Should unwilling parents be forced to pay child support if we'll have a UBI?

[Californiadreaming]

UBI = Unconditional basic income.

Anyway, if we'll have a sufficiently large UBI for every person (including for every child), should unwilling parents be forced to pay child support?

As for me, I voted No. First of all, if taxpayer money isn't on the line, I see absolutely no reason to force unwilling parents to pay child support. After all, causing a child to exist isn't a harm and having consensual sex is neither negligent nor illegal.

Also, I would like to point out that forcing unwilling parents to pay child support (especially, but not only, in this scenario) would create a superior and an inferior category of children. After all, children whose custodial parents screw them over (by declining to seek child support from their non-custodial parents) appear to have absolutely no recourse in regards to this. Indeed, it's not like these children can acquire this child support in adulthood!

To elaborate on this--my own position on this issue is this: In this scenario (as in, if we'll have a sufficiently large UBI for every person), unwilling parents (of either gender) should have a unilateral opt-out from paying child support (within a certain time-frame--depending on the specific circumstances) in exchange for having them permanently give up all of their parental rights to these children of theirs.

Anyway, any thoughts on this?

[Santander]

Listen to yourself speak. Children are not things to be sold or negotiated. Of course parents should be forced to pay child support.

[Californiadreaming]

Listen to yourself speak. Children are not things to be sold or negotiated. Of course parents should be forced to pay child support.

Out of curiosity--are you politically anti-abortion?

[Greatest I am]

If a UBI is in place, then the state has taken over what a parent should have been left with to do.

That bit of (welfare state) thinking may be why we now have about 50% of all household with single parent children, --- being able to say that they are not supported by the deadbeat dads that created those children.

Taking a man's responsibility and duty away from him and his children, for his children's sake,  does not strike me as a good idea.

I see that as just helping produce more deadbeat dads and poorly adjusted children.

Regards
DL

[Californiadreaming]

If a UBI is in place, then the state has taken over what a parent should have been left with to do.

That bit of (welfare state) thinking may be why we now have about 50% of all household with single parent children, --- being able to say that they are not supported by the deadbeat dads that created those children.

Taking a man's responsibility and duty away from him and his children, for his children's sake,  does not strike me as a good idea.

I see that as just helping produce more deadbeat dads and poorly adjusted children.

Regards
DL

Out of curiosity--do you oppose the creation of a sufficiently large UBI?

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Listen to yourself speak. Children are not things to be sold or negotiated. Of course parents should be forced to pay child support.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yes (normal)

After all, children whose custodial parents screw them over (by declining to seek child support from their non-custodial parents) appear to have absolutely no recourse in regards to this. Indeed, it's not like these children can acquire this child support in adulthood!

What the hell is that even supposed to mean?

[dead0man]

Why would the children get the money in adulthood?  They didn't pay for sh**t.


(and if anybody was wondering, if you still owe child support when the kids reach adulthood, you still get to keep paying the custodial parent until you've caught up....my step kid's dad will be paying for years.  He's a good worker, so always has a job, it's just never been a good job and he spent 6 years in jail so got a bit behind.  The $125/week is nice.)



As for the OP, meh, I get both sides here.  If the non-custodial is making buckets of money, then sure, they should throw some extra coin the kid(s) way.  If they're just a regular schmuck or jobless, what's the point of hassling them if the kids needs are being taken care of?

[Taco Truck 🚚]

If a UBI is in place, then the state has taken over what a parent should have been left with to do.

That bit of (welfare state) thinking may be why we now have about 50% of all household with single parent children, --- being able to say that they are not supported by the deadbeat dads that created those children.

Not sure what statistics you are using but you are kind of agreeing with the OP.  Most of the cases of child support issues I've seen are ones where the guy has his act together and the woman uses a kid like a cheap trading token to extract money.

It would be interesting to have a world where child support payments were actually that vs women enrichment payments.  It never made sense to me why a woman who has never had a proper job is entitled to millions simply because she slept with a man who is wealthy.  That is basically state sponsored legalized prostitution... except it is more expensive.

[Californiadreaming]

Listen to yourself speak. Children are not things to be sold or negotiated. Of course parents should be forced to pay child support.

There's certainly a difference between having moral views along these lines and supporting making your moral views into law, though.

[Californiadreaming]

Yes (normal)

After all, children whose custodial parents screw them over (by declining to seek child support from their non-custodial parents) appear to have absolutely no recourse in regards to this. Indeed, it's not like these children can acquire this child support in adulthood!

What the hell is that even supposed to mean?

Basically, one of the problems that I have with the current child support system is that, on one hand, it results in unwilling parents being forced to pay child support even if there was fraud involved and/or the birth of a child wasn't "reasonably foreseeable." Meanwhile, on the other hand, the current child support system allows children to get screwed over in cases where, say, a child's custodial parent conspires together with this child's non-custodial parent to allow this child's non-custodial parent to avoid paying child support.

In other words, the current child support system is either excessively punitive towards unwilling parents or insufficiently pro-children, depending on exactly which perspective one looks at this issue from.

[Californiadreaming]

Why would the children get the money in adulthood?  They didn't pay for sh**t.

Well, don't children have a right to have financial support from both of their parents be spent on their welfare?

Indeed, even if a child's custodial parent is already extremely wealthy, this child's custodial parent nevertheless cannot bargain away child support (even before sex--via legal contract) since doing this would be against the best interests of the child (after all, even a child with an extremely wealthy custodial parent can always benefit from having even more money be spent on him or her), correct?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I am certainly very well-aware of this. However, this appears to further make a mockery of the argument that child support is always in the "best interests of the child."

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's certainly a difference between "should" in the moral sense and "should" in the legal sense, though.

Plus, the issue that I have with your suggestion here is that you appear to support allowing a child's custodial parent to conspire together with a child's non-custodial parent (even an extremely wealthy non-custodial parent) to allow this child's non-custodial parent to avoid paying child support in spite of the fact that their child will certainly benefit from having additional money being spent on him or her. Indeed, if it's perfectly acceptable to screw children over in such a scenario, why exactly shouldn't wealthy people unilaterally be able to opt-out of paying child support if we will have a UBI? After all, while their children will get screwed over by this, you already appear to support allowing parents to screw over their children in other circumstances (such as in the scenario that I posted above here).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Completely agreed.

[Taco Truck 🚚]

In other words, the current child support system is either excessively punitive towards unwilling parents or insufficiently pro-children, depending on exactly which perspective one looks at this issue from.

In all circumstances it is insufficiently "pro-children".  There is no monitoring of the funds that go to the custodial parent to ensure that the child is actually the one receiving the benefit of the money.

[Californiadreaming]

Also, to clarify--I have absolutely no problem forcing unwilling parents to pay child support in cases where taxpayer money is on the line (unless the birth of a child wasn't "reasonably foreseeable," that is). Rather, what I have a problem with is forcing unwilling parents to pay child support in cases where taxpayer money isn't on the line.

Indeed, as far as I know, child support wouldn't hold up if one applied the criteria which are used for tort law to child support. Yes, tort law and family law are different categories of law; however, this doesn't necessarily mean that we shouldn't apply similar principles to both of these categories of law. After all, if one uses the principle of causation (a principle that is used in tort law) to justify forcing unwilling parents to pay child support, then one might as well also take a look at the other principles and criteria of tort law. (Indeed, as far as I know, tort law requires harm, negligence, and/or illegal activity for a person to win a tort lawsuit. Meanwhile, child support appears to meet none of the above criteria.)

[Californiadreaming]

In other words, the current child support system is either excessively punitive towards unwilling parents or insufficiently pro-children, depending on exactly which perspective one looks at this issue from.

In all circumstances it is insufficiently "pro-children".  There is no monitoring of the funds that go to the custodial parent to ensure that the child is actually the one receiving the benefit of the money.

Couldn't custodial parents simply spent child support funds on things such as food and housing in the event that child support funds will be monitored, though?

[Californiadreaming]

If a UBI is in place, then the state has taken over what a parent should have been left with to do.

That bit of (welfare state) thinking may be why we now have about 50% of all household with single parent children, --- being able to say that they are not supported by the deadbeat dads that created those children.

Not sure what statistics you are using but you are kind of agreeing with the OP.  Most of the cases of child support issues I've seen are ones where the guy has his act together and the woman uses a kid like a cheap trading token to extract money.

Yeah--unless a man has already made an explicit commitment (such as in the form of a legal contract) to pay child support for any children that he has with a woman, women who are financially capable of supporting children themselves certainly shouldn't receive any child support money from men who want to give up all of their parental rights to these children of theirs.

Indeed, if women have a problem with this, then they can simply be more selective as to exactly which men they will have sex with. After all, men are already being given this advice (in regards to determining which women they will have sex with, of course)!

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Completely agreed with all of this.

Indeed, while one can argue that even an extremely wealthy woman's child can benefit from having even more money be spent on him or her, this argument appears to completely collapse when one points out (as I already have above) that children who didn't have any money from their non-custodial parents be spent on them (and thus whose quality of life suffered as a result since having more money be spent on them would have certainly resulted in a better quality of life for them) can't do anything about it afterwards. Plus, the state considers it to be perfectly acceptable to allow single people to access donor sperm/donor eggs in spite of the state's ostensible interest in having children be financially supported by two parents!

[Californiadreaming]

Why would the children get the money in adulthood?  They didn't pay for sh**t.

Also, here are the problems that I have with viewing child support as compensation for a child's custodial parent:

1. This makes a mockery out of the statement that child support is for the best interests of the child. After all, a custodial parent who has an adult child who already lives away from home and who acquires back child support from the non-custodial parent might very well not spend this child support money on her (adult) child!

2. Using this logic, custodial parents should certainly be able to bargain away (via legal contract) child support in cases where taxpayer money isn't on the line. However, as far as I know, custodial parents cannot currently do this even if they are extremely wealthy.

3. Using this logic, if a woman voluntarily continues her pregnancy, gives birth, and becomes, say, permanently disabled as a result of this pregnancy and/or as a result of this birth, then this woman should win a tort lawsuit against the man who impregnated her. After all, if child support is merely compensation for custodial parents (including female custodial parents), then why exactly shouldn't women who become, say, permanently disabled as a result of pregnancy and/or childbirth be unable to likewise acquire compensation from the men who impregnated them? Completely serious question, for the record; after all, this is where exactly this logic appears to lead.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Yes. Consequences have actions.

[Californiadreaming]

Yes. Consequences have actions.

So, if a man impregnates a woman as a result of consensual sex and she becomes, say, permanently disabled as a result of this pregnancy and/or as a result of the subsequent childbirth, should this man be forced to pay financial compensation to this woman? Completely serious question, for the record.

[Antonio the Sixth]

One of the most irritating thing about your posts is that they use ostensibly gender-neutral language while transparently implying that men are victims and women the "abusers". The latest post is beginning to make this explicit, but not yet as much as it should be.

[Californiadreaming]

One of the most irritating thing about your posts is that they use ostensibly gender-neutral language while transparently implying that men are victims and women the "abusers". The latest post is beginning to make this explicit, but not yet as much as it should be.

Actually, I would like to point out that I also support giving women a unilateral opt-out from paying child support in cases where taxpayer money is on the line (such as if a woman found out about her pregnancy too late to get an abortion, which apparently does happen--albeit very rarely). Indeed, I am simply focusing on men here because, on average, unwanted parenthood is a bigger issue for men than it is for women (considering that many women have access to safe, legal abortion).

Also, where exactly did I say that women are "abusers"? Indeed, while I certainly said that non-custodial parents shouldn't be forced to pay child support in cases where taxpayer money isn't on the line, I am trying to figure out how and from where exactly you got the impression that I either said or implied that women are "abusers."

[RI]

Child support is for the good of the child. The parents's desire to care for it shouldn't factor into the equation.

[Californiadreaming]

Child support is for the good of the child. The parents's desire to care for it shouldn't factor into the equation.

So, do you support having the government require/order custodial parents to seek child support, making it illegal for single people to use donor sperm/eggs, and/or allowing children whose non-custodial parent didn't pay child support for some or all of the 18 years of their childhood to go to court and to successfully acquire this money in adulthood?

[Californiadreaming]

One of the most irritating thing about your posts is that they use ostensibly gender-neutral language while transparently implying that men are victims and women the "abusers". The latest post is beginning to make this explicit, but not yet as much as it should be.

Also, again, I am certainly not disputing that women can get screwed over by men in regards to this. For instance, while this is extremely rare, a woman can fail to realize that she is pregnant in time to get an abortion and her male sexual partner can then break his previous promise in regards to adoption and screw this woman over by forcing her to pay child support for 18+ years. Indeed, I certainly don't think that such women should be screwed over in cases where taxpayer money isn't on the line.

[dead0man]

Why would the children get the money in adulthood?  They didn't pay for sh**t.

Well, don't children have a right to have financial support from both of their parents be spent on their welfare?

The custodial parent was supporting the child when it was a child.  Likely going into a little debt to pay for it all, they deserve to be compensated for their troubles by the non-custodial parent if they are behind in their agreed payments.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, I am certainly very well-aware of this. However, this appears to further make a mockery of the argument that child support is always in the "best interests of the child." [/quote]The child's interests were already looked after, that's how they survived to be an adult.  And anybody that tells you child support is all about the "best interests of the child" is full of sh**t.  Often times it's punishment, and when it's not, it's just trying to be as fair as possible to the custodial parent...which is often viewed as unfair by the non-cp...whether it is or isn't.  If you lived, you've heard a dozen horror stories going both ways.  I've known dudes living in squalor, paying a stupid percentage of his pay to the baby mama who lived like a queen and didn't need his few hundred dollars every few weeks.  I've known women who never saw a penny.  I paid $527/month for almost 16 years, and to be honest, that was probably fair.  His mom raised him good and he never wanted.  Nebraska adulthood is at 19, so I had to pay an extra year, but again, didn't really have a problem with it (maybe a little the 19 thing).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

There's certainly a difference between "should" in the moral sense and "should" in the legal sense, though.[/quote]Of course.  Noncps can, and do give gifts to the kids, I sure did.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not 100% sure what you're arguing here.