Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Father ordered to pay child support to his ex...3 of 4 kids not his.

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by billm View Post
    Sadly, you're not kidding with this question. So, it is ethically okay in your opinion for two people to create a child, and then walk away and not support that child?
    The difference between us is what you consider to be the relevant choice. For you, the relevant choice is the act of unprotected intercourse. Obligations arise from the ejaculate, regardless of whether there was any intention to produce a child.

    For me, obligations arise from the intention to create or raise a child. That is the choice that I believe is important. Sex in itself is fun. I think it is reasonable for adults to want to have sex, but to not want to raise a child. Birth control is not foolproof. Why should people be punished for having sex when they did not want a child?

    If the mother has chosen to bring a child to term, then that is her choice, and her financial responsibility. If a stepparent has decided to marry an individual with kids (of whom that parent has custody), then that also creates a financial obligation. A father who is living with the mother or acts as a parent has clearly taken on the responsibility, financial and otherwise, of being a parent.

    If a guy has a vasectomy and wears a condom, there is still a (small) probability of a pregnancy resulting. Given that he has clearly indicated his wish not to have a child, and taken active steps in that regard, is it your belief that he should be obligated to provide the mother with money for her to enjoy a higher standard of living?

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Janus View Post
      The difference between us is what you consider to be the relevant choice. For you, the relevant choice is the act of unprotected intercourse. Obligations arise from the ejaculate, regardless of whether there was any intention to produce a child.

      For me, obligations arise from the intention to create or raise a child. That is the choice that I believe is important. Sex in itself is fun. I think it is reasonable for adults to want to have sex, but to not want to raise a child. Birth control is not foolproof. Why should people be punished for having sex when they did not want a child?

      If the mother has chosen to bring a child to term, then that is her choice, and her financial responsibility. If a stepparent has decided to marry an individual with kids (of whom that parent has custody), then that also creates a financial obligation. A father who is living with the mother or acts as a parent has clearly taken on the responsibility, financial and otherwise, of being a parent.

      If a guy has a vasectomy and wears a condom, there is still a (small) probability of a pregnancy resulting. Given that he has clearly indicated his wish not to have a child, and taken active steps in that regard, is it your belief that he should be obligated to provide the mother with money for her to enjoy a higher standard of living?
      So if a man or a woman refuses to pay child support (take responsibility) than its ok for the other parent to deny all access?

      Comment


      • #78
        Originally posted by Janus View Post
        ...
        If a guy has a vasectomy and wears a condom, there is still a (small) probability of a pregnancy resulting. Given that he has clearly indicated his wish not to have a child, and taken active steps in that regard, is it your belief that he should be obligated to provide the mother with money for her to enjoy a higher standard of living?
        Yes

        (I'll ignore your off topic 'how the CS is spent' injection).

        Comment


        • #79
          Originally posted by Janus View Post
          The difference between us is what you consider to be the relevant choice. For you, the relevant choice is the act of unprotected intercourse. Obligations arise from the ejaculate, regardless of whether there was any intention to produce a child.

          For me, obligations arise from the intention to create or raise a child. That is the choice that I believe is important. Sex in itself is fun. I think it is reasonable for adults to want to have sex, but to not want to raise a child. Birth control is not foolproof. Why should people be punished for having sex when they did not want a child?

          If the mother has chosen to bring a child to term, then that is her choice, and her financial responsibility. If a stepparent has decided to marry an individual with kids (of whom that parent has custody), then that also creates a financial obligation. A father who is living with the mother or acts as a parent has clearly taken on the responsibility, financial and otherwise, of being a parent.

          If a guy has a vasectomy and wears a condom, there is still a (small) probability of a pregnancy resulting. Given that he has clearly indicated his wish not to have a child, and taken active steps in that regard, is it your belief that he should be obligated to provide the mother with money for her to enjoy a higher standard of living?
          All this from a guy who wants to lower his CS obligations and put the burden on his ex's new husband.

          Janus, maybe you should ask him if his intentions are to pay for and raise your children?

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by murphyslaw View Post
            So if a man or a woman refuses to pay child support (take responsibility) than its ok for the other parent to deny all access?
            A parent with access has chosen to take on responsibility. My arguments in this thread do not apply to situations where a parent has access and exercises that access.

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by billm View Post
              All this from a guy who wants to lower his CS obligations and put the burden on his ex's new husband.?
              Ah, very classy. Should I go ad hominem on you as well? Is that what you do when you have run out of arguments?

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by Janus
                Silly catholic, kids come from sex.

                Immaculate conception is just a story, I wouldn't read too much into it.
                Originally posted by Janus View Post
                Ah, very classy. Should I go ad hominem on you as well? Is that what you do when you have run out of arguments?
                You're kidding, right?

                Comment


                • #83
                  I was being tongue-in-cheek. You were being personal.

                  Hopefully you can understand the difference.

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by Janus View Post
                    A parent with access has chosen to take on responsibility. My arguments in this thread do not apply to situations where a parent has access and exercises that access.
                    A person who refuses to pay child support (the childs right) has dodged responsibility.Being a parent isnt just seeing the kid,in order to keep in contact with the ex.Being a parent is providing for the needs of the child.Anyone can be a sperm/egg donor .It takes dedication and sacrifice to be a parent.

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by murphyslaw View Post
                      A person who refuses to pay child support (the childs right) has dodged responsibility.Being a parent isnt just seeing the kid,in order to keep in contact with the ex.Being a parent is providing for the needs of the child.Anyone can be a sperm/egg donor .It takes dedication and sacrifice to be a parent.
                      I completely agree.

                      Anyone can be a sperm/egg donor, but it does take something more to be a parent. I just think that the choice to be a parent should be, well, a choice. Having a genetic link to a child does not make it a choice. Having sex does not imply that a choice was made to raise a child.

                      Most people on this forum made a deliberate choice to have children. For those parents without choice though, insisting that they have an obligation is, in my opinion, inherently wrong. That is all I am saying.

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        This is a very good topic with a lot of good responses.

                        I think that all the looming threats of what can happen to a person who enters a relationship with someone who has kids ultimately hurts everyone, but especially the parent. They might be able to cash in on a failed relationship, but who the hell would want to get into a relationship with them after that? If I ever met someone who did this, I'd run far away and never look back. Red flag...

                        It's goofy, because if you're a new person who enters a relationship with a person who has kids, usually the natural instinct is to try and have a relationship with the kids... and if you're a person who happens to like kids, then you want to provide for them and do stuff with them, simply because it's your compassionate nature. Why does it have to mean you're acting as a parent? Janus made a good point when he asked if people who love his kids should have to provide for them financially. The answer is clearly no, because there's a difference between wanting to be a parental figure and simply wanting to be a positive influence in the childrens' lives. You can't go after every person who comes in and out of a child's life, but for some reason some poor individual who simply had good intentions and happened to be in a relationship with the parent ends up being taken for a sucker, and this is especially appalling when they have two biological parents who hold that obligation. I buy clothing, school supplies, groceries and gifts for my partner's kids, and I take them out for lunch - but I also do this for my nieces and nephew. Does that mean I'm acting as a parent to them? Would I be financially obligated to them because of this? It's sad, because nobody should have to worry about something like this. To me the bottom line should be that nobody is obligated to support children that don't belong to them, unless they have legally adopted them. It's far too easy to stick someone with that obligation and to say that they acted as a parent simply because they were there. The criteria the courts set for determining this is very vague. Any good thing a person does for someone else's kids can be interpeted as a parental act and matched against the court's criteria. It's nonsense.

                        So the fact that this can create a long-term obligation to support them financially would presumably prevent a person from putting themselves in that situation if they're aware of the risks, and thus it hurts everyone.

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Janus View Post
                          Having sex does not imply that a choice was made to raise a child.
                          Maybe that's our problem. Having sex always has the possibility, however slim, of creating children, even when neither party intends it. However, should it occur, both people should be responsible for the results, even if those results weren't their intention. You may not agree, but the choice to have sex does also come with the implied choice to support any children that may result.

                          If you do something like borrow your neighbour's car and your kid pukes in it, do you do the ethical thing and pay to have it cleaned, or do you return it as is, claiming that you didn't intend for the kid to puke when you borrowed it?

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                            Maybe that's our problem. Having sex always has the possibility, however slim, of creating children, even when neither party intends it. However, should it occur, both people should be responsible for the results, even if those results weren't their intention. You may not agree, but the choice to have sex does also come with the implied choice to support any children that may result.
                            Got to agree with you Rioe, it's a choice to have sex and it has very serious responsibilities.... We know it, we've been told it a million times just like smoking. As fun as it is, obviously (the sex part).

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                              Maybe that's our problem. Having sex always has the possibility, however slim, of creating children, even when neither party intends it. However, should it occur, both people should be responsible for the results, even if those results weren't their intention. You may not agree, but the choice to have sex does also come with the implied choice to support any children that may result.
                              Do you think that women should have the right to not support the child by having an abortion?

                              If a woman gives a baby up for adoption, is she on the hook for child support?

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by oink View Post
                                Bet you take the same stance on Euthanasia?

                                The question below.....the same can be asked why the law automatically thinks the mother is the one most capable of looking after the kids, and awards her sole custody

                                I guess a lot of judges that make these rules are just females?
                                Do I believe in euthanasia? I personally think that depends on the circumstances. People who have their animals euthanized simply because they don't want to care for them anymore makes me sick, however a year ago I had my beloved dog euthanized because she was full of cancer... I personally find euthanasia for sick animals a much better choice then what human go through...you know the whole just lying in a hospital bed dying when they are terminally ill... no one should have to go through that and suffer like that.

                                When it comes to abortion, the only reason I would agree with abortion is if the child was conceived by rape... in that situation, obviously the woman (or man) did not consent to the act, therefore should have the chance to make such a decision but two people who willingly perform the act, should have to take responsibility for that act.

                                I think as the years go on, more and more fathers are being awarded sole or shared custody... yes years ago Mom was always awarded sole custody, but back then it was the norm for the mother to stay home while Dad was out working... that is no longer the norm... stay at home parents are decreasing and both parents are forced to work because of our economy. There are also more and more females that are climbing the corporate ladder and making more than their male partners... which is why things are starting to change where when it comes to parental leave, more fathers are taking this leave due to being the lower wage earner.

                                Things are changing... not as fast as everyone would like, be things are moving forward int he right direction.

                                Comment

                                Our Divorce Forums
                                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                                Working...
                                X