Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Dead Beat Dad - Completely Unfair Label?

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join

posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by generik
the way the laws currently stand in regards to abortion "deadbeat dad" IS an unfair label. the woman seems to have a choice as to whether a child is born while the men get none. as long as this holds, men should NOT be forced to pay a cent if they want nothing to do with the child. before the birth a man should be able to say that he does not want the child and thereafter should be off the hook since the choice is the female's alone.


The problem with this kind of thinking is that you're practically giving men the free will to engage in as much as sex with as many women as he can without ever having to fear any responsibility. This will not solve the states problem in having to financially take care of other people's piss poor impulse control. Furthermore, by not promoting responsibility among ADULTS we are likely to start reducing the affected population to an infantile state - People who cannot function as adults. They cant hack working, they're generally unproductive (like a lazy teenager) and a slave to their needs without ever knowing how to meet them. Adults who behave in such a way are normally labelled Idiots/Scum/Layabouts.



the laws really should be changed to give the father an EQUAL voice in regards to an abortion. if the female does not want the kid then SHE can let it be known before the birth SHE wants nothing to do with the child and would then not have to pay support as that would be on the father who DID want the child., and vice versa. of course in regards to rape (must be proven 100%, no just claiming it was) then of course the "rapist" should have no say in the matter (and yes females can rape too). and the father must be proven with a DNA test to be sure they are the father, if no father is "known" then they should broadcast looking for the father in order to insure they have their fair choice in the matter. if the father can not be found then the child should be let be born in case the father can be located later, the child can then be place in foster care and adopted then if the father is found he can chose to take responsibility or not. this would tend to make sure that ladies would keep track of those they slept with as well as stop them from cutting out a male in spite.


This would be a shambles of a system. Really now, chasing potential fathers around to find out if they're in or out? What a waste of time and money. Again, This would be adults acting like children - Running away from their problems.



in a case where both parents decide to have the kid but go their separate ways, (like with divorce). there should be no child support at all. the FAIR way of dealing with it is BOTH parents SHARE the responsibility of the child. that is BOTH parents have the kid live with them 50% of the time (probably should live with each one or two months at a time, switching around so both have equal time for different holidays birthdays etc). this would be much fairer than the currant one parent getting screwed in regards to not only rarely (if ever) having the child but forced to pay out on top of it.only in the case of one parent not wanting to take care of the child should child support be required. other than that if both share equally in caring for the child they would each be taking care of the needed expenses while they are living with the child. not only would it be better for BOTH parents involved but also much better for the children. in a case where one parent decides to say move a distance away then THAT parent should shoulder the responsibility of getting the child back and forth., or they can come up with an agreement with the other party about how it will work, it could be in a case like that that the child spend a year at a time at each parents house so as not to interfere too much with schooling and such. and no vacations and such without the other parent KNOWING at all times where the child is and be in contact, so as to avoid kidnapping.


That system isnt compatible with REAL LIFE.


i have known way TOO MANY men that are screwed in a divorce, so that not only do they have to pay much more than they can afford, but they also never see the kids at all. sometimes they are hit so hard by the "alimony and child support", parents will quit a well paying job in order to go on welfare so that they can afford to live themselves. even better is the putting of "deadbeat dads" in jail, because they either don't have a job or barely make enough to live on, thus making it even harder for this person to get a job or a better paying job, not to mention that they also get to "pay for their stay" on top of everything else. i would think that a 50% shared custody would nicely take care of those types of problems.


I think you are delusional in many aspects of you're thinking.




posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
A man only pays 15% of his wage to a mother of his children.

I know one guy who has 4 kids from different mothers. He pays and gets on with life,

His kids are provided for well, and he sees all of them and although he isnt with the mothers at least the tax payer doesnt have to pay.

So two options have the men pay

Or the tax payer....

And he has plenty of money left for holidays, girlfriends, his apartment and fun.
Hes an average earner.
edit on 21-5-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)


15% is not necessarily true.
the united states court system can take the non custodial parent down to poverty level. if the non custodial parent is under employed there may be reason to only take 15% of the non custodial parent's wage.


poverty guideline for the federal government:
aspe.hhs.gov...

quote from minesota child support guidelines and note that this is a minimum not a maximum this example is the low end of the support scale:
www.dhs.state.mn.us...



Minimum basic support amount
If the obligor’s gross income is less than 120 percent (120%) of the Federal Poverty Guidelines for one person, the support Guidelines call for the following minimum basic support obligation:

• $50 per month for one or two children
• $75 per month for three or four children
• $100 per month for five or more children
If the court finds that the obligor has no ability to earn income, it won't order the minimum basic support.



a simple fix:
custodial parent assumes all financial responsibility.
financial resposibility should be separate and not considered a basis for determining the parenting time for the non custodial parent.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 05:58 AM
link   
OP, what's your problem? You got someone pregnant, you don't want to pay for your responsibility to that child?
You'd rather keep acting like a child yourself and keep playing without the responsibilities that come from having sex?

Let me explain something to you junior, it takes TWO TO TANGO, YOU could have decided to NOT engage in sexual activity with this woman, YOU could have put on a condom. YOU take responsibility for YOUR part of the actions.

The reason you pay for support is because that child need food, clothing, medical care, transportation and shelter. Child support and alimony/spousal support are entirely 2 different things.
Now, if you have an issue with how your support is being used, you go to court and show negligence on the mothers part, that she's not using the support to take care of your child.

Now before you ask, yes I pay child support to the tune of $450.00 a month. I have no issue with her using it to pay part of her rent or whatever. She works, but makes very little in wages. As long as she has a roof over her and his head, food in their stomachs, clothes on his back, I don't care how its spent. Not only do I pay for the support, I also pay for clothing, haircuts, school supplies and karate lessons. I do all this on my veterans disability, which most here can tell you, it ain't much.
Now, you probably think that she shouldn't use it for anything but food and clothes for the child, but you are incorrect. The custodial parent has to transport your child to school, dr, daycare etc. she has to adjust her plans around the child, that's how it works, that's the real world.

In closing, you sound EXACTLY what the title is called, a DEAD BEAT. Put on your man pants and step up to the plate and take care of your child. Next time, keep it in yor pants if you can't man up.
People like you make me sick.
edit on 5/22/2013 by HomerinNC because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 06:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SearchLightsInc

Originally posted by generik

The problem with this kind of thinking is that you're practically giving men the free will to engage in as much as sex with as many women as he can without ever having to fear any responsibility.


just like how things now stand we give women "the free will to engage in as much as sex with as many" MEN as she can without fear of responsibility, and even PROFIT from it?


This will not solve the states problem in having to financially take care of other people's piss poor impulse control. Furthermore, by not promoting responsibility among ADULTS we are likely to start reducing the affected population to an infantile state - People who cannot function as adults. They cant hack working, they're generally unproductive (like a lazy teenager) and a slave to their needs without ever knowing how to meet them. Adults who behave in such a way are normally labelled Idiots/Scum/Layabouts.


oh you mean just like now in regards to a lot of women who have kids so THEY don't have to work? what you just said sounds like a LOT of single mothers i know living off both child support and welfare so they don't have to get a job yet can still get money to live on. not to mention not "promoting responsibility among ADULTS", as many will sleep with any guy it seems. so in reality all that would change is putting the onus on the females for having kids as single mothers, instead of the males who have no say whatsoever in whether or not their is an abortion. it doesn't take two to have a kid these days. it takes two to conceive then lets ONE make financial obligations for the other. yup that seems fair.
that's one reason BOTH male and female should have equal say in abortion, it would put the onus squarely on one or both of the parties for taking care of the financial responsibilities of THEIR CHOICES.


This would be a shambles of a system. Really now, chasing potential fathers around to find out if they're in or out? What a waste of time and money. Again, This would be adults acting like children - Running away from their problems.


why would it be a shambles? because it would mean ladies who get pregnant would need to know who all they slept with? as long as women kept track of people they slept with it shouldn't be a problem, or if they don't THEY can bear the financial burden of finding out. seems to me that should keep them from "acting like children - Running away from their problems". it should even help their being a bit more responsible for their actions. unlike the situation stands now.



in a case where both parents decide to have the kid but go their separate ways, (like with divorce). there should be no child support at all. the FAIR way of dealing with it is BOTH parents SHARE the responsibility of the child. that is BOTH parents have the kid live with them 50% of the time (probably should live with each one or two months at a time, switching around so both have equal time for different holidays birthdays etc). this would be


That system isnt compatible with REAL LIFE.[\quote]

why is it not? the currant system is rather unfair to ALL who are involved except in the cases where the parent (normally the mother), is earning their living by having kids for others to pay them to take care of. surely it would be FAR better or the kids having BOTH parents involved in raising them. one reason i mentioned 1 or 2 month blocks is so that the kids will have a fairly stable environment. it's fairer for both the parents AND the children since their would be no "i have to deal with the kids during the week, and be a parent, while you get all the good times and be a friend to them without the responsibilities". and also like i mentioned in cases of long distance a year with each parent would keep it from disrupting school. kids SUFFER from being estranged from one parent, and the parent definitely suffers from it.


I think you are delusional in many aspects of you're thinking.


what is "delusional" is people thinking the way things are now is better. better not to divorce or have kids while single, but since adults have to be let do as they please better to reduce the harm done to all in the situation. at least what i said is one hell of a lot fairer and better for all concerned than they are now.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 07:48 AM
link   
sorry i only read the OP. stop and go freeway rush hour driving ony gives me so much time.

perhaps the "father having the choice post birth" option would make more sense only in a state that allows abortion. since that decision making kind of shares upon itself within those topics.


the term "dead beat dad" should only apply to men who are purposfully unimployed, or are looking for loopholes like working for cash so to evade the payments. that i can agree with.
but simply having a crappy job and struggling with child support and your own life at the same time, thats not fair.

the second a woman makes child support all about wealth (or a lack of), then she is lost to the true care of her child.
every mother i know who recieves child support act like its magic income, and enjoys the feeling of sticking it to the man more then the feeling of her child being cared for.

the same woman who depend on men to pay for their child, were the same ones demanding the 50s style american dream that has long not existed, yet expect a man to give it to her. either when she was with him at conception, or post baby with the checks.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:32 AM
link   
I have to say, I am shocked by some of the responses here! First off, I am a women. I also agree with alot of what the OP has to say.
First off, hello people, BIRTH CONTROL IS NOT 100%!!! Condoms break, birth control is not 100% effective!
And to the poster that quoted 15% of wages, I loved to know where, cause here in MI, they go after the men for way more than that.
I was divorced. My ex was a complete A hole. I wasn't. When I was on assistance for a bit, he had to pay alot of money. When I got off, I actually lowered it for him.

And I'm sorry, but after a drunk'n night of unprotected sex, if the guy asks the girl to take the morning after pill, and she doesn't do it, that is her fault. Sorry, but one thing I haven't noticed brought up here, are the women that try to trap men with a baby. And don't even try to say that doesn't happen.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:46 AM
link   
WOW no wonder, people don't even notice the double standard?

He has to pay because he sticked it in? wtf was he sticking it in? an inanimate object? WOW!

Unless it was rape THEN BOTH needs to take responsibilities.

The law is so messed up now, women make mistake, they are good to go, but men make a mistake, he is screwed for 18 yrs.

If there is a disagreement between the couple whether the child should be born or not, then one person should be voided of responsibility.

If man wanted child, then its up to the women to decide whether she wants to carry it or not. If women wants the child and men does not, then men does not hold any responsibility.

It takes two to make a fetus and it NEEDS two to make a decision for destroying it as well.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomEntered
 


Oh how I wish that was true.

I pay 35% of my base pay plus half of day care costs.

No idea where you are that 15% is the cost of support.

@OP - It's never going to be in a man's realm to decide to keep or abort a child. Simple way to avoid the issue is to not get anyone pregnant. Paying the piper as it were......



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:51 AM
link   
You lot are IDEALISTS.

There will be tons of orphans in the world given your idea of women NOT being able to have abortions without the guys consent. A guy has no right to pursaude a woman not to abort.


And more rubbish, abusive and complicated relationships and court cases.


And men should consider themselves quite lucky that ALL they do is pay child support and not have to be there every day physically, mentally and emotionally for their own offspring. Cowards.,...
edit on 22-5-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 


In the UK men pay 15% to child support, and the more kids that they have sometimes the less they pay.

Many men know how to avoid paying child support at all, using accountants and such like. Some are name and shamed for this " criminal " behaviour. They have a huge house, porshe and so forth whilst the woman is left behind sometimes living a life with 3 children in a form of poverty.

I know men who pay child support and have a very nice and dandy life.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:55 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomEntered
 




A guy has no right to pursaude a woman not to abort.


Then he does not have to pay for it. He or She alone did not make the baby. It was not rape.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 08:57 AM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


AS soon as a man has a baby on this earth plane he HAS to pay, in other words when his DNA is on this planet and half of his own person exists. Its time for him to take responsibility for the choice he made to have sex.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:00 AM
link   
I cant believe men are too stingy to pay 15% of their wage to a child of theirs. Insane....

Some women who have had unprotected sex with men who are on a lower wage. Get I think £5 a week. Yes this actually exists!!!!!

..
edit on 22-5-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:05 AM
link   
reply to post by Bisman
 


I agree minimum wage fathers shouldnt be called deadbeats if they are paying.

A deadbeat is a guy who actively is avoiding his responsibility and blames the other parent for all their woes and the relationship.

Wheather a relationship lasted 5 minutes or a year it was still relationship. Relationships have risks. That both people have to take extra precautions to assure that these situations do not accur.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:13 AM
link   
reply to post by FreedomEntered
 


I'm not complaining


I have a son and I pay my support. 17 1/2 years without missing a payment. I would be lying if I said I'm not happy it's almost over though.

I cannot see how someone would complain about 15%, unless of course they weren't allowed contact.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:17 AM
link   
reply to post by 200Plus
 


Glad its over ..

Well yes its sad when people make wrong choices partner wise, happens not only for singletons but also for husbands/wives.

One night stand unprotected sex is really moronic and yes it will be the case one day men have the pill. But sadly you will still find men making babies even when this happens. Because people forget with things like pills.

Very responsible people are just going to lead the lives they want.

People who risk take are going to get all sorts not only babies and std's.

As for women getting their hair and nails done thats fine, yes I have seen and know a child whos mother is this way. She has missed out. But the father did TRY AND THIS is this bottom line.
edit on 22-5-2013 by FreedomEntered because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
reply to post by luciddream
 


AS soon as a man has a baby on this earth plane he HAS to pay, in other words when his DNA is on this planet and half of his own person exists. Its time for him to take responsibility for the choice he made to have sex.



THE CHOICE >>HE



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:26 AM
link   

Originally posted by FreedomEntered
You lot are IDEALISTS.

There will be tons of orphans in the world given your idea of women NOT being able to have abortions without the guys consent. A guy has no right to pursaude a woman not to abort.


there is a bit of a difference between YOUR biological child and adopting one. nothing wrong with adoption, yet i know i would not like to see my offspring murdered just because a someone else decides it is an inconvenience to them.



And men should consider themselves quite lucky that ALL they do is pay child support and not have to be there every day physically, mentally and emotionally for their own offspring.


most men i know certainly DON'T feel lucky because " ALL they do is pay child support and not have to be there every day physically, mentally and emotionally for their own offspring". they would MUCH RATHER have at least a PART of THEIR CHILD'S lives. but they never got THAT CHANCE they just get to shell out the bucks month after month without even HEARING from their children. they of course could go to court again, but they have NO MONEY to spare after the blood sucking leaches suck it all up that they would need to hire a really good lawyer just so they can try to get rights. normally those that manage to scrape up enough get judgments to allow this find they just get ignored anyway, or all of a sudden they have "protection orders" against them for made up bull. or the lady and kids up and disappear. most MEN would love to be there every day physically, mentally and emotionally for their own offspring, but sadly they never GET THAT CHANCE.


Cowards.,..


the true cowards are those that keep their kids from seeing or being with the other parent, yet fully expect that parent to keep on paying them, for that privilege. or those cowards that are so scared of having a bundle of joy they will kill it instead, even IF the other party is MORE THAN WILLING to care for and provide for that child. THOSE ARE THE TRUE COWARDS.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 09:34 AM
link   
reply to post by generik
 




...expect that parent to keep on paying them, THOSE ARE THE TRUE COWARDS....


Completely agree!

Current laws given SOME women to void responsibilities...

"hey i'm having sex, its a win-win situation for me"

"if i want to fool around more ill just get rid of it, and it won't be murder"

"if i want to keep it, well, ill just have the guy i don't even know the name, pay for it! while i find another boyfriend who will treat me like a princess, while my child grows with nanny"

"but he better not forced me to abort, because that would be murder!"

"i love the justice system"

I wanna find these males who made the justice system and neuter them, because they don't need it. It is seriously flawed and we have people here defending it.



posted on May, 22 2013 @ 10:19 AM
link   


Originally posted by generik

The problem with this kind of thinking is that you're practically giving men the free will to engage in as much as sex with as many women as he can without ever having to fear any responsibility.


just like how things now stand we give women "the free will to engage in as much as sex with as many" MEN as she can without fear of responsibility, and even PROFIT from it?


Free will kind of gets taken out of it when you have to carry the resulting child or attain an abortion, both initiate a responsibility on the woman's part, so your "free will for women" nonsense is void.



This will not solve the states problem in having to financially take care of other people's piss poor impulse control. Furthermore, by not promoting responsibility among ADULTS we are likely to start reducing the affected population to an infantile state - People who cannot function as adults. They cant hack working, they're generally unproductive (like a lazy teenager) and a slave to their needs without ever knowing how to meet them. Adults who behave in such a way are normally labelled Idiots/Scum/Layabouts.


oh you mean just like now in regards to a lot of women who have kids so THEY don't have to work? what you just said sounds like a LOT of single mothers i know living off both child support and welfare so they don't have to get a job yet can still get money to live on. not to mention not "promoting responsibility among ADULTS", as many will sleep with any guy it seems. so in reality all that would change is putting the onus on the females for having kids as single mothers, instead of the males who have no say whatsoever in whether or not their is an abortion. it doesn't take two to have a kid these days. it takes two to conceive then lets ONE make financial obligations for the other. yup that seems fair.
that's one reason BOTH male and female should have equal say in abortion, it would put the onus squarely on one or both of the parties for taking care of the financial responsibilities of THEIR CHOICES.


I dont condone women having babies so that they can be kept by the state, i think its bad for society all around. Men do have a say btw, they can choose not to sleep with a women and if they do, they can choose to wrap it up, it just takes some personal responsibility.



why would it be a shambles? because it would mean ladies who get pregnant would need to know who all they slept with? as long as women kept track of people they slept with it shouldn't be a problem, or if they don't THEY can bear the financial burden of finding out. seems to me that should keep them from "acting like children - Running away from their problems". it should even help their being a bit more responsible for their actions. unlike the situation stands now.


You're seriously suggesting that the courts should chase men around so that they can either accept/deny fatherhood - Waste of money & time. You might be surprised to hear that not all women who get pregnant are super sluttish hood rats who cant keep their legs shut :O!



why is it not? the currant system is rather unfair to ALL who are involved except in the cases where the parent (normally the mother), is earning their living by having kids for others to pay them to take care of. surely it would be FAR better or the kids having BOTH parents involved in raising them. one reason i mentioned 1 or 2 month blocks is so that the kids will have a fairly stable environment. it's fairer for both the parents AND the children since their would be no "i have to deal with the kids during the week, and be a parent, while you get all the good times and be a friend to them without the responsibilities". and also like i mentioned in cases of long distance a year with each parent would keep it from disrupting school. kids SUFFER from being estranged from one parent, and the parent definitely suffers from it.


No one wants to move 6 times a year. Maybe the child would prefer to live with 1 parent and see the other on weekends? Uprooting a child for 1 year at a time could be disastrous for them socially, as ive said, it just doesnt fit in with real life.


what is "delusional" is people thinking the way things are now is better. better not to divorce or have kids while single, but since adults have to be let do as they please better to reduce the harm done to all in the situation. at least what i said is one hell of a lot fairer and better for all concerned than they are now.


Yes but your "solutions" arent really viable. You sound like an angry teenage boy with no perception of how the world works :S





new topics

top topics



 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join