Child support and jail

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for NCP's paying their child support, but I have to ask this:

How is he going to pay it if he's jailed for non-payment? (even if the reason for non-payment was a layoff at work) I thought we no longer had debtors prisons in the United States.

There should be accountability for the recipient if there is accountability for the payer to pay it. I've heard of kids going hungry and lacking decent clothing because the recipient of their child support blew the money on booze or drugs or lottery tickets. That's not fair to either the payer or the children. If the father has the legal obligation to pay it, then the mother should have the legal obligation to use it properly.

 

If he's not going to pay either way, then what is it going to hurt to throw them into jail. And your second point is right on, and is the main thing in why i hate welfare, people use it for shit they don't need which is why it is there.

 

Thats simple open another federal agency to monitor the mother. hell in no time at all we all well have a groovy federal job with all the benefits . he watches you, i wacht you. some alse wacthes me . we be in a Happy land . on Sundays we get to parade thru the streets with our uniform on . lots flags waving etc etc.

 

I don't understand how you can be against welfare but for throwing people in jail unnecessarily. It would be cheaper for the government to support the mother.

Moron.

 

But then when was the last time we either had smart people in the goverment? all they care is how many more angency they can open and all they do is sit on theyr ass since you cant make a state or federal worker work hard . have you ever been too a driver license dept in a big city is a fucking joke or how about just trying to pay a ticket with out using online . another fucking joke . last time i raise hell at the court building and finally a supervisor came out "or got off his lazy ass" becouse what came out of my mouth was true.

 

Neglecting a child is a crime, no matter the source of the money being diverted from the baby's welfare.

Failure to pay child support makes it harder to care for a baby. "Harder to care for" can be rephrased "easier to neglect."

A drunken or drugged mother does not excuse a father's failure to pay child support. Especialy when the argument is "that mother over there mis-uses her payments, therefore this dad over here should be excused from paying."

 

Why? If I was having sex with a woman who claimed to be on the pill and lied, while I was drunk and she was dead sober, and then afterwards pushed for an abortion which she refused, why should I have to pay child support?

 

Because the baby needs food and clothing.

 

By the same logic sperm donors should have to pay child support.

Can you not imagine one situation in which the father should not have to pay child support? What if the mother disallows contact with the child?

 

The baby need food and clothing. (and other stuff)
Even if Mom is mean to Dad.
Even if the pregnancy was not planned.
Even if the abortion was a failure.
Even if ....

THE BABY NEEDS FOOD AND CLOTHING.

If that is taken care of, I'm cool. If not, then there is a problem.

The baby didn't volunteer for any of this either.

 

cause it's your fault for being careless,not the kids.If you don't pay your dues a free ride in jail isn't the answer,but you should lose all other privliges,ability to buy alcohol, unemployment,drivers liscence,place in line at the store...In return you should be able to moniter where your money goes,making sure of the kids welfare.

 

I never said the baby should starve.

In Canada, there is a social safety net. Any mother with a child under 5 can go on Welfare, which provides enough for the famaily's basic needs. However, Child Support is tied to the father's income - if he makes more money, why should he pay $30,000 a year. Or more. Or whatever.

Why should he support the mother at all instead of just enough to pay for the child?

 

There are theoretical arguments about the issue.
In reality, the problem seen most commonly is a father running off leaving mother and child destitute. The government will pick-up the slack, but doesn't want to. The legal situation came from protecting society from dead-beat dads. That some fathers get unjustly hurt by the specifics of societies solution is unfortunate, but a less common (and therefore smaller) problem than that caused by dead-beat dads.

 

cause he stuck his dick in it.Why should welfare provide for more than the bare minimum?

Why should he support the mother at all instead of just enough to pay for the child?

housing and child care come with support.She's doing his share of raising.

 

Hey douchebag, I don't need you calling me names. Anyway, if you don't punish the deadbeat dad then you are just saying that its alright to leave your child.

Douchebag.

 

Nobody in charge of the system gives a damn about those children or their fathers or mothers.

The government doesn't care about people.

Also, its the only thing you can go to prison for being in debt for.

 

I disagree for the most part.

Sometimes its not even about drunken and drugged mothers, sometimes it's simply about her being a gold digger.

I've seen MANY cases where the mother was married, and was VERY well-off already, but still demanded child support....and what was usually purchased with the money? More jewelry and clothes for herself.

That's how it goes around here, anyway, I come from a snotty area and it's f*in ridiculous.

In either case, a drunk/druggie or just a plain gold digger, the father shouldn't have to pay for his ex's stuff.

And I don't think anyone is saying that he should be excused from paying, simply that the government should be more careful with how it's handled, and make sure it gets to the child.

That's what I think anyway.

 

And sometimes that's not the father's fault.

Sometimes the father is more than willing to have that child ALL the time, or more than he does, but isn't allowed to by the agreements made in court...and we should all know by now that court most often ISN'T fair.

Fuck that "she's doing his share of raising"

I've known some mothers who demand full custody of the child, only to treat the kid like shit.

Everyone always acts like it's always the guy's fault, and that he just "ran away from his responsibility" or something.

Sometimes the guy just simply gets FUCKED OVER and there's nothing he can do about it.

Edit to say: And by your theory, if it's a split custody, where the father still gets to see his child, but also still pays child support, well then why doesn't she have to pay HIM for when he's spending HIS time raising the kid??

 

Yeah, but that's the problem. Now days the government seems to just assume that in all cases [aside from divorces] that's how it happens, when sometimes that's not at all the case.

A mother always has an advantage because she's the mother, and simply that. But that doesn't make her any less of a dead beat or a better person. And the gov't needs to start realizing that and stop singling out the fathers.

My parents divorced when I was 18 so I didn't have an issue. But I know for a fact that if it would have happened when I was a child my mom would have wanted to have more custody, and child support.... when in all reality my dad is much more stable and a better fit parent. But the court wouldn't have realized that. The second she would have said she wanted me, in her residence, they would have given it to her.

Most often the case has to be EXTREME for the mother to not get what she wants.

 

Of course, everyone knows that, but the debate is, what if the child doesn't get that, no matter how responsible the father is trying to be, simply because the mother takes the child support check to herself, and neglects the poor kid?

I don't think anyone is saying that a father SHOULDN'T pay for his child and take responsibility, I think the argument is the father shouldn't have to be paying for the woman.

And even so, I'm sure many fathers wouldn't mind if she spent the money for her own household/food because the kid is part of that too, but if it's on UNNECESSARY PERSONAL things such as booze, drugs, jewelry for herself... then, that's just unjust.

Even more so, if the mother is some drunk or whatever, is it fair that she has custody of the child in the first place?

And a father paying for the mother's booze is just DAMAGING the child's life twice as much.

Dig?