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?

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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."

[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.

[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!

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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?