A man should NOT live better than his child! period! Lisa, by you going to college you have also contributed in raising your daughters standard of living. Good for you, it affects the children when a parent betters him/her self.
Bizarre news story
by BoozeRunner 118 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
bigboi
LDH:
I think it's good you are able to give your daughter such a good lifestyle. However, I find it hard to believe that it really takes that much to raise a child. The lifestyle you want to give your kid is fine. I see nothing wrong with that. All I'm saying is why should one parent in this regard be made to foot that bill. If you were getting the 20 grand a yr to take care of your daughter,then she would be totally paid for with just the child support payments. Should that include the extra room in the house? It looks like you would prolly owe him money because you said earlier that if possible you would have him pay for her insurance also.
You mentioned the time you spent taking care of her. Well, it's your kid . You're supposed to spend time taking care of her, nobody should feel liable to pay you for that. If that's an issue then give her dad some custody too.
Another thing you mentioned tht most women get 17% of minimum wage. Then they are forced to find a way to raise a child off that. Well, they are supposed to be working too, right. If anything they're prolly getting a lil bit extra. I still feel it's not right for a woman who chooses to have child for a sorry broke ass individual, to play the victim. Nor do I feel it's right for any woman after bringing a child into this world irresponsibly to feel that someone is now obligated to take care of her, or assume full responsibility to take care of her child. You made your bed, now lay in it plain and simple. Child support should not be a means for anyone to get a lifestyle upgrade, period.
ONE....
bigboi
"it ain't what ya do. it's how you do it" quote from the song "True Honeybunz" by Bahamadia
-
claudia
Bigboi, but if the mother is educated,and makes more money, the father will end up paying less child support when the mother is working and making decent money. No one is saying that the ncp should bear full responsibility. Just a portion,
-
bigboi
Claudia:
I agree with that. However, LDH wants all the man's money. that ain't cool, yo.
ONE....(ohw sneppah oteb gniddik)
bigboi
"it ain't what ya do. it's how you do it" quote from the song "True Honeybunz" by Bahamadia
-
Andee
Some more comments.
I think it's good you are able to give your daughter such a good lifestyle. However, I find it hard to believe that it really takes that much to raise a child. The lifestyle you want to give your kid is fine. I see nothing wrong with that.
Well, lifestyle is relative. If the child's father is wealthy then the kid is ENTITLED to a lifestyle equal or nearly as equal is his.
WHY should it be just because a kids parents are divorced or never married that the kid should suffer. If the CP happens to be a store clerk and doesn't have the same means...TOO BAD!However, let me qualify this by expressing that if the situation were reversed and the Mother is wealthy, the Father CP, then SHE should pay appropiate support. I just don't want to be accused of being biased against men.
You mentioned the time you spent taking care of her. Well, it's your kid . You're supposed to spend time taking care of her, nobody should feel liable to pay you for that. If that's an issue then give her dad some custody too.
Truly spoken by someone who hasn't had kids. What do you think kids are, PETS?? Let's see...3 days with Mom and then 4 days with Dad, back and forth, never being able to feel like they have a HOME. In this situation it is usually best for kids to have a PRIMARY HOME with one parent and liberal visitation with the other. Best interest of the child! Remember?
[Quote/]Nor do I feel it's right for any woman after bringing a child into this world irresponsibly to feel that someone is now obligated to take care of her, or assume full responsibility to take care of her child. You made your bed, now lay in it plain and simple. Child support should not be a means for anyone to get a lifestyle upgrade, period.[/Quote]
Last time I checked it took TWO, female and MALE to make a child. Of course, both are OBLIGATED to take care of the child. You make the kid, you're obligated, Babydoll! Whether or not one is going to be DECENT and honor their obligation is another story altogether. So, there is a few, in fact, very few, highly publicized cases of wealty men making kids with women with lesser means. However, the fact is, most do not get a "lifestyle upgrade". It's quite the opposite in many instances. Don't take what you read in the newpapers as the reality of everyday folks. And if they do? So what? Next time make a kid with a wealthy woman.
My bottom line is this: I really don't give a damn about the adults in these situations. My only concern is about the kid or kids and what is best for them. I think that their lives should be affected as little a possible. If Dad or Mom has big bucks then the kids should live accordingly. If I get your drift, Big Boi, you believe some of these kids would have been better off being killed before birth just to save some poor slobs wallet.
What if that kid had been YOU, Big Boi?
-
bigboi
Andee:
soken by someone who hasn't had kids. What do you think kids are, PETS?? Let's see...3 days with Mom and then 4 days with Dad, back and forth, never being able to feel like they have a HOME. In this situation it is usually best for kids to have a PRIMARY HOME with one parent and liberal visitation with the other. Best interest of the child! Remember?
that wasn't the point I wsa trying to make. I was talking about LDH's assertionthat she somehow deserved to be paid for her time spent with her daughter. I just said that nobody is obligated to pay her for that, it's her daughter she's supposed to do that.
I know a few of my opinions are extreme here. I only say it like that to show the double standard that exists in parenting today. In the original story on the thread a man was told to stop having sex and the women who allowed him to father 9 children by them were treated like victims. They are not victims and no one owes them anything. Like you said it's the children who matter here, them nd only them. I never said women should kill their babies. I was merely alluding tothe fact that a woman has more control over childrearing than men do. Don't have kids for sorry individuals then go crying to the court for support. Nine times outta ten these women know the men they're dealing with so they aren't victims. IMO they are just as sorry as the men they lay with.
ONE....
bigboi
"it ain't what ya do. it's how you do it" quote from the song "True Honeybunz" by Bahamadia
-
BoozeRunner
Bigboi,
Thanx for revisiting the original article. I do believe the judge saw the KIDS as victims, rather than the women, as continued irresponsibility by this man (term used extremely liberally) would only serve to further affect his children in a negative way.
However, I understand the points you have been trying to make. The author said as much when she stated that women basically have more choices when it comes to deciding whether or not to bear children. Of course the ultimate choice is to protect onesself if children are not desired, but if BOTH adults fail along those lines, then women have ALL the choices and men have NONE.TY all for your comments.
I didnt mean for this to become a "who's right-or-wrong" when it comes to child support...LoL. That issue has to be decided in favor of innocent children.I did, however see a dangerous precedent being set tho in a court deciding who should bear children. I saw another good point on this issue today. Suppose a poor couple, whose religion forbade contraception and abortion, had 9 kids, and barely the means to support them? Would mommy and daddy go to jail?
Food for thought,
Boozy -
waiting
Just to bring back a sobering note here:
In the original story on the thread a man was told to stop having sex and the women who allowed him to father 9 children by them were treated like victims. - bigboi
"Pay up or zip up" is the message from the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which recently upheld an order that prohibits a "deadbeat" dad from having any more children while he's on probation. The ruling, which split 4-3 along gender lines (the gals voted against it), sounds sensible on the surface -- If you can't support your kids, don't have any. Most responsible people follow that rule voluntarily.- original news article
It was never stated in the article that the man could not have sex. The court ruled he was not to father anymore children - as he already has 9 he is not supporting.
The court also ruled that if he fathered another child, he would go to prison. He can have all the sex he wants - just use adequate birth control.
Imho, the article did not make the mothers out to be victims - it made 9 children out to be his victims. And they truly are victims. It is also not said that the women do/do not work, did/did not receive government aid, had other children, etc. The case was that the father was not supporting his 9 children.
The mothers, alledged in the article, are taking care of their children, with/without aid, but definitely without the father's support.
I don't understand where the reporter came up with the title "Court shouldn't regulate one's right to have sex" By KATHLEEN PARKER for her article. The Court said no further children. Big difference - and obviously that man doesn't understand it.
I think it's time he learned that thanks to rubber - he can have his cake and eat it too. All the sex that he obviously desires.
Oakley faces eight years in prison if he accidentally misplaces any of his genetic material, though the order expires at the end of his five-year probation. -article
Notice, that after probation, the "deadbeat dad" can father as many more children as he wishes not to support.
waiting
-
bigboi
Waiting:
It's the same thing. It's equally ridiculous ad appalling to legislate this man's ability to produce children, imo. Why not the same for the women? They had 9 kids by this guy. Like I said before there are many, many extenuating circumstances associated with child support cases. In most the women are treated like vitims. I'm sorry if i implied that I thought they didn't work. I don't care if they are CEO's they are still trilin to have that many kids by a man that can't support them.
ONE....
bigboi
"it ain't what ya do. it's how you do it" quote from the song "True Honeybunz" by Bahamadia
-
JustAThought
I think that there are some facts about child support which have not been given an adequate airing in this thread.
There is an inherent biological disproportion in the burden of bearing a child. It is much easier for a man to walk away from his responsibility for a child conceived than a woman. He merely has to become inaccessible to that woman. At the very least, a woman will have to finance, obtain, and endure an abortion. Perhaps this biological imbalance has much to do with the fact that she has more say in whether she will bear the child than does the father.
The vast majority of child support issues have to do with formerly married couples who have produced once mutually desired children. In these cases, the issue becomes one of insuring that the children are supported by BOTH parents, custodial and non-custodial. In most of these cases, it is not a matter of the NCP's inability to pay, but, rather, the NCP's unwillingness to pay. For issues of child support, the court does not much concern itself with NCP's who cannot pay, but with NCP's who can pay, but choose not to.
The amount of child support to be paid is usually determined on the NCP's ability to pay, and is, as such, figured on a percentage of the NCP's income. If we were to use the national average of 17%, an NCP earning $150,000.00 should be paying $25,500.00 per year in child support for one child. For NCP's who earn less, say the national income average of $25,000 per year, the child support amount for one child would be only about $4,250.00 per year, or $354.00 per month.
A listing of reasonable child support expense, say, for a 12 year old child, might look like this ...
Expense Amount/
monthFood 400.00
Clothing 100.00
Housing 100.00
Utility Cost 100.00
School Expense 50.00
Medical/Dental 50.00
Health Insurance 100.00If you were to total just these costs, you've already got a monthly tab of $900.00.
Even with just these very basic expenses, the real cost of supporting one child is over twice what the average NCP is able to pay. The idea of custodial parents receiving a surplus of child support money from an NCP is, except for a very few select cases, just a myth. The reality is that custodial parents almost always contribute MORE, financially and otherwise, to the support of their children.
And, finally, as to the article which spawned this thread, it wasn't the women in the story who are portrayed as victims, it is the tax-paying public. Any person who has contributed to producing (9) children who they're not supporting is a huge drain of the working tax-paying public.
JustAThought