Tuesday, July 17, 2007

Excellent point about Child support

You know how Child support debt is retroactive to the day of birth, how it is unforgivable thanks to the Bradley Amendment, and basically once a man is on the hook he is not let off for any reason, including DNA evidence. DNA evidence is good enough for those falsely accused of rape and murder but not for someone convicted of child support.

Child support can also drive a man to kill. The problem with child support as it is applied today is that it is not really child support - it is a form of mommy support. You can dress it up all you want in gender-neutral words, but its a cold reality that women are awarded custody far, far more often and when they aren't, they default (if an effort to collect is made in the first place) much, much more often. When women collect welfare, WIC (now there's a sexist, government-as-husband program if I ever saw one), food stamps et al, they can only spend it on certain items and they are held accountable if they cheat.

Ain't no way you're gonna show that the $1000 handbags, or even that case of Tecate Light is for the benefit of the child. But with child support collected from the man? Its hers to do with as she pleases.

So child support is either a replacement or a side-dish to alimony. 

bluegrass over on SYG made an excellent point about unforgivable child support cases, in which a man is still on the hook years after the children have grown up and moved out. The primary justification is that the single mom expended the money to raise the child and the child support is rightfully hers because that money was spent in the past and can not be un-spent now.

So basically what you're saying then is that in a case like this, the mother is then as morally reprehensible as the father -- in your opinion that is.

So growing up the kid doesn't get the benefit of that money because dad spends it on himself.

Then when the kid's grown, he still doesn't get it because mom spends it on herself.

I'm a parent though not divorced.  I've never heard of this idea that one can be "reimbursed" for taking care of one's own children.
could you please explain?

I know of quite a few cases where, in states where the father has to pay child support till 21 if the kid decides to attend college, the woman keeps the entire child support check for herself. The kid is burdened with crushing student loans and debts even when the father is paying.

After all, the mother is under no obligation to spend it on the child, how can you expect to oppress her by holding her accountable, you patriarchal oppressing bastard!

She may even lie to the kid and tell her that her father is a bastard who doesn't pay. After all, mothers are encouraged to lie and its not like she hasn't used the kids as pawns before.


  1. It is funny: in Germany DNA Evidence is used to find the father if a mother wishes it.

    A man cannot demand DNA testing if he has doubts about his fatherhood.

  2. Anon, it would be funny if it weren't so horribly unfair.

  3. Pete---CS is support for the other parent. Any state that uses income shares implicitly includes health club memberships, and beauty salon treatments in the calculation.

    Our Director of CS in the FU-WA even admits to this, once I pointed it out.

    Clearly, CS is not for the children. The presumption that the money transfer (private welfare) will be used for the kids, and the continued presumption that the CP pays their "income share", even when they are living off the CS and not working, fly in the face of reality.

    Your rant here, while colorful and vehement, does not at all exagerate the state of the world.

    The Geezer

  4. Thanks for the comment Geezer. I understand that my rant is a mere reflection of the system as I see it.

    Kind of like how a housefly would see a spider's web. I know enough to avoid it, but one mistake can be fatal.