The Abolishment of Modern Indentured Servitude

Post Reply New Topic

So do we base public policy on the ignorance of the masses? I, for one, have no interest is freeing deadbeat dads from what they perceive to be their ex-wive's "punishment" because they fail to consider the best interests of their children.

It's not just "ex-wives," though. While ex-marrieds are no doubt a problem, at least they at one point could point to some legal document that said "at one time" they were committed to family matters, accepting the "risk" of children and the expenses incurred. It should come as no surprise that one parent or the other should demand support of the other, which you'd expect to happen within the marriage without any official legal obligation to do so. Even in cases of divorce, you'd expect nothing to change, that the partner would freely support the children without question. But in cases where the partner who keeps custody of the children makes unreasonable demands, you will probably find that the demands are motivated more out of greed rather than need.

Though I and my family are unaffected by divorce, "need" is the primary motivator and is moderated by "means." The day we closed our checking accounts in favor of savings and "cash-only" was the happiest in our recent history.

You REAL deadbeats, in my opinion, are the youngest of us having sex as teenagers and not bothering with precautions, preventatives, or regard for the risk of pregnancy. Typically you can't demand monetary support from the deadbeat dad because he's too young to get more than an entry-level job. If every penny is going to his ex-girlfriend/common-law wife he's not going to have much motivation to work because there's no reward in working. He might as well be a slave, and it could take years before he can really recover anything for all the work he puts in.

I don't think it's fair to hold his parents responsible for his actions. But on the other hand, if they allow him to work while supporting him with a place to live, food to eat, and transportation, they are tacitly condoning what he did in getting the poor girl pregnant. So I suppose if they're ok with that then they'll be ok paying child support FOR their son. You would think, right? And if he refuses to do right by his baby-momma, his own parents should kick him to the curb, absolving themselves of any guilt of enablement. He'd be forced to either get a job to support himself and his kid(s) or live on the streets.

Or...

He could be forced to move in with his gf's parents and work for them, pooling any money he makes to help support the ENTIRE family and still have food, shelter, and transportation.

My opinion is there aren't ENOUGH consequences for deadbeats. The girl is certainly at a disadvantage here, like it or not. At least the playing field is somewhat closer to level in divorce cases. If the divorce is caused by a woman's infidelity, her husband can take her to the cleaners such that he retains complete custody of the children and the ex-wife pays for support.

I think not, and yet I do think everyone involved first needs to understand the matter of what is best for the child/ren simply must be the primary consideration here. For example, and in my own case:

When I first got married, I had absolutely no idea as to the matters of responsibilities related to any children I might happen to sire, and then a few years later it seemed to me to be so unfair that I could not afford to "pay child support" for the byproduct/s of my first marriage while simultaneously moving into another one where even more children might soon appear. We can certainly talk about my preceding ignorance or whatever else there, but my point here, and for the sake of those who have yet to come to grip with this, an absolute fact, is as we have already seen:

There is simply no such thing as "free sex"!

So whether 40 years ago as in my own case or right here today in this happenstance discussion, all parties involved must -- truly need to -- be able to clearly understand it is not a "punishment" of any kind whatsoever whenever a court might order the payment of "child support". Rather, that is a societal responsibility that begins in the bedroom.

Not many, but you'll notice the word should.



I'm not sure what you are talking about, punishment is a consequence of wrong doing, I am fairly certain the current CS laws where not based on such things. Also being a parent is not guaranteed to be related to someone paying child support. That is you do not have to have custody or visitation to pay child support so there is no guarantee that someone paying child support fits into a parenting role.



Freedom, Liberty. yadayada

Interesting how one side seems to think that pregnancy and parenting is a sort of cosmic 'payment' for having sex, and simultaneously romanticizes child care with images of booties and baby showers.

Alimonies are against freedom and liberty how?

Yes, and I had meant to recognize that when noting how few people actually do bring that to the marriage table.


Understood, and we are saying the same thing there while I mean to be pointing out the mis-perception people have of "child support payments" being (as wrongly perceived) some form of punishment for someone's having attempted to only have what he/she/they had mistakenly believed would/could/should be child-responsibility-free sex even if pregnancy did/does come about.


Ah yes, another related issue there! Many people seem to believe paying child support should also give them access ... but access (visitation, joint custody, etc.) only happens when the court believes same to actually be in the child's best interest.

Alimony forces you to work for someone else or go to jail regardless of your wishes. Child Support does the same. That is it takes away your freedom to make choices concerning your own labor.


@leejosepho, I do believe child support should be tied to parental rights, although I understand now that they are not related in law. I do not see how it can be called right or justified to force someone to uphold obligations towards a child without any of the related(in my opinion) parental rights whether or not they are legally acknowledged as related.

That "freedom to choose" had already been made at the time of marriage, and an alimony order merely forces the continuation of the initial commitment.


Even if/when the obligated parent might be guilty of something such as incest?

In reality, however, I have never heard of "no contact whatsoever" ever being ordered along with child support. Even in the worst of cases, I believe all parents are typically allowed at least some brief and supervised visits for the sake of seeing the child/ren is/are being treated and cared for well.


We would need a list of "parental rights" on hand to discuss that in detail, but there is no "parental right" to consider one's child as personal property, for example here, and to then allege a violation of same alleged "right" to hold/access one's own property. So in reality, there simply is no absolute "parental right" beyond claiming to be a parent of a child one has either sired or birthed ...

... and in my own case, that proved out in court when I was asked whether or not I would willingly "give up" that parental right -- yes or no -- so my daughters' step-father could then adopt them. So then, "parental rights" and "visitation rights (allowances)" need to be distinguished one from the other here ...

... and in my own case years ago, my first wife readily "allowed" me to visit my two daughters even when/while I was far from being current on my child-support payments, and she did that for the sake of our daughters while giving no consideration whatsoever concerning me ...

... and even if/when I had been paying as I should, nothing more ever played into either her or even the court's decision/s related to my personal visitation/access.

Consent to marriage is not consent to serve past the dissolution of marriage, I would not say it is consent to serve at all but I can see how it might be looked at in a similar way. And divorce is the dissolution of that agreement so there is no reason to allow one party access to the others resources after the marriage has ended on the basis of a status quo that has technically ended and perhaps never existed in the first place.

I do not however disagree with the concept of alimony as support payments, even if I still find it distasteful.(payments meant to support a spouse until they can earn money to support themselves.)





http://www.webanswers.com/custody/child ... ild-016283

http://www.expertlaw.com/forums/showthr ... 167&page=1

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sour ... gle+Search

Why brief and supervised though? Should it not be an equal share of parenting time if one parent has not been proven a threat, or if it has been proven as harmful to the child.



I think aside from visitation, a look at the concept of join-custody would supply a basic list. The right to access I am trying to explain is not treating the child as property both(parents and children) should be able to interact with each other(communicate, develop bonds, socialize). That as well as influence the thought of the child to some extent.(that is to raise the child) This would require time with the child, more time than brief visitations or anything approaching that amount of time.

None of those treat the child as property. In reality rights are what we make them. Declaring that in reality only the right to declare oneself a parent exists, will not dissuade anyone from thinking parents have other rights. It certainly did not convince me.

Think of a triangle with "the state" at its apex and the married couple at the bottom points, one each. Dissolution of marriage removes the "direct line" across the bottom of the triangle, but it does not release either spouse from his or her obligation to the state ... and then the state decides whether to require either former spouse to continue on in any previous manner or way (even though now indirect and/or possibly state-altered). So then, yes, there is reason for either former spouse to have access the others' resources if/when the third and primary party might so decide. And then in the case of re-marriage, just make that modified triangle into a tripod with a new "bottom line" between one former spouse and the added one ... and so on and on (for yet another dissolution and/or re-marriage) with the state always deciding everything from the never-changing top position (while the children involved typically watch in amazement as the set of "monkey bars" engulfing them continues to grow).


Yes, I would think so. I only meant "brief and supervised" such as in specific cases I have known about in the past ... including where even a child would rather have had absolutely no contact at all.


Understood.


I do not know all the legal terms here, but yes, "rights are what we make them." And as to the matter of one's right to declare oneself a parent, I only mean to say that particular "right" is, or in the end at least can be, a categorically unique, stand-alone, exclusive one.

People do not view marriage as a contract between three parties, I know of no laws that treat marriage as such explicitly. So why would an argument based on the existence of a third part not acknowledged(as far as I know) anywhere be convincing or valid?

Also your analogy seems to be implying the the connection between the bottom two points is absolved, wouldn't any interaction then be done through the state? That is would the state not pay the wife, and the state extract payment from the man. As it stands such things(in the case of alimony anyways) are paid directly to the former wife. And how does your triangle count children?



How can a right be stand alone, as I understand them they extend from human understanding and as such they would need a reason to exist.

Here you go ...

http://www.wrongplanet.net/postp2476964.html#2476964


Whatever the actual address on any envelope might be, the state has still ordered it and will assure it happens.


Wandering around where that bottom cross-line used to be and wondering what is going on.


After everything else has been said or done or not, a parent is still a parent until s/he either abandons that right or the state rules to take it away. In my own case, a simply signature to abandon my parental right/s in a situation where a step-father wanted to adopt would have completely released me from any further legal responsibility or obligation of any kind in relation to my two daughters. But when I refused to sign that single line, there was absolutely nothing anybody else could do to rob me of my right to declare myself a father.

That still does not show that people consider it a contract between parties. It also does not show an explicit declaration by the state that it is an agreement between three parties.



The state will enforce interactions between the two on the bottom but that does not make it part of that marriage. What law states that the two on the bottom must acknowledge the state as a partner in marriage.



isn't abandonment a crime? A parent is not a parent solely by his own declaration, you can deny you're a parent all you want but it is the state which has the ultimate say in whether or not you have parental rights and obligations. At least that is how it is currently for men.

You can declare yourself a parent and prove it claiming visitation and child support(court willing) so at least that part of your argument is correct. But you cannot leave as you wish. So a parent is a parent when he proves himself a parent or when the state declares him a parent, he is free when the state says so. I do not see how this is agreeable.

I am neither educated nor qualified as a lawyer who could show all of that to you would be, but there is good reason (or maybe there are good reasons) the state no longer recognizes common-law marriage* (where it does/did not have absolute control).

*Note: Some states still might, but there were very few the last time I checked several years ago.

In any case, and like the article in that linked post at least attempts to show, the state does not even care whether a married couple might consider/realize their state-sanctioned marriage is actually a three-party contract neither can ever completely escape.


Again, I am not capable of taking all of that back to its origin/s ... and neither can anybody show any specific law saying we must pay taxes on wages. But nevertheless, we all know we must ...

... and such is just how things are.


No, that would be neglect, but I was not speaking of abandonment in the way you are thinking of it anyway. And so ...

The papers I had mentioned -- one for each daughter -- were essentially the same as quit-claim deeds where I would have "abandoned" (completely released) my parental right/s to the state ...

... and then my daughters' step-father would have assumed them (at the discretion of the state, of course).


You are not incorrect there, but you are too-quickly lumping too many things together as one.

When a child is born, someone either "declares himself" the child's father or else the state typically goes looking for him and does the declaring for him. Yes, the father can deny all he wants, but nobody is going to begin determining any parental rights, responsibilities or obligations until after the matter of his actual fatherhood has been "cast in stone", so to speak.


I have yet to mention this to you, but yes, I once did that. Back in my own time, however, it was very seldom we "deadbeat dads" were ever actually pursued. Rather, the state just paid to provide for our children ...

... and for the record here, yes, I have long since rectified all of that and paid every penny ever due.


Some people have to do that just like heirs sometimes have to prove themselves heirs.


That typically happens when a father denies being a parent.


Yes, just like the state would have accepted my "quit-claim deeds" and then handed them to a receptive-and-waiting step-father.


Hopefully I have helped to clear some things up there!

there are two creatures of capitalism. There is the master. And there is the worker. There is hardly any types in between. There is the middle but he is stil subserviant to the master. In our country 300 people control 90 percent of the wealth. We are forced to dance for the crumbs. We are forced to beg for health benefits for when we get sick, we are forced to beg for a living wage. WE are forced to do without and take on the burden of our eventual debt to survive.. but WE are to blame for our poverty. This is a farce and a pyramid scheme and a totalitarian circus run by social darwinists and sick facists. If capitalism was truely free the wealth would be more freely spread amidst the masses. but it is clutched and horded by a few. there is no democracy in the markets..there is only tyranny.