Child support law

[Scomagia]

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.

You haven't demonstrated a single instance where a mother witholding information about her child's father actually protects that child. Instead, you've given examples where the law already works to protect the child's interest without denying them the knowledge of their father's identity.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Allow me to repeat myself:


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

You haven't demonstrated a single instance where a mother witholding information about her child's father actually protects that child. Instead, you've given examples where the law already works to protect the child's interest without denying them the knowledge of their father's identity.

I already gave you the examples in which this could be needed. But to humor you, what if the father is, say, a child molester. What do you think revealing such a thing could do to a child? Not just a child, imagine revealing this to an adult son or daughter who are more aware of the implications. What do you think such a reveal would do to them?

This is why you supporting a blanket enforcement is wrong.

To add to this: https://scholarlycommons.law.northweste ... text=njlsp

In addition to being psychologically damaging to the victim, the presence of these PTSD symptoms also affect the victim mother’s ability to effectively parent. The “domino effect” demonstrates that allowing a rapist father to assert his parental rights is not in the best interests of the child.

In such instances, withholding the father's identity is in the best interest of both the mother and the child.

[Scomagia]

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?

Nothing. Rule of law and presumption of innocence thankfully protect people from others assumptions of their risk to their children. If he hasn't done enough to be convicted, why should the mother wield extrajudicial power over his relationship with his child?

[Scomagia]

You haven't demonstrated a single instance where a mother witholding information about her child's father actually protects that child. Instead, you've given examples where the law already works to protect the child's interest without denying them the knowledge of their father's identity.

I already gave you the examples in which this could be needed. But to humor you, what if the father is, say, a child molester. What do you think revealing such a thing could do to a child? Not just a child, imagine revealing this to an adult son or daughter who are more aware of the implications. What do you think such a reveal would do to them?

This is why you supporting a blanket enforcement is wrong.

No. You gave examples where the law is clearly sufficient to protect the child. Your child molester scenario is the same damn thing. If they haven't done enough to satisfy a court that they are a danger to the child, then no one has a right to violate the father/child relationship.

The effect of revealing the truth is fundamentally irrelevant. It is not acceptable to keep the truth from people to protect them. It's a violation of parental responsibility, really, and you cannot have any sort of meaningful relationship with someone if you keep the truth from them on a daily basis.

Am I really the only one who has an issue with giving mothers extrajudicial powers?

As for your edit, everything I've already said applies. No one has a right to exercise what is essentially judicial authority because they have a vagina.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I already gave you the examples in which this could be needed. But to humor you, what if the father is, say, a child molester. What do you think revealing such a thing could do to a child? Not just a child, imagine revealing this to an adult son or daughter who are more aware of the implications. What do you think such a reveal would do to them?

This is why you supporting a blanket enforcement is wrong.

No. You gave examples where the law is clearly sufficient to protect the child. Your child molester scenario is the same damn thing. If they haven't done enough to satisfy a court that they are a danger to the child, then no one has a right to violate the father/child relationship.

The effect of revealing the truth is fundamentally irrelevant. It is not acceptable to keep the truth from people to protect them. It's a violation of parental responsibility, really, and you cannot have any sort of meaningful relationship with someone if you keep the truth from them on a daily basis.

Am I really the only one who has an issue with giving mothers extrajudicial powers?

Check my edit on that..

Yes, if the identity of the father is going to harm the child or the mother's ability to parent, it is perfectly acceptable to withhold the info from the child. Effects are not irrelevant and you know that very well.

A blanket enforcement of this is wrong. Case by case is the way to go.

[Scomagia]

No. You gave examples where the law is clearly sufficient to protect the child. Your child molester scenario is the same damn thing. If they haven't done enough to satisfy a court that they are a danger to the child, then no one has a right to violate the father/child relationship.

The effect of revealing the truth is fundamentally irrelevant. It is not acceptable to keep the truth from people to protect them. It's a violation of parental responsibility, really, and you cannot have any sort of meaningful relationship with someone if you keep the truth from them on a daily basis.

Am I really the only one who has an issue with giving mothers extrajudicial powers?

Check my edit on that..

Yes, if the identity of the father is going to harm the child or the mother's ability to parent, it is perfectly acceptable to withhold the info from the child. Effects are not irrelevant and you know that very well.

This basically comes down you not supporting the rule of law. It's as simple as that because what you propose stands in direct defiance of that principle.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Check my edit on that..

Yes, if the identity of the father is going to harm the child or the mother's ability to parent, it is perfectly acceptable to withhold the info from the child. Effects are not irrelevant and you know that very well.

This basically comes down you not supporting the rule of law. It's as simple as that because what you propose stands in direct defiance of that principle.

It really doesn't. It's not about having a vagina. I do accept that some women withhold information out of spite, but that is not the case for every situation. The fact that you are supporting a blanket enforcement is rather baffling and downright dangerous because situations vary in scope and depth. And that you so nonchalantly say effects are irrelevant when they are very much on point... wow.

In the case of rape, and of criminal life that will affect the child, yes, I see why a child should be kept from knowing who the father is. I would support this too if it was a father doing it from a mother whose presence will do nothing but damage a child's well being. I totally support that withholding of identity. Because a child's well being and that of the parent doing the raising are of the utmost importance.

[The Republic of Fore]

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.

Regardless of what you call it, it shouldn't exist.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Ok, it has been brought to my attention that in this argument, we're talking over each other. Scomagia is talking about identity revealed to the court in which case, it should be revealed. I am talking about the child per se and that there are cases in which withholding this info from the child is in it's best interest.

I'm sorry if I got confused, but both subjects (telling the child and the courts) mixed in the argument and I thought this was not over jurisprudence.

[Unstoppable Empire of Doom]

Am I the only one here who feels men and women are innately different and sometimes life is unfair? Men don't get a choice whether a child is aborted or not and that is fine. Men also have to die by the millions in pointless wars, work manual labor jobs, and die younger. Deal with it. It's not like women don't have to deal with bullshit too.

[Galloism]

Am I the only one here who feels men and women are innately different and sometimes life is unfair? Men don't get a choice whether a child is aborted or not and that is fine. Men also have to die by the millions in pointless wars, work manual labor jobs, and die younger. Deal with it. It's not like women don't have to deal with bullshit too.

If those were purely biological conditions, sure. Men don't get ovarian cancer, lacking ovaries. We don't have to fix that.

But the issues you've pointed out aren't actually biological inequities, but legal ones, and there's no reason (that anyone has elucidated clearly) for the legal inequities to persist.

[Scomagia]

This basically comes down you not supporting the rule of law. It's as simple as that because what you propose stands in direct defiance of that principle.

It really doesn't. It's not about having a vagina. I do accept that some women withhold information out of spite, but that is not the case for every situation. The fact that you are supporting a blanket enforcement is rather baffling and downright dangerous because situations vary in scope and depth. And that you so nonchalantly say effects are irrelevant when they are very much on point... wow.

In the case of rape, and of criminal life that will affect the child, yes, I see why a child should be kept from knowing who the father is. I would support this too if it was a father doing it from a mother whose presence will do nothing but damage a child's well being. I totally support that withholding of identity. Because a child's well being and that of the parent doing the raising are of the utmost importance.

Look, the reason this stands in opposition to the rule of law is because you are giving an unelected, unappointed person the power to essentially remove a father's right to his child without any chance to defend himself. No court, no defense, just one woman's decision. It's disgusting and fundamentally incompatible with the ideals of western civilization.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

It really doesn't. It's not about having a vagina. I do accept that some women withhold information out of spite, but that is not the case for every situation. The fact that you are supporting a blanket enforcement is rather baffling and downright dangerous because situations vary in scope and depth. And that you so nonchalantly say effects are irrelevant when they are very much on point... wow.

In the case of rape, and of criminal life that will affect the child, yes, I see why a child should be kept from knowing who the father is. I would support this too if it was a father doing it from a mother whose presence will do nothing but damage a child's well being. I totally support that withholding of identity. Because a child's well being and that of the parent doing the raising are of the utmost importance.

Look, the reason this stands in opposition to the rule of law is because you are giving an unelected, unappointed person the power to essentially remove a father's right to his child without any chance to defend himself. No court, no defense, just one woman's decision. It's disgusting and fundamentally incompatible with the ideals of western civilization.

Ok, it has been brought to my attention that in this argument, we're talking over each other. Scomagia is talking about identity revealed to the court in which case, it should be revealed. I am talking about the child per se and that there are cases in which withholding this info from the child is in it's best interest.

I'm sorry if I got confused, but both subjects (telling the child and the courts) mixed in the argument and I thought this was not over jurisprudence.

[Galloism]

Look, the reason this stands in opposition to the rule of law is because you are giving an unelected, unappointed person the power to essentially remove a father's right to his child without any chance to defend himself. No court, no defense, just one woman's decision. It's disgusting and fundamentally incompatible with the ideals of western civilization.

It's also worth note that, from a free speech/right to incriminate standpoint, we don't generally force people to speak in a way that may tend to incriminate the person speaking. We try to avoid compelled speech at all (although we do sometimes do so after granting immunity in the interests of justice).

This is a compelled speech issue. Not all compelled speech is bad, but you would have to have a compelling public interest.

We can't even generally force people to reveal decryption codes in the process of a criminal trial (although there's been some creative litigation on this front).

[Scomagia]

Ok, it has been brought to my attention that in this argument, we're talking over each other. Scomagia is talking about identity revealed to the court in which case, it should be revealed. I am talking about the child per se and that there are cases in which withholding this info from the child is in it's best interest.

I'm sorry if I got confused, but both subjects (telling the child and the courts) mixed in the argument and I thought this was not over jurisprudence.

I guess we both misunderstood. No worries. This isn't exactly the topic anyhow, right?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Ok, it has been brought to my attention that in this argument, we're talking over each other. Scomagia is talking about identity revealed to the court in which case, it should be revealed. I am talking about the child per se and that there are cases in which withholding this info from the child is in it's best interest.

I'm sorry if I got confused, but both subjects (telling the child and the courts) mixed in the argument and I thought this was not over jurisprudence.

I guess we both misunderstood. No worries. This isn't exactly the topic anyhow, right?

Eh, in some manner it is, I guess, where rulings on child support are concerned. I mean, how can you even get child support if the father's identity is withheld, right? However, yes, moving on.

[Scomagia]

Look, the reason this stands in opposition to the rule of law is because you are giving an unelected, unappointed person the power to essentially remove a father's right to his child without any chance to defend himself. No court, no defense, just one woman's decision. It's disgusting and fundamentally incompatible with the ideals of western civilization.

It's also worth note that, from a free speech/right to incriminate standpoint, we don't generally force people to speak in a way that may tend to incriminate the person speaking. We try to avoid compelled speech at all (although we do sometimes do so after granting immunity in the interests of justice).

This is a compelled speech issue. Not all compelled speech is bad, but you would have to have a compelling public interest.

We can't even generally force people to reveal decryption codes in the process of a criminal trial (although there's been some creative litigation on this front).

I hadn't even considered the speech implications. Thanks for pointing that out. Until I do some extra thinking, I'll have withdraw my support for my own argument.

[Cosmopolitan borovan]

Men need to pay child support but I dunno who keeps the child it's not a legal thing how u no who the child is most connected to

[Galloism]

It's also worth note that, from a free speech/right to incriminate standpoint, we don't generally force people to speak in a way that may tend to incriminate the person speaking. We try to avoid compelled speech at all (although we do sometimes do so after granting immunity in the interests of justice).

This is a compelled speech issue. Not all compelled speech is bad, but you would have to have a compelling public interest.

We can't even generally force people to reveal decryption codes in the process of a criminal trial (although there's been some creative litigation on this front).

I hadn't even considered the speech implications. Thanks for pointing that out. Until I do some extra thinking, I'll have withdraw my support for my own argument.

Life is complicated.

[Cekoviu]

Men need to pay child support but I dunno who keeps the child it's not a legal thing how u no who the child is most connected to

what reason is there that women shouldn't have to pay child support?

[Sovaal]

Whatever happens it seems like ti would be a crappy situation to the kid.