is child support, not lifestyle support. If the court want the child to have the same lifestyle as the non-custodial parent, then they should give that parent custody. Simple as that.

4) While we're in this realm of discussion, alimony should be done away with except for in rare circumstances. Divorce should result in a total separation from each other, and that includes financially. The only situation where alimony should be allowed is if the mother was a stay-at-home mom and may need a little bit of time to find a job (having been out of the work force for a while). This alimony should only be temporary, around 6 months MAX.
---

Hmmm no one has any thoughts on my proposal?
---