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

[RI]

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,

Not if the child is sufficiently provided for by the income of a single parent.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ideally, yes.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the parent were ordered to pay and didn't, then yes. Otherwise, no, it's too late by adulthood.

[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?

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.

Would this compensation actually hold up under tort law, though? Indeed, for me, that is the relevant question here. After all, I see absolutely no reason as to why exactly we shouldn't apply at least some of the principles of tort law to family law.

Also, out of curiosity--if a man impregnates a woman, if this woman goes through with her pregnancy and gives birth afterwards, and if this woman, say, becomes permanently disabled as a result of this pregnancy and/or as a result of this childbirth, would this woman actually be able to successfully acquire financial compensation (as a result of winning a lawsuit against this man in court) from this man for this permanent disability of hers? After all, I certainly don't think that it would be very fair to compensate custodial parents for childcare costs but not to compensate women for, say, a permanent disability that resulted from pregnancy and/or from childbirth.

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.[/quote]

The thing is, though, that, as far as I know, child support isn't based on a child's needs. Heck, as far as I know, custodial parents cannot bargain away (via legal contract--even before sex even occurs) child support even if these custodial parents are already extremely wealthy. Indeed, am I wrong in regards to this?

(After all, if child support is purely for the custodial parent, then custodial parents certainly should be able to legally bargain away child support in cases where taxpayer money isn't on the line. Indeed, the fact that, as far as I know, this is currently not possible for custodial parents to do suggests that there is more at stake here--specifically the best interests of children. After all, even a child who is already taken care of can benefit from having even more money be spent on him or her (for instance, by being able to go on more vacations which will be paid for using child support money).)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

By that logic, though, custodial parents should certainly be able to bargain away child support (such as through a pre-sex legal contract) in cases where taxpayer money isn't on the line. Indeed, as far as I know, this currently (and unfortunately) isn't possible for custodial parents to do right now.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Frankly, the main thing that I am concerned about in regards to this is whether or not child support would actually hold up under the criteria which are used for tort law. After all, I am certainly a supporter of greater consistency in the law; plus, if we are going to use the causation principle (from tort law) to justify forcing unwilling parents to pay child support, then we might as well also use and apply other principles from tort law in regards to child support.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Out of curiosity--did these dudes want to give up all of their parental rights to these children of theirs?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Can't people who refuse to pay child support end up in jail, have their wages garnished, have their driver's license be suspended, et cetera, though?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Frankly, if you actually wanted to give up all of your parental rights to this child of yours, then I certainly don't think that you should have been forced to pay any child support unless taxpayer money on the line.

Indeed, I don't know what exactly you would have done if you actually had a choice in this matter. However, in any case, I am glad that you feel happy with how your life developed in regards to this.

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.[/quote]

OK.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I'm not 100% sure what you're arguing here.
[/quote]

Maybe I misunderstood your position here. Thus, before I return to this part of my post, I would like to ask you a question:

Do you think that the state/government/courts should honor and recognize legal contracts (especially, but not only, pre-sex legal contracts) which absolve a child's non-custodial parent of all of his parental rights and of all of his parental responsibilities? Indeed, if a child's non-custodial parent made such a contract before sex and is willing to pay the state back any money that his (or her) child's custodial parent will get in the form of welfare during the 18 years of their child's childhood (but not even a single penny more!), do you think that the state/government/courts should honor and recognize this legal contract of his (in exchange for holding him responsible for the welfare money mentioned above, that is)?

Any thoughts on this?

[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,

Not if the child is sufficiently provided for by the income of a single parent.

By that logic, though, shouldn't people who are financially stable and well-off be able to legally bargain away child support (via legal contract--before sex, if necessary)?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ideally, yes.[/quote]

Good to hear!

Also, though, to clarify--what exactly do you mean by "ideally" here?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If the parent were ordered to pay and didn't, then yes. Otherwise, no, it's too late by adulthood.
[/quote][/quote]

How exactly would this be in the best interests of children, though? After all, a right certainly isn't worth very much if one's ability to exercise this right is dependent on the goodwill of other people!

[dead0man]

Would this compensation actually hold up under tort law, though? Indeed, for me, that is the relevant question here. After all, I see absolutely no reason as to why exactly we shouldn't apply at least some of the principles of tort law to family law.

idk, but that's how it is.  The dude that provided the sperm for my step daughters will be paying my wife money well the girls twenties.  I bought their backpacks for school when they were 5, he can buy me a few six packs when they are 23.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

outside my pay grade

You must be logged in to read this quote.

indeed, I believe you are correct.  And if I recall correctly, the courts have been very "by the book" about it and avoid common sense solutions whenever possible.  Like the dude who had his name put on a birth certificate, didn't find out about until the kids was like 3, and despite being cleared as the father by the mother and DNA, couldn't get his name off the books for owing the state (I think California) money because the kid has been on welfare since birth.  I believe he spent time in prison.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I agree with you, it should be an option.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've never known anybody that would say that out loud, but I'm pretty sure I've known some that would (and should).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

yes

You must be logged in to read this quote.

yes, I think people should be able to do that.  I suspect I'll be in the minority and that I doubt it'll never happen either.

[Mopsus]

I have a hard time seeing child support as anything other than an unnatural compromise between two worldviews - one accepting that people have the right to live their own lives, the other imposing on parents the social responsibility of raising their offspring.

I voted No.

[Californiadreaming]

I have a hard time seeing child support as anything other than an unnatural compromise between two worldviews - one accepting that people have the right to live their own lives, the other imposing on parents the social responsibility of raising their offspring.

I voted No.

Wouldn't child support be an acceptance of the latter worldview rather than a compromise between these two worldviews, though?

[Mopsus]

I have a hard time seeing child support as anything other than an unnatural compromise between two worldviews - one accepting that people have the right to live their own lives, the other imposing on parents the social responsibility of raising their offspring.

I voted No.

Wouldn't child support be an acceptance of the latter worldview rather than a compromise between these two worldviews, though?

The way I see it, there are four possible views: either parents have both a right to and are responsible for their children (in which case divorce would be illegal); OR parents have a right to their children but are not responsible for them (I can't really imagine anyone holding this view); OR parents are responsible for their children but don't have a right to them (this is how the state acts when it denies parents custody... yet how can you be held responsible for something you don't have power over?); OR parents have neither a right to nor the responsibility for their children (this is how the state acts when it turns children into wards).

[Californiadreaming]

I have a hard time seeing child support as anything other than an unnatural compromise between two worldviews - one accepting that people have the right to live their own lives, the other imposing on parents the social responsibility of raising their offspring.

I voted No.

Wouldn't child support be an acceptance of the latter worldview rather than a compromise between these two worldviews, though?

The way I see it, there are four possible views: either parents have both a right to and are responsible for their children (in which case divorce would be illegal); OR parents have a right to their children but are not responsible for them (I can't really imagine anyone holding this view); OR parents are responsible for their children but don't have a right to them (this is how the state acts when it denies parents custody... yet how can you be held responsible for something you don't have power over?); OR parents have neither a right to nor the responsibility for their children (this is how the state acts when it turns children into wards).

Why exactly would divorce be illegal in the first case here, though?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

If your moral view is that somebody should be forced to do something, then I think it makes sense to advocate for that person being forced to do that thing.

[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.

If your moral view is that somebody should be forced to do something, then I think it makes sense to advocate for that person being forced to do that thing.

I don't think that one should actually have a moral  view that states that somebody should be forced to pay child support in cases where taxpayer money isn't on the line, though.

[Mopsus]

I have a hard time seeing child support as anything other than an unnatural compromise between two worldviews - one accepting that people have the right to live their own lives, the other imposing on parents the social responsibility of raising their offspring.

I voted No.

Wouldn't child support be an acceptance of the latter worldview rather than a compromise between these two worldviews, though?

The way I see it, there are four possible views: either parents have both a right to and are responsible for their children (in which case divorce would be illegal); OR parents have a right to their children but are not responsible for them (I can't really imagine anyone holding this view); OR parents are responsible for their children but don't have a right to them (this is how the state acts when it denies parents custody... yet how can you be held responsible for something you don't have power over?); OR parents have neither a right to nor the responsibility for their children (this is how the state acts when it turns children into wards).

Why exactly would divorce be illegal in the first case here, though?

Because parents can't fully exercise their rights and responsibilities wrt their children if they're divorced from each other.

[Californiadreaming]

I have a hard time seeing child support as anything other than an unnatural compromise between two worldviews - one accepting that people have the right to live their own lives, the other imposing on parents the social responsibility of raising their offspring.

I voted No.

Wouldn't child support be an acceptance of the latter worldview rather than a compromise between these two worldviews, though?

The way I see it, there are four possible views: either parents have both a right to and are responsible for their children (in which case divorce would be illegal); OR parents have a right to their children but are not responsible for them (I can't really imagine anyone holding this view); OR parents are responsible for their children but don't have a right to them (this is how the state acts when it denies parents custody... yet how can you be held responsible for something you don't have power over?); OR parents have neither a right to nor the responsibility for their children (this is how the state acts when it turns children into wards).

Why exactly would divorce be illegal in the first case here, though?

Because parents can't fully exercise their rights and responsibilities wrt their children if they're divorced from each other.

Can you please elaborate on this part?

[Mopsus]

I have a hard time seeing child support as anything other than an unnatural compromise between two worldviews - one accepting that people have the right to live their own lives, the other imposing on parents the social responsibility of raising their offspring.

I voted No.

Wouldn't child support be an acceptance of the latter worldview rather than a compromise between these two worldviews, though?

The way I see it, there are four possible views: either parents have both a right to and are responsible for their children (in which case divorce would be illegal); OR parents have a right to their children but are not responsible for them (I can't really imagine anyone holding this view); OR parents are responsible for their children but don't have a right to them (this is how the state acts when it denies parents custody... yet how can you be held responsible for something you don't have power over?); OR parents have neither a right to nor the responsibility for their children (this is how the state acts when it turns children into wards).

Why exactly would divorce be illegal in the first case here, though?

Because parents can't fully exercise their rights and responsibilities wrt their children if they're divorced from each other.

Can you please elaborate on this part?

How can you exercise power over your children if you only see them every other weekend?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

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.

If your moral view is that somebody should be forced to do something, then I think it makes sense to advocate for that person being forced to do that thing.

I don't think that one should actually have a moral  view that states that somebody should be forced to pay child support in cases where taxpayer money isn't on the line, though.

I can tell you don't think so.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Having a UBI would be conducive to making child support actually work as a policy since you wouldn't be forcing people to pay money they don't have, as happens all too often now, and can make it even harder for the person to escape poverty, creating a downward spiral of poverty and penalty.

If someone is an unwilling parent, and they have the financial resources, they should be required to pay.  However if the parent wants to be involved or even seek custody and is not given this for reasons not related to abuse or outright neglect, then making them pay the other parent is something I find problematic. For one thing, it does not seem fair to this person when they are already being denied the ability to be the parent, and for another, it's important to avoid if possible there being an incentive to make custody battles about who is paying money to whom.   It's definitely a tricky question though.

[Cory]

Point Of Order: Child Support Payments as we know them have nothing to do with the well being of children. The program solely and exclusively exists to save the state money they fear they otherwise would have to spend to subsidize the needs of the child.

[Californiadreaming]

Point Of Order: Child Support Payments as we know them have nothing to do with the well being of children. The program solely and exclusively exists to save the state money they fear they otherwise would have to spend to subsidize the needs of the child.

By that logic, though, wouldn't unwilling parents have a unilateral opt-out of paying child support in cases where taxpayer money isn't on the line?

[Cory]

Point Of Order: Child Support Payments as we know them have nothing to do with the well being of children. The program solely and exclusively exists to save the state money they fear they otherwise would have to spend to subsidize the needs of the child.

By that logic, though, wouldn't unwilling parents have a unilateral opt-out of paying child support in cases where taxpayer money isn't on the line?

I think "shouldn't" is the word you're looking for. And yes, they should have the ability to opt out.

[Californiadreaming]

Point Of Order: Child Support Payments as we know them have nothing to do with the well being of children. The program solely and exclusively exists to save the state money they fear they otherwise would have to spend to subsidize the needs of the child.

By that logic, though, wouldn't unwilling parents have a unilateral opt-out of paying child support in cases where taxpayer money isn't on the line?

I think "shouldn't" is the word you're looking for. And yes, they should have the ability to opt out.

Actually, I said "wouldn't" on purpose here. After all, you were talking about the current law here, correct?

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

[Cory]

Thanks for your meaningful contribution to the discussion.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

Thanks for your meaningful contribution to the discussion.

You're very welcome.

[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

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

I am not sure what you mean by large but I do not oppose a minimum income law as I agree with Ghandi. "Poverty is the worst form of violence."

Rich nations should not stoop to violence against their citizens.

Regards
DL

[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.

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.

The strong are to serve the weak. Not the weak serve the strong.

I see men as the strong, or supposed to be, and I also think a man should be responsible for his reproduction. As you say, anything less would be like his using a prostitute.

This should not be read as my saying that women are weak because they are showing themselves to be stronger than many men in terms of looking after their children, --- as compared to the deadbeat dads.

Regards
DL
 

[Taco Truck 🚚]

I have a hard time seeing child support as anything other than an unnatural compromise between two worldviews - one accepting that people have the right to live their own lives, the other imposing on parents the social responsibility of raising their offspring.

I voted No.

Writing a check is not "raising their offspring".

Point Of Order: Child Support Payments as we know them have nothing to do with the well being of children. The program solely and exclusively exists to save the state money they fear they otherwise would have to spend to subsidize the needs of the child.

This.