The more I hear men’s rights activists fulminating about the unfairness of child support, the more I wonder how typical my situation is, and whether there are any general lessons to be drawn about expectations of men and women when it comes to child-raising.
My relationship with the father of my child ran into difficulties before my pregnancy was even confirmed. Initially, we hoped to live together, but it quickly became clear that there were too many barriers, both logistical and emotional, for this to be a viable possibility, at least for a few years. I did some research into the rights and obligations of a non-custodial parent and found that although I would be entitled to a certain level of support as a custodial parent, I wasn’t legally obliged to demand it.
I had no desire to take him for every penny I could get: he was someone I cared deeply about but couldn’t live with. Since bearing and raising a child would affect my ability to work, and since I hoped he would want to see his child well cared-for, I envisaged a compromise whereby he made voluntary support payments and was in other ways an active father.
I reckoned without his stubbornness and commitment to traditional family structures. He informed me that it would be better for the child if he was in no way involved, since this would free me up to find a stepfather I could live with and build an approximation of a traditional family. That I have emotional problems that would make the search for a stepfather the worst possible fate I could inflict on myself or the child did not enter into his thinking: the child needed two parents who lived together, and since we couldn’t provide that, he didn’t want to be involved.
Later, he tried to soften that approach by saying that we lived too far apart to make visitation practical. If I lived closer to him, he suggested, it would be far easier to work something out. When I finally ended the relationship, he said that he’d hoped we would be able to find a solution, although I’m not sure what that solution should have been. I can only assume it would have involved my seeing the light and moving halfway across the country to live close to someone who had proved himself incapable of respecting anything about me that he didn’t agree with.
When I look back over the uglier arguments, I’m struck by how often he tried to put both blame and responsibility on me for the fact that he’d fathered a child without being ready for fatherhood. My explanation that I hoped to get pregnant was rendered meaningless by my statement that I’m committed to a woman’s right to choose. That I told him I wasn’t using any birth control wasn’t enough: I should also have told him the date of my last menstrual period. He believes that a child needs a father figure on the spot, therefore I had to enter another relationship despite my own understanding of myself.
I’ve also been told by family members that I’m not being fair to him and should have done more to make the relationship work. I don’t know what more I could have done without sacrificing my self-esteem and my plans for the future on the altar of his personal convenience, but I suspect that is a sacrifice I was expected to make. Not for him, of course, but for the child. It would be equally reasonable to expect him to move halfway across the country to be closer to me, but no-one is demanding that. Because I have no job to leave? Because I’m a woman? Because all my reasons for not wanting to move have been sifted through the mesh of rationality and found wanting?
The bottom line is that we both made a choice when we engaged in unprotected sex, and that choice has consequences for both of us. I go through the discomforts and dangers of pregnancy and childbirth and have the joyful but heavy responsibility of a child at the end of it. He has to pay a percentage of his income to support the child.
And yet he’s the one who feels treated unfairly.
Okay Jake I am just going to lay it out there for you…
I am also worried about all the children right now that are starving without proper clothes and shelter because their “parents” cannot afford them.
What I am trying to advocate for is breaking that cycle. Why not make people sit down and be honest with themselves about the financial side of raising a child before they have one. Instead of having to solve the problem after the fact.
Let’s be pro-active for once with a situation instead of sitting back and being reactive.
Let’s be pro-active for once with a situation instead of sitting back and being reactive.
Yes, let’s. Unfortunately my idea of licensing reproduction is not popular. (It consists of everybody having a certificate good for 3/4 of a child. Two people can produce 1 1/2 children. You can buy and sell these certificates. Reproducing w/o a certificate or in excess of the certificates you own shall be severely punished).
Even more unfortunately, your idea of laying the entire burden on the woman is not only sexist, it is also a losing proposition.
An alternate idea would be a social system that ensures that no child is hungry, homeless or without medical care or an education.
But you don’t seem able to imagine living in circumstances other than your own. The choices that are available and reasonable to you are not so for everybody. Nor do you seem to believe that personal responsibility extends to (at a minimum) paying a portion of the costs of children that you help to create.
Viewing one parent (inevitably the mother) as entirely responsible for the creation and upkeep of a child is ridiculous (not to mention sexist, but I’ve already mentioned that). And that is what I see you doing. If men don’t want to have children or risk the chance of becoming responsible for the well-being of children that they help to create there are a number of fool-proof options available to them. Apparently you believe that saying, “I don’t want a kid, I’m not responsible,” is one of them.
FTR: I am all in support of social programs that reduce the need for fathers to pay child support. That would be ideal.
In this situation I am going to throw myself out to the wolves and say that I don’t think that the women should think that she is entitled to child support for that child. She is the one that initial brought up the idea of having a child and once pregnant and realizing her partner was not on the same page decided to keep the child. What ever happened to advance planning, knowing that you are in a position to support a child before you decide to have one.
First point: technically “the women” (sic) isn’t the one entitled to the support: the child is. Your language kind of obscures that fact.
Second point: What happened to advance planning on the part of the father? In your scenario, he was also a voluntary participant in conception, so presumably he should have figured out whether he was in a position to support a child before he said OK.
Third point: Reading between the lines, it sounds as if you don’t think I should have had my daughter because I can’t give her the appropriate lifestyle with or without support. If that’s not your view, I’d appreciate your restating your case so that’s clearer. If it is your view, I’d appreciate your bowing out of this thread.
Hey – I am all for testing people before they have kids. But that is totally off the topic.
As far as a social system being put in place to make sure that kids are well taken care of..I agree with you on that idea. But being realistic I don’t see that happening anytime soon. So what we are left to do is figure out how as a society we are going to take care of the children.
And I know how “wonderful” many state programs are that are set up to do this, so maybe what we really need to be doing is advocating to improve those programs. Instead of fighting over who is to blame.
I know that you feel that I am being sexist with my ideals when it comes to parenting and responsibility for children, but aren’t children everyones responsibility. I think that your basis for calling my sexist is alittle far fetching as well. I never said that men should not hold some responsibility when it comes to child rearing what I stated was that there responsibility should not be soley financial.
You say that it is “about the children” and not about the money. But lets be honest for a minute..it is about the money and will always be about the money. If everything was free do you think that women would be filing for child support. Of course not, they wouldn’t need the fathers money to raise their children.
Before everyone freaks out the comment about testing parents was a joke.
Second- Nick I would never tell anyone that they should or should not have a child. As far as the appropriate lifestyle goes that is a personal idea of how you feel your child should be raised.
My feelings are that if you know you aren’t going to be able to provide the basics..food, clothing, shelter. Then you should really think long and hard about bringing a child into the world. You wouldn’t be being fair to either them or yourself if you didn’t think about that first.
If I have offended you I am sorry. It wasn’t intentional.
If it’s all about the money, perhaps there should be a docking fee for male partners?
:p
but money is one thing I neither need or want from him.
What about what your daughter needs and wants?
You’re saying “there is a duty, but exceptions”, I’d say that the exceptions means there is no such duty.
That makes no sense. Are you really saying that no valid rule can have exceptions?
making fathers pay child support
And here we go again with forgetting that mothers, too, are legally obligated towards their children.
I don’t want to get into an argument about whether there is a general duty from which some parents are exempt (you, Amp), or whether there’s a limited duty which only applies to some parents (me). I can’t see the point. There’s no practical difference between the two.
People are arguing for a duty to support (see posts #162, #164, #168…). This is being done in a clever way, saying ‘parents have a duty to support their children’ is quite a powerful statement. It says people have obligation to support their children and it gives a reason for this, it happens by virtue of them being a parent.
Introduce exceptions and this changes. What you’re saying basically becomes ‘parents who I think have a duty to support their children have a duty to support their children, whereas parents who I don’t think have a duty to support their children don’t have a duty to support their children’. I agree with this completely, but since we don’t agree on who is in which group this doesn’t really get us anywhere. While the first statement is a coherent argument, the second is basically saying ‘what I think is right because what I think is right’.
We can both say that. But I think neither of us will convince the other person.
There’s no practical difference between the two.
There’s a vast difference between the two. If the rule is that parents do not have duty unless the law imposes it, then our general policy about parental obligations is that we only impose them in some circumstances. If the rule is that parents always have a duty unless the law exempts them, then our general policy is that there must be a specific reason that the blanket obligations do not apply.
The latter is actually what the law does. And since you’re talking about legal obligations, policy and the reasons behind a law make a big difference.
If the rule is that parents always have a duty unless the law exempts them, then our general policy is that there must be a specific reason that the blanket obligations do not apply.
Very well.
The specific reason is the principle in our legal tradition that an obligation on party B cannot be incurred by the actions of party A, unless A and B have some contractual arrangement that creates such a linkage. I can’t buy a house in your name. You can’t sign me up for long distance with QWest.
Marriage is such a contractual arrangement. If we were married, you could sign us up for QWest long distance, and we’d both be obliged to pay (or exit the contract). Intercourse, per se, is not such a contractual arrangement.
Marriage is such a contractual arrangement. If we were married, you could sign us up for QWest long distance, and we’d both be obliged to pay (or exit the contract). Intercourse, per se, is not such a contractual arrangement.
Ah. Another one weighs in for all the responsibility of the possible results of intercourse falling on the woman. Whatever happened to taking responsibility for one’s own actions? It doesn’t apply if you’re a man and there is joint responsibility with a woman?
So, in your view, the “contractual arrangement” in law doesn’t apply to the results of intercourse but will apply, for example, in the case of a murder during a bank robbery in which all involved in the robbery are liable (responsible) for said murder even though only one of them committed it?
I’m relieved that the legal system doesn’t agree with your position, Robert.
Jake, I believe that the reasoning behind the statutes that make all participants in a felony liable for any deaths that occur in the course of said felony is that the people involved are engaged in a de facto criminal conspiracy. I suppose you could apply that logic to the participants in intercourse.
Whatever happened to taking responsibility for one’s own actions?
Quite. People who have intercourse should be prepared for the moral obligations that the creation of new life entails. But you can’t really make this argument AND a “reproductive autonomy” argument at the same time.
Well, you can, but I’m not going to take you seriously.
Sure you can. “Reproductive autonomy” has never been argued (by feminists) to include the idea that one should have the right to abandon a born child.
With all due respect, Robert, the contradiction you refer to exists for those who believe that having a fully functioning brain, or not, makes no moral difference at all to what rights an entity has, or what it is owed. But for those of us who don’t believe that a two-week-old embryo and a two-year-old child are morally identical, there is no contradiction.
How do you propose to make them do this?
I think that requring men to pay child support is actually pro-active in effect, because it makes men less likely to have sex without birth control.
With all due respect, you are not everyone in the world, and the reality is not everyone in the world shares your values or makes plans the way you do.
Wishing isn’t very useful public policy. No matter what you wish, there will be poor parents (a large portion of them single mothers) whose children have needs. Saying you think they shouldn’t have had children doesn’t alter that they did have children. So what public policy do you favor to provide support for as many of those children as possible?
I don’t think it should be “solely financial.” But in practice, you can force an unwilling man to give part of his paycheck to support his kids; but you can’t force him to love those kids. And if he doesn’t want to spend time with his kids, I don’t think it’s in the children’s best interest to force him to.
“Reproductive autonomy” has never been argued (by feminists) to include the idea that one should have the right to abandon a born child.
I agree. Rather, it is argued to include the idea that one has the right to decide a priori whether one is going to reproduce or not – and this right is explicitly detached, by RA feminists, from the question of whether one has engaged voluntarily in sexual intercourse or not. You don’t have to be raped to have a right to decide not to have a child. You don’t have to be celibate to have a right to decide not to have a child. All you need in order to decide not to have a child, is the capacity to decide not to have a child.
That – not the idea that a fetus and a baby are morally identical – is the source of the contradiction in the RA-but-no-CFM position.
To point out something I haven’t seen yet on this thread. Mothers can indeed abandon their parental duties – as long as they have ensured that those duties will be taken care of. Abortion does it by ensuring that no child is born. Adoption finds alternative parents to take care of the child. Even the safe harbor laws don’t circumvent this. By dropping a child at a safe harbor, the parent is giving it over to someone else – not simply walking away. No where in this country is it legal for either parent to leave the child on a street corner and walk away.
I’m all for C4M – as soon as the guy in question finds someone else to step up to the plate and provide child support, he can walk. Of course he’s a little handicapped by the pesky problem of not being able to force the mother to get married, but neither can she force him to get married if he ends up with the kid, so that seems fairly equal to me.
BTB – Plan B is NOT post-conception. It is post-ejaculation. It operates by preventing ovulation, hence preventing conception altogether. Yeesh.
I don’t see the contradiction. For your argument to make sense, feminists would have to claim that because one has had sex, therefore one has the right to not have a child. Then, the fact that men can lose that right by having sex would be a genuine contradiction.
But that’s not what feminists argue. Feminists argue that everyone has the right to control their own body, and as a consequence of this, everyone has a right to control their own body to control reproduction.
No feminists claim that men have no right to control their own bodies. On the contrary, feminists apply this idea – that all people have the right to do what they want with their own bodies in order to prevent reproduction – equally to men and to women.
(There are isolated court decisions in which this right was not given to men. I don’t think those decisions are consistent with feminist analysis, and I disagree with the current state of the law regarding such cases.)
Edited to add:
Some may respond, “But what about the children?” That is, by advocating that the extremely rare children who are conceived in circumstances in which the father’s right to make his own choices about his own body was violated – for example, male rape victims whose rape results in pregnancy – aren’t I violating my own argument that children must be cared for?
Not necessarily. I’d certainly advocate that any laws passed to exempt men in such circumstances from forced child support, should also provide for state support of the children. It’s quite possible to have a coherent policy that calls for most fathers to pay child support, but that makes exceptions for cases in which the father was raped by the mother, or similar cases.
I also think the balance of interests is vastly different – both because such children are very rare (whereas children of single mothers are commonplace), which means that society can more easily afford to pick up the tab, and because “I was raped and as a consequence I forced to pay child support” is a much greater injustice than “I chose to have sex and as a consequence I had to pay child support.” The needs of the children don’t change between the two cases, but the extremity of the injustice done to the father forced to pay child support is very different, and that changes how I balance the competing interests.
I hate to be difficult, but I think I’d argue that.
Or rather I’d say that raising children should not just be an individual responsibility based on biology and if any parent felt like they could not do it either on a temporary or permanent basis, then there should be a way for other people to take that repsonsibility with no penalty for the child or the parent.
The specific reason is the principle in our legal tradition that an obligation on party B cannot be incurred by the actions of party A
Libertarians may wish otherwise, but the whole of the legal system cannot be turned into one variety or another of contract. Your principle doesn’t even hold true when we’re talking about commercial arrangements. (It’s not true that if I buy a child seat from Company A, and it fails, my child cannot sue Company A because the contract was between Company A and me, not Company A and my kid.)
Obligations to a child have nothing to do with any contractual arrangement between the parents. By the way, Amp, while the law can’t impose love, it can impose duty. If I walk past a drowning child that isn’t mine, I have no legal obligation to lift a finger to help that kid. If it’s my child, I do have an obligation–regardless of whether or not I wanted to be a mother.
Maia, you are consistent in your position, then. Kudos to you.
Feminists argue that everyone has the right to control their own body, and as a consequence of this, everyone has a right to control their own body to control reproduction.
Among other things, we have seen “reproductive autonomy” used by feminists to demand access to birth control. What exactly does controlling one’s own body have to do with a right to a specific external chemical, device, or process? I want my body to be intoxicated; do I have a right to access to liquor because of my bodily autonomy? No. We have seen reproductive autonomy offered as the justification for the right to in vitro fertilization – again, having nothing to do with direct control of the corpus.
It is clear from usage that, while bodily autonomy is certainly an important complementary component of reproductive autonomy, feminist use of reproductive autonomy is not limited to the direct logical consequences of control of one’s own physical form. Clearly other forces are at play in claims of reproductive autonomy – specifically, the right to decide whether one is going to have a child, and to have that decision respected.
My children do not recieve monetary nor emtional support from their biological father, and that is exactly the way I want it. In fact, it is written into our divorce and custody agreement that he doesn’t need to pay child support. Now, if for some reason I should ever need state assisstance, then the state may arbitrarily against my wishes garnish any income he may have for the “support” of children he hasn’t supported since their conception and birth. Then the state can force me to give him certain visitation rights whether that is what I or my children want…
I know there are women that need child support and there are women that do not, but in my case since my ex-husband never supported his children then I don’t want anything he may have to give them…and I don’t want his advice on the proper way to raise my kids.
AMP-
Sorry about the delay in getting back to you. To answer just a few of your questions.
1. You had asked how I would get people to realize just how expensive it is to have children. Maybe what we need is some sort of education campaign. Now I know that isn’t going to change everyone minds but even if we have an effect on one person then it would be working.
2. I think that back in one of my past responses I stated that not everyone was like me or in my exact situation. I know that and respect that.
3. Someone had stated that they thought a program were loans were given out by the state or federal government you take your pick would be a good idea. I have to agree. If we have billions of dollars to spend outside of this country isn’t it about time that we start taking care of our own? I think a program were low interest loans are made available to parents to help off set the cost of raising a child would be a great idea.
As for Mythago: you asked about my daughters needs and wants. You can be rest assured that she is very well taken care of and doesn’t want for anything. I have managed to sit myself solidly in the upper middle class so I have things covered. But thanks for worrying about my daughter.
Robert,
I’m not sure I understand your argument in comment # 221. Can you expand on what you’ve said?
I want my body to be intoxicated; do I have a right to access to liquor because of my bodily autonomy?
Well, why do you have the right to access and imbibe liquor if not because of bodily autonomy? If you’re going to claim that it isn’t because of bodily autonomy, can you explain why you do have that right?
I look at what you’ve written and make some modifications and come out with:
Among other things, we have seen “bodily autonomy” used by feminists to demand access to body modifications (such as piercing or plastic surgery). What exactly does controlling one’s own body have to do with a right to a specific external chemical, device, or process?
Either I don’t get what you are trying to say or what you are trying to say is nonsense. I suspect it is the former.
Well, why do you have the right to access and imbibe liquor if not because of bodily autonomy? If you’re going to claim that it isn’t because of bodily autonomy, can you explain why you do have that right?
I have the right to imbibe liquor because I am free to do what I want with my own body. But that freedom puts no burden on anyone else; if nobody wants to make beer, I’m out of luck. If nobody wants to grow hops to sell me so I can make my own beer, tough titties for Robert. If nobody wants to sell me beer (because they don’t like the way I act when I’m drunk), too bad, so sad. My bodily autonomy affords me no levy on the actions of others. I have bodily autonomy, not a right to get hammered. My BA doesn’t require the county to make it legal to sell beer on Sunday; I have no right to access.
But according to the feminist view of reproductive autonomy, women are entitled to (say) birth control, or in vitro fertilization, or what have you. This entitlement means (for example) that pharmacists who disapprove of certain forms of contraception aren’t allowed to decline to provide it. Bodily autonomy alone cannot possibly justify making pharmacists do things against their conscience; reproductive autonomy, however, can.
And therefore Amp’s attempt to recast reproductive autonomy as something that derives trivially from bodily autonomy fails. For the claims made for RA to be true, there has to be something else there; a something which I have characterized, I believe reasonably, as a person’s right to decide whether or not they are going to have children.
I’m afraid I don’t understand your recasting of my statement to refer to body modification; that would seem (assume you’re doing it yourself) to fall entirely under the rubric of bodily autonomy without requiring any additional rights.
Robert wrote:
I am sure this has been said before, and I think it was by Q Grrl among others, but men do have that capacity. We can choose not to have vaginal sex. Once we choose to have vaginal sex, that choice brings with it several consequences, one of which is that we no longer have control over the sperm we ejaculate; another one of which is that, after we have vaginal sex, we do not and cannot stand in the same place as the women we’ve had sex with vis-a-vis pregnancy and childbirth. More to the point, our positions are radically other to each other–they get pregnant; we don’t–and essentially unequal: if we try to control what a woman does in response to her pregnancy, we are trying to exercise power over her, to take power away from her. (You may think that is a desirable thing to attempt; I am merely pointing out the inequality, or maybe non-congruence is a better term, of our positions.) To acknowledge these differences and to be willing to live within them and to insist that people be willing to take the consequences of them is not a contradiction, though I agree it does not result in men and women standing in congruent positions in relation to pregnancy and childbirth.
I would submit to you that if intercourse were taken out of the central place it occupies in the heterosexual imagination, if we no longer saw it as the be all and end all of heterosexual activity, that this discussion would take a very different shape. Because in one sense, the C4M argument is an argument that depends upon the centrality of vaginal intercourse in heterosexual relations. Because, as I said above, prior to ejaculating inside a woman, men can decide to have sex in ways that will guarantee a child is not conceived.
This entitlement means (for example) that pharmacists who disapprove of certain forms of contraception aren’t allowed to decline to provide it. Bodily autonomy alone cannot possibly justify making pharmacists do things against their conscience; reproductive autonomy, however, can.
See, this is where you are not making sense to me. Are pharmacists allowed to decline to provide any other prescription drugs? Not that I’m aware of. Their job is to dispense chemicals that doctors prescribe and to not give those chemicals in their charge to those without prescriptions from a doctor. Why, then, do you want to make an exception for “certain forms of contraception?” It seems to me that you are making your argument from your view of how things should be in your perfect semi-libertarian paradise as opposed to the system in which we all currently live.
But, if we continue in the world of your utopian vision of how things should be, you shouldn’t have a problem with contraception/bodily autonomy because, unless I’m mistaken, in your world contraception would be OTC, the same as the beer to which you refer in comment #225.
And now that you’ve dropped your most recent two lines of argument against men’s responsibility to children that they have helped to create, you have moved to an argument about whether or not pharmacists should be allowed to decline to dispense whatever drugs they are opposed to. Which has not one whit to do with child support and male entitlement.
I’m afraid I don’t understand your recasting of my statement to refer to body modification; that would seem (assume you’re doing it yourself) to fall entirely under the rubric of bodily autonomy without requiring any additional rights.
You could do plastic surgery on yourself? Does this mean that you don’t have any moral/philosophical problems with women who perform their own abortions? But my big point in recasting your statement is that piercing, plastic surgery, etc. does have something to do with “a right to a specific external chemical, device, or process.” A needle, an operation, anasthaesia are all specific external chemicals, devices or processes as are everything outside of your body with which you might interact. So your statement still doesn’t make much sense to me.
I am sure this has been said before, and I think it was by Q Grrl among others, but men do have that capacity. We can choose not to have vaginal sex.
Indeed. Women also have this capacity. But feminists reject the argument categorically as a justification for checks against abortion in cases of consensual sex, and advance a theory of strong reproductive autonomy. Just because she had sex willingly and knew that pregnancy could result is no reason she can’t abort. Accordingly, the argument as used against men’s reproductive autonomy seems disingenuous; if you really believe that “keep your pants on” is a valid argument against male reproductive autonomy, then you really ought to advance it as an argument against women’s RA as well. Do you?
More to the point, our positions are radically other to each other–they get pregnant; we don’t–and essentially unequal: if we try to control what a woman does in response to her pregnancy, we are trying to exercise power over her, to take power away from her.
Again, I agree. But C4M does not attempt to oblige a woman to terminate the life within her if that is not her desire; no control of the woman’s actions is contemplated or intended. She has reproductive autonomy: nobody is telling her to continue or abort her pregnancy. That’s her decision, about her life and her resources. As has been noted by others, C4M is (at bottom) about child support – and child support is about the relationship and obligation between the man and the child. The woman doesn’t enter into it. So arguments about controlling women’s behavior seem inappropriate; it’s not about her.
Robert:
Just to be clear, what I was talking about was not “keep your pants on,” but rather, “keep it out of a woman’s vagina,” and that is a very different thing. And, yes, “keep it out of a woman’s vagina” is something I would advocate as a reasonable position for women to take who want to avoid, absolutely, the risk of conception. More to the point, I think that “keep it out of a woman’s vagina” is, when expressed by men, an expression of male reproductive autonomy, not an argument against it (as would “keep your pants on be,” were that what I was talking about)—because, don’t forget, a man who takes that position (“keep it out of a woman’s vagina”) is going to be asking any woman he has a sexual relationship with to respect his wishes, and if she doesn’t, well then that says something about whether he should be having a sexual relationship with her in the first place, doesn’t it?
I also would point out that your equation of my position, “keep it out of a woman’s vagina,” with “keep it in your pants” makes my point about the centrality of heterosexual intercourse in the heterosexual imagination and the way in which that centrality shapes this discussion.
Yes, and the child comes to that relationship with no ability, other than the fact of her or his existence—for which the man is in no small part responsible—to advocate for her or his rights. Nor did the child choose to be there. The man, on the other hand, chose to behvae in a way that he knew might result in a child, even one he would not, on his own, have chosen to have. Absent anyone who is going to advocate for that child’s rights and absent a society in which the community, through its government, takes a true and full financial responsibility for the health and well-being of children whose biological parent(s) for whatever reaons cannot or will not support them, who else shall we hold accountable for the support of such children other than the people who conceived them?
Personally, I think that if the state did take up that responsibility, the C4M argument would hold a lot more weight. In other words, if we were all willing to say that, yes, our tax money should go to help support such children when their fathers have no desire to; if, in other words, we were willing to put our money where out mouths are, then there would be no problem with men who have conceived a child they do not want arguing that they should not have to support it just because the child’s mother wants to give birth.
I also want to say that I am about to start preparing to leave on a weeklong trip; if I do not respond after this, I am not ignoring you, I simply did not have the time.
Huh? What feminism are you reading? What you wrote is a bald faced lie, or something you made up. Feminism has criticised and critiqued vaginal intercourse for 40+ years, to include how reproductive autonomy is affected by this particular practice. Many women feel the most autonomous reproductively when they can refuse to engage in vaginal intercourse — despite the high cultural cost of taking such a radical approach to heterosexual sex.
Jake – You aren’t understanding the argument that’s going on, and unfortunately I don’t have time to explain it further. Maybe Amp can amplify if he has time, NPI.
Richard – I largely agree with you regarding the responsibility of parents for their offspring. But at the point in time where the C4M man desires to sever his relationship with the child, advocates for reproductive autonomy and/or abortion believe that no child exists. One cannot simultaneously argue that conceived children have no moral standing at a point in time, and that a man owes a duty to his conceived child going forward because SOMEDAY it will have moral standing, and that women have no ongoing duty to that conceived child because SOMEDAY it will have moral standing. If its future moral standing creates an obligation, then we can’t have abortion. If its future moral standing doesn’t create an obligation, then men can opt out of parenthood, as women can. If it creates an obligation for men but not for women, then feminist claims to be seeking sexual equality and justice are hollow, and pro-choice feminism is simply a cover for female reproductive supremacy. (It should be noted that some feminists recognize this and either say “ok, I’m for female reproductive supremacy”, or “RA does mean that men can abandon their children” – props to them for intellectual honesty.)
If a woman can morally sever her relationship with her offspring at conception+X days, on the grounds that she has reproductive autonomy, and the sexes are to have equal rights, then so can a man. The consistency bind that pro-choice folks are in is that they want to keep reproductive autonomy as an argument in their quiver, because it’s one of the strongest arguments they have. But if you really believe in reproductive autonomy and equality, then you have to apply it to men too, and feminists really don’t want to do that, because it will result in real harm to women’s standing in the world. If you don’t want to extend it to men, then you have to acknowledge that “reproductive autonomy” means women’s reproductive autonomy only – and that in turn puts pressure on claims to believe in equality – “oh, so all that stuff about women and men having the same rights was crap” – which most feminists don’t want to do.
I’m glad that I don’t have to try and balance all of these contradictory claims in my own philosophy; I don’t think I could do it.
Q Grrl, I don’t follow. How is what I am saying a lie? Do you think that “hey, you didn’t have to fuck him” is a legitimate argument against abortion rights for women who weren’t raped?
Q,
I think he is referring to this:
Pretty much any time an abortion argument comes up, some prolifer will make this claim:
“women can avoid all abortions other than those from rape; all they have to do is not have voluntary vaginal intercourse with men. Therefore, there’s no need to allow or permit or encourage availability of abortions for women who were not raped. If they don’t want a pregnancy, they can merely elect not to have sex.”
Of course, this is physically true. No vaginal sex with a man = no potential for pregnancy.
And of course, it’s pretty damn problematic. The usual argument against it, which seems very widespread among feminists, is: although a heterosexual woman can in theory abstain from all vaginal sex unless she is willing to bear a child, this is doesn’t really work in practice. We all like sex too much. From what I have read, it is considered very ANTI-feminist so say “well, she just shouldn’t have sex.”
This is exactly the argument you and I got into a while ago (was it here? I’ve lost track). I think abortion is more important than either side of the C4M argument. So I’m unwilling to give the prolifers a foothold–and a pretty good one, at least in sound bite terms–by admitting that any healthy adult, in any relationship, should be willing and able to refrain from any sex with any chance of procreation.
As a result, I reject the “men who don’t want to support should just avoid vaginal sex” argument. Sure, it works physically. But it’s too much risk to the prochoice fight. And it’s also not especially realistic.
Robert:
Actually, this is not entirely true. In Jewish law, for example, a fetus does have moral standing–you are required to violate the Sabbath in order to save one that would otherwise die–and abortion is not murder. I have written a little bit about this here. More to the point, I have never heard any pro-choice advocate argue that a fetus has no moral standing. What I have heard them argue is that its moral standing is neither equivalent to nor superceding of the moral standing of the woman who carries it.
Beyond that, I think we have to agree to disagree. You want to apply an equivalance that simply does not exist given men’s and woman’s different biologies; I am willing to accept that the points at which men’s reproductive autonomy begins and ends are different from those at which women’s reproductive autonomy begins and ends. I think what I said about “keep it out of a woman’s vagina” addresses that point, and I note that it is a point you have not addressed at all.
But at the point in time where the C4M man desires to sever his relationship with the child, advocates for reproductive autonomy and/or abortion believe that no child exists. One cannot simultaneously argue that conceived children have no moral standing at a point in time, and that a man owes a duty to his conceived child going forward because SOMEDAY it will have moral standing, and that women have no ongoing duty to that conceived child because SOMEDAY it will have moral standing.
This is incorrect. AFAIK, nobody has to pay child support for a fetus. So, to parallel your logic, a C4Mer cannot sever his relationship with the child before it is born since, legally, no child exists. A C4Mer is also not required to pay child support before the fetus is born. No responsibility, no obligation at that point, thus no way to sever his responsibilities and obligations since he has none. However, once the child is born it has moral standing (and citizenship) and rights under the law. At that point a C4Mer must pay child support if so ordered and also cannot sever his relationship (from a responsibility and obligations perspective) without agreement from the mother of the child. Not surprisingly, a woman may not sever her relationship with her child (w/o agreement from the father) at this point either.
What you (and C4M) really have problems with is who gets to make the choice and at what point the choice is made whether or not to create a child. Unfortunately for men, biology limits our choice to a pre-coitus time period. Women, biologically speaking, have a choice post-coitus as well. Morally speaking, I agree with biology in this case. Once a man has ejaculated, he experiences no physical consequences of gestation and childbirth. Since a woman is physically affected by gestation and childbirth it seems wholly proper to me that the decision is hers post-coitus as to whether or not to have a child.
Sorry kids, gotta fly – been fun arguing this with you again. I’ll check back in later this evening and perhaps respond to whatever’s accumulated. But in the meantime, paid work beckons.
Sailorman:
Two things:
1. There is a difference between phrasing the position in a negative way as you have done here—”men who don’t want to support shouldn’t…”—and phrasing the position in a positive way, i.e., avoiding heterosexual vaginal intercourse is an expression of male reproductive choice/autonomy. More, the point of taking the position is not to make the pro-choice argument to the anti-abortion side. Rather, it seems to me, the point of taking this position is first, to give men a voice within the pro-choice discussion. It is a way for us to own our own boundaries and the limits of what we can control. Second, I think taking this position is way of questioning the heterosexual rhetoric that underlies the whole C4M and abortion debate. Robert’s assumption that I meant “keep it in your pants” when I said avoid vaginal intercourse is an example of what I am talking about.
2. While I appreciate the pragmatic motive behind the position you’ve taken, the end result of it will be to leave the centrality of vaginal intercourse to the heterosexual imagination unchallenged, which means that the heterosexual rhetoric surrounding the reproductive rights debate, including C4M, will remain unchanged, which means the debate itself will remain unchanged as well.
Ok, now I really do have to go pack.
There’s not a difference to me ;) I think you’re arguing semantics to a point where you’re forgetting the actual topic.
Yes, anything can be flipped as an exercise in semantics. But the main effect is restrictive. Representing choice which can only be exercised through abstaining from a generally-practiced activity as a “choice” like any other is technically true but realistically silly. Just like “a woman who avoids an abortion through abstinence is expressing her reproductive autonomy” is technically true but realistically silly.
This is simply efficiency. Do you honestly expect everyone to preface every statement about “sex” with an explantation that “by which I mean heterosexual sex between a man and a woman, not including rape or other involuntary sexual acts, where both partners are fertile or at least believe themelves to be possibly fertile, and which involves either vaginal intercourse or some other activity that may realistically result in the woman becoming pregnant?”
If you were someone else, i’d think you were trolling. But here, I’ll bite: From now on, when I say “sex” in this thread, that’s what I mean. In fact, unless the context suggests otherwise, that’s what I mean in pretty much every thread. And I think this is reasonably common.
And I also think you’re deliberately side tracking. If you want to have a whole discussion about what “sex” really is/should be and what “sex” can mean, and the evils of heteronormativity, go right ahead (in a different thread, please). But come on–this is a thread about child support and c4m and other related issues, and in THIS CONTEXT I think it’s pretty damn obvious what people mean when they are talking about ‘sex’. Don’t you think?
Robert, your comment about how RA for men stops at conception and RA for women stops at conception plus X days got me to thinking. There are any number of situations that people face where one party’s obligation occurs at a different time from anothers; applying for school or a job, a loan, buying a house. I make my choice to participate on day X and the other party has an additional amount of time to decide if it will happen or not. Not that I’m saying that having a child is equivalent to buying a house. The point I’m trying to make, albeit clumsily, is that there is a difference between absolutely equal and parity. Very few situations are absolutely equal, someone is always waiting for the other to decide whether to play or not. It may not be fair, but the rules are there for anyone to understand right from the start.
How to make a child:
One person supports the creation of a child through five seconds of ejaculation and the other person supports the creation of a child through nine months of gestation. The ensuing child is made up to equal parts of the two peolpe. All children have the right to an upbringing and financial support from its progenitors.
Jealousy between the progenitors that one had an easier part in the making of the child or that the other had longer time to think about their part in the creation does not relate to the child’s right to support and upbringing.
Sailorman:
I think you misunderstood me or, more probably, I wasn’t being clear. My point about heterosexual rhetoric was not directed at you or the way you said what you said. My point was that insisting that male reproductive choice, C4M, ends once ejaculation inside a woman takes place is a way of engaging the whole question of the relationship between heterosexual vaginal intercourse and reproductive choice, because a very big chunk of how people on all sides of the issue approach reproductive choice, even the conventional, child-support-oriented C4M position, is predicated on a particular understanding of the place and importance of heterosexual vaginal intercourse in heterosexual relationships.
And this is also why I don’t think redirecting the idea of what male reproductive choice means towards an engagement with the specifics of the male body, rather than the question of child support, is not sidetracking. The question of who is/should be responsible for supporting a child once he or she has been born is very much connected to the question of heteronormativity and what sex means.
I guess what I am saying, in part, is that the whole C4M position when it comes to the question of child support is in itself a distraction, a way of not having to look at what it would really mean for men to live within the limitations of our own bodies.
Then the state can force me to give him certain visitation rights whether that is what I or my children want…
The state can do that now. Child support and visitation are not reciprocal obligations. If your ex decided he wants to be Daddy after all, he is not barred by the fact that you did not enforce child support.
That man must be retarded. I can only say that you were in the wrong only in that you took advantage of someone who was very clearly not playing with a full deck.
The point the C4Mers are missing is that saying “keep it in your pants unless you are willing to support a child” means *unprotected* sex. It is unrealistic to expect any adult who wants to have sex from abstaining completely from having sex unless s/he has decided s/he wants to conceive a child. However, it *is* realistic to expect the partner who does not want a child to result from heterosexual intercourse to use at least one method of contraception. This means the man should use at least a condom when having sex to demonstrate his intent not to fertilize an egg with his sperm. Also, they should be agitating for more and better contraception choices for men!
The thing is, the only contraception that is 100% is “keep it in your pants”. While I understand and agree with the argument that biological considerations should weigh the choice scale more heavily toward the woman’s side, I think that the legal considerations are still weighted toward the man. That is, because our legal system uses precedent so much, and because the older laws treated women and children as property of the man, we still have the vestiges of this ownership concept in dealing with child support, plus we still have a lot of the pre-contraception and pre-legal-abortion approach in framing the relationship between the mother and the father of a child. Hence, the man is required to “own up” to the child being “his” and pay for the upkeep of “his” child, even if he did his part to signal that he didn’t want a child, because in the olden days, the woman didn’t have much (if any) choice in whether or not to have sex, she didn’t have any contraception available, and she couldn’t legally abort, so a baby was literally considered “all the man’s fault”. So I’m wondering if the C4Mers do have a little tiny point in that if a man has done his best to prevent his sperm from meeting his partner’s egg (short of abstaining from sex completely, which we agree is unrealistic), and that both the man and the woman agree that he has made it clear that he doesn’t want a child, that there should be a legal way for the man to “un-father” himself?
The thing is, the only contraception that is 100% is “keep it in your pants”.
Actually, “have sex only with people of the same gender as you” also works 100%. Funnily, while I’ve suggested this to MRAs many times, I’ve never gotten much positive response.
Here is what you can expect in New York State….if your a man….faced with child support beyond your means….and a child that was taken out of state and across the country:
I introduce to you John Murtari…a man fighting unrealistic child support payments and the inability to afford to travel to the other side of the country.
John is now in prison….on a hunger strike….and is protesting the way the NYS Family Court Operates….I too was a victim of the cruel and inhumane NYS Family Court System…..denied a handicapped van and a child was allowed to go to FL…..my severe disabilities prevent me from traveling there. So this child will never see his father….unless when he is a man and wants to look for me.
Here is a Family Court System that one can expect if they have to appear before it for any reason….planned or unplanned pregnancy….as in my case…a woman told me and showed me she was on the birth control pill….said DO NOT use the condoms I had in my hand….as she didn’t like them. I was set up….and in so doing…the family court doesn’t care if you have children living with you…..whom you support…and the support payments coupled with child care payments are so high you are going to lose your home where your two children grew up and have many close friends and family members. See….they Family Court only cares about the child that is subject to the court…..not any other child. And they were both told to forgo religious education so I can support this child that was born out of deceit. The NYS Family Court System is broken and needs to be addressed. Problem is the politicians have chose to close their eyes.
http://www.akidsright.org/support_jm.htm
Actually, “have sex only with people of the same gender as you” also works 100%.
See, if you try that, those ebil gold-digging bitches will declare themselves to be trans men solely for the purposes of getting their hands on your sperm…
What are you not entitled to!!!!!
If you want to see your kids why do you not do that before they are taken away!!!
Grow up!!!!
The Child support Consequence
Here it is once again. The age-old-battle on the fairness of Child support. Let me begin this discussion by first stating that I pay Child support for my children that don’t live in my household and I have children living in my household who get an insufficient amount of support in one situation and no support at all in another case.
Because of my situation and my personal intimate experience in this matter I can therefore speak on this subject with passion, honesty and truth.
There are many different types of situations and circumstances out there that lead us to the point of where we are now paying Child Support. I don’t know everyone’s circumstances but I do know that God intended sex and sexual relationships for the sanctity of marriage. Marriage was created by God and is purposed to be a righteous, Godly institution between a man and a woman. Whenever things are done out of the scope, parameters and purpose in which they were designed there are always consequences.
So let’s get right too it. The payment of child support from one parent to another is first of all a consequence. It is a consequence of either sexual irresponsibility, or for being involved in relationships that were either not in Gods will or those relationships and the situations therein where handled in a manner that is displeasing to God.
At one time I had one Job and something like 37% to 40% of my income was going to the mother of my children for support. That time was very difficult for me financially. I suffered and struggled in many areas because of the child support consequence and at that time I was very bitter and angry at the kids’ mother for putting me in that situation but then God had to show me; if it is hurting me this much to try to survive without that percentage of my income then how difficult must it be for her trying to support the children on that percentage of my income? I also had to realize that she didn’t put me in this situation but in my case, my conduct in the relationship we had is what put me in this situation.
Since then I have been blessed by God with a second job so one Job can handle the support for my Children who I love and I want to support, and the other can give me the ability to do what I need to do for my life in my household. I still struggle financially but that is not due to the Child support or because of the children’s mother but do to other circumstances of life. And I am also blessed because the Mother of my children and her husband are of good Christian character so she gets what the child support system has ordered and she does not hound me, or berate me for anything more than that…and if she or the children did ask for something I would do all I can to assist because they are my kids and my responsibility and I love them. When it comes to the mother of your children brethren; in most cases she is not getting support from you to be mean, or harmful. My brethren she is getting support from you because she needs it, besides, it is your duty and even if she doesn’t need it and even if she is doing it to be mean and spiteful the children still have needs; regardless to how trifling the mother may be. In my situation after some major issues between the families I can say thanks be to Good that we all get along very well now.
I’m not saying we agree on everything but what I am saying is that we have all learned to be kind, respectful, and considerate to one another. The Mother of my children is not my enemy and even if she and I were at odds with one another or even enemies, I would still want and need her to be successful in her life because she has the awesome task and responsibility of developing my children in to healthy, happy and independent individuals. She can only do this if her life is sustainable.
When a person comes to the realization that the intention of God is for man and woman to be married and have children and be together for their entire lives to love and raise those children together; and compare that plan to our current situations and circumstances, then we will be better able to see that our society suffers from deep rooted strongholds that have corrupted the family unit and given power to the worldliness and wickedness that plagues our lives.
Child support is a consequence! In my case Child support is a consequence for not having a relationship with God before I got married so when the time for marriage came around I didn’t understand anything about it. Had I been close to God and obedient to Gods will I would have known what to do and what not to do. Also, If had a Godly example {a father,} I would have been better equipped to operate properly in marriage. God knows I was not good to the mother of my children and my current situation is a consequence for my ungodly behavior in marriage; and even though it is many years’ later, consequences can go on for an unknown length of time.
I don’t need to list the things I did wrong or place any blame on the children’s mother. The only thing that gets me threw my suffering is taking responsibility for what I did improperly in my relationship with her, and being sure that I never repeat those behaviors again and doing my part in the Godly rearing of my children. Anything else is non productive and useless.
Now let’s get to the heart of the issue. For all the guys that think, feel, and believe that they should go out and buy the groceries, the clothes, and whatever else the children need and drop it off at the kids house as not to give the mother any cash and to insure that the money is being used properly on the children….I’ll start with you.
This philosophy is understandable but wrong. It’s wrong because child support is just that support, it is to assist the mother with the needs and rearing of the children. If the mother needs something that helps her to be better able to properly take care of the children then so be it.
Do your part and don’t stress about what she does with the money because honestly, once it left your hands {or your check} it was no longer yours anyway.
I can be real can’t I? This anit for the weak brothers because truth hurts so if you can’t handle the truth then don’t read on.
My brothers lets be mature and real about this. Neither you nor the court system can control who the children’s mother is laying up with, how she spends her money and what she does in her house hold whether it be right or wrong. Don’t get me wrong, the custodial parent can and should be held to a certain level of accountability for the care of the children but that does not mean you can pick their friends or their behavior. And the bottom line is whether you like this reality or not, it is what it is.
For any of you that want to make the argument of abuse or neglect then do something about it….Something other than arguing with her over the phone, calling her out of her name and beating up her boyfriends.
Do something real and legal….If there is some form of neglect/abuse their will defiantly be signs of it. So, build a case. Get a camera and take pictures for proof of the abuse you’re seeing. A video cam would be even better. Get witness like teachers and other people that come in close contact with the children. Try to have witness beyond your girlfriend/wife and people from your inner circle that also can’t stand your children’s mother.
Get a lawyer if you can but if not a strong articulate argument, backed by some creditable witnesses {not your cousin pookie and them from off the block} solid proof, like pictures will sure get the Judges attention and you can win custody……
Oh that’s right. The point of doing all this is to get your children out of harm’s way and to care for them properly YOURSELF! Let me say that again….Yourself! not your mother, or your sister, or that old lady down the street that watches all those children….Don’t get me wrong everyone needs a support system but your support system should be just that; support, not someone else raising the children …That will become your job when you prove this horrible neglect that your claiming.
Then you can worry about who will keep the kids when you have to work, and you can work and cook and clean and do laundry and help with home work and still try to find time for love and other relationships and you can feed the fevers and starve the colds and have the long talks and give the spankings and the hugs and all that fun stuff that the mom was/should have been doing that you claimed she wasn’t doing. Then you can watch the same movies over and over and over again with the children 3 times in a row and you can answer all the why why why’s about everything under the sun and then when the child is crying for mommy and asking you where she is and when is she coming you can look into their eyes and see the hurt and pain that the mom had to see when she had them and they were asking her about you….AND THEN YOU CAN DO IT ALL OVER AGIN THE NEXT DAY and EVERYDAY!
Let me say this….these are just some of the things the custodial parent should have been doing and if she/he wasn’t doing them then they need to lose custody.
There are a million more things that mothers do that I can’t even list or begin to comprehend because I am not a mother and I cannot do what a mother does{I’m a witness as I watched my mother and now I watch my wife}So before you rip a child away from its mother consider these things….
Is there really abuse/neglect or does she {and her man} just do things differently than you would? Is there really abuse/neglect or are you just hurt, bitter, angry, upset, jealous or all of the above? Hold the mother accountable only after you have become responsible!
Now we get to the gift givers. These are the guys that buy their kids really nice clothes and expensive sneakers…Video games cell phones and so forth but don’t spend any quality time and their gifts are less then effective in the lives of the children because PUBLIC SERVICE GAS AND ELECTRIC DON’T EXCEPT NIKE, PHAT PHARM OR HOUSE OF DEREON. And the landlord of the home your children live in only gets really upset when he sees all these nice sneakers and coats but mom is late with the rent over and over again. And when dinner time comes kids can’t eat that psp2 the cell phones or the jewelry you brought them. These guys make me laugh. You wanna show how Hard you are and how much of a man you are then do the hard work of continuous, support in the proper raising of your children…that’s Hard, and that alone will show what kind of man you are.
Child support is for assistance with rent, utilities, food and healthcare, do I need to go further….I think I do because some people just do know what it really takes. So, after rent, utilities, food and healthcare, then their is toilet tissue, and cough medicine, and hair products, and toiletries and feminine hygiene needs and the list goes on and on and on… But wait, there’s more. That’s right, the money isn’t enough. If you pick the kids up and drop them off at the park or the mall or grandma’s house, how will your sons know what a good man is suppose to do in life’s situations and circumstances? And if you don’t spend time with your little girls how they will know what a good Husband and Father should be like? How will you explain to your Girls that ladies are treated as ladies and whatever else they act like is also how they will be treated…. {You fill in your own blanks.}——- will be treated like …. You get the picture
Being Godly, decent, kind, loving and understanding, honest and hardworking, and responsible are all learned behaviors. But how will they learn these things if their father doesn’t show them?
They won’t!!! And many don’t, and that’s why we have so many young boys in the youth houses and in the prison systems… Or dead by 19; because there just aren’t enough Godly father figures being an example. I did say there aren’t enough fathers; I said there aren’t enough Godly father figures being an example. Mothers do teach children, but the mother’s purpose and abilities are different then the fathers, both parents play a vital but different role in the lives of the children. These things will only be developed in the lives of the children as time is spent with the children. I teach my girls what a husband and father is by the way I treat my Wife and the way I live my life and even by the way try to I properly deal with my ex-wife
I know things get hectic, have work, and I dedicate a lot of time to reading and studying the word of God, I have an Awesome wife that I need to and love to spend time with but when my Children who don’t live in my house hold are there, I put aside my video game addiction and I sacrifice other things that I would probably be doing {like watching the game} and I sing with my daughter who’s a singer, {even though I can’t sing} I play video games with my son and I wrestle with him pretty much every time I walk past him. I talk and talk and talk with my 10 yr old daughter because…well she’s a talker… and my eldest {that doesn’t live in my home} well she’s in that I’m to cool to play around with daddy stage right now but out of all of my children it was her that I invested the most in as she was my first child she was the one who showed me the delicateness of children, and it was her that thought me that once you have kids nothing you have is just yours anymore but that’s ok and the sacrifice is well worth it. She showed me how my play and my discipline made a difference in her life and how all of my behaviors impact my children. {And she is a step child} So she and I are well established and I will always continue to make deposits in her soul that will continually replenish what her and I have and will always have.
Why do I do those things…because I must….because I want to… because they need me to, and because If I don’t give them love, affection, attention and proper teaching someone else will, and I fear that; that someone else will be just like I was before I was in Christ. Or what if he’s a Pimp or something like that.
No!!!!
God forbid my Girls run into a guy whose anything like I was and they be needy for love and affection…so I’ll just continue do all I can to make sure that my children have all they need, mentally, emotionally and spiritually from me {to the best of my ability}
Now there are also those fathers that really just don’t care about the children and you have mothers who do spend the support money on themselves only and do anything for the children .To these people I say you will be cursed with a curse of God if you intentionally abuse/neglect a child.
Children are the wonderful living joy of love and relationships, yet remember; to whom much is given much is required. Keep in mind that God intended Children to be a blessing given by him to mankind through the agency of love and marriage and neither by mishap nor by byproduct of passion and lust. Although these things happen all the time it is not Gods plan and these sorts of behaviors are what make the difference in the life of a child.
So I say it again child support can be a financial burden yet it is a consequence for sexual irresponsibility, and/or involving one’s self in relationships that are displeasing to God or for not behaving properly in marriage and intimate relationships, and that’s not something I heard….I’m telling you what I know!!!!!
Mothers if you are out there and you know that the father is being afflicted with an incorrect amount of Child Support or an unfair situation and you can do something about it and you don’t; just remember God is watching you and there are consequences for all ungodly behavior….And what does it benefit you or the child if he goes to jail or if he can’t keep a roof over his head.
Don’t get me wrong if he just flat out won’t support his children then by all means; lock his behind up! But if we are talking about a man that loves his children by word, deed, and thought then be supportive and understanding. The better he can do for his life the better he can do for his children.
On the flip side fathers; if the mother can’t get to work or she starving how does that help your child.
Children cannot flourish when they know that their mother is perishing
Keep in mind Mothers…The father is suppose to support; that is to do his part in the rearing of the children…not to do it all but his part.
Fathers if you are reading this and you’re one of those…
I anit doing nothing for the children because I can’t stand the mother type of dudes, Get over your feelings and Man up!!! This aint about you; this is about that child that needs to be supported financially, emotionally and physically! If you’re not with the mother any more then what she does and who she does it with is none of your concern and if it is then your priorities are screwed up and you haven’t let her go in your heart and/or your mind!!! Like I said your should be concerned about the safety and welfare of your children and if that’s the case then refusing to support the child is not in any way going to force the mother to be a better mother .
We must come to realize that being a good parent and doing what’s best for one’s children is a choice. It’s decision that people make and then act on. If a person is selfish, greedy and not willing to make many difficult personal sacrifices then that is just their character and nothing you do or the courts can do. Now the courts can’t force them to be a better parent. Even though they can be forced to do certain things by the courts that the child needs, that still won’t make them loving and supportive. So refusing to support the child is also neglect and anyone who refuses to support their children financially, emotionally and physically is also guilty of neglect which is a form of abuse.
In closing I want to say that I know there are many brothers out there who are working hard and struggling to survive and the child support is kicking them in the Butt.
I know there are men who are custodial parents out there and the shoe is on the other foot and I know there are mothers out there with kids that get no support from the Children’s father and in some cases he has plenty of money and even time but he does nothing. I know there are mothers out there that are getting support but the children look like they don’t have any parents and the mother looks like a million bucks.
If you are a parent and find you self in anyone of these situations here’s what you do.
Pray.
Pray that Gods will be done in your life the life of the other parent and the lives of your children.
Build your case legally and legitimately if you have one. {Don’t lie in court and don’t get false witnesses.}
Keep praying.
Keep doing your part, and when you do have them for long periods or short periods of time, love them, teach them, laugh with them, and play with them.
All the while praying.
Try to communicate properly with the other parent and if you cannot {whether it be your fault or their fault} then communicate through letters {keep a copy.}In a letter you can say everything you want without benign cut off and you will have proof of what you said but so does the other person. Other people can work too as a go between but only if there is no bias for either side.
What worked for my situation when I was in transitions of a broken relationship and then beginning a new relationship was being part of a Bible believing church where we have deacons and a Pastor who could counsel and mediate based on the word of truth, and also having a person{s}{I’m talking about the mother of my children and her husband} who have a heart for God and a heart for the children also made it workable, livable and now comfortable. But that took time. For a long time it was stressful, painful and seemed impossible to get pass the many obstacles.
But God makes a way for all those who believe and are willing to do the hard work.
Remember family, you can always chose what you do in life but you can never chose the consequences or the length there of.
So for all of those who suffer the CONSEQUENCE OF CHILD SUPPORT I will live you with a scripture and a prayer.
Respectfully and Lovingly
James W. Caldwell Jr.
Philippians 3 (New Living Translation)
12 I don’t mean to say that I have already achieved these things or that I have already reached perfection. But I press on to possess that perfection for which Christ Jesus first possessed me. 13 No, dear brothers and sisters, I have not achieved it,[d] but I focus on this one thing: Forgetting the past and looking forward to what lies ahead, 14 I press on to reach the end of the race and receive the heavenly prize for which God, through Christ Jesus, is calling us.
Let’s Pray…
God grant me the serenity
to accept the things I cannot change;
courage to change the things I can;
and wisdom to know the difference.
Amen….
Your ex-boyfriend is rationalizing like crazy. He had unprotected sex and he made a baby. It is his child and it needs him. He should pay for it. He should take care of it and have a relationship with the child. Freeing you up to meet someone else is just a lame-brained excuse.
Living too far away is also just an excuse. First, because he could darn well move. Second, because people who love their children don’t let that stand in the way. Third, because we have modern technology. Tell him an old lady suggested he try skype.
Traditional family structures are indeed wonderful. That does not mean a child wants a stepfather to replace his biological father. (And a stepfather is not technically, a traditional family structure.) Again, I think he’s making an excuse for what he wants to do.
It may be that you could have done more to work things out with your boyfriend. At this point, it doesn’t sound to me like the two of you are going to be able to get together as a couple. You might, however, be able to learn to co-parent together.
I would not advocate moving to be nearer to him. You are going to have to earn money to support this child and it doesn’t sound like he’s very committed to doing his share.
If he were not the father of your child, I would suggest you forget him. He is, though, and for the sake of your child, you should keep talking to him. Be open, try to work things out. It will be good for your child if he gets involved later on, no matter how unfair it is to you.
James,
I don’t know if you’ll ever see this comment because you posted so long ago now; but I seriously appriciate what you said. It’s good to know that there are actually fathers out there and not just “sperm banks”.
I’m a single mom of a developmentally disabled child with epilepsy. I’m a Christian, been a believer for many years now and when I got married thought I married a believer. Come to find out years later, apparently – I was wrong. Now, we’d been married for what would be 13 year now had we stayed together. Currently, I and my child live off our respective SSI checks. (We were in a catestriphic motor vehicle accident that has left me with limited mobility. I’ve been on crutches for two and a half years now.) SSI is the only source of income we have at the moment and “dad” feels no obligation to pay child support, because I’m “so responsible as to take this child on all myself”. (That’s what he actually told me today. Since I took up all the responsibility all on my own; I can have it. He has no intension of paying child support because I’m “too responsible”.) At the moment, we’re in the preliminary stages of filing “poor man’s divorce” – which entails having to settle child custody and support issues before the divorce paperwork. So now after a year and a half of being the sole everything for this child – (which I’ve always been the primary care taker.) he’s fighting me over custody. I filed for sole custody and as soon as he recieved the paper work, now he wants visitations and he wants to set up his part of our “parenting plan” and all this other ….. (perverbial stinkey stuff) yet still doesn’t want to pay child support? So how’s that for a take on “child support and male entitlement”. He’s “entitled” even though he’s paid nothing and nor does he feel an obligation too?
So how’s that for a total switch? LOL Mom’s too responsible!
Your ex sounds like a real ass and a world-class jerk.
On the other hand – and please do forgive me for bluntness, and for just barging in with my limited understanding of your complex situation – filing for sole custody was a dick move. You don’t say that there is some extreme threat to the child’s safety or well-being from your ex, so I am assuming there is not. So why file for sole custody? Whoever has changed the nappies, the kid is both of yours, not just yours.
That said, custody and child support are two separate questions. (The courts have gotten a lot better about this in recent years, from what I gather.) Your ex’s views on what he ought to pay because you “took on” the responsibility yourself are irrelevant; he owes the child support. Possibly he is hardballing you as a negotiation tactic to get you to agree to something ahead of court; I don’t know. But it’s the judge’s decision, not his, or yours.
Parenting time is his right, and the right of the child. You should not stand in the way of that in any way, and should facilitate it and encourage it to whatever degree is practical for your situation. Whether he is supposed to pay support or not, whether he is current on his payments or not.
So: he’s totally wrong about support. You’re totally wrong about visitation. Having now pissed off both sides, I shall wish you well and hope that your ex sees the light about paying what he is supposed to pay to keep your mutual child protected and safe.
Well, Robert – you are entitled to your opinion as for my “dick move” on sole custody.
You do not know the situation and I did not share more details with you. There have been instances of physical and psychological abuse against the child from the father. (Mom and child spent four weeks in a domestic violence shelter several years ago because dad had totally “lost it” one day.) The kid “behaves himself” in dad’s house for fear of dad blowing a gasket on him. The child has learned to be dad’s “mini me” to avoid dad’s wrath. The child does all he can to hold it together, than he comes home and comes unglued; (or he goes to school and comes unglued). If dad will “man up” on his responsiblities (both fininatial and the emotional toll his ridged “parenting style” has on the child) than I’m willing to go back to the table on joint custody. Until that though; why should I have any reason to budge?
And by the way, I have not stood in the way of visitation. He can visit the kid when ever he wants. (In which in the past he’s been inconsistant about.) In practice, it’s been “sole custody” since the kid was born. So why now? Why the sudden interest in his “parental rights” and wanting to “share parenting”? How come this interest didn’t start 10 years ago when the kid was born? How about the weeks sitting in the pediatric ward with monitors glued to his head? Dad didn’t even come and visit, because according to dad – the kid doesn’t really have epilepsy. Mom has just manipulated the doctors into putting him on medication.
So, I’ve been civil to dad. I’ve given him every oppertunity to reevaluate his priorities. I could be his worst nightmare, but I haven’t been. So yeah, if you want to pick on me and try and tell me I’m something I’m not – well yer entitled to your opinion.
Have a nice day!
Renee, I am sorry that your ex has behaved badly as you describe. That has to suck for you and your child both, and I am truly sympathetic.
You ask why you should budge on custody; short answer, because your child has a right to both parents, and both parents a right to the child, barring extreme pathology on their part. (What you describe is problematic but doesn’t come close to the bar.) It is in your child’s best interest, broadly speaking, for both of his parents to be involved and in a parenting role. So, as a person who cares about the child’s best interest, you should subordinate your desire to see your ex meeting his financial obligations and your desire to see him parenting as you would prefer to your desire to meet your child’s needs.
You ask why he’s asking for custody/visitation to be formalized now. That one is more obvious: because a previously dynamic, casual situation in which you were giving him all the access he wanted for visitation (however little he exercised the privilege) is turning, via the magic of divorce, into a static, rule-bound situation in which he may end up with no rights or access at all. His motivation may be sincere realization that he wants to be in the child’s life, or horrible manipulative gamesmanship; I don’t know. But if not now, when WOULD he put up this fight? He didn’t need too before, but once the court starts issuing rulings, s*** starts to get real. And a finding of sole custody is about as real as it gets. I got *screwed* in my divorce, and even then I maintain custodial rights to my kid after a fashion.
Best wishes to your and your child.
Robert, while of course we know nothing of this father’s motives, another good reason to ask for specific visitation is that in some states (Oregon is one), any child support award is partly determined by the number of nights spent with each parent.
Kai Jones,
You really should reconcile that statement with the statement of most single mothers that child support doesn’t cover what the child costs (and the additional idea that child support should cover half of the costs of the child – with the other parent covering half of the costs).
I guess, under your picture of the world, a man who takes on full custody of the child – and thereby reduces his child support to zero (although that is not even the case in reality) – is “putting one over on mom”, who doesn’t pay any child support.
Robert,
You make a very valid point about when sh– gets real.
As for considering my son’s dad, I’ve come to realize over the past few days that this may be the last stop he’s got on this “train” of his life before it wrecks. If he wants to win the war of the heart of this child for the sake of their own relationship – he’s running out of time.
We all want to instil in our kids the good values of our own; (or at least what we feel are our good values). And one of the biggest gripes I’ve had about dad, isn’t about his wanting this child to grow up functional in society – we all want that for our kids. My biggest gripe is about how you go about teaching that.
Dad’s “parenting style” revolves around fear. He mistakenly thinks that at least if my child fears me, he respects me – (which is more than I’ve got to say for you mom – implying that my son does not respect me – which could not be further from the truth – but that’s beside this point).
Tyrants never earn anyone’s respect though. The only thing they earn is the resentment of those under their charge. Dad in this case has no further to look than the example of his own father. Both dad and dad’s brother harbor a certain amount of hatred toward their own father for their own various reasons. (Of which I can’t argue that those reasons aren’t valid) Dad in this case though is in a different perdiciment than his father was with him. Dad’s son is developmentally disabled. He’s ten years old now and son is as tall as mom. (In excess of five foot.) In another couple of years, he’s not going to be able to physically control this child. Even at now, if the kid “snaps”; he’d do a fair amount of damage to dad on account of dad’s injuries from the car accident. The car accident changed a lot of things, and in the case of the physical disparigy between son and father, (that dad relied on in the past to control the child) the accident leveled the playing field. There is a scripture verse – provolk not your children to wrath. If dad’s rigidity pushes this kid to the point that he snaps – it’s going to be ugly.
Dad justifies his “fear tactics” in that there is a verse in Proverbs that says “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom.” Yes, the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, but it’s not the end. The end is love, for perfect love casts out fear. For me, at this point in my life, I can say I’m awe struck by God’s power. “The power of His word can split the earth and sky, yet mend the lives that sin has torn apart.” (words from a Sandi Patti song). I’m confounded by God’s wisdom and I’m humbled by His love; but at this point in my life, with God as my witness, I can honestly say I do not fear God. I have the greatest respect for God’s authority, but that respect isn’t born out of fear, it’s born out of love. It’s born out of love of a character that is just, right, holy, ethical, moral, compassionate, empathetic…. If dad really wants son’s respect, (as well as mom’s respect) he needs to develop a character that bears these traits! Right now, that aint where dad is at. There’s another verse, “Where your treasure is there will your heart also be.” and since dad aint willing to finantially support this child outside of a court order – his heart aint in the right place.
Which brings me back to the original point about the last stop on this train before it wrecks. This morning when my son was leaving for school, he said to me. “Mom, I’m really glad my settlement money is almost here, so we can buy a Wii. We can use it for exercise in the winter time.” I said “Well, you know if I get you a video gaming system, daddy’s going to have a fit.” My son’s response was very telling. He said “So.” I asked him. “So that doesn’t bother you?” He said. “Nope.” Mom – “Interesting.”
So yeah, in the battle of the relational, for the heart and mind of this child – dad is already loosing ground and that has absolutely nothing to do with me. If dad doesn’t change the attitude and methodology of his interaction – the only place the relationship can go is down hill. Dad is getting his “parental rights” and I sure hope dad “gets them right” because if he doesn’t – he’s lost the war before he’s ever fought a single battle.
Varius:
You really should reconcile that statement with the statement of most single mothers that child support doesn’t cover what the child costs (and the additional idea that child support should cover half of the costs of the child – with the other parent covering half of the costs).
Why should a direct statement about the judicial system’s *calculation* of child support require a reconciliation with other single mothers’ assertions about what it covers? Of course child support doesn’t cover what the child costs. I disagree with the idea that child support “should” cover any particular percentage of the costs, because I think child support should be mostly based on income, not expenses.
I guess, under your picture of the world, a man who takes on full custody of the child – and thereby reduces his child support to zero (although that is not even the case in reality) – is “putting one over on mom”, who doesn’t pay any child support.
No, I don’t think this, you’re arguing against a straw man of your own creation. When my ex-husband had full custody of our sons, I paid him child support; when I had full custody, he paid; and when we each had one of our sons, nobody paid. But that was largely because we made approximately the same income, and for extraordinary expenses like orthodontia or summer camp, we negotiated separately how to divide the expense.
But then, I had a cordial, respectful, working relationship with the father of my children, and he was respectful toward me. We didn’t work out our hurt feelings about our marriage failing through our children, or our custody and support arrangements-we behaved like adults. If my ex had been a man who thinks like you write, things would surely have been different.