If child support were voluntary

**sugarfree irony** · March 22nd, 2012, 04:33 PM

After reading this thread http://www.dreamindemon.com/forums/s...re-Looks-Happy Coffee Slinging Evelyn Harris Sure Looks Happy posted by our lovely Dakota Valkyrie . I began to think about dead beat dads and unwanted babies ,and or babies only wanted by one parent . I was searching the boards to see if there were any threads about the ease ( legally ) in which a single woman can have a baby and not be forced to support the child physically , emotionally , or financially namely , adoption and safe haven . Where as a single man is not given the option of placing an unwanted infant up for adoption if the mother opposes that decision , and has been deemed fit to raise the infant . I'm not sure what would happen if a single dad took his baby to a safe haven drop off without the mother's consent .I imagine the mother would be able to have the infant returned , and perhaps have the father charged with kidnapping and abandonment . But I'm not sure . Often the single man is forced to provide financial support for the infant and is not given the opportunity ( after conception ) of completely opting out of fatherhood . I know women pay child support too , but they can choose to opt out of parenting . A single father can relinquish his parental rights however will often be ordered to continue to pay child support unless the child is adopted by the mom's new partner .

http://www.livestrong.com/article/12...rental-rights/

Voluntary termination, also called relinquishment of parental rights, is not taken lightly by the courts and is not easy to do. Unless there is a plan for another person, such as the mother's new husband, to adopt the child, a father cannot voluntarily relinquish parental rights. This would create an undue burden on the custodial parent.
The custodial parent must also consent to the termination. If the custodial parent is receiving public assistance, the courts will not allow a father to relinquish his parental rights. Even if the father is not providing financial assistance at the time, the court wants to reserve the right to continue pursuing child support.

In my search of the board I found this thread http://www.dreamindemon.com/forums/s...ort+visitation 175 Killer Dads:Dads Who Ended Their Children's Lives Involving Custody,Visits,Etc posted by our lovely Whisper . I know that not all fathers ( and mothers ) who are unhappy about paying child support kill their children . But it does happen . I'm only quoting four cases where child support is listed as a factor in the murders , but there are several in the article that mention child support .

http://americanmotherspoliticalparty...ld-support-usa

Father: GIDEON WALTER OMONDI
Victim(s): Richie Omondi (4 years)
Date of Death: 2006
Father shared custody with the child's mother. Drowned son to avoid child support. Father convicted of 1st-degree murder in January 2010.

Father: DENNIS POTTS
Victim(s): Tori Vienneau (22 years), Dean Springtube (10 months)
Date of Death: July 2006
Father is convicted September 2009 in the murders of his former girlfriend and son. Father didn't want to take paternity test, pay child support.

Father: WESLEY JONATHAN WILLIAMS
Victim(s): Danielle Baker (mother), sons Ahmaad (4 years) and Amarion (1 year), and unrelated infant.
Date of Death: 2005
Father allegedly committed quadruple murder because he was angry about child support.

Father: MARINO SALINAS
Victim(s): Avee Hunter (4 months)
Date of Death: April 2010
Father charged with 1st-degree murder. Prosecutors say that father plotted to kill baby to avoid child support.

To add to the mix you have men like Frank Hatley , and Morgan Wise victims of paternity fraud .

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-07-15/j...ed?_s=PM:CRIME

Frank Hatley spent the past year in jail for being a deadbeat dad. But there's one problem -- Hatley doesn't have any children.

http://www.people.com/people/archive...138571,00.html

Morgan Wise could not bring himself to open the envelope. He gave the thick letter to his wife, Beverly, who finally looked inside. When he heard her crying, Wise knew the news was bad: Results from a DNA testing lab proved that three of his four children from a previous marriage had been fathered by someone else. "I was gasping for air," says Wise, 40, of that day in 1999. "I was crying. What man doesn't think his own kids are his?"

Still, there was another nasty surprise. A Texas court ruled that, though he was not the biological father of the three boys, then aged 6, 8 and 10, he had to keep paying $1,100 a month in child support to his ex-wife. In January the U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear his appeal, leaving him baffled. "Why do I have to pay this woman who is not being held accountable?" says Wise, who would rather spend the money directly on the children. "This is wrong."

It is not known just how many men are paying to help raise kids they did not father, but what is clear is that the law is not on their side. Almost all states require nonbiological fathers to keep paying child support even if they were deceived by their spouses. "This is an area in which technology has simply moved more quickly than the law," says David Westfall, an expert in family law at Harvard. No one disputes that it is the children who suffer most, emotionally and financially, when such conflicts arise. But, says West-fall, "it does seem wrong to stick the nonbiological father [with the child support]. Someone's going to be hurt, but why not the mother or the commonwealth?"

All of these things led me to contemplate what it would be like today if child support were voluntary. Would there be less children murdered ? Would there be less children concieved ? Would private charity fill the gaps , or would we be taxed more to support these children ? Would there be chaos , or personal responsibility ? Also those of you that remember what it was like before mandatory child support please share your observations .

Thank you @malq for letting me bounce ideas off your brain .

**biteme** · March 22nd, 2012, 04:50 PM

I think the biggest issue people have with child support is how it's spent
Had a friend used to give his wife quite a bit of monthly child support, yet his daughter always arrived in old torn clothes and worn out shoes, his wife always dressed to a T the latest and best.
He always had plenty of clothes and always bought her new shoes, yet she always came back, torn and worn
If the one paying the support had any say on how it was spent, more would gladly pay, I feel many would contribute more
You would still have the losers contributing nothing, always a bad apple

**Obsolete** · March 22nd, 2012, 05:10 PM

What a great post.

I'm not sure what would happen if a single dad took his baby to a safe haven drop off without the mother's consent .I imagine the mother would be able to have the infant returned , and perhaps have the father charged with kidnapping and abandonment .

When a child is born, custody automatically falls with the mother. A father would have to file and win a custody battle, which takes time. By the time he was granted custody, the Safe Haven age requirement would have passed. The only way that I can see a father having custody of a newborn is if the mother signed over rights prior to giving birth, or if she died during childbirth. In either of those situations I don't see why he wouldn't be able to give up a baby via Safe Haven.

When it comes to pregnancy and childbirth, all rights lie with the mother. Is that unfair? I think it is. Will it ever change? I doubt it. The fact that a mother can have an abortion against the fathers wishes sucks in my opinion. Some say "it's her body, her right" but I think I disagree with that.

A man and a woman have sex, and the woman gets pregnant. She decides to have the baby even though the father says he wants her to have an abortion. He still has to pay child support and if he balks people say "you should have been more careful" and they're right he should have been, but where is her accountability?

Tables turned and the woman wants the abortion and the father doesn't. Why doesn't he have the right to say no, then take custody once the baby is born? Sure she doesn't want to carry the baby for 9 months and it's her body but what happened to the "you should have been more careful" argument? If the father should have to pay for his mistakes by paying child support for a child he didn't want, why shouldn't she have to carry a baby she doesn't want for 9 months to pay for her mistakes?

The answer, in my opinion, is because women would be more apt to hurt/kill themselves trying to abort babies at home. More women would hide their pregnancies and forego prenatal care.

The fact is, it will never change. Women will always have the rights over her fetus and the father won't. All he can do is watch where he shoots.

My solution - Women can only abort during the first few months of her pregnancy, men should have that same time period to declare his wish to abort his duty to pay child support to that child if the mother goes through with the pregnancy.

**Obsolete** · March 22nd, 2012, 05:12 PM

Originally Posted by biteme

I think the biggest issue people have with child support is how it's spent
Had a friend used to give his wife quite a bit of monthly child support, yet his daughter always arrived in old torn clothes and worn out shoes, his wife always dressed to a T the latest and best.
He always had plenty of clothes and always bought her new shoes, yet she always came back, torn and worn
If the one paying the support had any say on how it was spent, more would gladly pay, I feel many would contribute more
You would still have the losers contributing nothing, always a bad apple

Agreed. However some people don't buy nice or new clothes for their kids because they ruin or outgrow them so soon but that doesn't mean the money isn't going to the children. It could be going towards education, dental work, savings etc.

**Dakota Valkyrie** · March 22nd, 2012, 05:37 PM

Originally Posted by Obsolete

Agreed. However some people don't buy nice or new clothes for their kids because they ruin or outgrow them so soon but that doesn't mean the money isn't going to the children. It could be going towards education, dental work, savings etc.

You forgot housing, energy, gas for the car, school supplies & activities, child care, entertainment, food and a myriad of other things that are not seen.

Unless a child is being deprived in some way or there is a court order dictating how money is to be spent, the non-custodial parent has little legal say in how the money is spent.

**Obsolete** · March 22nd, 2012, 05:39 PM

Originally Posted by Dakota Valkyrie

You forgot housing, energy, gas for the car, school supplies & activities, child care, entertainment, food and a myriad of other things that are not seen.

Unless a child is being deprived in some way or there is a court order dictating how money is to be spent, the non-custodial parent has little legal say in how the money is spent.

I was just too lazy to type all of that out after that wall of words I typed in the previous post *sticks tongue out*

**Rockin Ma** · March 22nd, 2012, 05:43 PM

My solution - Women can only abort during the first few months of her pregnancy, men should have that same time period to declare his wish to abort his duty to pay child support to that child if the mother goes through with the pregnancy.

I think that would only actually fly as a valid agreement if the woman was more than able to adequately provide for the child on her own. Throw in an uninsured woman who needed the state for insurance for the pregnancy, birth then insurance for the child, the State would be on it and he'd never get away no matter if she agreed or not.

**biteme** · March 22nd, 2012, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by Dakota Valkyrie

You forgot housing, energy, gas for the car, school supplies & activities, child care, entertainment, food and a myriad of other things that are not seen.

Unless a child is being deprived in some way or there is a court order dictating how money is to be spent, the non-custodial parent has little legal say in how the money is spent.

Originally Posted by Obsolete

I was just too lazy to type all of that out after that wall of words I typed in the previous post *sticks tongue out*

I'm talking QUITE! a bit of money, I understand expenses I think anyone that ever paid rent, bought food, clothes, had a child, paid for private schooling, college, housing, special dance and prom cloths, vacations, understands expenses involved, doesn't change my opinion about not having a say in how the money is spent being the greatest issue

**Obsolete** · March 22nd, 2012, 05:51 PM

Originally Posted by Rockin Ma

I think that would only actually fly as a valid agreement if the woman was more than able to adequately provide for the child on her own. Throw in an uninsured woman who needed the state for insurance for the pregnancy, birth then insurance for the child, the State would be on it and he'd never get away no matter if she agreed or not.

Why should it be the fathers responisbility to pay for a child that he doesn't want, just because the mother can't provide for herself, yet refuses to have an abortion. She gets to choose to have the baby or not, regardless of her financial stability. Why shouldn't he be granted that same right?

**Dakota Valkyrie** · March 22nd, 2012, 05:51 PM

If people don't want the responsibility of raising/paying for a child, they should probably keep their body parts to themselves or at least only fuck individuals who they are certain are of the same mind as they are on the idea.

**Rockin Ma** · March 22nd, 2012, 05:53 PM

Most states use about the same type of way to calculate support. They take the two incomes, add them together then figure the % that is his and hers. You look at combined income and there's a book that tells you the support amount depending on how many children. Say it is $100 per week. Of the combined income, 75% of was his and 25% her, if she is custodial, residential, primary w/e you want to call it, she would pay nothing (because the child lives with her) and he'd pay $75 per week.

**Obsolete** · March 22nd, 2012, 05:57 PM

Originally Posted by biteme

I'm talking QUITE! a bit of money, I understand expenses I think anyone that ever paid rent, bought food, clothes, had a child, paid for private schooling, college, housing, special dance and prom cloths, vacations, understands expenses involved, doesn't change my opinion about not having a say in how the money is spent being the greatest issue

You used the way the kids dress as an example of the mom not using the money to care for the kids. Having a lot of money doesn't mean dressing your kids in new clothes. I know many very weathly families that buy kids clothes at 2nd hand stores because they don't think it's logical to buy brand new clothes that the kid will grow out of in 3 months.

**Rockin Ma** · March 22nd, 2012, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Obsolete

Why should it be the fathers responisbility to pay for a child that he doesn't want, just because the mother can't provide for herself, yet refuses to have an abortion. She gets to choose to have the baby or not, regardless of her financial stability. Why shouldn't he be granted that same right?

I suppose he could try to fight it. There was a thread about a dad who did this I think. I don't remember the outcome. I just don't think he'd get anywhere. It takes two to make a baby. I know, there are things that could be special circumstances like she told him she was on the pill, or the condom broke, but I think a Judge would say too bad. He should've been extra extra careful. More so, if she had to depend on the state for medical, food or cash.

**Obsolete** · March 22nd, 2012, 05:58 PM

Originally Posted by Rockin Ma

Most states use about the same type of way to calculate support. They take the two incomes, add them together then figure the % that is his and hers. You look at combined income and there's a book that tells you the support amount depending on how many children. Say it is $100 per week. Of the combined income, 75% of was his and 25% her, if she is custodial, residential, primary w/e you want to call it, she would pay nothing (because the child lives with her) and he'd pay $75 per week.

If the mom doesn't want to support the baby she can abort, or give the baby up for adoption. Dad doesn't have that right. So in turn it's only fair that he be allowed to abort his duty.

**Dakota Valkyrie** · March 22nd, 2012, 06:00 PM

Originally Posted by Obsolete

You used the way the kids dress as an example of the mom not using the money to care for the kids. Having a lot of money doesn't mean dressing your kids in new clothes. I know many very weathly families that buy kids clothes at 2nd hand stores because they don't think it's logical to buy brand new clothes that the kid will grow out of in 3 months.

And maybe the kid just didn't care. Some wear old torn clothes and worn out shoes because they like to. If biteme's friend was buying her new clothes and shoes, I doubt they were put up in a closet and hidden just for the hell of it.

And If I was going to be a bitch, I would send my kid in old clothes if I knew daddy would buy new ones. Especially if I could use the added savings for other things for my kids... because there is ALWAYS something they need money for.

**Rockin Ma** · March 22nd, 2012, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by Obsolete

If the mom doesn't want to support the baby she can abort, or give the baby up for adoption. Dad doesn't have that right. So in turn it's only fair that he be allowed to abort his duty.

I'm not saying it's fair. And I'm not in complete disagreement personally, I get what you are saying. I just don't know how a guy could win that argument.

Think about alimony. That used to be ordered all the time. Times are changing and Judges are beginning to recognize that the need to support a woman after a divorce when she's capable of working isn't really necessary. Maybe in time the same will happen for men who don't want to support, but I don't see it if the woman depended on the state for assistance.

**Obsolete** · March 22nd, 2012, 06:20 PM

Originally Posted by Dakota Valkyrie

And maybe the kid just didn't care. Some wear old torn clothes and worn out shoes because they like to. If biteme's friend was buying her new clothes and shoes, I doubt they were put up in a closet and hidden just for the hell of it.

And If I was going to be a bitch, I would send my kid in old clothes if I knew daddy would buy new ones. Especially if I could use the added savings for other things for my kids... because there is ALWAYS something they need money for.

Years ago hubby and I separated for a short time. I worked and he paid child support but neither of us were making a lot of money. I had to decide between shopping at stores I liked (Nordstrom, Macy's, etc) and having my kids on free lunches at school, or shopping at K-mart/Walmart/thrift stores and sending them with lunch money/packed lunches. I chose to shop at the less expensive stores and provide their lunches. My pride wouldn't let me sign the kids up for school lunches and even though I thought the kids would hate the cheaper clothes, they didn't. They didn't even know I started shopping at different stores. They were perfectly happy wearing $20 jeans rather than $80 jeans.

**Dakota Valkyrie** · March 22nd, 2012, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Obsolete

Why should it be the fathers responisbility to pay for a child that he doesn't want, just because the mother can't provide for herself, yet refuses to have an abortion. She gets to choose to have the baby or not, regardless of her financial stability. Why shouldn't he be granted that same right?

If a single mother never has to apply for public assistance, I know of no law that says she has to go after the father for child support.

**Obsolete** · March 22nd, 2012, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Rockin Ma

I'm not saying it's fair. And I'm not in complete disagreement personally, I get what you are saying. I just don't know how a guy could win that argument.

Think about alimony. That used to be ordered all the time. Times are changing and Judges are beginning to recognize that the need to support a woman after a divorce when she's capable of working isn't really necessary. Maybe in time the same will happen for men who don't want to support, but I don't see it if the woman depended on the state for assistance.

I don't see it happening either, I just think it should.

**Obsolete** · March 22nd, 2012, 06:24 PM

Originally Posted by Dakota Valkyrie

If a single mother never has to apply for public assistance, I know of no law that says she has to go after the father for child support.

She doesn't have to, but she has the right to seek child support and in most cases she would win.

**Dakota Valkyrie** · March 22nd, 2012, 06:38 PM

Originally Posted by Obsolete

She doesn't have to, but she has the right to seek child support and in most cases she would win.

That is why people should be more discriminate in who they bed down. People put more thought into buying a car than the lifelong ramifications of a poke. I'm far from a prude but was always willing to accept the consequences of a birth control failure. If a guy does not want to make a baby with someone, he should take measures to prevent it but be aware the measures may fail or that the chick is lying to him (far from unheard of). Priorities dammit! If getting laid is more important than the pocketbook, you just might get a little more than you asked for.

**Obsolete** · March 22nd, 2012, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Dakota Valkyrie

That is why people should be more discriminate in who they bed down. People put more thought into buying a car than the lifelong ramifications of a poke. I'm far from a prude but was always willing to accept the consequences of a birth control failure. If a guy does not want to make a baby with someone, he should take measures to prevent it but be aware the measures may fail or that the chick is lying to him (far from unheard of). Priorities dammit! If getting laid is more important than the pocketbook, you just might get a little more than you asked for.

I completely agree. Don't sleep with someone you're not willing to share a child or a VD with.

**malq** · March 22nd, 2012, 06:49 PM

Originally Posted by Obsolete

Agreed. However some people don't buy nice or new clothes for their kids because they ruin or outgrow them so soon but that doesn't mean the money isn't going to the children. It could be going towards education, dental work, savings etc.

or crack

**malq** · March 22nd, 2012, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by Dakota Valkyrie

If people don't want the responsibility of raising/paying for a child, they should probably keep their body parts to themselves or at least only fuck individuals who they are certain are of the same mind as they are on the idea.

This has always been my gripe, If you are going to play like an adult you should pay like an adult if you are not prepared to raise the child.
We used to call child support "the fucking you get for the fucking you got." When I got a little older, that morphed into responsibility.

We must never fprget the premise of child support is to ensure shared responsibility and above all, the welfare of the child. Unfortunately, it is more often than not a chess game with child as the pawn. I am fortunate not to have ever involved in this.

**TACO** · March 22nd, 2012, 08:22 PM

I have no problem supporting my children...I am most of the time a month ahead. What gets me is this I pay medical insurance & I am responsible for 91% of it. Then get bitched at for not helping with there clothes. Sometimes we men can not win no matter how hard we try!

**Rockin Ma** · March 22nd, 2012, 08:52 PM

I got into a fight with my son's dad way back when he made a $60 payment to me. The next week I had a tattoo, that cost $60. He said his child support paid for that. Never mind the diapers, food (special formula), apt, utilities, daycare I paid. I had a support order against my b/f because I got state medical. I had no choice. I am the named Plaintiff, but I didn't bring the Complaint, the state did it. The state followed for a while and when he lost his job, I got a letter that his employment terminated and they could no longer collect. That was it. It's been years and years and years since he's paid actual court ordered support and there has never been a contempt brought against him. I suppose if I ever want to be vicious, and since CT does child support cases for free, I could take him to court and go all the way back to the last payment. But I would never. We've lived together now for...wow a lot of years (how has be put up with me) but a court order is a court order. I could get him for the years we were not living together.

@TACO by the time they brought the action, my son was a couple years old and according the guidelines, my income and his income, I was 70 something percent on unreimbursed/uncovered medical because I made more (though I admit I made my financial affidavit as low as possible). I didn't make much, he didn't make much and his order was really small, but that little bit they took out left him with nothing.

So I suppose that if the man hangs in there and pays for that kid he don't want for a while, then changes jobs after maybe a set amount of time, it could go away. But the state can look you up. If you are on the books, they can find you. I don't know if now they look automatically or if the payee would have to bring it to their attention.

**thehesbomb** · March 22nd, 2012, 09:23 PM

Married to a custodial dad...He works FT, goes to college full time, makes sure each kid is where they need to be at any given time...his useless cunt of an ex pays a whopping $50 per month in child support for their two kids. It's been a long time and we are pretty much used to it (I contribute to everything, including paying for health insurance for the kids).

Way long ago (7+) years ago when she had primary custody my husband paid $188/week. The kids showed up in clothes too small/stained/no shoes/no glasses/filthy. My stepdaughter didn't even know how to wipe her privates which was why she got urinary tract infections all the time (literally 1-2 times per MONTH). After moving in with us, had one "last gasp" UTI and has not had one since ~ she is 15 now.

Meanwhile the douche went to bars whenever she felt like it, kept up her 1.5 pack/day smoking habit, bought herself new club clothes. If there was a dime of the child support that actually went to the kids it would have been hard to find.

ETA: Forgot to mention that now that DH is custodial and has been for 7 years we get $50/MONTH in child support. Plus she HATES not having child support in her pocket and tried yearly to regain custody of the kids.

**Rockin Ma** · March 22nd, 2012, 09:30 PM

I don't see many non custodial mothers that even have support orders. That should definitely change. I don't know why, but judges have sympathy for a woman when the shoe is on the other foot and never have I even heard of a female being locked up for non payment.

**DamagedGoods** · March 22nd, 2012, 10:23 PM

I don't really have much to add to this. It's not a situation I'm in or really have any experience with. Besides, every point I'd have made, @Obsolete already did.

Originally Posted by Dakota Valkyrie

That is why people should be more discriminate in who they bed down.

The trouble is, the ones that don't discriminate are finding the others that don't discriminate and just going to town. Or so it seems to me.

There really is no answer to this that one won't royally piss some people off. And rightfully so in individual situations.

**thehesbomb** · March 23rd, 2012, 09:04 AM

That is why people should be more discriminate in who they bed down.

That's all well and good but some people are just downright manipulative and evil. DH started dating the whore he was 18, had been raised hardcore Christian and was a virgin. They used rubbers for 6 months until she "went on the pill" (it's in quotes because she lied and it didn't really happen). Lo and behold she ends up knocked up. DH still thought if he just did the "right thing" she would be happy and they could make a life that worked. So he married her pregnant skank ass. Up until he put the ring on her finger she'd put up a pretty good act because she only needed to behave until he was well and fully trapped.

He spent 5 miserable years with her, while she cheated on him with anyone she wanted, didn't work, spent all his money, got restraining orders against him when she felt like she didn't want him to see the kids...

DH still isn't 100% sure that his oldest son is his but doesn't want a paternity test (his ex told me point blank that she's slept with 3 guys the day that he was supposedly conceived).

So yeah, sometimes people are dumb about it, sometimes people are just trying to do "the right thing".