Mothering Forum banner

New plan for national child support

2K views 42 replies 19 participants last post by  Jster 
#1 ·
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?
 
See less See more
#2 ·
I just skimmed through it and need to think on this a little more.

I think for some it would be a great idea and help a lot of families out. I think for others, the dad would kinda be "off the hook" and could live a very nice life while his kids are just barely getting by.

I'll think about it some more.
 
#3 ·
It's so un-American, but so pro-child, to suggest that men should provide for kids not their own, and that kids deserve a certain amount of financial stability regardless of their parents' incomes. You rebel!

Given our Constitution (limiting federal powers to those explicitly listed; family issues specifically reserved to states), nothing like this could happen federally, natch, only state-by-state. Meaning, possibly the most progressive states could legislate it, but for most it wouldn't get out of committee.
 
#5 ·
I personally wouldn't like that. If you had a ex who had a high income you'd obviously be getting less. If you live in LA you'd be much worse off on a flat rate than the mom who is Iowa. I think the way they figure the ammounts is fair. It is sad that many children never get any child support - I think enforcement is the bigger issue. They let these parents go for SOOOOOOOOOO long before they really do anything to them. I think there should deffinatley be an enforced reasonable minimum. I've heard of people getting $50 a week. That's rediculous. When I was able to collect child support I never got it at all, so I understand the situation.
 
#6 ·
I think it would be great for children in poor single-mother homes, but suck for men with low incomes, unless it's somehow keyed to income as well as number of children. Then there would be low-income intact families faced with the prospect of having more monetary security for their children if they got divorced...

I strongly doubt it would ever happen/pass.
 
#7 ·
My question is regarding the wording "unmarried father". So if my STBX finally divorces me, and quickly remarried, he would no longer be responsible for paying this percentage? He would no longer be an "unmarried father".
Or, hell, he could just continue dragging out our divorce forever (or just drop it all together) and then he wouldn't be included in this either... hence, no CS for my son, since *legally* we are still married - even though he left 2y4m ago and has no contribution financially or otherwise to our household.
How would they handle that?
Food for thought.
 
#9 ·
Thanks for all the great feedback.

Well,since it's based on percentage on gross income, maybe the percentage could increase after a certain level of income, so as to be fairer to poor dads and more representative as to what rich dads should pay...Maybe they could give hierchachal levels - like platinum level or gold level depending on the income percentage they fall in, so as to add a touch of prestige to being in a larger percentage bracket... (major, seargeant, ect...)

If social security is national, why not a plan like that? Single mothers - past and present (and their adult children) make alot of people...

Good point about the cost of living differences... maybe the amount the mother received could be automatically adjusted for the cost of living in her county.

It is true that some women whose ex-husbands make alot of money would receive less under this plan, but it is also true that many women whose ex-husbands make alot of money would receive more than they are currently receiving. For example, the father may be very abusive to the children but threaten to press for custody if she presses for child support.This is apparently very common - and from what I just read in a book about women and law, not only, according to lawyers interviewed, do most men threaten to ask for (half)custody with the intent of keeping the woman from pressing for child support but men who are controlling are especially likely to ask for this in order to keep controlling their ex-spouse. Just go through the archives of the threads here and you will see many anguished posts about this sort of thing. (and I'm tired of it! Not of the women of whom I'm one, but the situation repeating itself over and over.) It is true that some children would receive less - but all children would receive enough. This seems more important. (Maybe there could be an extra level for men who choose to pay extra to their own children - like "Gold Plus"?)

To make sure it was enforced, it could be run by the IRS? Or a council of retired grandmothers who had been single mothers themselves?

Maybe the term "unmarried father" needs to be changed. But why should there only be a lump term for "single mothers" (to whom everybody points their fingers)? Single mothers are doing great! But what about many ( not all) of ... "fathers not in residence"... "unresidencial fathers"... ?

Maybe, there could be some money from the fund put aside, and once a year all those "'Semen Far From the Original Hearth' Bearers" (OK, maybe that term wouldn't work) could vote on a special project to help/educate all the children (a traveling science fair, ect...). Not only could they feel proud about this but they would also thus be recognized publicly for their contribution to the nation's children. And with their own eyes they could see the children in their neighborhood benefit.
 
#10 ·
A father's responsibility is to his own children. It is unfair to make a man pay his hard earned money when it is not even going to his own children. Just because a man helps to make a kid, doesn't mean he should have to help support other people's kids. I agree that poverty is a huge problem, but I think it would be better helped by our government making better choices with our tax money.

Oh, and what about the dead beat moms? Yes, there are plenty of them. I know at least two moms who left her husband and two children to run off with some guy from the internet. Do these moms have to join in as well, or are we only forcing men?
 
#11 ·
Another thing to consider concerning the connection between child support and custody is the establishment of paternity. For example, in my situation, I chose not to put my baby's father's name on the birth certificate and have not established paternity. Therefore I have also chosen to forego child support. I have done this because I know that if I took him to court to establish paternity and petition for child support, he would petition for visitation and possibly custody. To protect my baby and me from a man who is emotionally and verbally abusive, and has no genuine love for my baby, this is what I have chosen to do.

I assume he would only be required to participate in this national child support if paternity were established? Right? If so, that means moms like me are out of luck.
 
#12 ·
This is precisely why custody arrangements and child support would be seperated, and why it is the man's responsibility to admit his fatherhood. If a woman gave birth to a baby, it would not fall upon her to name him. Rather, (like a government audit), the Fund would begin an investigation, becoming detective-like and discovering (through coworkers, neighbors, ect...) the names of men she had recently known, and having paternity tests done. The fine would be so huge (like a student loan?) that it would be preferrable to have admitted his fatherhood up front. (Not to mention the indignity of the tested men towards the recalcitent father) That way, the father could not intimidate the mother. The mother could do nothing to stop the process and she would not be involved at all, so there would be no use in even trying to intimadate/scare her with pressing for custody.

When a mother has sex, she KNOWS what she is risking. Centuries of culture, in novels, morality, finger ponting and blaming, ect... tell her that if she gets pregnant, she definitely has 3 consequences - and there is no getting out of them. First is marriage - if the man will marry her and if he is an acceptable guy to marry. Second is abortion, with all the soul-searching that requires. Third is single parenthood with the strong threat of poverty. (Thank goodness, a fourth consequence is no longer ostricazation).

When a man has sex, is it clear what he is risking? Yes, it's clear to him what SHE is risking, but is it clear what HE is risking? Centuries of culture leave it debatable about his risks. If he is exteremely responsible and honourable, he might choose to marry. Otherwise...? The lawyers will be happy to tell him how to get out of it (that's their job): "press for custody -she won't pursue it..." He may be able to get out of it in a number of ways, and he knows this. On another thread about child support, a woman spoke of how the father has never bought one diaper, nothing for the child - even keeping the toothbrush. This is not really being abusive on his part in our society - only a cliche of "typical male behavior". How could a woman do this with her baby - not possible unless she is the rare abusive bird? This would definetely not be a cliche of "typical woman behavior". If a woman didn't buy her baby a diaper, she would be hauled off to court and sentenced by a (male) judge for not accepting her consequence - total devotion to the needs of the baby. The point is that perhaps men need to have a very clear consequence defined by society about playing around with their penis and not being careful (or merely having an unwanted accident). And this consequence shoud have nothing to do with the woman - just as society recognizes the deep responsibility of the woman alone if she becomes pregnant.

Yes, deadbeat moms would have to pay, although I must say, I have only known of one such mother personally. Much more customary is the mom giving ALL she can to the child. (Apparently, if a dollar of aid goes to a mother in a third world country, about 98% of it goes to her children; and if a a dollar of aid goes to a father - as aid usually does - only a relatively small percent of it goes to his children. This needs to be recognized. This awareness needs to considered when looking at children and man - woman dynamic, and child support.

(One way of looking at it is some social scientists - not sure what they're called - say that females tend to concentrate on their children and males on building up prestige - which of course could be useful to his children. But without necessarily knowing if one agrees with that, one could play with that...So then taking that into account, what might a different child support plan look like?)

Well, it seems to me the present system is not working. (And we'll never know how many women are in the situation of not receiving child support or too little because there is no way to count it - it's sort of "off the books". But it seems to me as if it's an unreasonable quantity.) From what I've been reading on these threads, what causes an unfavorable environment for the children to grow up in is (1) poverty and/or (2) conflict between the parents - not single parenthood at all.

So how could there be a child support plan that provides children in single parented home with a lack of poverty and, at the very same time, a lack of parental conflict? And, of course, that protects children from abuse? How could there be a reasonable child support plan that realistically takes into account this difference between most women and many men - and maybe even turns it into a positive factor for child, father, and mother?

Let's think outside the box... (and have some fun)...Any ideas, anyone?
 
#13 ·
Of course what complicates it are those cases of men who volunteer to help a "fair share" (more than what is required by law even), and who don't use this as a means to control the women... And men who take care of the child if the woman is not up to it. There are men like this , and I want to give credit where credit is due... Still, looking around, those men seem to be in the minority. Something about the set up is not working well...
 
#14 ·
unfortunatly this plan strongly suggests communism. it would be lovely because i am a mama who's babysdaddy is not paying a penny and never has!
he hasn't even sent her a card, not that she can read, but he knows i'd save it for her. anyways eventhough i would love for there to be a program like this, it is as somone said "un-american", and the kiddos with well off dads who pay a percentage of thier earnings shouldn't get less so that the broke kids can get somthing. and the fathers shouldn't have to send an additional check so that thier kids can have extras. it isn't fair. it is unrealistic. it is communism.

instead like someone else said(like how i'm too lazy to go back and see who it is
) tax dollars should be spent more wisely. more financial aid so single moms don't have to work & go to school too, and can therefore do it on their own eventually. single mom funds, gov takes tax dollars and sends a check to all the mom's not getting c.s from dads. better government funded daycare....i wouldn't be able to put fiona in daycare until all other options are exausted, but have you seen these dumps!!! i mean there pretty good for being free, but com'mon'! the gov ones should be like the "la chaperon rouge" (a yuppy daycare w/ survalence posted on internet for parents with thier kiddos in attendece). single motherhood by abandonment/abuse has become a serious epidemic and it needs to be recognized evenmore by the government.

the consiquences for skipping out (finacially) on a family you started need to be increased and enforced. i have known deadbeat dads, i had a deadbeat dad, and my daughter father is a deadbeat dad, and not a single f-in' one of um' has seen the inside of a jail cell for it!!!!

fathers who leave thier family or (by thier behavior)force thier family to leave them, and don't have a job or get one should be in jail! speaking from personal experience(and i know i'm not the only one) Miles is living off several different friends, and getting UNDER THE TABLE jobs here and there IN ORDER TO AVOID having his earning garnished to help his child thrive!!! and he is in and out of jail for theft & other petty charges, which(as crimes) pail in comparison to abandoning a mother and child!

anyways there's my $1.50. sorry i am not in support of other fathers supporting my baby and other kiddos sharing what's rightfully thier with my baby, but i think the burden should lie on the government who has taught these men that starting a family and pretending it never happend is okay and eventhough they say it will be enforced, the common reaction to child support enforcement is a joking manner, when it should be regarded with fear(on the fathers part, not the mothers!).
 
#15 ·
Quote:
It is true that some women whose ex-husbands make alot of money would receive less under this plan, but it is also true that many women whose ex-husbands make alot of money would receive more than they are currently receiving. For example, the father may be very abusive to the children but threaten to press for custody if she presses for child support.This is apparently very common - and from what I just read in a book about women and law, not only, according to lawyers interviewed, do most men threaten to ask for (half)custody with the intent of keeping the woman from pressing for child support but men who are controlling are especially likely to ask for this in order to keep controlling their ex-spouse. Just go through the archives of the threads here and you will see many anguished posts about this sort of thing. (and I'm tired of it! Not of the women of whom I'm one, but the situation repeating itself over and over.)
this is my current situation: husband is an abuser (very controlling) and was seeking half/half joint/physical/legal custody, ie. shared parenting (he basically wanted them to live with him for 6 months) because he basically doesn't want to pay all that child support. but he has already been told by the judge that that isn't going to happen. i will be primary physical custodian and he will recieve visitation, with me being the primary decision maker if there is something we can't agree on.
 
#17 ·
If the government picks up the slack for dads who don't pay child support/enough, then that means all the American people are picking up the slack and paying... (Isn't that "socialism"? Won't society keep pointing the finger at "single mothers" rather than considering the roles of men in this?)

Is there a way to set it up so that there's less conflict or interaction between an abusive/controlling father and a single mother, but he still is responsible and helps support the child? And that custody and chuild support remain seperate issues so that such a man can't "blackmail" a mother?
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Won't society keep pointing the finger at "single mothers" rather than considering the roles of men in this?
This is an excellent point, kira!

Quote:
Is there a way to set it up so that there's less conflict or interaction between an abusive/controlling father and a single mother, but he still is responsible and helps support the child?
I'd love to see FREE or low-cost post-divorce, co-parenting mediation. The continuing nastiness I see written about in this forum isn't something families should endure, just because the mom lacks funds to keep bringing the dude to court.

Quote:
And that custody and chuild support remain seperate issues so that such a man can't "blackmail" a mother?
If I understand you right, this already is the case in most or all US states & Canada: a child's right to child support is irrelevant to whether the guy gets visitation, and vice versa; parents can't deny the other visitation or $upport based on whether the other is delinquent.

Or are you talking about the initial court determination of amount of child support, where the father's $hare is reduced if he has 60% or more time per month, so some dads seek primary custody just to reduce their $upport?
 
#19 ·
Yes, about the initial court determination. For example, my child's father told me that if I pressed for child support, he would hire expensive lawyers I could not afford (he's a tenured professor) and obtain child support, even though he's not interested in the child at all. He does pay me some child support, but it is less than legal. Apparently, this is not uncommon. In the past threads here, many such fears are discussed. In a book about women and law, the lawyers polled stated that in the vast majority of the cases, men who pressed for custody or half custody did so in order to not pay child support.

It is in this step that women face a great disadvantage. But men have a great advantage. If they are the taking-responsibility type and care for their child and understand fully the implications of that, than they can choose to mediate privately and fairly with the wife, or fairly in court. But if the man is not competely resonsible, or irresponsible only in intimate manners, or angry at his ex-wife, or has a fear that he will be controlled by women if he's not careful, or.... then he can choose to attack (and attack it is) where a woman is most vulnerable - her child - and threaten to take away the child part of the time, not in love's name but in irresponsibility's name. (In all due respect, I think these men think they are being attacked through their wallet and look upon it as self defense.)

I think that something needs to be done at this step. And mediation sounds like a good idea and I would have supported it. But, according to this book I read on law and women, most women unknowingly agree to less child support than would have been awarded in court. To mediate means someone or both have to compromise, and women are more likely to compromise (they have more to lose) than men (who can afford to be harder negotiators). The mediator also wants them to come to an agreement, and so unconsciously puts more pressure on the one more likely to give up more - the mother.

So what can be done to change this situation? The only thing I can think of is to take the focus of child support off the mother-father relationship, and solely on father and government. With clear rules that are easier to accept, perhaps, rather than all these tules that can change according to lawters, state, ect... I'm just brainstorming....

Maybe we should have a poll here, but I don't know how to set it up: How many women
(1) mediated calmly and fairly with the father outside court
(2) ended up with a fair situation through a court decision
(3) were threatened by an abusive/potentially abusive or uninvolved father who said they would press for custody/half custody unless the women didn't try to get child support and thus don't get any child support
(4) same as 3 except the father gives them some child support anyway, but less
(5) same as 3 except the mother went ahead and pressed and shares custody but worries about child
(6) same as 5 except father lost court case
(7) none of the above - specify

Does anyone know how to set it up?
 
#21 ·
I hope I didn't sound "heated". I'm really interested in having an intelligent discussion about this, and hearing what ideas people have.

I'm hoping something can come out of this that helps other mothers. It doesn't need to be my idea - I'm just trying to get the ball rolling, and offer what I've learned.

My 2 main reasons for having uniform payments to children was (1) all children would be taken care of (2) fathers would know exactly what to expect, and perhaps they wouldn't feel as if "their ex-wife was getting something unfairly from him that wasn't hers" if they knew that their wife was getting no more and no less than any other mother. He wouldn't feel "used", that she were getting a "free ride" from him having worked so hard to get where he was professionally because everyone would know that's how much all fathers donated towards their children upkeeping. So maybe that would reduce the conflict and resistance towards child support. But that's only one idea out of potentially hundreds.
 
#22 ·
It's just such a complicated issue.

I agree that it's the father's responsibility and that their child "deserves" to live as well as both parents can possibly afford.....but in reality, how often does that really happen??? I'd be interested to see real stats on how many ex's pay the legal amount of child support, on time, every month etc. Even my ex, who has been great about paying owes me over $2000 in back pay that I will likely never see.

I like Seasons idea FREE or low-cost post-divorce, co-parenting mediation. But the problem again, is if one or both parents aren't willing to cooperate, it won't make a darn bit of difference.

There are still scum-bag dads out there (like my ex's brother) who just quits his job when he's ordered to pay child support. He figures that if they force him to pay, he'd rather quit his job! YIKES!

I'm just not sure about the whole thing. I like the idea of money going to single moms. Somehow it seems "better" than the idea of welfare (which has such a stigma attached to it), but I'm just not sure that it would fly!
 
#23 ·
A look at any child support calculator will tell a father what to expect. Children are the responsibility of the parents, and not the state. Delinquent non-custodial parents can be brought to court.

If the conflict and resistance to paying child support begs another solution to make parents "feel" better, perhaps eradicating my parking tickets will help me so I do not foster ill will as well.

L.J., There are minimum payments in my state, regardless of whether or not the parent is employed. Perhaps in other states?
 
#24 ·
Quote:

Originally Posted by paloma
There are minimum payments in my state, regardless of whether or not the parent is employed. Perhaps in other states?
Do you know what that minimum is? In MI it is $5. $5 a month if he quits his job. The Judge told me (not ex because he skipped that meeting) that if he quits his job or loses his job to come into the court the next morning and let him know. If he does that then he'll lower the support payment to $5/month and he will not get any arrears for when he's out of work.
: If he doesn't tell the Judge and just stops paying then the arrears just keeps building up. Now tell me, how freaking fair to DS is that? I would understand if some freak accident happened and ex wasn't able to work for a while. That I could understand. But that's basically giving him permission to be a lazy bum and not support his son. I am so glad ex never went to that meeting (hence why he has a warrent out for him right now).
 
#25 ·
Quote:
A look at any child support calculator will tell a father what to expect.
Respectfully, I diagree. Oh, I mean, I agree that the calculators exist. But (a) many deadbeats, especially the kind who walk out on marital/child-conception vows, think that rules are for "other people" and that they can declare their own path. That is certainly my ex's case, and given the stories here of exes flouting court visitation, support, etc. orders, I suspect others' exes are in that "not me!" boat. (b) the calculator truly isn't accurate. It says what the statute provides. Well, very few kids get the total child support amount to which they are entitled (Google for proper studies, but this thread evidences that trend). My ex, for instance, SHOULD owe several times what he pays. After atty bills in the thousands of dollars, nope, I couldn't fight any more; the mediator ordered the minimum. And we're doing another round now (support is recalculated every few years) and -- well, let's just say I cry a lot. I've spent an incredible amount just, futilely, trying to get him to give me his tax returns so I can go to court to get support adjusted. He's trying the "you can't get blood from a stone" method, and it's working.
 
#26 ·
One can always subponea tax returns. I know parents who have been ordered to get jobs.

My DH says he makes 1/3 of his true income. I am not in any priveleged class.

My main opposition is to the government specifically acting as parent and supporting my child. Government support does not exist without control. In many cases, it is sad, but the parent is the parent; never a government agency(, unless the parents are unfit).
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top