Child support law

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

I'd argue this should be a case by case thing, however. There may be good reasons for the mother not to want to reveal who the father is. Or good reasons for the father not to want to be in the child's life. It's not just a simple ''he's an anonymous fuck'' or ''she's a selfish cunt''.

There might be.

So require paternity testing, and if the court deems others as having better reason to know who the father is than the parents have to conceal it, let the courts decide.

EDIT: That said, I consider Scomagia's remarks to be lacking in adequate nuance.

[Galloism]

Well, that would be the logical outgrowth of "children have a right to THEIR parents resources".

It would also mean that if children are taken in by the state (IE, put in foster care due to neglect, etc), parents would owe the state child support, yet I think there's only one country in Europe that even has that codified into law, and they don't even do it regularly as far as I can tell.

Taken to the logical extreme, it would also be required for parents to pay child support to adoptive parents. Or recognize that we're selling children to the adoptive parents (as they are assuming a debt of the biological parents), with the relevant legal and tax ramifications of that.

Yeah, it's complicated to be sure. That's why I'm not absolutely fixed on any one idea because the policy implications are a bit beyond my ken. The issue you raised with adoptive parents, for instance, is one I hadn't even considered.

Yeppers.

Also, people are totally ok with this, but NOT ok with selling children outright, which implies that they don't REALLY care about the child's rights to their own parents resources - unless that parent is a male AND the child's female parent wants it. Which honestly sounds a lot more like they care that the woman gets paid for having produced a child for the man, rather than it being about the child's rights at all.

Sure, we dress it up different, but functionally, that's the way it really works. We don't care if he "gets away with it" if the child's mother doesn't need it (due to being self sufficient, giving the child away, etc). We only care when she demands it of him. That carries certain implications.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

You seem to be blaming women about this completely. Ostro gave an alternative to this. Reveal the pertinent info to doctors and that way, any medical info is on record without revealing father or mother, whichever is the case.

Because women are the only ones at fault, here. A man can hardly have himself named as the father completely on his own, nor can he keep from being named.

As long as the child knows who their father is and can get the relevant info, I don't care if the information is otherwise confidential. But that information shouldn't be anonymous to the child. They still have a right to know specifically who they come from.

You are categorically saying that when a woman withholds the info, she's doing so because she's selfish. Let me ask you, do you know every single reason there is to know behind why a woman may be keeping secret the identity of the father? I don't doubt that some do so out of spite, it's a human thing. But the problem with your approach is that you ignore there are valid reasons as to why a woman may keep the father's identity secret. And they aren't always about being selfish cunts. In some cases, that withholding is in the child's best interest.

Should we force women to reveal the identity of the father in every single situation? Are you sure that's the approach we should take?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I'd argue this should be a case by case thing, however. There may be good reasons for the mother not to want to reveal who the father is. Or good reasons for the father not to want to be in the child's life. It's not just a simple ''he's an anonymous fuck'' or ''she's a selfish cunt''.

There might be.

So require paternity testing, and if the court deems others as having better reason to know who the father is than the parents have to conceal it, let the courts decide.

EDIT: That said, I consider Scomagia's remarks to be lacking in adequate nuance.

I don't oppose a paternity test if there's reasonable doubt. On that we agree.

[Holy Tedalonia]

Just because your related by blood doesnt make it a "right" to know an individual. In the grand scheme of things, knowing your biological father is likely not going to make a change over the missing father figure, and even if you were able to meet one day you would be strangers to one another. In the end of the day, you'd only be making an acquaintance.

Medical history is the most powerful reason reason that you're wrong. If a child is ignorant of their father, half of their relevant medical information is permanently beyond their grasp. Genetic disease and risk factors can completely blindside them because...mama didn't want to admit who she fucked. It's a travesty.

I mean it's one thing to give medical information, but the social aspect of "who was the father" is completely unnecessary. A child has a right to medical information pertaining them, and the potential genetics diseases that they may receive, however it doesn't give them a "right" to know who their father was.

[The South Falls]

Medical history is the most powerful reason reason that you're wrong. If a child is ignorant of their father, half of their relevant medical information is permanently beyond their grasp. Genetic disease and risk factors can completely blindside them because...mama didn't want to admit who she fucked. It's a travesty.

I mean it's one thing to give medical information, but the social aspect of "who was the father" is completely unnecessary. A child has a right to medical information pertaining them, and the potential genetics diseases that they may receive, however it doesn't give them a "right" to know who their father was.

I can pass you my genetics without giving you my name.

[The Grande Republic 0f Arcadia]

On to the matter at hand my personal opinion a long term solution is to abolish abortion by abolishing pregnancy entirely. Huxley was right in one regard, but we could do without the weird need to create hermaphrodites.

Hey now we can still create some hermaphrodites
For science

for "Science"

[Pope Joan]

Our child support system exists to enrich the welfare departments; most of that cash never gets to the kids, it goes to the state and county governments to repay (they say) the benefits they have disbursed.

Ever try to give these kids food and clothing directly? It's treated like a crime! Like trying to cheat the system.

Which is a pitiful messed up system.

A lot of these so called deadbeat dads would like to take care of their kids, if we would let them.

But that it not what this charade is really all about

[Scomagia]

Because women are the only ones at fault, here. A man can hardly have himself named as the father completely on his own, nor can he keep from being named.

As long as the child knows who their father is and can get the relevant info, I don't care if the information is otherwise confidential. But that information shouldn't be anonymous to the child. They still have a right to know specifically who they come from.

You are categorically saying that when a woman withholds the info, she's doing so because she's selfish. Let me ask you, do you know every single reason there is to know behind why a woman may be keeping secret the identity of the father? I don't doubt that some do so out of spite, it's a human thing. But the problem with your approach is that you ignore there are valid reasons as to why a woman may keep the father's identity secret. And they aren't always about being selfish cunts. In some cases, that withholding is in the child's best interest.

Should we force women to reveal the identity of the father in every single situation? Are you sure that's the approach we should take?

Absolutely that's the approach we should take.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

You are categorically saying that when a woman withholds the info, she's doing so because she's selfish. Let me ask you, do you know every single reason there is to know behind why a woman may be keeping secret the identity of the father? I don't doubt that some do so out of spite, it's a human thing. But the problem with your approach is that you ignore there are valid reasons as to why a woman may keep the father's identity secret. And they aren't always about being selfish cunts. In some cases, that withholding is in the child's best interest.

Should we force women to reveal the identity of the father in every single situation? Are you sure that's the approach we should take?

Absolutely that's the approach we should take.

Even if it's to protect children from abusers?

[Scomagia]

Medical history is the most powerful reason reason that you're wrong. If a child is ignorant of their father, half of their relevant medical information is permanently beyond their grasp. Genetic disease and risk factors can completely blindside them because...mama didn't want to admit who she fucked. It's a travesty.

I mean it's one thing to give medical information, but the social aspect of "who was the father" is completely unnecessary. A child has a right to medical information pertaining them, and the potential genetics diseases that they may receive, however it doesn't give them a "right" to know who their father was.

The social aspect is perfectly relevant. Children raised without their fathers demonstrably suffer for that absence and not just because of the missing father but because of the missing father's family. The broader the social support a child has, the better.

[Scomagia]

Absolutely that's the approach we should take.

Even if it's to protect children from abusers?

Lying (by omission) about a child's father doesn't protect them from abuse. It is abuse. If the father is provably abusive, we have laws for that sort of thing. It is not legitimate for a woman to omit details of the child's father based on allegations of abuse alone.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Even if it's to protect children from abusers?

Lying (by omission) about a child's father doesn't protect them from abuse. It is abuse. If the father is provably abusive, we have laws for that sort of thing. It is not legitimate for a woman to omit details of the child's father based on allegations of abuse alone.

If those allegations are proven true, would you force her to reveal who the father is anyway, even if this goes against the child's best interest?

[Scomagia]

Lying (by omission) about a child's father doesn't protect them from abuse. It is abuse. If the father is provably abusive, we have laws for that sort of thing. It is not legitimate for a woman to omit details of the child's father based on allegations of abuse alone.

If those allegations are proven true, would you force her to reveal who the father is anyway, even if this goes against the child's best interest?

You're getting ahead of yourself. First you need to show how that would be against the child's interest.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

If those allegations are proven true, would you force her to reveal who the father is anyway, even if this goes against the child's best interest?

You're getting ahead of yourself. First you need to show how that would be against the child's interest.

Let's say allegations of abuse done to the mother are reported, investigated and proven to be true, and there is cause to believe the child is in danger of abuse too if he or she had contact with the father, would you still force the mother to reveal who the father is even if this goes against the child's best interest? Or safety?

Let's say it's not abuse but rather that the father leads a dangerous life (crime, for example), and there is cause to believe that the child knowing the father goes against his or her best interest, would you still force the mother to reveal his identity?

I will be the first to agree that sometimes, this withholding of information is done for selfish reasons, but for the situations where that is not the reason, I think this needs to be approached in a case by case basis.

[Diopolis]

The legal principle is that the needs of the child take precedence over the needs of the parents, hence why neglect is a crime. Thus men must pay child support even at expense to themselves. Now this makes pro-choice abortion laws rather hypocritical; but that is another discussion.

[The Republic of Fore]

There might be.

So require paternity testing, and if the court deems others as having better reason to know who the father is than the parents have to conceal it, let the courts decide.

EDIT: That said, I consider Scomagia's remarks to be lacking in adequate nuance.

I don't oppose a paternity test if there's reasonable doubt. On that we agree.

What if there is no reasonable doubt? Can I request one just because I want it?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I don't oppose a paternity test if there's reasonable doubt. On that we agree.

What if there is no reasonable doubt? Can I request one just because I want it?

I'd imagine so.

[The Republic of Fore]

The legal principle is that the needs of the child take precedence over the needs of the parents, hence why neglect is a crime. Thus men must pay child support even at expense to themselves. Now this makes pro-choice abortion laws rather hypocritical; but that is another discussion.

If we're not going to give men the option to a "financial abortion" then CS should be limited. None of this ridiculous crap where women get 50,000 a month for one child. At that point, It's not child support. It's woman who doesn't want to work support.

[Scomagia]

You're getting ahead of yourself. First you need to show how that would be against the child's interest.

Let's say allegations of abuse done to the mother are reported, investigated and proven to be true, and there is cause to believe the child is in danger of abuse too if he or she had contact with the father, would you still force the mother to reveal who the father is even if this goes against the child's best interest? Or safety?

Let's say it's not abuse but rather that the father leads a dangerous life (crime, for example), and there is cause to believe that the child knowing the father goes against his or her best interest, would you still force the mother to reveal his identity?

I will be the first to agree that sometimes, this withholding of information is done for selfish reasons, but for the situations where that is not the reason, I think this needs to be approached in a case by case basis.

Both of the examples you gave are already situations where legal options exist to protect the child. A person convicted of those crimes can already be prevented from having custody and, therefore, the opportunity to abuse. A person whose lifestyle is provably harmful to expose the child to can also be denied custody. Withholding the name of the father is an poor solution to a problem that already has a legal solution. Further, witholding the name of the father, even supposing he has been abusive or a criminal, denies father and child access to each other when and if he becomes a more fit parent. You are placing essentially legal power over the father/child relationship squarely in the hands of the mother. That's wrong.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Let's say allegations of abuse done to the mother are reported, investigated and proven to be true, and there is cause to believe the child is in danger of abuse too if he or she had contact with the father, would you still force the mother to reveal who the father is even if this goes against the child's best interest? Or safety?

Let's say it's not abuse but rather that the father leads a dangerous life (crime, for example), and there is cause to believe that the child knowing the father goes against his or her best interest, would you still force the mother to reveal his identity?

I will be the first to agree that sometimes, this withholding of information is done for selfish reasons, but for the situations where that is not the reason, I think this needs to be approached in a case by case basis.

Both of the examples you gave are already situations where legal options exist to protect the child. A person convicted of those crimes can already be prevented from having custody and, therefore, the opportunity to abuse. A person whose lifestyle is provably harmful to expose the child to can also be denied custody. Withholding the name of the father is an poor solution to a problem that already has a legal solution. Further, witholding the name of the father, even supposing he has been abusive or a criminal, denies father and child access to each other when and if he becomes a more fit parent. You are placing essentially legal power over the father/child relationship squarely in the hands of the mother. That's wrong.

Allow me to repeat myself:

I will be the first to agree that sometimes, this withholding of information is done for selfish reasons, but for the situations where that is not the reason, I think this needs to be approached in a case by case basis.

You are supporting a blanket enforcement, it seems. That's just as wrong.

[Diopolis]

The legal principle is that the needs of the child take precedence over the needs of the parents, hence why neglect is a crime. Thus men must pay child support even at expense to themselves. Now this makes pro-choice abortion laws rather hypocritical; but that is another discussion.

If we're not going to give men the option to a "financial abortion" then CS should be limited. None of this ridiculous crap where women get 50,000 a month for one child. At that point, It's not child support. It's woman who doesn't want to work support.

It’s woman living the high life support, you mean.

[LimaUniformNovemberAlpha]

Let's say allegations of abuse done to the mother are reported, investigated and proven to be true, and there is cause to believe the child is in danger of abuse too if he or she had contact with the father, would you still force the mother to reveal who the father is even if this goes against the child's best interest? Or safety?

Let's say it's not abuse but rather that the father leads a dangerous life (crime, for example), and there is cause to believe that the child knowing the father goes against his or her best interest, would you still force the mother to reveal his identity?

I will be the first to agree that sometimes, this withholding of information is done for selfish reasons, but for the situations where that is not the reason, I think this needs to be approached in a case by case basis.

Both of the examples you gave are already situations where legal options exist to protect the child. A person convicted of those crimes can already be prevented from having custody and, therefore, the opportunity to abuse. A person whose lifestyle is provably harmful to expose the child to can also be denied custody. Withholding the name of the father is an poor solution to a problem that already has a legal solution. Further, witholding the name of the father, even supposing he has been abusive or a criminal, denies father and child access to each other when and if he becomes a more fit parent. You are placing essentially legal power over the father/child relationship squarely in the hands of the mother. That's wrong.

What happens if abuse is likely enough to justify protecting the child from the father, but not proven conclusively enough to sentencing the father to prison?

[Holy Tedalonia]

I mean it's one thing to give medical information, but the social aspect of "who was the father" is completely unnecessary. A child has a right to medical information pertaining them, and the potential genetics diseases that they may receive, however it doesn't give them a "right" to know who their father was.

The social aspect is perfectly relevant. Children raised without their fathers demonstrably suffer for that absence and not just because of the missing father but because of the missing father's family. The broader the social support a child has, the better.

I can relate somewhat in that aspect, yes. It can be helpful making ties and provide more social support, however there are other ways to garner more social support. That being said I do not find it tasteful to force a mother into revealing information about a family that moght hate her guts.

[Cekoviu]

Child support should be gender-neutral and required only if the party with custody is below the poverty threshold.