This has not happened yet, but what do you think of this? I read it somewhere, and summarized briefly:
Accepting that data shows that most women are committed to bringing up their children as best they can from the time of conception or birth, regardless of whether they are married or not, rich or poor, and so forth - without any need for the courts to try to cement their relationship to their child through scheduled visits and monetary support (unlike many men)... Accepting that the data shows that it is not single motherhood but poverty that determines the statistical outlook for the child...Accepting that lawyers interviewed stated that the great majority of the time a father pressing for all or half custody is trying to reduce his child support payments....
Why not, instead of tying child support from individual father to individual child (with individual mother often suffering in the meantime), have a National Unmarried Father's Fund. All unmarried fathers, from the time of conception or divorce, pay a percentage (set by the government and uniform in all states) of their gross income into this fund - regardless of the amount of money the unmarried mother makes. (Maybe mothers pay too into the Mother's Fund and get another check from there, don't remember this part.) The government sends a monthly check to each mother - and all mothers receive the same amount (except they get more, of course, if they have more children).
There is no correlation between the father's salary and the amount his child gets. Rather, all children are equally taken care of. If the amount is too little for a child to not be raised in poverty, the percentage taken out of all the paychecks is increased. If a father wants his child to have yet more, why, there is nothing to prevent him from sending more to the mother.
Moreover, the mother does not have to get between the government and the father. It is the law that it is the father's responsibility to (1) ascertain if sex led to any surprises (2) report to the government that he has now become an unmarried father and therefore must start paying into the National Father's Fund. The fine for not doing so would be so huge no father would choose that path.
All this would happen automatically and smoothly. Custody would be seperate from money issues, never considered together, and, therefore, based on true love and concern.
Since many scientists say that mothers, being able to have only a few children, concentrate on raising those children as best they can whereupon fathers, being able to have potentially hundreds of children, concentrate on different things, mothers would now have the financial means to do the job they are capable of, and men could look out at society and see hundreds of children that they were helping to bring up and perhaps feel a sense of pride and committment to the wellfare of society?
Accepting that data shows that most women are committed to bringing up their children as best they can from the time of conception or birth, regardless of whether they are married or not, rich or poor, and so forth - without any need for the courts to try to cement their relationship to their child through scheduled visits and monetary support (unlike many men)... Accepting that the data shows that it is not single motherhood but poverty that determines the statistical outlook for the child...Accepting that lawyers interviewed stated that the great majority of the time a father pressing for all or half custody is trying to reduce his child support payments....
Why not, instead of tying child support from individual father to individual child (with individual mother often suffering in the meantime), have a National Unmarried Father's Fund. All unmarried fathers, from the time of conception or divorce, pay a percentage (set by the government and uniform in all states) of their gross income into this fund - regardless of the amount of money the unmarried mother makes. (Maybe mothers pay too into the Mother's Fund and get another check from there, don't remember this part.) The government sends a monthly check to each mother - and all mothers receive the same amount (except they get more, of course, if they have more children).
There is no correlation between the father's salary and the amount his child gets. Rather, all children are equally taken care of. If the amount is too little for a child to not be raised in poverty, the percentage taken out of all the paychecks is increased. If a father wants his child to have yet more, why, there is nothing to prevent him from sending more to the mother.
Moreover, the mother does not have to get between the government and the father. It is the law that it is the father's responsibility to (1) ascertain if sex led to any surprises (2) report to the government that he has now become an unmarried father and therefore must start paying into the National Father's Fund. The fine for not doing so would be so huge no father would choose that path.
All this would happen automatically and smoothly. Custody would be seperate from money issues, never considered together, and, therefore, based on true love and concern.
Since many scientists say that mothers, being able to have only a few children, concentrate on raising those children as best they can whereupon fathers, being able to have potentially hundreds of children, concentrate on different things, mothers would now have the financial means to do the job they are capable of, and men could look out at society and see hundreds of children that they were helping to bring up and perhaps feel a sense of pride and committment to the wellfare of society?