The Glade 4.0

A couple thoughts on this.

First, you are always going to have some people who are going to abuse the system. We should be trying to manage the majority, and then handle the exceptions on a case by case basis.

Second, if you have someone who is having multiple abortions as a form of birth control, then quite frankly they SHOULD NOT be a parent in the first place. I'm glad that they are keeping themselves out of the gene pool.

Whether or not this is a good idea (have my reservations about the idea and in general think its a bad one), this will never get implemented.


Perhaps this varies state by state (doubtful), but the mother cannot place the child up for adoption without consent of the father (with some caveats about the ability to contact or locate the father). Otherwise, the court is essentially terminating the rights of the father without cause, which is illegal and generally, if the TPR is done through the family courts, is lengthy process (again, with some caveats).


While this may or may not sound nice as a proposal, it is impractical and not a good solution for the majority of the cases, since it doesn't address the conditions of lifestyle of the child at the point of separation (since this is about child support in general, you cannot exclude divorce with children beyond newborns). It is generally frowned upon to remove a child from an environment in which they are well established and excelling (say private school) because it causes a larger share of cost to be shifted to the parent that makes more money. This also does not take into account the tendency of the parent with the job (in cases where one works and one stays home to care for the children) of maintaining the children on the insurance plan of the working ex-spouse.


I am not aware of a case in which child support was calculated to be higher than the gross income of one of the parents. I have seen where the combined child support + alimony, when calculated, comes close the net income of one of "donor" parent... Actually, I take that back... there is a minimum calculation for child support, but that exceeding the ability of the parents gross income typically only comes into play when the other parent "claims" no income, or actually is so devoid of ability their work career consists mostly of part-time or odd labor jobs. Even though, there is consideration given to the ability of the parent to work (both parents) compared to their actual current employment. Otherwise, you only open the door for the non-custodial parent to simply quit their job, or a take a significant pay cut voluntarily, to avoid providing a minimum level of support to their children.


I could see how this makes sense on one level, except legally, the parents of the minor are financially responsible for his actions. I can certainly see the argument to remove any pressure on the minor to discontinue their education, which generally means they can better provide for themselves and their offspring in the future, but I don't think you could implement this.


This I completely agree with. Too often the custodial parent sees the "child" support money as their money and spend it less on the needs of the child and more on themselves. I would apply this same auditing to welfare recipients, but that will never fly either with our current political system.


Correct me if I am wrong, but isn't an "escape clause" exactly what you proposed in your first "change" to child support?

I know. I'm talking about what should be.



True. This was included for completeness.



I know. This illustrates precisely the problem with the system. We should not be trying to shield children from the impact of divorce except insofar as the necessities are provided for them. Children are not entitled to a particular lifestyle just because their parent has a certain income.



I do know of cases where this has happened; the usual way it happens is when income is "imputed" to someone. The problem is that, as this example from NJ shows, the court will impute income to people it determines to be voluntarily underemployed or unemployed if they are the donor, but is not required to also impute income to the custodial parent who chooses to stay at home with the child. If you happen to be lucky enough to have children with one (or several) sufficiently successful people, you can simply live off the money that is ostensibly there to support the child. Essentially a custodial parent can be a paid caretaker for the noncustodial parent, but who retains greater control over the child's life.

This is especially disturbing in light of the major increases in unemployment with the recent economic crisis.



If the parents knew and consented to the minor's sexual activity (not just provided condoms and said "make sure you use them if you have sex" but actually knew that the minor was having sex with a particualr partner) then there might be a case for some responsibility on their part. However, shift of responsibility to a minor is a gradual process, with a major leap at age 18. The minor is partly repsonsible for their own actions which is why I don't think they should be totally immune from support later on. By this same token, if they were having sex without their parent's permission, the parents should not be financially responsible, just as they wouldn't be responsbile for a wrongful death suit if their child committed murder.



I'm glad we agree. In fact, I could probably be satisfied with this change alone. Like I pointed out above, it is too easy to marry someone for their money, then divorce them and live on the child support, especially since it doesn't go away on remarriage like alimony does. A man I know recently divorced a woman who didn't work but was receiving $2800 a month in child support from 2 previous husbands. He, fortunately, didn't have a child with her, but last I knew she was demanding alimony on top of this handsome, tax-free income she had.



That is correct. In the case of a married couple, abortion should require the husband's permission or medical need determined by the doctor (and only the doctor, not the woman). However, the husband also should not have the option to "escape" his financial responsibility in that case.

Child support basically comes down to being a problem of feeling entitled to the ex's money as a punishment for the real or imagined wrongs that lead to the divorce. That's not its purpose, but the current system allows and even encourages it being used in this way. Child support should be about ensuring the child is fed, clothed, and educated. It should not be the buisness of the courts to make sure the child is emotionally fulfilled, or that the custodial parent gets their pound of flesh.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I agree that the goal should not be to shield the children from effects, but it certainly should be the goal to minimize the affects, especially when it comes to at least providing some stability in a venue in which they are already doing well. It is not the child's fault the parents are getting divorced (generally) and the child never has a say in the proceedings, so if any party should be protected from the fall out, it is the children.

There is also the consideration that this is no different than the custodial parent using the child support money for their own gains, though in the case the non-custodial parent is keeping the funds that prior to the divorce were considered a good use of resources for the outcome (using the private school example again, but can substitute sports, camps, etc). Overall, the conditions that made those activities a good choice have not changed, and in some cases, have only been strengthened.


In rereading my comment, it wasn't clear, but imputing incomes was exactly to which I was referring in the comment about minimum calculations kicking in when a parent is intentionally under employed, etc. I don't know how you resolve that, considering it is a common tactic by the primary wage earner in a divorce to reduce their income for the purposes of calculating alimony and child support.

Given the options, I would tend to weight the needs of the child higher and assume a minimum level of income based upon the factors currently used (such as work history, education, previous salary, etc).

Alimony is a completely different game and in my opinion, the facet in the most need of re-examination, for all the reasons you listed and more.


The laws on the books currently make the parents responsible for financial damaged caused by their children, whether the parents are aware of the behavior or not. If your daughter is out destroying property, you are responsible for restitution.


I still can't reconcile this statement with your opening statement about giving the father the opportunity to terminate all financial obligations, though I do notice this time you say married couple. Is your first statement (in the other post) only pertaining to unmarried couples, so that only married fathers have no recourse if the mother decides to keep the child and the father wants to abort?


I have significantly more issues with Alimony for all the reasons you list for child support instead.

Both apply, and both are currently foul systems in our culture. Hmm...I wonder why we're failing to hear certain voices speak up in protest about this, just like we're not hearing "moderate" muslims speak out against the jihadists.

I don't really see that the court has any buisness worrying about the effects on the children in the first place. I don't think any party should be protected from the fallout. No, it is not the children's fault, but it's simply an adverse life event.

As for the division of resources, the noncustodial parent will necessarily have less involvement int he children's lives, in some cases even less than a new stepparent. They should necessarily have a lessend role in supporting the children, at least insofar as they are obliged. Additional support should be on a voluntary basis. I should note that many courts take far less effort to enforce visitation than child support; this inherent problem that the children can only be physically in one place at one time is the root of the issue. Demanding that one parent be subordinate to the other in raising the children but bear an equal (or often more than equal) share of the material burden is not equitable.



Which is another reason I think child support should be based on a minimum need to provide for approximately 50% of the child's needs. There is no incentive to underemploy onesself if your child support obligation is not a factor of your income.

As for the needs of the child, I only define health, food and drink, shelter, and education as needs. Anything else is, strictly speaking, a want. One might argue the emotional needs of the child but emotional needs are not provided for by money.



I don't disagree.



This is not universally true. The laws vary from place to place and depend a great deal on the nature of the situation.



Yes, the original statement was only in regard to unmarried couples.



Such as?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."