I frequently read and hear anecdotes about non-custodial parents (usually fathers) being ordered to pay outrageously high child support – amounts that are impossible for anyone with an ordinary income to afford. No doubt some of these anecdotes are exaggerated, but I’m convinced that some are not. Unaffordable child support payments don’t benefit anyone – not even the children – and should not be imposed. Furthermore, some measures to help non-custodial parents pay child support – such as a tax deduction of some sort – would be reasonable.
However, some men’s rights activists (MRAs) use rhetoric which suggests that child support payments are often or typically outrageously high, or that child support has made single motherhood a profitable situation for women. Neither claim is true.
According to a recent U.S. Census Bureau report (pdf link), the median child support payment in the U.S. is $280 a month. The average child support payment is a little higher – $350 a month. That’s a noticeable amount – similar in scope to payments on a new car – but it’s hardly the crushing, slavery-like burden some MRAs seem to describe child support as.
Although the Census Bureau report doesn’t provide detailed income breakdowns, what information it has indicates that child support amounts are sensitive to income. For instance, among fathers who are below the poverty line, the median child support payment is $125 a month, compared to a median of $300 a month for those above the poverty line.
So despite the terrible anecdotes that we hear (and if you think about it, it’s those who are mistreated by the system who are going to talk about their experiences the most often), the evidence shows that typical child support payments are not ridiculously high. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be concerned about those outliers who are being ordered to pay unaffordable amounts of child support; however, I think the weight of the evidence suggests that while the system may need some tweaking, on the whole it’s not broken.
* * *
So the typical child support payment is $280 a month – put another way, half of custodial parents who receive child support get $280 a month or less. How does that compare to the costs of raising a child?
Again, the federal government compiles some good statistics on this (pdf link). For a single parent with an income of about $17,500, raising a single child for 17 years will cost about $10,125 a year, or $840 a month.
Of course, a single parent who earns $17,500 a year is pretty poor. What about single parents who aren’t poor? For better-off single parents – those earning an average of $65,000 a year – raising a single child for 17 years will cost almost $21,600 a year, or a little over $1,800 a month.
All told, the typical child support payment in the USA covers much less than half the expense of raising a child. Custodial parents – usually mothers – are taking on not only the majority of the work involved in childrearing, and the majority of the opportunity costs – they’re taking on the majority of the cash expenses, as well.
Therefore, I’d support a two-tiered reform to child support. Child support payments should be made more sensitive to individual situations, so that noncustodial parents are not saddled with irrational and impossible-to-pay child support orders, as has happened in some outlier cases. At the same time, typical child support payments are simply too low, compared to the cost of raising a child; therefore, most non-custodial parents should have their child support obligations increased. (This will also have the side benefit of reducing unwed motherhood.)
NOTE FOR COMMENTS: Please don’t post about how you have an income of $500 a month and the judge ordered you to pay $2000 a month in child support to your ungrateful lazy ex-spouse who spends all the child support money on dresses she can wear to the track and she earns more than you do anyway and the judge won’t even reply to your motions. Unless I know both you and your ex-spouse, and can verify for myself that she’d tell me the same version of events that you’re telling me, I don’t think anecdotal evidence of that sort is more useful than the federal data.
Well, I meant that we likely haven’t seen any situations where beforehand the woman specifically legally absolves the husband of any legal or financial responsibility, and I stand by that, but yes, I’d agree that “women have been harmed by men because of a myth that sex is consequence free” & etc.
—Myca
Christian, whether or not your indulgence in unexamined assumptions and questions that dictate their own answers is conscious or unconscious isn’t really germane to the discussion. The fact that you do so is sufficient criticism in and of itself.
I’m fully prepared to accept that you do not comprehend your own arguments if, in fact, you wish to make that claim. However, this doesn’t alter the reality that you made particular sorts of arguments and you are obligated to either defend, amend or retract them.
Let’s take a fresh example, shall we?
” I am not making a claim and demanding proof from others, I’m responding to claims by others that because family structures other than the nuclear exist, single parent families are therefore acceptable.
I’m sorry to have to say it Christian but this is demonstrably false. You did indeed make a positive assertion of fact when you claimed that there was a “general theme” common to all family models that supported your own view. That you made the assertion in the context of an argument doesn’t change this.
Further, it’s interesting that you argue that single parent families are “unacceptable”. When has this stricture been a part of our culture? I am aware of no law forcing widowed, divorced or abandoned parents to remarry, so it’s clearly a departure to claim that “single parent” families are “unacceptable”. Again, it appears that it is you who are in need of support for your assertion rather than those who recognize single parent families as a fact of life.
In matrilineal societies children are seen as belonging to the mother’s family. Often, the primary male authority in the child’s life is a near relative of the mother. Mother’s brother for example. In instances where the father may leave the mother and return to his own family, there is indeed no expectation that the father will remain the main support of the child since such an expectation never existed in the first place. In such societies, the father’s obligation is to the mother’s family rather than to the child. Having given you this as a starting point, I urge you to do some reading on your own.
Well based on the broad sweep of your statement, I’d say the answer to your question is yes. To start with your historical claim, it’s doubtful that you could come up with a reliable number for how many children had an absent parent or parents. Aside from inadequate record keeping the further back in history you go, it’s a given that such records as do exist would be heavily weighted towards instances where the problems you cite were present. That ‘s to say, criminal records, court preceedings for debt or insolvency, records of charitable institutions, etc. Children raised successfully by a single mother or father or by friends or relatives would be highly unlikely to appear in such records. If you can’t know how many single parent children existed at a given point in time, you can’t credibly claim knowlege of the general effect of such parenting.
In short, for the greater part of history, you would only be able to cite anecdotal evidence. For every anecdote in support of your position I might cite an Alexander Hamilton or a William Tecumseh Sherman in refutation. In the end, the only thing we could “prove” is that the question remains open.
The fundamental problem though, is your assumption that a causal relation exists between single parenting and such problems. To be sure, there is a correlation between poverty and single parenting in contemporary times but that doesn’t prove that single parenting creates poverty anymore than a high incidence of tooth decay amongst the poor would prove that poverty is caused by bad dental hygene. This is pertinent because the problems cited also share a correlative relationship with poverty. To give an analagous illustration, it can safely be said that between 1800 and 1864 the levels of illiteracy amongst African Americans were astronomic. There was a correlative relationship between being black and being illiterate. Would you say that this implied a causal relationship between blackness and illiteracy? Or was the cause located elsewhere?
This goes to the nub of things. Your approach treats parenting as though it were a fixed quantity, unaffected by social or institutional realities. As though the effects of single parenting were immune to ameliorating or aggravating external factors.
Here’s a suggestion. Take the data on single parenting in the US. Compare it with similar data from equally developed countries (Canada, Britain, Western Europe, Australia, etc.) Determine whether the data is uniform across the comparisons or whether it differs from country to country. If the former, that would be good evidence for your view. If the latter, you would obviously need to revisit your assumptions.
This brings us right back to what most people who have been arguing with you here have been about right along. Whether or not our current institutions are effective, given the evolving nature of the family and what sort of changes/reforms/adjustments may be required to insure their continued or renewed effectiveness.
Your position seems to imply that we should stop the evolution of family structures rather than adjust our institutions to such changes. How would that be accomplished?
A final note. I have to register my personal objection to having anything I’ve said here characterized as a ” bitch slap.” However problematic my tone might be at times, words remain words and violent acts are… violent acts. Besides,. I’m a dog lover and of the view that anyone who would slap a bitch deserves to have their hand gnawed off.
You did indeed make a positive assertion of fact when you claimed that there was a “general theme” common to all family models that supported your own view. That you made the assertion in the context of an argument doesn’t change this.
It’s true to the best of my knowledge. Is it untrue to yours? Tell me about them. Where is it a theme in any culture’s standards of marriage and family practice that parents were not required to take any action toward the benefit if their family?
Further, it’s interesting that you argue that single parent families are “unacceptable”. When has this stricture been a part of our culture? I am aware of no law forcing widowed, divorced or abandoned parents to remarry, so it’s clearly a departure to claim that “single parent” families are “unacceptable”. Again, it appears that it is you who are in need of support for your assertion rather than those who recognize single parent families as a fact of life.
I make a distinction between being single because of tragic circumstance and single from the beginning, by choice. It helps if children are already somewhere on the road to being independent, and life insurance, some savings, perhaps a better schools because of early shared income, it makes a difference, and the former makes parental responsibility in some fashion implicit, the latter does not.
In such societies, the father’s obligation is to the mother’s family rather than to the child.
Accepted, but in your example HE IS obligated to contribute. Instead of one role, he has another. Not ‘no role at all’ as with modern single parenting models being explored.
I must get back to work. I’ll consider the rest of your thoughts tonight.
Christian, you are attempting to re-write history in defiance of the facts. This not what you said earlier. What you actually said was:
“I speak to the general theme apparently common to all of them, that parents are expected to see their children to adulthood, who, upon adulthood, contribute then to the welfare of their parents.”
You are misrepresenting what you actually contended. Presumably because I pointed out how matrilineal families do not, in fact, have the expectation that fathers will be the material providers or primary care givers for their children. I am not going to accept your re-write. Either stand by your actual assertion or retract it.
In other words, you are opposed to single parent families on moral rather than practical grounds. You should have said so in the first place.
Again Christian, you’re simply changing your position without admitting to doing so. You explicitly stated that “parents are expected to see their children to adulthood”, not that the father was obligated to contribute to his wife’s family.
Since you are obviously not a stupid person, it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that you really don’t recognize what you are doing.
Kate:
Really? You’re talking about the US circa 1900, right? (Technically, “the turn of the century” could also be 2000, but that would be a fairly unremarkable claim.) Currently, 12,247,000 out of the 39,394,000 US families with children under 18 are headed by single parents. That’s 31%. What was the rate back then?
Where are you getting your numbers? According to Fields, J. 2004 America’s Family and Living arrangements : 2003 Current Population reports. P20-553. U.S. Cennsus Bureau. washington D.C.: US gov’t printing office, 8.4% of households are to single parents with children under the age of 18 (7.3% female headed, 1.7% male headed)ETA – I swear I can do math – really I can. That should read 9.0% total. My apologies.
19th century, sorry. And Here’s the source of the info – Kain, E. 1990. The Myth of the family Decline. Lexington, MA: Lexington books. See also Stephanie Coontz – I don’t have her stuff in front of me either, but I know it’s in there.
I suppose it’s possible that the rates have changed from 1990 to now. And I don’t have the original source of the data in front of me, but that’s the original citation from the book I got the info from.
The REASON for single parent households was different – it was largely due to widowhood or abandonment rather than divorce or out of wedlock births, but it remains true that in tact families were not as common as the myth or ideal would have us believe.
Also, I apologize for a grave error in my statement – it should read, fewer single parent HOUSEHOLDS today than in the 19th century. That is certainly a different claim than single parent FAMILIES, but the comparison is there nonetheless.
Again, WB I have no time to respond in full, but
You explicitly stated that “parents are expected to see their children to adulthood”, not that the father was obligated to contribute to his wife’s family.
I don’t understand why you consider the second statement a contradiction of the first, or how you consider your example to contradict the first. Does not contributing to his wife’s family help see his children to adulthood?
This is becoming tediously transparent Christian. If you had intended the same meaning, there would have been no need for you to change the wording.
Kate, thanks for the hard data. It would be interesting to compare the contemporary poverty rates of the respective periods as well.
Coontz, S. 1992 The Way We Never Were has a good deal of data comparisons including DV abuse rates, alcohol/drug abuse rates, etc. It’s hard to compare poverty rates of children because so many children in the 19th century were orphaned, not just because their parents had died, but often because their parents couldn’t afford them…
At any rate, a close inspection of US social/family history shows a much grimmer picture of family life then and now. The myths are just that – myths.
Childcare is complicated. You have to remember a custody determination prevents Person A from looking after their child and gives Person B that responsibility. If you include childcare in child support, you’re saying Person A cannot look after their child, Person B has that responsibility, but Person A must may person B money in order that they can pay Person C (a 3rd party) to provide childcare.
I can see why that’s an issue. You’re stopping someone from providing childcare themselves, and then saying that – because they’ve a responsibility to see their children are cared for – they should pay so a complete stranger can be employed to look after their child. It seems wrong to say they’ve a responsibility to provide childcare for their children AND prevent them from doing it personally.
Regarding the Great Single Mother Debate…
I can’t help but think feminists have a real problem with this. On the one hand feminists want gender equality and situations where mum and dad have an egalitarian relationship and share childcare responsibilities equally. On the other hand feminists don’t like people like Christian who take a ‘family values’ approach and support the nuclear family.
Correct me if I’m wrong. But isn’t the nuclear family the *only* family model in which you can have real gender equality? And isn’t it slowly being replaced by other family forms?
The 1/3 of single parent families are not situations where there’s any hope for an egalitarian relationship and equal division of childcare. The feminist dream of equality between men and women – both working and looking after kids – is totally dependent on the nuclear family. All other forms are much less equal. I think there’s a strange situation where feminism is at the moment of success destroying it’s only hope. At the same time as (1) nuclear families are becoming more egalitarian and men are taking a greater role in childcare, other event are happening which means (2) they are becoming rarer and being replaced with much less egalitarian family forms.
Correct me if I’m wrong. But isn’t the nuclear family the *only* family model in which you can have real gender equality?
You’re wrong.
As an example, you can have real gender equality in an extended family – multi-generations sharing the same household.
Can you honestly not imagine a family model other than Mum, Dad & n kiddies in which gender equality can exist? Can you not imagine gender equality existing in an intentional community or collective? Can you not imagine gender equality in a same-sex household?
First, everything Jake Squid said is right (as is his custom).
Additionally, I’ve heard this same sort of ‘reasoning’ used to claim that gay and lesbian relationships are somehow sexist for not including members of the opposite gender, which ought to get some sort of prize for missing the point.
—Myca
I don’t think that’s exactly what feminists mean by equality. Ideally, both sexes would be respected for whatever work they did. There’s no inherent contradiction in a feminist’s being a stay-at-home mom; indeed I have several friends who are both. Nor can I think of any reason why two women, or two men, or two parents, one uncle, and three grandparents, or twelve nuns running a llama ranch, couldn’t live together, work and raise children in a gender-equitable way.
“I would really like to see a study that compares child support payments and orders for non-cusotdial parents that accounts for gender differences”
Yeah, me too, actually. And again, I emphasize that all I have is anecdotal data, but I didn’t notice any correlation between income and failure to pay rates for either men or women. Yes, some NCP’s have told me “I couldn’t pay b/c I got sick, got laid off, etc.,” but then inevitably when they got back up on their feet, they never made any effort to catch up. In fact, they usually just continued to ignore their obligations. And yes, it is true that I have seen some child support cases brought for clearly vindictive reasons (including one recently where a CP was bound and determined to have the NCP jailed for contempt, even though he had been certified totally and permanently disabled, and was receiving SSI, a portion of which was already being diverted for the children) but they tend to be the exception, since most courts around here treat the amount of child support ordered purely as a math problem.
Kate:
I got the numbers from the Census; click on the link in my previous comment to see the source table. Also, I just found some historical data on the percent of children living in single-parent families. See Table 2 here. From the late 19th century through the 1960s, about 85% of children lived with both parents and 10% lived with one parent. Since then, the percentage of children living with both parents has fallen to 70%, and the percentage living with one parent has risen to 25%.
It’s hard to reconcile this with the claim that were more single-parent families 100 years ago than now, even in relative terms.
I don’t really want to get distracted from my main point that the nuclear family is the most egalitarian mainstream family form and it is being replaced by less egalitarian family forms. But I think I owe Jake a response.
I’m not really interested in *imagining* family forms in child equality *can* exist. I’m concerned with family forms which might be practically widespread which don’t tend systematically toward inequality. I can’t see any better than the nuclear family.
I’m sure you can have in some instances where there’s equality. But, in general, they tend towards inequality. These household run by exploiting elderly female labour. Women do most the caring work in them because live longer and are healthier longer than men.
I can imagine men voluntering for childwork and these communities being equal. I’m practice, men don’t choose to join these in childrearing roles as much as women do.
I’m not slagging off gay people, but while these family forms may be internally equal but they do not promote external equality between genders. Women do the overwhelming amount of childcare in these households for obvious reasons. If we all woke up gay, childcare would be even more women’s work than it is now.
I’m sorry, but did you just claim that in a household consisting of two men, ‘the woman’ does most of the childcare?
—Myca
Yes, he did suggest that in a household consisting of two men, ‘the woman’ does most of the childcare, thus confirming what I had suspected about his argumentation.
I assume he was suggesting that male homosexual couples are less likely to have children than lesbian couples.
I believe that what he is suggesting is that relatively few households consisting of two men would find the opportunity to reproduce. Two lesbians (for example) are likely to find it much easier to get a man to contribute some sperm, than two gay men (for example) are to get a woman to contribute nine months of her life, the chance of death, and a bad day at the hospital.
So most of the children who are born in such a world will be heading towards life with a family consisting of two women, rather than two men. There might be complete fairness of roles within relationships, but externally we would end up with a world where women were doing most of the childrearing. If every parent does their fair share, and 90% of parents are women, then women will be doing 90% of the labor.
I don’t really want to get distracted from my main point that the nuclear family is the most egalitarian mainstream family form and it is being replaced by less egalitarian family forms.
Please support this assertion. So far, you have just claimed this to be true without providing any evidence or supporting documentation.
The nuclear family (in the mainstream) is not at all egalitarian now, nor has it been throughout its history. Father Knows Best, the Promise Keepers, woman expected to forgo career to take care of the home/family, etc., ad infinitum – all of which proclaim the man as Head of Family and the woman as subordinate to him. How this is currently or holds more promise for an egalitarian family structure than any other (excepting, perhaps, single man/multiple women family structures) hasn’t been explained or supported.
To use your own words…
I’m sure you can have in some instances where there’s equality. But, in general, they tend towards inequality.
This is equally applicable to the nuclear family structure. In fact, the history of the nuclear family supports this assessment.
Please tell us why & how, wrt gender equality, the nuclear family structure is superior to other models.
So James, between this:
and this:
your understanding of “egalitarian” is when women pull most of the weight? Very interesting.
It really blows my mind that you can say this:
with any sense of seriousness. Equality? You mean the kind of equality where men are dominant, women are submissive, where men “work” all day and women “stay” at home taking “care” of the family, where the man becomes, in most forms, yet another child under his wife’s “care”?
Again, I say, I wish het folks would just freakin’ stop breeding so that women can get on with their lives. That, my friend James, would be gender equality.
Please tell us why & how, wrt gender equality, the nuclear family structure is superior to other models.
The other mainstream models are:
Single mother, raising child alone
Single mother, raising child with some assistance from child’s father
Birth couple shacked up, raising child together
Birth mother shacked up / married to non-father, raising child together
Adoptive/nonbiological parent(s), using one of the above forms
Variants of above with single father replacing mother
In which of these models do you see more potential for gender equality/fairness in childrearing?
Any of the above Robert, as long as men are contributing half the effort and finances (not just sharing his earnings, but paying his wife for the work she does to support the nuclear). The nuclear family is the surest form for creating a gendered differential in effort and finances, typically and normatively favoring the male.
In fact, the nuclear family, from the POV of women is not just nuclear; it is isolating.
Q, I’ve been meaning to ask you: Why don’t you have a blog? You write well; you should have a blog.
Any of the above Robert, as long as men are contributing half the effort and finances (not just sharing his earnings, but paying his wife for the work she does to support the nuclear).
There’s nothing stopping that contribution being made in the nuclear family, that wouldn’t also stop it in the alternatives. What gives these models more potential for equality than the nuclear family?
W.B., I’ve been considering how to continue this discussion, and whether it would be profitable.
As to my general assertion, I never claimed it to be a law of physics. I expect methodologies to differ from culture to culture. This seems to be nothing more than a reasonable variation where Uncles in this culture assume duties that are required by Fathers in other cultures. Why is this such a point of argument?
But, I’ll withdraw my assertion that “generally, parents are expected to see their children to adulthood”. Perhaps it would be a more accurate assertion if I replace “parents” and “children” with “adults” and “whatever dependents society deems are their personal responsibility” and then perhaps further distinguish it by gender role, but it’s not a graduate thesis. Clearly, you have established that all parents are not required to see their direct offspring to adulthood. I don’t think I ever said that I thought all men have always been direct caregivers, but if I ever suggested that, I concede that this idea is incorrect too.
I’m interested in exploring whether a support base of one parent (or caregiver) is sufficiently reliable to be an acceptable family form. Your example seems to argue that it isn’t sufficient. These women, while lacking what we think of as a husband, clearly expect quite a lot of support from men.
I’ve not directly responded to a few things you have said since I last had time to read this thread. Conceding your arguments on the “general theme” theory seems to be sufficient for most of it. Please point out anything I’ve skipped that you would like a more detailed reply to.
Robert:
What gives these models more potential for equality than the nuclear family?
You’re twisting words again in order to shift the discussion to an angle advantageous to you.
Here is what I wrote:
Please tell us why & how, wrt gender equality, the nuclear family structure is superior to other models.
in response to James who wrote:
I don’t really want to get distracted from my main point that the nuclear family is the most egalitarian mainstream family form and it is being replaced by less egalitarian family forms.
So what happened was that James claimed that the nuclear family model is the most egalitarian family model. I asked him to support that statement. In response, Robert asked me to identify a family model from a list (that he considers the total of all current mainstream family models) that is superior to the nuclear family model. I ain’t going for it. What family structure I believe is superior, if necessary, is a different discussion.
It is up to you, Robert, if you agree with James, to support the statement that the nuclear family is superior. Especially since I didn’t claim that there is a form that is superior (although I did claim that there are other family models that are as good as the NFM).
Those models in particular? Mostly the de-emphasis on male = head-of-household. The best model would be one in which the woman moves from a position of isolation into one of shared resources. The nuclear family is built upon and still fashioned upon the bedrock assumption that a woman’s/wife’s effort is for her family and her family alone, with the husband gaining the net profit of her labor.
It’s not so much the model that needs changing, but that the paradigm itself is entrenched in inequality based on gender.
/drift
thanks Sailorman. I do have a blog of sorts. When I post it’s about birding and gardening.
Yes, I have a life outside of politics. :)
What family structure I believe is superior, if necessary, is a different discussion.
Gah! Even my editing sucks. That should read:
What family structure I believe is superior, if I do believe there is a superior form, is a different discussion.
I wonder where my mind was during that sentence.
James, I think that you’re operating under the misconception that in order for male/female family relationships to be egalitarian, an exact 50/50 gender split of work, money, childcare, etc., in each family is the goal.
I disagree.
I believe that the goal is for it to be 100% acceptable and encouraged for members of any gender to take on different parenting and household roles, and I believe that as a consequence of this, we will have a more sexually egalitarian society.
Single-male-parent families aid this goal, because they explode the myth that childcare and housekeeping is ‘women’s work’.
Single-female-parent families aid this goal, because they explode the myth that earning and providing is ‘men’s work’.
Extended families aid this goal, because they explode the myth that childcare, housework, and providing for the household expenses are responsibilities that ought to fall on one or two people alone.
Large polyamorous families aid this goal, because they explode the myth that children are best raised by two (stressed-out, overworked) people.
Gay and lesbian families aid this goal, because they explode the myth that homosexuality is somehow dangerous to children.
Tell me, James, how does a nuclear family expand gender roles? How does it explode the myths?
I ask because from where I’m sitting it looks like more of the same crap we’ve been fed since 1940.
—Myca
ps. Also, read Q Grrl’s post #231 until you understand it.
It is up to you, Robert, if you agree with James, to support the statement that the nuclear family is superior.
Surely. I’m supporting that case by demonstrating conceptually that the other models aren’t any better. That’s not sufficient to make James’ point, but it’s a necessary prelude.
The nuclear family is built upon and still fashioned upon the bedrock assumption that a woman’s/wife’s effort is for her family and her family alone, with the husband gaining the net profit of her labor.
This is absurd, and tendentious. The nuclear family is fashioned upon the bedrock assumption that reproductive dimorphism produces a division of labor that can be extended into other areas of life, with efficiency gains that end up benefiting the next generation. You’re conflating contingent outcomes with structural features.
I believe that the goal is for it to be 100% acceptable and encouraged for members of any gender to take on different parenting and household roles, and I believe that as a consequence of this, we will have a more sexually egalitarian society.
What if, having achieved this goal, 90% of women choose to devote most of their time and energy to children, and 90% of men choose to devote most of their time and energy to non-familial pursuits?
Will that society be sexually egalitarian?
Surely. I’m supporting that case by demonstrating conceptually that the other models aren’t any better. That’s not sufficient to make James’ point, but it’s a necessary prelude.
I haven’t made the claim that any model is better, thus it is not a necessary prelude. Nor is it a necessary prelude for me to identify a superior model – its merely a distraction from the merits (or lack of) of the position that the NFM is the clearly superior one. Which, after all, is what we were debating.
But if we take as given that the necessary prelude has been covered, do go on to actually support your POV.
No, Robert. Read some history. The nuclear family is indeed for the benefit of males, so that they may know with a certain minimal degree of error that the children they are raising are their own biological product. Humans have sustained reproduction (and division of labor) for millenia without the nuclear family. In fact, the nuclear family does not make for more stability; what it does is codify stability along lines that are gendered. Women and children gain more stability from shared resources and a common division of labor based on ability. The nuclear family coagulates resources on a diminished and impoverished scale, substituting what is best for women and children for the bolstering of male hegemony within the family.
Will that society be sexually egalitarian?
Not in the way that you see it Robert. But women would be having far fewer children – because I’m assuming that by saying 90% of men “choose to devote most of their time and energy to non-familial pursuits” you mean that men will use more consistent birth control/or abstain from intercourse, and that women, given men’s honesty about not wishing to put energy into familial pursuits, will forgo marriage and entrapped reproduction.
The nuclear family produces the most egalitarian outcomes between the sexes, in my view, because it requires commitment of resources and personal involvement in the childrearing process by both parents. Other models do not require that commitment; even the power of the state can only compel a non-resident parent to provide some financial support, it does nothing (and can do nothing) to compel the contribution of the voluntary effort that we find at the core of good parenting.
It is possible to argue (and Q Grrl will certainly argue) that the variation in traditional gender roles causes this joint contribution to be unfairly distributed. Stipulating this for the sake of argument, it remains true that it is the distribution of kinds of labor which is considered unfair; if mom wants to do more paid work and less family work but dad won’t agree or society won’t permit it, then that is indeed unfair – but both partners are still doing work.
As opposed to – say – a single mother doing things alone, where one parent is doing all the work and the other parent is doing nothing. Great, that single mom is smashing the myths – but that doesn’t mean that the kids’ dad is doing his share of the labor.
To be part of a nuclear family, an adult is expected to do lots of work, whether paid or unpaid, whether outside or inside the home. That expectation of contribution is less enforced in the other models, or completely absent – ergo, they are less egalitarian.
(Reminder: we’re talking about mainstream models. Ten parents and two kids may well be more egalitarian than two parents and two kids, but ten parents isn’t mainstream, or likely to be. I like line marriage myself, if we’re talking outre forms, but let’s recognize that they’re outre.)
So you define egalitarian as equal work? That is a much more narrow definition than I think is commonly accepted.
Well, sure. All that is contingently true. And as long as that particular paradigm (of male hegemony) remains intact in the form of the nuclear family, then it will appear to be the best formulation. IOW: it is the best means towards the end, which is women ensuring that their children are raised with better resources and options. Which has *nothing* to do with gender equality or an egalitarian relationship.
I would argue that the majority of women in a nuclear family, heterosexual marriage are indeed single moms – with the added benefit of having a live-in adult child who spends most of his time outside the nuclear family.
Why do so many men need to be forced to care for their offspring?
No, Robert. Read some history. The nuclear family is indeed for the benefit of males, so that they may know with a certain minimal degree of error that the children they are raising are their own biological product.
Wait, I thought it was about the woman’s labor being absorbed into the family for the benefit of the man. Now it’s about ensuring that men know their kids are their own?
Humans have sustained reproduction (and division of labor) for millenia without the nuclear family.
Surely. And we survived for millenia without dentistry, too. That the species can make do without an innovation does not mean the innovation has no value.
In fact, the nuclear family does not make for more stability; what it does is codify stability along lines that are gendered.
So it doesn’t increase stability, it just codifies it. Similarly, laws against murder don’t increase safety, they just codify the expectation that people ought to be safe. You’re not really making a compelling case, here.
Women and children gain more stability from shared resources and a common division of labor based on ability.
I think you mean “mothers” rather than “women”, unless you are positing a gender-based differentiation in ability to thrive under an individualistic model.
The nuclear family coagulates resources on a diminished and impoverished scale, substituting what is best for women and children for the bolstering of male hegemony within the family.
This doesn’t even parse, let alone make sense as an argument. If the resources available are diminished and impoverished by nuclear families, then how come the cultures which embrace nuclear families are so much more gorram resource-rich than the ones that do it commie-style?
This is the thing Robert: if the labor is “divided” so that men leave the house five days a week for 10+ hours to “work” and the women stay home to clean, cook, and care for the children, where, oh where!, is the incentive for those men to come home other than to eat, shit, sleep and fuck? It certainly doesn’t lie within the framework of the nuclear family! That sort of responsibility has to come from inside a person, and with no incentive to add to what is already a perfect system (i.e, live in maid and sexbot), why would men *add* to the resources of the nuclear family? Men are the consumers of the nuclear family resources, which does indeed include the ability to leave the home for 10+ hours per day, five days a week and not have to worry about whether the kids are clean and well fed. The wife’s taken care of that!
So you define egalitarian as equal work? That is a much more narrow definition than I think is commonly accepted.
Equal work would seem to be a necessary component of an egalitarian arrangement. (Or “fair” work, if not strictly equal.)
I would argue that the majority of women in a nuclear family, heterosexual marriage are indeed single moms – with the added benefit of having a live-in adult child who spends most of his time outside the nuclear family.
I reject this infantilization of men. It does not reflect my experience, nor those of my peers. I regret that the men in your life have (apparently) failed to achieve adulthood, but that failure is not and should not be normative.
Why do so many men need to be forced to care for their offspring?
Because evolution imposes relatively few penalties on men who don’t. So we have to do it through cultural choices; the biology won’t take care of it for us.
No, I’m a feminist. I meant women. Women don’t thrive as much as men do in this society because women are segragated into nuclear sets and the only ability to “share” resourses is with their husbands who consume those resources rather than build upon them. All women will benefit from a greater pool of shared resources.
Oh, wait Robert! I’m the one infantalizing men? And yet you ballyhoo about “biology” in your very next paragraph. I’d rather admit to men being imperfect adults than imply that they are animals.
Are you really implying that women are evolutionarily superior to men?!?
Wow.
This is the thing Robert: if the labor is “divided” so that men leave the house five days a week for 10+ hours to “work” and the women stay home to clean, cook, and care for the children, where, oh where!, is the incentive for those men to come home other than to eat, shit, sleep and fuck? It certainly doesn’t lie within the framework of the nuclear family!
The incentive is the pair-bond and intimacy with the women, the enjoyment of which is predicated on performing the duties associated with the male role (whatever that may be in the particular culture or relationship). And that is entirely within the framework of the family – the family is formed by a pair that jointly agrees to those terms.
That sort of responsibility has to come from inside a person, and with no incentive to add to what is already a perfect system (i.e, live in maid and sexbot), why would men *add* to the resources of the nuclear family?
They wouldn’t, if that were an accurate description of the roles and the attitudes towards them that people held. Since we observe that men do add to the resources of the nuclear family, we can conclude that your description is inaccurate.
Men are the consumers of the nuclear family resources, which does indeed include the ability to leave the home for 10+ hours per day, five days a week and not have to worry about whether the kids are clean and well fed. The wife’s taken care of that!
If I define all the things that women typically do under our gendered system as fun and enjoyment, while defining all the things that men do as work and toil, I can similarly castigate the system as unfair. That isn’t data, however; it’s just a description of my emotional biases concerning what kinds of work are valued.
Alternatively, I can describe all of these forms of work as valuable and contributive towards a family. Admittedly, that deprives me of the opportunity to shit on one gender and pretend that it’s theory, but hey. We all have to make compromises.
Shrug. How would you know? You aren’t exactly open to women’s opinions and expressions of their own experiences. It’s not likely that any of your female friends would open up to you about the degree of inequality in their relationships with men. So, if not your peers, I suggest you listen to women you don’t know and see what they have to say.
Women don’t thrive as much as men do in this society because women are segragated into nuclear sets and the only ability to “share” resourses is with their husbands who consume those resources rather than build upon them.
This is frankly sexist. It assumes women have no ability to modify the circumstances of their own lives. This is blatantly contradicted by the observations of anyone living in the west, where we see women sharing resources in both individualist and collective ways with equal facility to men.
I’d rather admit to men being imperfect adults than imply that they are animals.
Both are true. What does your emotional preference for one truth over another say about anything?
Are you really implying that women are evolutionarily superior to men?!?
No. I’m implying that the genders are treated differently by evolutionary pressure, which is, again, staggeringly obvious to any competent observer.
I think we’re done here; the assumptions and judgments you have pre-made seem to make it impossible for you to hear another point of view.
Equal work would seem to be a necessary component of an egalitarian arrangement. (Or “fair” work, if not strictly equal.)
Yes, but you stated it in a way that posited equal work as the only necessary component of an egalitarian arrangement. You mentioned no other components.
Is it your belief that the one parent as outside worker(income provider) within the NFM creates an egalitarian environment for things other than work? For example, does the NFM create an egalitarian environment for deciding how that income is spent? Does the NFM create an egalitarian environment with respect to ending the relationship? I would say not. People (whether male or female) who are the stay-at-home partner tend to feel that, since they aren’t the one earning the money, that they have less say in budget & discretionary spending decisions, they worry about how they would survive financially should the relationship end. This is hardly egalitarian. And since current cultural norms strongly encourage that the woman be the non-income earner, I would have to say that the NFM expressly supports a non-egalitarian environment which overwhelmingly leaves women with less power than men.
Also, what Q Grrl said about the nuclear family functioning as an isolating mechanism would seem to decrease the options of the less powerful person (the non-income earner).
In essence, the NFM creates a clear power imbalance in modern American society. The one earning dollars has power over the one not earning dollars. This power imbalance is clearly greater than that in an extended family model or even a single-parent household.
All family models have flaws, characteristics that ease or facilitate power imbalances. The NFM is no exception and, in some clearly defined ways, worse.
Jake, nuclear family != SAHM plus WOHD. I have a nuclear family, and neither of us works outside the home. Let’s not conflate those two concepts and blame the nuclear family for the inequalities caused by one parent who works for money and one who doesn’t; you can have that arrangement in any family structure.
Yes, but you stated it in a way that posited equal work as the only necessary component of an egalitarian arrangement. You mentioned no other components.
So you want me to write longer posts? ;)
For example, does the NFM create an egalitarian environment for deciding how that income is spent? Does the NFM create an egalitarian environment with respect to ending the relationship?
More egalitarian than other structures? Absolutely. In my family, I have a lot more say about how we spend her income, and she has a lot more say about how we spend mine, than if we were (say) living separately but jointly parenting our daughter.
Ending the relationship seems outside the scope of the discussion.
In essence, the NFM creates a clear power imbalance in modern American society. The one earning dollars has power over the one not earning dollars. This power imbalance is clearly greater than that in an extended family model or even a single-parent household.
But again, it is the discrepancy in earning that creates the power imbalance, not the framework in which the discrepancy happens to take place. You’re blaming the frame for the ugliness of a particular painting.
All family models have flaws, characteristics that ease or facilitate power imbalances. The NFM is no exception and, in some clearly defined ways, worse.
On the first part, at least, we agree, although I’m less concerned about power imbalances than you are. On the second part, I haven’t seen anybody demonstrate it yet. Everything that’s been listed as being a horrible outcome of the nuclear family can happen just as easily in other arrangements, or is an opinion rather than a fact.
Q Grrl:
I would argue that the majority of women in a nuclear family, heterosexual marriage are indeed single moms – with the added benefit of having a live-in adult child who spends most of his time outside the nuclear family.
I actually have seen women who while married are close to the situation of single moms in that the father is physically absent most of the time because his employment caused him to travel a great deal or is otherwise highly demanding of his time. One example was a man who did disaster cleanups of hazardous materials who could be gone 3 or 6 months at a time. Then there are a couple of physicians who simply had very demanding careers.
They weren’t home much. The mother had to deal with the kids, etc., most of the time. But what they did have that a true single mom doesn’t have was an income that they did not have to earn themselves. The first mom did in fact work, and had help from the older children during the time that I knew her. The other moms didn’t work at all (“work” = “outside paid employment”, not “effort” in this context).
Now, those families are the exceptions. Generally, most of the families I see are two-parent families with both parents in the area and both employed. Because of the nature of what I do, I get to know their families very well, a lot better than you’re going to get to know a family structure and dynamic by talking to them at work or whatever. I know their medical histories, who divorced, who separated, how their grades are, who’s on what drugs, who’s got a drinking problem, who neglects their kids, what the inside of their homes look like, who does the cooking and whether or not they’re any good at it, how the kids interact with each other, etc., etc. So I’m interested in exploring this viewpoint. I have some families where the dads put on uniforms or otherwise get greatly involved in Scouting and their sons and daughters. I have some families where the Scout has been in the Troop for 4 years and I have maybe seen the dad twice. In some of the latter cases he’s a non-entity; in others he does stuff with his kid but Scouting simply isn’t one of them. So, as far as “live-in adult child” – what do you mean by this? Children don’t pay the mortgage, food/heating/gas bills, etc., etc. Tell me again what you mean by “live-in adult child”, please.
Jake:
People (whether male or female) who are the stay-at-home partner tend to feel that, since they aren’t the one earning the money, that they have less say in budget & discretionary spending decisions,
Hah – you obviously haven’t met my wife! Of course, she does work outside the home and has our entire 34 year marriage, although she has never made more than about 1/2 what I do. In any case, I’m curious as to what data you have to back up this statement? Or is this an assumption you’re making?
Thanks for the comments.
This is from Lu (#215), Q Grrl (#231) and Myca (#234) make the same point. That’s fair enough, all ‘feminists’ don’t think X. If you don’t think it’s desirable that mothers and fathers share childcare equally, just that they can choose equally respected options, then my thoughts on the contradictions between this and the decline of the nuclear family aren’t a problem for you.
More on feminism and the nuclear family next:
That is the standard feminist attack on the Patriarchal nuclear family as an oppressive insitution with a gendered division of labour governed by the husband. But it is the only possible type of nuclear family, because since Wollstonecraft there’s been a competing feminist model. This is the idea of the egalitarian nuclear family where both parents share childcare, are in the workforce, and relate to each other as equals. I would say this view is a widespread and dominant ideal in modern feminism and is being actively promoted through public policy in order to improve the status of women.
It’s well established that: (1) The proportion of step-families and single parent families are increasing and the proportion of nuclear families is falling. (2) The role of women in the workforce and the role of men in the household is becoming more equal in nuclear families.
The basic reason the nuclear family structure is superior to other models is that it’s much easier for the child’s father and mother to both contribute in the household sphere and the workplace if they reside together. Single parent families are disasters in terms of paternal involvement and enabling mothers to balance work and childcare. I admire step parents, but there are huge problems balancing responsibilies with one parent being a more recent addition to the child’s life than the other and another parent interacting from outside the household.
Hmm.
Robert, you said:
and later you said
To me, those seem somewhat in conflict. And also similar. If you define all the negative aspects of the NFM as “externalities” and all the positive aspects as “NFM Results” then NFM looks great. But that doesn’t mean it IS great; it just reflects your classifications.
Also, although any of the various possible family structures CAN produce inequalities through their interaction with the currently existing societal standards and prejudices, that’s a straw man.
Because after all, the issue isn’t whether they can, it’s whether they are as likely to do so. (and if you’re arguing the “best” position, you need to address this.)
(drift)
Q, is your blog secret? gardening & birding = fun stuff. (/drift)
Yes, longer comments please. At least comments that complete the thought…
When we talk about the nuclear family, I believe that we are talking about it in the context of the culture within which it exists. If we’re not, then we can certainly talk about how superior the single parent model is if we imagine a society in which there is much more community support/safetynetting. Say western Europe, for example.
Given that the NFM is almost wholly a creation of modern American society, I believe that modern American society has a large role to play in the aims and efficacy of the model. So, no, I don’t believe that SAHM WOHD is a conflation. It is the standard of the NFM and always has been. Other configurations within the NFM (WOHM WOHD or SAHM SAHD or WOHM SAHD) are far from mainstream. Well, WOHM WOHD, may well be mainstream although WOHM will still be pressured to become SAHM. In fact, those other 3 configs are actively discouraged. To attempt to remove the NFM from the society which created it and which it thrives is to imagine the NFM as something other than what it is in reality. (more acronyms ma! please!)
But, hell, if we want to remove context from all the family models that can exist, we can make a fantastic case for any of them as the superior model.
But again, it is the discrepancy in earning that creates the power imbalance, not the framework in which the discrepancy happens to take place.
But the framework certainly encourages that discrepancy, does it not? The traditional (if you can call such a short-lived experiment “traditional”) form of the model is SAHM WOHD, is it not? And that “traditional” form is still the standard today. I believe that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the purpose of the NFM is to create an environment within which that discrepancy must exist. The whole point was so that one could go out and earn while the other took care of the offspring and the household under the theory that this was the most efficient division of labor that delivered the most independence (for the small family unit from the community).
Ending the relationship seems outside the scope of the discussion.
Absolutely not. Not if equality & egalitarianism are the issues under discussion. If the freedom to dissolve the partnership is not equally available to both partners, then it can’t be said to be egalitarian. You may find ending the relationship to be distasteful and immoral, but that isn’t relevant to whether or not the NFM is egalitarian.
Everything that’s been listed as being a horrible outcome of the nuclear family can happen just as easily in other arrangements, or is an opinion rather than a fact.
Likewise, everything that’s been listed as being a wonderful outcome of the NFM can happen just as easily in other arrangements, or is an opinion rather than a fact. Very little in the way of facts has been introduced into the discussion. Thus far, it has been a discussion of theory.
nd also similar. If you define all the negative aspects of the NFM as “externalities” and all the positive aspects as “NFM Results” then NFM looks great.
Sure. So you have to look at each piece of it and determine whether it’s a structural feature of the model, or just something that the people involved brought in to play. Frank and Jane like to spank each other during lovemaking; this is not a structural feature of them being unmarried cohabitators or nuclear-family married. Frank and Jane live in the same house and have equal formal legal responsibility for their kids and their financial resources are pooled; these are structural features. (Not necessarily unique to nuclear families, but structural features nonetheless.)
The things that have been brought up as negatives for the nuclear family have seemed to be in the enjoys-spanking category, not the structural category. SAHMs get screwed over; not structural to a nuclear family. Lazy people exploit hard-working people; not structural. And so on. The features which have been defined as structural (by Q Grrl mostly) are also features which are arguably opinion.
Because after all, the issue isn’t whether they can, it’s whether they are as likely to do so. (and if you’re arguing the “best” position, you need to address this.)
I agree, broadly. So: what structural features of nuclear families make them less likely to produce egalitarian outcomes than other mainstream options?
The basic reason the nuclear family structure is superior to other models is that it’s much easier for the child’s father and mother to both contribute in the household sphere and the workplace if they reside together.
But there are lots of other models in which the child’s father and mother reside together. Why is the Nuclear Family Model superior to those?
There’s only one mainstream model where that’s true, the model of unmarried cohabitation. The nuclear family is better than that model because there is a formal articulation of legal obligations between the parties.
There’s only one mainstream model where that’s true, the model of unmarried cohabitation.
I think that you are mistaken. The child’s mother and father certainly reside together in the extended family model (EFM). I can think of several other models off the top of my head in which the child’s parents reside together.
Does a model have to be “mainstream” before we can consider its merits?
SAHMs get screwed over; not structural to a nuclear family.
Your definition of ‘nuclear family’ slides around a bit there. The legal obligations on, and between, the parties in a marriage are a function of both family law and of reality. For example, if I run off with the pool boy, my financial obligations to my husband are defined by law–he is entitled to half the assets of the marriage. But they are also defined by practical considerations; having been a SAH parent hurts his ability to earn income in the future, and he might have a little trouble paying for groceries until a court orders me to pay spousal support.
The official, legal inequalities that have long defined “traditional marriage”* have largely been abolished; the unofficial ones less so.
*Funnily, people who use this term to argue against same-sex marriage don’t often, or at least openly, argue that we should stick to other millenia-long traditions, such as the wife’s civil subsumation into her husband.
That doesn’t work. Look up the case of the man who donated sperm to the lesbian couple. They were ‘mom’ and ‘mom’ until they broke up. Then the mom who would have been the child support payor insisted that the court order the ‘sperm donor’ to foot the bill instead. The court agreed.
As was said earlier. The obligation is to the child. The parents cannot give up the right of their parents (and there are only two parents) to support him/her.
There is also a third party involved, one with a big stick, and that is the government. The government doesn’t like being stuck with the child rearing bill, so when the primary parent goes on welfare, the government is intent on seeking out the other parent to get their money back.
No, I won’t do your homework for you. If you have a link, post it.
Sure, but two adults can enter into a legal contract, which is why I said: “if before the pregnancy there’s some sort of legal agreement made that the woman will bear 100% of the financial obligation resultant from any pregnancy, then I think that there’s a good case for a civil suit by the man for child support expenses.”
In other words, even under this civil arrangement, the father would bear a legal responsibility to the child . . . but the mother would have signed a contract agreeing to bear any costs that might accrue unto him.
One responsibility (his) would be legal, and that can’t change.
One responsibility (hers) would be civil.
If you have a case of the courts invalidating a civil contract like this, and not just enforcing the child’s legal rights, please post it.
—Myca
Myca, Wouldn’t the contract be invalid UNLESS the needs of the child were fully met by the single parent?
No, I don’t believe so, because they’re separate agreements.
The father’s responsibility to the child is a matter for the family law courts and may result in criminal penalties.
The (theoretical) mother’s responsibility to the father in this utterly hypothetical scenario is a civil matter.
Two people cannot make an agreement which invalidates the rights of a third. “Me & him” can’t agree that “you don’t deserve to eat,” no matter how many things we sign.
I think “Me & him” can agree that between us, “he’ll agree ahead of time to give me any of the food I may need to feed you” though.
Legally, the responsibility would still be mine, and if the food I owed you didn’t come from somewhere, I’d be on the hook for criminal liability. . . but if ‘he’ didn’t give me all of the food I needed in order to feed you, he’d be on the hook in a civil court.
—Myca
ps. Oh, and I looked up the case (I think) Nick referenced, and it had absolutely zilch to do with what we’re discussing. Quel surprise.
Oh, and there are agreements that can’t be made enforcible like that of course. We can’t sign a contract in which you agree to serve my jail time, because the state specifically wants to punish me when I do something wrong. I’m pretty sure the state doesn’t care where child support comes from, though, since their interest is in the child.
The difficulty with your approach, Myca, is that while you may well have the contract in place and the civil court may well enforce it, if you fail to meet your responsibility per the family court, you’ll still go to jail.
Robert:
Well, yeah. God knows, it’s not a perfect solution. I’m just trying to see what could be done under our current system.
—Myca
God knows, it’s not a perfect solution.
It’s not a solution at all. (“I have solved the problem of hunger in Africa. The people can just steal food! Sure, there are flaws, but we’re working on it…”) ;)
Goodness knows that I’m all for using contracts in place of state action, but where the state action isn’t optional or controlled by the individual players, it won’t work.
They were ‘mom’ and ‘mom’ until they broke up. Then the mom who would have been the child support payor insisted that the court order the ’sperm donor’ to foot the bill instead. The court agreed.
Without looking at the specific case, I’d bet money that this happened in a state that didn’t recognize sperm donors, or the people involved did not follow the state’s laws as to who is or isn’t a sperm donor.
How about we make people financially responsible for raising all of their decedents? That would spread the burden around so it’s not just the father and mother. MRA’s wouldn’t feel like guys are being picked on (not that that matters) because grandmothers would also be liable. It might also put more incentive to raising responsible adults. It would create one more step before the public at large had to step in.
No, that’s untrue.
It does take a little bit more work to not have to pay child support under this system, but it bears exactly as much weight as any other legal contract. Granted, if the person you’ve made a contract with is a crook, you’ll have to pay up in the meantime, but that’s just extra damages to go after them for in court.
Whether or not the person you’re renting your house to pays their rent or not, you still must pay your property taxes to the government.
That does not mean that ‘renting your house out’ isn’t a solution to, “I can’t afford my property taxes.” It’s a fine solution, it’s just that you might have to put some actual effort into it.
—Myca
Actually, it’s even better than that. The court ruled as they did because the fellow had previously assumed parental authority, had acted as a parent, and had been contributing to the child’s upkeep all along.
—Myca
That is already a law in Louisiana. I can’t speak for the other states.
But Myca, the point is that the state will ignore the private contract and put you in jail. To use your rental analogy, say the government requires homeowners to to personally mow their lawns. You move to Alaska and rent out your house to someone else, and your tenant mows the lawn under a contractual agreement with you – but the government finds out that it isn’t you doing it, they extradite you, and throw you in jail.
Inventive thinking, but the courts have and would continue to rule such contracts to be unenforceable. No consideration.
I think you found the link lesbian couple and the sperm donor already, there should be lots out there. Here is one such link:
http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/05/superior_court_rules_that_male.html
The original topic was high child support orders. This one is $1,000/month for two children {assuming the other two brothers children were not included} Unfortunately, we can’t assess the reasonableness of the order because the payors income was not provided.
That pesky contract thing again. So some of the courts are thinking like you are.
Unfortunately, the top court rules in favor of biology.
Hopefully not in response to the ruling. So now the fight will probably end their and the dangerous Supreme Court ruling will remain law for that state.
Hmmm, now the worm comes out. They want the taxpayers to pay. If he wasn’t ruled the dad, then there would be no ‘survivor benefits’.
A two-fer. They don’t say what sort of ‘promise’ was made – oral versus written contract.
Ouch, another very high support order. $1,520 for one child. Again, without the payor’s income level, we can not access if the order was reasonable or unreasonable. However, it is far above the low level for orders that were cited in this original article and much closer in line to the order levels I am hearing about for many ordinary income parents.
That is slim pickings to overide the contract the two women made with the man. There is many a kindly uncle, aunt, grandad and grandmom in trouble if that is the case.
Here is another case. From Seattle.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001922232_spermdonor07.html
Wow, is this one a tangled web. The man was a sperm donor for his mistress. He was unofficially paying her $650/month. She got herself preggers with a second using his sperm. The original court then ordered $900/month in support and attorney’s fees. The appeals court overturned. Its from 2004, so I wonder what the Supreme Court ruled on this one? Lots of hurt feelings and a marriage destroyed from the affair.
http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Boston_Globe_Partner_child_support_lesbians_sperm_donor_01MAR04.htm
Here is another similar case from Sweden. The man donated sperm to a lesbian couple. They had three children. They agreed he would not pay support; He agreed not to be in the children’s lives in any way. The courts ruled that he must pay maintenance.
Now why did he sign a document saying he was their biological father. That doesn’t make any sense, unless it was a requirement of the clinic doing the fertilization.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1571037.html
Or perhaps you prefer Ferguson v. McKiernan case from Pennsylvania from 2005.
The mom denies their was an agreement and asks for support FIVE years later. The dad has moved on, remarried and is raising two kids from the current marriage. They courts ruled that the dad had to pay $1,500/month in support plus arrearages {they don’t say how much}
The contract was voided because:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157553,00.html
Cool, here is the Superior courts ruling in the case of Ferguson versus McKiernan.
A15043_04
They give two references to Penn. law regarding bargaining away a child’s rights.
A strange part of this ruling was that the ladies current husband was not ‘presumed’ the father as state law typically requires. So in this case, the ‘presumed’ father managed to skate.
The Superior Courts reasoning is summed up here:
A large part of the ‘child support arrearages’ are being generated by this group of people. Here is a good presentation addressing the issue of incarcerated parents by Vickki Turestsky from the Center for Law and Social Policy.
Realistic Child Support Rentry Policies
Their recommendations are:
Robert:
In other words . . . you’re legally liable to see that your property taxes are paid, and although you can enter into private contract in which someone else agrees to pay them, the government will come after you if they’re left unpaid?
Yeah, that’s pretty much exactly how that works, thanks.
Nick:
No, it’s pretty much what I’ve said since post #199, 2 weeks ago.
Bullshit. Give me some evidence of a contract of this nature ever being invalidated.
—Myca
Okay, reject the compliment. I like the concept, it just doesn’t hold up in our courts of law.
Another flaw with such a contract should parties consider them is that the child support obligation is not dischargeable through bankruptcy and the other legal obligation is.
Um, I just did. See the Ferguson posts above. This is the courts responses to such agreements.
No, you didn’t. The point of Ferguson is that two people (who are not the child in question) cannot agree to abrogate a child’s rights.
I made this point in posts #199, 234, 264, 266, 267, and 273, so we’re not really on new ground here.
I’ve further said that the contract I’m discussing doesn’t ‘let someone off the hook’ for child support, but instead is an agreement in which one parent agrees to pay (or provide the other parent with 100% compensation for, or whatever) the other parent’s financial obligations.
It’s an agreement between adults, with no reference to the rights of a third party.
As I said back in post #234 on the 14th:
Emphasis at the end added, of course.
Ferguson was a verbal contract in which the mother and father attempted to dismiss the child’s rights. Of course that didn’t work. Nor should it.
—Myca
You are simply proposing an alternative way to dismiss the child’s rights. It is not going to fly. There is no essential difference between your proposal and the Ferguson agreement.
No, I’m not, because this doesn’t involve dismissing the child’s rights.
Legally, there’s a huge difference.
Let’s say that you owe $1000 a month in child support.
I, as someone who has nothing whatsoever to do with your child, agree to pay you $1000 a month for some reason. Maybe because I really really like the name Nick.
We draw up a contract (not just some kind of namby-pamby oral agreement) which we both sign in which it’s laid out that every month for the next 18 years, I’ll pay you this money. Maybe in return I get to admire your name from time to time.
Would the courts invalidate that on the basis of the child’s rights? I’m proposing the same thing.
Keep in mind the child is still getting the $1000 a month. His or her rights aren’t being dismissed at all.
I know that you want Ferguson to be what I’m talking about, but sadly, it’s not.
—Myca
Yes, I agree. The problem is the courts don’t.
That sort of agreement will only hold up as long as the parties honor it and keep it out of court.
There are two sub-cases.
a) Cases where the State is providing assistance.
b) Cases where the State is not providing assistance.
In cases where the State is footing the bill to raise the child, they would be all over such an agreement as an attempt to defraud the State out of medicaid, etc. money.
In cases where the State is not involved, the courts seem to tend to disagree simply for the reason that a) THEY are the boss and b) They don’t want to establish any case law that would invalidate case a.
The main arguement they seem to be officially destroying those agreements with is the lack of consideration . Basically there is not exchange of equal value. While “Nick” is a wonderful name, you can admire it without paying any fee – especially not a $216,000 fee (18 years at $1,000/month). So they would conclude that the contract is not valid because while you were giving me money, I am giving you nothing in return.
I have thought about how to confabulate a similar scheme to allow a custodial parent to retire a large child support arrearage when the child has become an adult and they just want the ordeal to be ‘over with’. The courts, because of the ‘Bradley amendment’, can not forgive arrears once they are accrued. They must be paid.
In theory, the custodial parent could send in $1,000 on behalf of the deadbeat. The state then sends the money back to the custodial parent. The custodial parent then repeats the loop until the debt is retired and the custodial parent is freed from the state system. No more court appearances, no more contact or ties to the deadbeat, etc.
The two main problems with such a scheme is 1) sometimes the state takes a cut of the money and 2) the state would probably consider it a fraud on the court and prosecute the custodial parent.
Remember, the state court system in many cases is adding a 5% fee onto the court ordered child support to pay for their providing an ‘expedited system’ to establish the child support order in the first place.
By law, this fee is meant to be taken last after child support and arrearages are paid. Unfortunately, the state does not like being last, so they programed their computers to take teh 5% fee off the top of any payment made. This abuse of the law was challenged, In South Carolina I think. After a marathon thirteen month battle, this practice was outlawed.
Now, I don’t know of the response in other states. I do know the response in Louisiana. The courts sent out a letter, signed by ‘the judges’ demanding that the paying parent sign a form that they had created allowing them to take the money ‘directly off the top of any payment made’. The letter went on to threaten that if the paying parent did not comply, then they would supoena the paying parent into court, every month, to have them pay the 5% fee in open court.
Now the problem with this method is that any shortfall in money then falls on the child and the custodial parent. In response to that, we and ACES co-authored a letter asking the state to desist in this practice. We were ignored.
A 5% fee is not insubstantial. Child support orders are typically equivalent in size to a persons Federal tax contribution. In those cases, the 5% fee is equivalent to the persons State tax contribution. On a $500/month order, a 5% fee works out to be a $5,400 court fee over the life of the order (18 years). That is a lot of money to be draining out of a family for the alleged ‘expedited process’.
The fee also peverts the system. The ‘hearing officer’ setting child support orders is paid out of this fee. It creates a financial incentive for the ‘hearing officer’ to task the higher earning parent (man or woman) with the order. After all, we all like to get paid.
Once scandal we found out about was that they funded a Christmas party with the ‘take’.
How about we make people financially responsible for raising all of their decedents?
Please tell me you meant “descendants”.
Robert, what moral and legal obligations do you have toward your lawn?
Decedents would be my kids, their kids, and their kid’s kid’s assuming that I live that long.
No idea what you’re getting at with the lawn question. (but I’m not robert.)
I’m sorry to hear that, Joe. My condolences.
Christ, i just realized that I made a typo, and COMPLETELY fucked up mythago’s meaning. Believe it or not it was halfway through my first cup of the day.
People should have a warning today
Where’s my “I’m stupid” shirt?
Back to the topic at hand – are child support orders insanely high. The clear answer is that sometimes they are.
Here is an interesting breaking case from Tennessee.
So perhaps we are starting to get back to some common sense. The Court ruled that they erred in 1) failing to provide him with counsel and 2) failing to prove that he willfully failed to pay – because any ‘rational’ trier of fact could see that he did not have the money.
Interesting story from the Tennessean
Tenn Supreme Court decision
Petition
hmm
sometimes
vs
typical
The claim MRA’s make is that the TYPICAL payment is insanely high. Not sometimes they are.
I don’t think I have ever met ANYONE who has claimed that the TYPICAL payment is insanely high. Ever.
My group has been the only group to publicly oppose some of the proposed Child Support legislation in the last seven ears.
We have been successful in beating back an number of proposals that would have made child support ‘insanely high’ for certain groups of people.
In ’01, the proposed legislation by Rep. Clarkson ‘accidentally’ deleted the Self Support Reserve (SSR) from the existing legislation. The intent of the SSR is to ensure that the payor has sufficient money to live on. It was set decades ago at the Federal Poverty Level for a single person. Since the amount has never been updated, by ’01 it was set at 75% of poverty level for a single person – or $551/month gross income. The DSS/DA taskforce reviewing the guidelines decided to leave it at that level. The legislative taskforce also claimed that they were leaving it at that level, but the actual tables that they put forward had eliminated it completely. We were successful in pushing the proposal back to the DSS/DA level. We were not successful in pushing it back to the level suggested by PSI (they proposed raising it to the current federal poverty level in both ’00 and ’04.) PSI being the economist hired to develop the child support guidelines for that state since day one. Had that law been enacted, the low income payors would have gone from having extremely high child support order to insanely high child support orders.
From the DSS/DA report, they admitted that they have a large number of child support orders that are far too high. In these cases, the obligor has been ordered to pay more than 50% of his net income. These cases make up the bulk (75%) the persons who owe the $1 billion in child support arrearages.
The orders get that way because while the SSR is built into the table, the judge is allowed to tack on extras – such as day care, health insurance, medical expenses. Indeed, these are all things necessary to raise a child. Unfortunately they are being put onto a person with negligible income.
In the DSS/DA report, about 30% of the judges and 30% of the staff acknowledged that orders were being set far to high on the low income payor.
One of the worst cases we provided moral support for was for a lady who had lost custody of her three kids. Financially, she was barely making minimum wage income. Yet the ruthless husband, who was very well off financially was insisting on getting as much as he could in child support. The existing child support tables in most locations do not adequately reduct child support orders when the paying parent is in poverty and the receiving parent is living at multiple levels above the poverty level.
I agree with you. Classical feminism certainly did not cause this problem. Some of the best advocates for men are feminists. Wendy McElroy comes to mind.
Back to the topic at hand – are child support orders insanely high. The clear answer is that sometimes they are.
The clear answer is that sometimes they are insanely low. Claiming that “sometimes, Xs are Y” proves “it is true that Xs are Y” is disingenous.
And if Wendy McElroy is a feminist, I’m Richard Cheese.
Yes Richard, she is a feminist.
Rarely. The much more common problem is that many orders are not paid and that the government officials pursue them with all the vigor of the Key Stone cops and all the speed of a snail.
Excuse me, but what does that have to do with what I posted? I gave you specific concrete examples of the problem.
Excuse me, but what does that have to do with what I posted?
It is exactly what you posted. In response to your gloss on the topic – “are child support orders insanely high?” you gave the answer as “sometimes they are” and gave a single case as support. You don’t offer any evidence of how often ‘sometimes’ is, or how ‘rarely’ child support payments are insanely low (done much work on the low-income end of the spectrum?).
And I’m not quite sure how your oddly selective and unsourced biography is supposed to persuade me that McElroy is a feminist; she’s a fellow at a Libertarian think-tank and an exceptionalist who plays up the “me good feminist, the rest of you bad ‘gender feminists'” nonsense. I can see why you like her.
8 years ago we adopted through Foster/Adoption two brothers. Ends up they should not have been kept together. Life was exhausting so we chose to give one back who now lives in Utah with an uncle in Foster care. The State of California sued and won judgement for child support for him. They will receive $715 from me and $855 for my wife. Together we earn $100 K gross. We were sued individually, if we were combined the amount asked would be around $1000 and split that would still be more than California Fostercare pays out each month ($800) to his well being. This is somewhat unique and the system does not allow for any variation from the formula. So the State pocket $750 a month from our payments because we can pay, no matter what our expenses are or will be. If the money were to go to him directly we might feel differently. Everyone thinks it’s exsessive and wrong!
I dont think Ive ever met anyone who has seen Chicago in person.
Nick, the question of if Wendy McElroy is a feminist is probably not on-topic for this thread, but in my opinion — which of course carries no authority — she is not. You can read my argument in this post, and respond to my argument there, if you like.
Earlier I gave two specific examples (Marellto and Lambert ) from just date on an appeals court docket. In Marellto the father with a 9,000/month income was left with $882/month to live on before taxes. By any measure that is insanely high. In Lambert, the father supporting three kids was left with $660/month to live on and support his kids. I provided you with our work that helped an entire class of payors (low income parents) from being stuck with obscene child support orders. I have cited the DSS report from Louisiana where the acknowledge that many payors are being given orders that exceed 50% of their income level. I have cited their study which shows that most of the 1 billion owed in arrears is by parents who make less than $10,000/year.
From the 2000 Review of Child Support law, by the State DSS/DA offices had professional participants rate the system. The ratings were 1 = very unfair; 2 = somewhat unfair; 3 = somewhat fair; 4 = very fair. Of the 241 professionals that responded, the average response for the non-custodial parent was 2.6 – midway between somewhat unfair and somewhat fair. For custodial parents the rating was 3.2. The report stated:
page 253.
The report further goes on to state:
The lowest rated aspects of the current child support system by these professionals were ‘adjustments for second families – 2.0; ‘adjustments for joint and shared custody’ – 1.9; ‘cases with monthly incomes over 10,000/month’ – 2.1; ‘Cases where the obligors income is at or below minimum wage’ – 2.3; ‘Income where one or both parties is self-employed’ – 2.1.