2007-08-02 06:09:14 · 13 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
Just because one of the parents decides to escape from the marriage or comitment to the other does NOT mean that he/she can excape the responsibility of making sure the child's needs are not met. However, the kids MUST not be used as leverage or weapons to "get back" at the non-custodial parent. When kids are "used" like that it messes with their minds and can set THEM up to find themselves in healthy relationships when they get to be adults and parents.
But, as long as the kids are NOT being used in this way then both parents should and must take full responsibility to make sure that the kids' needs are being met. Kids need to have fullinvolvement by both parents, even if the two are not together. The two parents need to work out all sorts of things such as, discilpine, religion, education, special needs and the like. If one parent opts out of his/her role as a parent then that parent should lose all other rights with respect to the children as well.
Raji the Green Witch
2007-08-02 13:55:40 · answer #1 · answered by Raji the Green Witch 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
people should support their children. Just because a couple divorces it does not mean that they divorce their children too. The children should not suffer and go without the things that they need just because one parent decides that they don't want to pay it. I was happy when they started enforcing stricter laws. And I am a divorced woman and my son lives with his father right now and I pay support and buy things he needs. It is a parents responsibility!
Coragryph, I disagree with you, If their was a trustee then the chances of the child getting what he needed would drop, The child would be at the mercy of the trustee which in most cases has little or no interest in the child's welfare to start with. And the support goes to the parent to use for things like rent, food, utilities. Most parents use the money in the best interest of the child. Why should all parents suffer because there are some out there that misuse the money for drugs, alcohol and so forth. Those people are the ones that should have the money "guarded" by a trustee. And as far as being against government mandated payments... If the dead beats would just pay then the government would not have to step in!
2007-08-02 13:16:38 · answer #2 · answered by Robin L 6 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The real issue in child support is when unmarried people conceive a child and the man doesn't want it. Some people may see this as tough luck but consider this: a woman can abort a child she doesn't want regardless of how the child's father feels. The father has absolutely no choice in the matter. Why is it that a woman can force a man to take responsiblity for a child, but she can choose not to? I suggest that men should have the right to terminate their parental rights BEFORE(and only before) the child is born...a legal abortion so to speak. He couldn't do this after the child was born, and could never change his mind once he has done this. It is only fair. If women have the right to chose, men should as well.
2007-08-02 13:58:04 · answer #3 · answered by missbeans 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It is fair in some senses.
In a lot of custody cases, usually the mother gets to keep the children regardless of what kind of person she is, because she is a mother and therefore seen as the responsible of two. The father generally gets stuck without the kids, no matter how much he loves them, and then has to pay crippling child support without being allowed to see his children very often. I don't think that's fair.
If a spouse should have to pay child support, it should be a fair amount so that the spouse with custody is pulling their weight, financially, also. Especially since the spouse with custody may just blow child support money on drugs and alcohol and turn out to be a complete buttface.
2007-08-02 13:24:32 · answer #4 · answered by ? 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think paying child support is needed, but some serious changes need to happen in this country!
First, this thing of tossing someone in jail if they get a little behind is crazy! Sure, some won't pay at all unless the jail thing is held over their head, but for some that pay and have some sort of financial tragedy, there should be some leeway given.
Second, support and visitation need to be tied back together!!! If mom isn't allowing the visits, then support should be cut off. I know, some will yell that it isn't fair to the kids for what the custodial parent is doing. And you're right. Here's how to fix it.....custodial parent shows that they routinely interfere, cut off support, if that becomes a burden on the custodial parent then custody should be given to the non-custodial parent. None of this that dad has to pay support AND pay for an attorney to enforce visits, mom interferes, mom looses custody....
2007-08-02 14:01:28 · answer #5 · answered by jonn449 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think a parent should pay child support...but I think there needs to be a limit...it should not be "Ex-Wife" support...which it ends up being 90% of the time...they pay for their cell phones, rent, car payment...and the government allows this...my thing is, they would have rent and a car payment if they did not have a kid also...but some women, my ex included, uses having kids as a job...we have been divorced 6 years and we had two children together, now she is about to have her 2nd and 3rd child since we have been divorced...she had one a few years ago...and still to this day has not been re-married...she used my child support money to take care of herself during these times because she has not worked a real job since after we got divorced (I am just now about to have my first with my new and improved wife)...but now I have custody of my youngest child, so I no longer pay child support...I think whoever is recieving the child support should be forced to work...not sit on their butts and pump out kids to make more money...
2007-08-02 13:33:10 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
I think people should pay child support BUT their whole pay check should not be taken by the person receiving the child support. I do think the whole system needs to be redone so that people who do not pay child support are caught and ones who do pay should not have all of their money taken out. If people were not so vindictive about divorces and who gets what, I do not think there would be these problems.
2007-08-02 13:42:05 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's a child's right to receive support from both parents. I think it helps the children to feel loved if both parents support them. However, I was never afforded that luxury after my divorce. If you are working, the agencies don't care that much, they go after the fathers of the welfare mothers. When I went to one agency once they said I had to pay a certain amount of money because I was working. I told them, "If I had that amount of money to give you, I wouldn't be looking for child support."
2007-08-02 13:39:57 · answer #8 · answered by ? 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's much cheaper to use birth control than child support for 18 years. If you make a kid, you gotta pay for it. BOTH of you.
2007-08-02 13:23:32 · answer #9 · answered by Mezmarelda 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
In general ,I think we all should support the supporting of children for supporting our children is supporting the future.
2007-08-02 13:22:17 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋