by GuessTheAltAccount » Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:22 pm
Bombadil wrote:My girlfriend wanted me to treat her like a princess, so I arranged for her to be married to a stranger to strengthen our alliance with Poland.
by Ifreann » Wed Jan 26, 2022 7:46 pm
by GuessTheAltAccount » Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:00 pm
Ifreann wrote:Well child support isn't a thing that normally happens, rather it's usually a result of some kind of legal proceeding like a divorce or annulment. Further, child support payments are calculated in some way based on the party's ability to pay. So a teenager in full time education who had a child would probably never be ordered to pay child support in the first place, because there aren't divorce proceedings when you fuck someone at a party, and even if a court did find such a party liable for child support payments it would probably also have to conclude that they are not in any position to pay anything.
Bombadil wrote:My girlfriend wanted me to treat her like a princess, so I arranged for her to be married to a stranger to strengthen our alliance with Poland.
by Kerwa » Wed Jan 26, 2022 8:26 pm
Ifreann wrote:Well child support isn't a thing that normally happens, rather it's usually a result of some kind of legal proceeding like a divorce or annulment. Further, child support payments are calculated in some way based on the party's ability to pay. So a teenager in full time education who had a child would probably never be ordered to pay child support in the first place, because there aren't divorce proceedings when you fuck someone at a party, and even if a court did find such a party liable for child support payments it would probably also have to conclude that they are not in any position to pay anything.
by Luminesa » Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:30 pm
by Nilokeras » Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:33 pm
by Galloism » Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:36 pm
Ifreann wrote:Well child support isn't a thing that normally happens, rather it's usually a result of some kind of legal proceeding like a divorce or annulment. Further, child support payments are calculated in some way based on the party's ability to pay. So a teenager in full time education who had a child would probably never be ordered to pay child support in the first place, because there aren't divorce proceedings when you fuck someone at a party, and even if a court did find such a party liable for child support payments it would probably also have to conclude that they are not in any position to pay anything.
by Incelastan » Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:37 pm
Ifreann wrote:Well child support isn't a thing that normally happens, rather it's usually a result of some kind of legal proceeding like a divorce or annulment. Further, child support payments are calculated in some way based on the party's ability to pay. So a teenager in full time education who had a child would probably never be ordered to pay child support in the first place, because there aren't divorce proceedings when you fuck someone at a party, and even if a court did find such a party liable for child support payments it would probably also have to conclude that they are not in any position to pay anything.
by Incelastan » Wed Jan 26, 2022 9:39 pm
Kerwa wrote:Ifreann wrote:Well child support isn't a thing that normally happens, rather it's usually a result of some kind of legal proceeding like a divorce or annulment. Further, child support payments are calculated in some way based on the party's ability to pay. So a teenager in full time education who had a child would probably never be ordered to pay child support in the first place, because there aren't divorce proceedings when you fuck someone at a party, and even if a court did find such a party liable for child support payments it would probably also have to conclude that they are not in any position to pay anything.
Depends on the jurisdiction and how it treats imputed income. There can be a presumption that a healthy adult is capable of 40hrs a week at minimum wage and child support will be calculated based upon that. It doesn’t matter whether or not whoever is being sued for child support is actually working.
Divorce doesn’t come into this as child support is a separate issue. Further teenagers absolutely can be sued for child support, even when they are the victims of statutory rape.
by Kingdom of Snoreway » Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:09 am
by Hemakral » Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:14 am
Kingdom of Snoreway wrote:What safeguards are there against poverty for teenage dads?
A robust social security system with services and benefits for both the dad in question and the rest of his family, ensuring their welfare. Governmental Child benefit payments, Cash-for-care benefits, subsidised / free child care, and welfare payments helps in that regard.
When it comes to the calculation of child maintenance payments, the parents’ incomes are always a factor, and the payment due is proportional to the income to ensure the parents aren't paying more than they're able. It's a shared income model based on a payment ability assessment with maximum payment restrictions.
In other words, great and effective safeguards.
by Kingdom of Snoreway » Thu Jan 27, 2022 12:27 am
Hemakral wrote:Kingdom of Snoreway wrote:What safeguards are there against poverty for teenage dads?
A robust social security system with services and benefits for both the dad in question and the rest of his family, ensuring their welfare. Governmental Child benefit payments, Cash-for-care benefits, subsidised / free child care, and welfare payments helps in that regard.
When it comes to the calculation of child maintenance payments, the parents’ incomes are always a factor, and the payment due is proportional to the income to ensure the parents aren't paying more than they're able. It's a shared income model based on a payment ability assessment with maximum payment restrictions.
In other words, great and effective safeguards.
my friend, this is not a game thread. it is something far worse.
flee now, while you still can
by GuessTheAltAccount » Thu Jan 27, 2022 3:29 am
Nilokeras wrote:this whole debate is just the purest example of crabs in a bucket fighting over the scraps. the OP is so caught up in fighting to the death for their morsel it never even occurs to then to look up and see the sky.
Bombadil wrote:My girlfriend wanted me to treat her like a princess, so I arranged for her to be married to a stranger to strengthen our alliance with Poland.
by Terruana » Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:43 am
by GuessTheAltAccount » Thu Jan 27, 2022 4:52 am
Terruana wrote:Ignoring all the 4chan gender politics and obvious mischaracterisations - child support is about the needs of the child, not those of its parents. The child doesn't suddenly stop needing food and nappies just because one parent didn't want them, so unless you're proposing that the taxpayers foot the bill, parents should remain responsible for ensuring basic needs are being met.
As far as safeguards against poverty go, the same safeguards apply to parents as do to non-parents. These may or may not be insufficient, but being a parent doesn't really factor in to this argument.
Bombadil wrote:My girlfriend wanted me to treat her like a princess, so I arranged for her to be married to a stranger to strengthen our alliance with Poland.
by Dakini » Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:03 am
by Galloism » Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:10 am
by Terruana » Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:23 am
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Terruana wrote:Ignoring all the 4chan gender politics and obvious mischaracterisations - child support is about the needs of the child, not those of its parents. The child doesn't suddenly stop needing food and nappies just because one parent didn't want them, so unless you're proposing that the taxpayers foot the bill, parents should remain responsible for ensuring basic needs are being met.
As far as safeguards against poverty go, the same safeguards apply to parents as do to non-parents. These may or may not be insufficient, but being a parent doesn't really factor in to this argument.
If child support bills are what pulled them into poverty in the first place, it absolutely factors into it. Just because it's not the only reason someone can be in poverty doesn't mean it can't make or break someone's ability to stay out of it.
The needs of the child can be just as easily met if the taxpayers met them as if the father met them. Perhaps more easily, as the taxpayers as a whole have more money to spend than he does, and can get at least some of that money back if he becomes a successful engineer or doctor instead of having to drop out. As well, welfare dollars are held to a much higher level of scrutiny on how recipients are spending them than child support dollars are. And it has the added bonus of, you know, pooling the resources of everyone who took the exact same risk instead of singling out a few for whom the exact same risk happened to end badly.
. . .
So does anyone have anything more specific on how this varies by jurisdiction? I see a lot of dispute in this thread already on the material facts of the case, let alone defensibility thereof, but not much in the way of specifics. No wonder European posters are the most averse to my "of course males are horndogs, why else do they risk ruining their own lives for a night of pleasure with their girlfriends?" talking point.
by Galloism » Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:25 am
Terruana wrote:GuessTheAltAccount wrote:If child support bills are what pulled them into poverty in the first place, it absolutely factors into it. Just because it's not the only reason someone can be in poverty doesn't mean it can't make or break someone's ability to stay out of it.
The needs of the child can be just as easily met if the taxpayers met them as if the father met them. Perhaps more easily, as the taxpayers as a whole have more money to spend than he does, and can get at least some of that money back if he becomes a successful engineer or doctor instead of having to drop out. As well, welfare dollars are held to a much higher level of scrutiny on how recipients are spending them than child support dollars are. And it has the added bonus of, you know, pooling the resources of everyone who took the exact same risk instead of singling out a few for whom the exact same risk happened to end badly.
. . .
So does anyone have anything more specific on how this varies by jurisdiction? I see a lot of dispute in this thread already on the material facts of the case, let alone defensibility thereof, but not much in the way of specifics. No wonder European posters are the most averse to my "of course males are horndogs, why else do they risk ruining their own lives for a night of pleasure with their girlfriends?" talking point.
Why are child support bills any more significant as a cause of poverty than credit card debt, rent costs, legal/medical fees, gambling addictions, etc? The exact cause of the poverty shouldn't matter if you're talking about effective safeguards to prevent anyone from having to live in poverty.
But yes, finally something we can agree on. It would be much better if the cost of providing all children with their basic needs was covered by the taxpayer. Its a simple and effective way of ensuring that no child has to go without basic necessities, although it would obviously need to be applied to ALL children, not just those with teenage parents or where one parent doesn't want to accept parental responsibility.
by Terruana » Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:30 am
Galloism wrote:Terruana wrote:
Why are child support bills any more significant as a cause of poverty than credit card debt, rent costs, legal/medical fees, gambling addictions, etc? The exact cause of the poverty shouldn't matter if you're talking about effective safeguards to prevent anyone from having to live in poverty.
But yes, finally something we can agree on. It would be much better if the cost of providing all children with their basic needs was covered by the taxpayer. Its a simple and effective way of ensuring that no child has to go without basic necessities, although it would obviously need to be applied to ALL children, not just those with teenage parents or where one parent doesn't want to accept parental responsibility.
Well, there are safeguards for credit card debt, legal medical costs, etc. You can go for bankruptcy and get that debt wiped out so you have a chance to start over.
This isn't true with child support.
Notably, ONLY fathers are required by law to accept parental responsibility in practice. Mothers can disclaim responsibility, unilaterally, with almost no paperwork and with no input or consent of the father. Now, you may think a parent being able to disclaim responsibility is wrong, in which case we need to reduce women's rights in this area. Or you may think that this is an essential safeguard of child welfare, which means we need to increase men's rights in this area.
To say that women and ONLY women should have the right to disclaim parental responsibility after birth - which is the current status quo - on the basis of their gender is sexist and wrong.
by Galloism » Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:34 am
Terruana wrote:Galloism wrote:Well, there are safeguards for credit card debt, legal medical costs, etc. You can go for bankruptcy and get that debt wiped out so you have a chance to start over.
This isn't true with child support.
Notably, ONLY fathers are required by law to accept parental responsibility in practice. Mothers can disclaim responsibility, unilaterally, with almost no paperwork and with no input or consent of the father. Now, you may think a parent being able to disclaim responsibility is wrong, in which case we need to reduce women's rights in this area. Or you may think that this is an essential safeguard of child welfare, which means we need to increase men's rights in this area.
To say that women and ONLY women should have the right to disclaim parental responsibility after birth - which is the current status quo - on the basis of their gender is sexist and wrong.
I think the paper abortion discussion is probably a bit off-topic for this thread, although if every child's basic needs were met at taxpayer expense, this would certainly strengthen the case for it in my eyes.
It does also make me wonder if there's any precedent yet for same sex couples having a child with the help of the various available medical procedures, and then the non-pregnant partner deciding they no longer want the child prior to the birth. If anyone is aware of such a situation, I would be interested to hear how it played out!
by Dakini » Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:40 am
Terruana wrote:Galloism wrote:Well, there are safeguards for credit card debt, legal medical costs, etc. You can go for bankruptcy and get that debt wiped out so you have a chance to start over.
This isn't true with child support.
Notably, ONLY fathers are required by law to accept parental responsibility in practice. Mothers can disclaim responsibility, unilaterally, with almost no paperwork and with no input or consent of the father. Now, you may think a parent being able to disclaim responsibility is wrong, in which case we need to reduce women's rights in this area. Or you may think that this is an essential safeguard of child welfare, which means we need to increase men's rights in this area.
To say that women and ONLY women should have the right to disclaim parental responsibility after birth - which is the current status quo - on the basis of their gender is sexist and wrong.
I think the paper abortion discussion is probably a bit off-topic for this thread, although if every child's basic needs were met at taxpayer expense, this would certainly strengthen the case for it in my eyes.
It does also make me wonder if there's any precedent yet for same sex couples having a child with the help of the various available medical procedures, and then the non-pregnant partner deciding they no longer want the child prior to the birth. If anyone is aware of such a situation, I would be interested to hear how it played out!
by Ifreann » Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:42 am
GuessTheAltAccount wrote:Ifreann wrote:Well child support isn't a thing that normally happens, rather it's usually a result of some kind of legal proceeding like a divorce or annulment. Further, child support payments are calculated in some way based on the party's ability to pay. So a teenager in full time education who had a child would probably never be ordered to pay child support in the first place, because there aren't divorce proceedings when you fuck someone at a party, and even if a court did find such a party liable for child support payments it would probably also have to conclude that they are not in any position to pay anything.
Then why the "he should've gotten a vasectomy" part?
Does it vary depending on the jurisdiction?
by Galloism » Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:42 am
Dakini wrote:Terruana wrote:
I think the paper abortion discussion is probably a bit off-topic for this thread, although if every child's basic needs were met at taxpayer expense, this would certainly strengthen the case for it in my eyes.
It does also make me wonder if there's any precedent yet for same sex couples having a child with the help of the various available medical procedures, and then the non-pregnant partner deciding they no longer want the child prior to the birth. If anyone is aware of such a situation, I would be interested to hear how it played out!
If men can get paper abortions, so should women. Especially teenage mothers who are often pressured into not getting an abortion or outright denied the ability to get an abortion by various restrictions.
by Terruana » Thu Jan 27, 2022 5:49 am
Galloism wrote:Terruana wrote:
I think the paper abortion discussion is probably a bit off-topic for this thread, although if every child's basic needs were met at taxpayer expense, this would certainly strengthen the case for it in my eyes.
I do agree the taxpayer support is necessary in cases like these (we kind of do that now, except then we go after the obligor parent for years to repay the state. I forget the exact number, but IIRC something like half of all back child support is owed to the state, and the child will never ever see it even if it were paid in full).It does also make me wonder if there's any precedent yet for same sex couples having a child with the help of the various available medical procedures, and then the non-pregnant partner deciding they no longer want the child prior to the birth. If anyone is aware of such a situation, I would be interested to hear how it played out!
I'm not aware of one, but genetics would seem to play a legal factor here. Since the non-pregnant parent would have had to have gotten a genetic donor for the child to exist, the non-pregnant parent has no genetic connection to the child and may not be held legally liable due to that reason.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Ancientania, East Leaf Republic, Hidrandia, Ifreann, Infected Mushroom, Likhinia, Singaporen Empire, Stratonesia, Tungstan
Advertisement