Waiting:
I'll grant that, technically they aren't the same. However, I still think it's equally appalling and ridiculous for a court to levy such a restriction on an individual. Prohibiting him from having children will in no way make him more able to care for the ones he has. That judge is a fool for setting such a dangerous precedent in the legal system.
JustAThought:
Again as I told LDH earlier, I don't believe that it takes 900 dollars a month to raise a child. One child cannot tie up that amount of resources on a regular basis. Everyone knows that household expenses fluctuate. I'm not saying it is cheap to raise a child, but no one child has 900-2000 dollars spent on it alone w/o special circumstances.
Ask anyone hear who couldn't use an extra 350 dollars every month coming thru. I don't think you'll hear too many here turn it down. It might not be a pitance to some to others it might be alot, that's highly subjective. I think cs shoukld be for the child. Adequate housing, food and clothing as welll as appropiate health insurance should be provided. It shouldn't be provided by just one parent though, both should be required to pay.
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.
Of course, women can get pregnant, men can't. Yet, the fact remains that a woman can choose to have an abortion. Men don't have a choice whether they want the baby or not. If she chooses to have it, he's screwed. IMO that's a double standard.
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.
I doubt if it's really that simple. There are all kinds of circumstances surrounding these kinds of cases. The question that should be asked is why won't a ncp pay if they are able too. You never know why they refuse to pay. Also, what does the ability to pay mean? What, that they just have a job? That they are a millionaire or what? I'll admit there are some scumbags out there who don't want to pay. However, just because a dude doesn't send some chick who had a kid for him a check doesn't mean he's a deadbeat. I know of many, many cases where guys are put on cs and told to pay arrearages even though they had been supporting the child all along. The child didn't live with them and they had no documentation so they got stuck. The system is biased, plain and simple.
"it ain't what ya do. it's how you do it" quote from the song "True Honeybunz" by Bahamadia
