Child Support as USA Politics.

[Dr.Who]

But I will declare that I say all Child Support orders are unjust and excessive and this is not about some individual cases.

Here is a repeated link from the opening post = Unable to pay child support, poor parents jailed - US news - MSNBC.com

Both the Child Support and Custody laws are fundamentally wrong, and they hurt families alienate children and criminalize parenting and undermines the social structure.

It needs to be fought, and it needs to be stopped.

so much is fundamentally wrong when it comes to the way politicians and B-crats handle things. that I will not ask you to support.

Do you really mean to say that in "all" instances where child support is paid that it is excessive? Knowing what I know about gov I would expect that the instances of child support being insufficient would exist too.

 

[JPCusick]

Do you really mean to say that in "all" instances where child support is paid that it is excessive? Knowing what I know about gov I would expect that the instances of child support being insufficient would exist too.

The Child Support in most cases (the working class families) then the C/S is insufficient - yes, it is often just a pittance as like less than $500 per month, but while it is too little for the custodial parent it is too high for the paying parent as everyone gets cheated and screwed in most cases.

Of course in other (upper class) cases the Custodial parents hit the jackpot and get rich off of unnecessary and excessive Child Support orders.

I say "all" cases are excessive because the parents are to raise their own children by their own standards and their own choices and parenting is a voluntary job and it is not to be under the brute force of a Court order.

Lets say that you have a minor child and I take the custody of your child which makes me the step parent, and of course you object but I got a Court order of custody, then I get your child to call me as their new "Daddy" as that is my option, and then you must pay me your Child Support because I have the custody of your child.

I am the one who legally and factually took your child and yet you are required to pay me, as if I were the kidnapper and you paying the ransom money and all done under the force of law, so then if you do not pay then the law collects by force and if needed then you go to jail.

Of course the scenario is unjust as it is inhuman and ignorant but that is the now ongoing law.

And I say "all" the paying parents are paying the Child Support under threats and force, and therefore no parent is paying the Child Support outside of that force and threats, and that means every penny of c/s is too much.

We really need a system where we try to help the parents instead of punishing the parents for their failings.

 

[Dr.Who]

The Child Support in most cases (the working class families) then the C/S is insufficient - yes, it is often just a pittance as like less than $500 per month, but while it is too little for the custodial parent it is too high for the paying parent as everyone gets cheated and screwed in most cases.

Too little for the one and too much for the other? what was the situation like before they got divorced? Weren't there the same amount of funds to split?

Well, except that if they lived together and shared the expenses of one household then after divorce they had two households to run. So basically the divorce screws the kid - but we all really knew that anyway, didn't we? Let's face it divorce is bad for kids and most parents inflict this financial (and emotional) harm on their kids merely because one wanted to screw another person and the other would not forgive. I think that in many instances the parents are selfish.

I say "all" cases are excessive because the parents are to raise their own children by their own standards and their own choices and parenting is a voluntary job and it is not to be under the brute force of a Court order.

In my book the excessive part refers to the amount of money being too high and the amount of force used is a separate issue. Child support that were too low would not be excessive.

Lets say that you have a minor child and I take the custody of your child which makes me the step parent, and of course you object but I got a Court order of custody, then I get your child to call me as their new "Daddy" as that is my option, and then you must pay me your Child Support because I have the custody of your child.

That happened to my cousin. He married a woman with a child and she stayed with him just long enough for the adoption papers to go through - then he was stuck with child support until the kid was 18 and she planned it from the start.

And I say "all" the paying parents are paying the Child Support under threats and force, and therefore no parent is paying the Child Support outside of that force and threats, and that means every penny of c/s is too much.

I would have to disagree again. The money does not become too much just because the mechanism for moving it from one parent to the other is unjust.

If a parent wants to pay the money but the state is willing to coerce that parent if it is not paid is the payment coerced? I would say that the payment is not a actually coerced in this instance though the system is still coercive.

We really need a system where we try to help the parents instead of punishing the parents for their failings.

If one parent does not choose to support a child financially is that not neglect? Maybe we need to treat it like any other case of neglect?

 

[JPCusick]

If one parent does not choose to support a child financially is that not neglect? Maybe we need to treat it like any other case of neglect?

It is not a case of neglect, and in fact the children are not neglected so there is no victim and no real crime.

If any parent decides to pay or not to pay for any finance concerning their own child(ren) then that is a normal parental decision.

A child can not go up to their parent (Mom or Dad) and declare Daddy (or Mommy) you owe me my dinner tonight because that is your parental duty under the force of law.

The parents get to make their own parental decisions about finances as that is a due part of parenting.

It is not the proper business of government.

 

[Dr.Who]

It is not a case of neglect, and in fact the children are not neglected so there is no victim and no real crime.

If any parent decides to pay or not to pay for any finance concerning their own child(ren) then that is a normal parental decision.

A child can not go up to their parent (Mom or Dad) and declare Daddy (or Mommy) you owe me my dinner tonight because that is your parental duty under the force of law.

The parents get to make their own parental decisions about finances as that is a due part of parenting.

It is not the proper business of government.

I agree that can be true in some cases but disagree that it would be true in all.

A parent without funds is not capable of providing many things but even that parent must find a way to provide the basics even if that means begging or giving up a child for adoption. Failure to provide enough food for example to thrive is neglect.

The same is true of non-custodial parents, they must provide what they can to assure that the child thrives. Now if the other parent has enough money it would be rude but not neglect.

P.s. I think that these kinds of discussion all interconnect and suggest that if you participated in other threads all of us would benefit including you.

 

[JPCusick]

I agree that can be true in some cases but disagree that it would be true in all.

A parent without funds is not capable of providing many things but even that parent must find a way to provide the basics even if that means begging or giving up a child for adoption. Failure to provide enough food for example to thrive is neglect.

The same is true of non-custodial parents, they must provide what they can to assure that the child thrives. Now if the other parent has enough money it would be rude but not neglect.

Many people see it that way that the children must "thrive" or prosper or some other synonym adjective but that is not a true requirement of parenting or of child growth.

In every culture poorer parents have poorer children, and in the USA there are many families and adults who do not have the option of thriving or of prospering, so it is not natural or realistic to make such an idea under the force of law.

In China they made a law of one child per family, so the USA is saying and created laws that poorer people are not to have any children unless they can afford the demands of the Child Support enforcement.

And in the USA then every Custodial plus children can if needed apply and receive Public Assistance for anything ANYTHING the child needs, so there is no child anywhere in the USA who goes without any of their true needs except and only by the neglect or abuse or incompetence of the Custodial.

And for the poorest of poor families on Welfare then the States do not give those families the Child Support even when it does get paid as the States keep the loot, see link HERE and HERE.

P.s. I think that these kinds of discussion all interconnect and suggest that if you participated in other threads all of us would benefit including you.

I am certain that you are correct in that, but I am just one person with limited time and abilities.

As it is now I participate on many Internet forums aside from other computer activity so that I simply have to set reasonable limits onto myself.

Also in my case I do have a specific agenda and purpose and I do not want to let myself to get sidetracked.

 

[Dr.Who]

Many people see it that way that the children must "thrive" or prosper or some other synonym adjective but that is not a true requirement of parenting or of child growth.

In every culture poorer parents have poorer children, and in the USA there are many families and adults who do not have the option of thriving or of prospering, so it is not natural or realistic to make such an idea under the force of law.
.

Maybe parents who live alone in a wilderness might not have the option to make sure that their children thrive but here in the US parents have no excuse. Any parent at all can go to a food shelter and get food for their children.

I accept no excuse from a parent who does not provide for his children and if he does not it is neglect. If that parent has money he darn well better use some of it for his kids and if he does not have money he better be using his time to benefit his kids and if for some reason he does not have money or time he better be making sure that someone else takes over raising those kids.

So lets apply this to the topic at hand. Suppose a woman with no job or skills becomes divorced from a man with poor skills. The woman is custodial and the man is non-custodial. Since the woman cannot provide for the kids the man must do what he can. This was true even before they were divorced and it does not stop being true now. (personally I do not think that man should have ever become involved with a woman who had no skills but this is our example) If the man has no money then he has time and if he has not money or time then the two of them need to give the child up. If the man has some money he needs to provide what he can. If it is not enough (given that they also can get food stamps and public aid and food from the food pantry I can hardly imagine that they would not have enough) then they need to give the child up. If it is enough then they can raise the child. I am not saying they need to raise that child in the lap of luxury but they do need to give enough food and shelter for it to thrive.

 

[JPCusick]

Maybe parents who live alone in a wilderness might not have the option to make sure that their children thrive but here in the US parents have no excuse. Any parent at all can go to a food shelter and get food for their children.

Providing food, shelter, medical, and such for children is not my understanding of "thriving" as that is just basic existence.

So yes even parents in the wilderness have provided survival to their children, and there is Public Assistance programs for poor families found in every society throughout the entire history of humanity.

Thriving is some thing which no one has the power to give away, even though some people are better at it than are others.

I accept no excuse from a parent who does not provide for his children and if he does not it is neglect. If that parent has money he darn well better use some of it for his kids and if he does not have money he better be using his time to benefit his kids and if for some reason he does not have money or time he better be making sure that someone else takes over raising those kids.

And what are you? the over-lord of human parents? the parenting God or parenting police?

You are violating some simple but realistic human boundaries because other parents are not to be subject to your given projections onto others.

So lets apply this to the topic at hand. Suppose a woman with no job or skills becomes divorced from a man with poor skills. The woman is custodial and the man is non-custodial. Since the woman cannot provide for the kids the man must do what he can. This was true even before they were divorced and it does not stop being true now. (personally I do not think that man should have ever become involved with a woman who had no skills but this is our example) If the man has no money then he has time and if he has not money or time then the two of them need to give the child up. If the man has some money he needs to provide what he can. If it is not enough (given that they also can get food stamps and public aid and food from the food pantry I can hardly imagine that they would not have enough) then they need to give the child up. If it is enough then they can raise the child. I am not saying they need to raise that child in the lap of luxury but they do need to give enough food and shelter for it to thrive.

The point and purpose of Public Assistance programs is to make so the people in need are provided, and we do not want any parent(s) to give up their child(ren), and I find it unsettling that you say that parents are to "give up" their children with such cold heartless repetition.

And again - food and shelter is only survival and not thriving.

 

[Dr.Who]

Providing food, shelter, medical, and such for children is not my understanding of "thriving" as that is just basic existence.

So yes even parents in the wilderness have provided survival to their children, and there is Public Assistance programs for poor families found in every society throughout the entire history of humanity.

Thriving is some thing which no one has the power to give away, even though some people are better at it than are others.



And what are you? the over-lord of human parents? the parenting God or parenting police?

You are violating some simple but realistic human boundaries because other parents are not to be subject to your given projections onto others.



The point and purpose of Public Assistance programs is to make so the people in need are provided, and we do not want any parent(s) to give up their child(ren), and I find it unsettling that you say that parents are to "give up" their children with such cold heartless repetition.

And again - food and shelter is only survival and not thriving.

Your term "survive" is probably better than my term "thrive." So then do we agree that parents should provide enough so that their kids survive?

Am I the parent police? It was my opinion that I think the state does rightly enforce in the current neglect laws. Changing thrive for survive you might agree, do you?

This is what I said about giving up children:

"If it is not enough (given that they also can get food stamps and public aid and food from the food pantry I can hardly imagine that they would not have enough) then they need to give the child up."

Should a parent who cannot provide for his children to survive either on his own or with assistance give up that child? The alternative is that the child would not survive so I was correct. MMaybe you will agree with the insertion of the word survive instead of thrive?

 

[JPCusick]

Your term "survive" is probably better than my term "thrive." So then do we agree that parents should provide enough so that their kids survive?

I do object to that wording because that wording is based on a perspective that you or we or the laws have to give such orders or commands to the parents and I want to take the belligerence out of the equation.

I say that all human parents will always naturally and instinctively provide for the survival of their offspring, unless some thing interferes with the parents and their parenting.

If we view other parents as we view ourselves then all human parents love and care deeply about their children and it is very unnatural otherwise.

As such we do not need to give any instruction or commandments to the parents, and we could try giving the parents help and support in their parenting instead of the unnatural accusations.

If we see baby birds in a tree nest, and if we want to help those baby birds to grow, then we leave out food and water and such for the mommy and daddy birds and just let the parent birds raise their own baby birds, because the parents will do it them self and the babies want their own parents, and NONE of them want our interference.

Am I the parent police? It was my opinion that I think the state does rightly enforce in the current neglect laws. Changing thrive for survive you might agree, do you?

I agree that when the children are in a condition of physical abuse or harmful neglect or parental incompetence then yes the Gov and the police do need to interfere and intervene, but not otherwise.

Paying or not paying the Child Support does NOT "neglect" the children, as it is the job of the Custodial to provide everything that the child(ren) need, even if that includes Public Assistance, so that means the children do have everything they need whether the Child Support is paid or not.

And for the poorest of poor families on Welfare do not receive the Child Support even if it does get paid as the law keeps the loot, link HERE.

This is what I said about giving up children:

"If it is not enough (given that they also can get food stamps and public aid and food from the food pantry I can hardly imagine that they would not have enough) then they need to give the child up."

Should a parent who cannot provide for his children to survive either on his own or with assistance give up that child? The alternative is that the child would not survive so I was correct. Maybe you will agree with the insertion of the word survive instead of thrive?

I confess that is correct, but that is saying the Custodial is incompetent or criminal or mentally ill, so in that case we would not expect the Custodial to give up their child(ren) as the police would most likely need to intervene.

I do agree though that the children do have full access to everything and anything they need regardless of any Child Support being paid or not.

Of course I want the children to survive, and I even want the children to be able to thrive and excel, but the way to best help the children is by helping both of their parents in being parents and NOT by the present system of punishing parents for their failings.

 

[Dr.Who]

I do object to that wording because that wording is based on a perspective that you or we or the laws have to give such orders or commands to the parents and I want to take the belligerence out of the equation.

I say that all human parents will always naturally and instinctively provide for the survival of their offspring, unless some thing interferes with the parents and their parenting.

If we view other parents as we view ourselves then all human parents love and care deeply about their children and it is very unnatural otherwise.

As such we do not need to give any instruction or commandments to the parents, and we could try giving the parents help and support in their parenting instead of the unnatural accusations.

If we see baby birds in a tree nest, and if we want to help those baby birds to grow, then we leave out food and water and such for the mommy and daddy birds and just let the parent birds raise their own baby birds, because the parents will do it them self and the babies want their own parents, and NONE of them want our interference.



I agree that when the children are in a condition of physical abuse or harmful neglect or parental incompetence then yes the Gov and the police do need to interfere and intervene, but not otherwise.

Paying or not paying the Child Support does NOT "neglect" the children, as it is the job of the Custodial to provide everything that the child(ren) need, even if that includes Public Assistance, so that means the children do have everything they need whether the Child Support is paid or not.

And for the poorest of poor families on Welfare do not receive the Child Support even if it does get paid as the law keeps the loot, link HERE.



I confess that is correct, but that is saying the Custodial is incompetent or criminal or mentally ill, so in that case we would not expect the Custodial to give up their child(ren) as the police would most likely need to intervene.

I do agree though that the children do have full access to everything and anything they need regardless of any Child Support being paid or not.

Of course I want the children to survive, and I even want the children to be able to thrive and excel, but the way to best help the children is by helping both of their parents in being parents and NOT by the present system of punishing parents for their failings.

In all of that one line struck me the most. You said that the custodial parent has the responisbility of providing care for the child. That makes perfect sense and since a court awarded custody to one parent it makes sense that the other parent could not be guilty of neglect except during visitations. I am forced to make a retraction as I cannot see how failure to pay child support would be neglect.

 

[JPCusick]

In all of that one line struck me the most. You said that the custodial parent has the responsibility of providing care for the child. That makes perfect sense and since a court awarded custody to one parent it makes sense that the other parent could not be guilty of neglect except during visitations. I am forced to make a retraction as I cannot see how failure to pay child support would be neglect.

Well I am confronted, and I am not accustomed to such a thing that you would actually think and reason for your self, and then express your own feelings and your own deductions online as if you are a conscious human being.

As such I am sincerely impressed by your candid honesty and forthrightness.

IMO, the order of "Custody" is near kin to kidnapping, and the parent who does not have the custody is the parent who has been hurt.

 

[dogtowner]

In all of that one line struck me the most. You said that the custodial parent has the responisbility of providing care for the child. That makes perfect sense and since a court awarded custody to one parent it makes sense that the other parent could not be guilty of neglect except during visitations. I am forced to make a retraction as I cannot see how failure to pay child support would be neglect.

ok so perhaps 'neglect' is an inappropriate term, what would be better descriptive ?

the proscribed child support is intended (rightly or wrongly) to represent the non-custodial parent's share of the child's needs. absent the cash, those needs are not met and its the job of the custodial parent to make up the difference,

if not neglect then what else describes this irresponsibility ?

 

[JPCusick]

ok so perhaps 'neglect' is an inappropriate term, what would be better descriptive ?

the proscribed child support is intended (rightly or wrongly) to represent the non-custodial parent's share of the child's needs. absent the cash, those needs are not met and its the job of the custodial parent to make up the difference,

if not neglect then what else describes this irresponsibility ?

If the Custodial parent can not provide the full custody then they have no business having the custody and the children need to be removed from that Custodial parent and given into the custody of the other parent or into the care of some one who can provide the custody.

Given the reality that the Custodial can get Public Assistance for the child(ren) and there are other public programs as like Churches and food pantries, and the Custodial could get their own employment income or job, then there is no reason for the Custodial or the children to ever have any unmet need.

The ONLY only way that any child in the USA can go without their true needs being filled is only by the abuse or neglect or the incompetence of the Custodial.

If a Custodial can not provide every need in full then they have no business having that custody of any child.

It is utterly ridiculous to say that the parent who does NOT have custody is responsible for the unmet needs of the children while the child is in the custody of some one else.

 

[dogtowner]

If the Custodial parent can not provide the full custody then they have no business having the custody and the children need to be removed from that Custodial parent and given into the custody of the other parent or into the care of some one who can provide the custody.

Given the reality that the Custodial can get Public Assistance for the child(ren) and there are other public programs as like Churches and food pantries, and the Custodial could get their own employment income or job, then there is no reason for the Custodial or the children to ever have any unmet need.

The ONLY only way that any child in the USA can go without their true needs being filled is only by the abuse or neglect or the incompetence of the Custodial.

If a Custodial can not provide every need in full then they have no business having that custody of any child.

It is utterly ridiculous to say that the parent who does NOT have custody is responsible for the unmet needs of the children while the child is in the custody of some one else.

given the caveat that courts will overweight toward granting custody to the mother, there is usually a reason for the divorce and that factors into things as well. be that as it may, if its your blood flowing through that child, you bear responsibility to bring it uo whther you remain married or not. I understand that you disagree but that does not change anything for me.

that being said

yes, the formula for determining child support could bear some review.

yes, I question the degree of overweight on mother custody even if I do understand the why.

yes, I blame the problem on no-fault divorce.