Related Topics to Child Support, Divorce, etc.
1. We live in a
world of Double Standards...
A. If a woman conceives a child, she has absolute power to abort that child against the
fathers wishes. In fact, she has no obligation to even inform the father if she
plans on aborting it. She may even have the right to put the child up for adoption.
However, if a father chooses to have no contact or responsibility to a child he sired, he
will most likely be sought after by the mother and/or Child Support Services to pay
support for a child he didn't want.
Mother has the right to decide if a child lives or dies.
Father doesn't.
Mother has the right to decide if a child will be raised and supported.
Father doesn't.
B. Child Support is supposedly exchanged because
it's "in the best interest of the children". If a parent has a child with
someone and they split up, the parent has to surrender 25% of their income to that child
as child support. If the parent then conceives more children with someone else, the
youngest children have to share the 75% that remains. Keep in mind though that that
75% isn't free and clear money. A typical household spends at least 25% of its
income on mortgage payments, insurance, taxes, utilities, etc. So when you consider
what's left, the youngest children really get a smaller portion of support than the first
child receives, especially if there are more than 2 children. How is this scenario
"in the best interest of the children"? Child support should be adjusted
for the total number of children that the parent is responsible for.
C. Many (if not all?) wellfare systems take into
account the incomes of all financially contributing members of a household when providing
aid to that household. Current child support laws do not take into account any
financially contributing members of a household except for the sole parent of the child
receiving child support. We have a double standard in place depending on who is
providing the support. Don't dare screw the government over, but work that obligor
parents fingers to the bone...
2. Child Support/Divorce is
some women's' free ride through life.
Some women have been known to intentionally get pregnant for no real purpose other than to
receive child support payments by the father. I'll bet most of you out there can
name at least one mother you know that has children by 3-4 different fathers and is
receiving support from all or most of them. Although the fathers can't be excused
for the pregnancy, they often are taken advantage of when it occurs. If the woman
wants to be a sit-on-her-ass kind of person, she can almost always get away with it by
simply getting pregnant by multiple men.
And then there are some women who like the idea of
divorcing their husbands and sharing custody of their children so that they can get the
best of both worlds: On one hand, they receive child support from their ex-husbands
(thereby not having to work as much), and on the other hand, they get free time to do as
they please when the father takes the children. This is a great incentive to file
for divorce rather than try to work out the problems of the marriage.
3. Why do we allow married couples with children to split if we're really
interested in "the best interests of the children"?
Shown here is a statement from the 1999 Census Bureau Press Release about custodial
parents and poverty and following it is an observation regarding that press release made
by the authors of the Fathers for Life website.
"Custodial parents receiving at least some of the child
support they were owed had a poverty rate of 22 percent," said Census Bureau analyst
Lydia Scoon-Rogers. "In general, 30 percent of custodial parents were poor in 1995,
compared with 16 percent of all parents with children."
[Observation: Why do we persist in encouraging couples to divorce or separate if their
children are then four times as likely than the children from married couples to live in
poverty? Is that in the best interest of the children? Is it even in the best
interest of the State, society or the tax payers? The 1992 Census report mentions
that only 8% of married couples with children lived in poverty. Note that the figure
of 16% of all "parents" mentioned in the press release contained in this message
includes all single mothers, all single fathers and all married parents. It follows
that, at least to some considerable extent on account of liberal divorce laws, our
children are twice as likely on average to live in poverty now than they were in 1992, at
a considerable cost to tax payers due to relief measures. Does it stand to reason
that welfare costs would be cut in half if no-fault divorce were eliminated or prevented?]
Apparently, splitting up a family makes that family
MORE likely to be poor. Go figure. Perhaps divorce-seeking parents wouldn't be
so quick to divorce, if they couldn't 'gain' from it financially. However, the
'security' of a child support payment is apparently a false one since so many custodial
parents end up in poverty anyways. As in my personal case where my ex wanted to file
for divorce and there was absolutely nothing I could do about it, she may not have been so
quick to do so, if she wouldn't have had the added benefit of child support payments to
help keep her financially afloat. Certainly, resolving the problems of the marriage
must be more in the interest of the children versus them living in two financially
burdened homes with separate lives?
Back to top |
Laws