The Loss of the Right to a Trial by Jury: Child Support and Divorce Cases in America

[torchbearer]

Lol...so you are better than others how? Was this a race? Without the benefit of some experiences you also lose certain opportunities.

I find it hard to picture you loosening your tie.:o

Again, parenting is an art not a science....

Well, i could run down a list of my accomplishments in the first 30 years of my life if I must. I've done more in 30 years than most people do in 80.
I started school early too. It wasn't a race, but our time is limited on this earth. I choose to not waste it chasing butterflies. They will actually come and land on you while you are fishing. I didn't miss out on anything. I got to experience more.

 

[catdd]

I can personally attest to the fact that the states are allowing divorce cases to drag on for years with lawyer fees coming close to a million dollars. There's no oversight committee whatsoever and divorce lawyers are no better than serial killers with a badge.

 

[torchbearer]

I can personally attest to the fact that the states are allowing divorce cases to drag on for years with lawyer fees coming close to a million dollars. There's no oversight committee whatsoever and divorce lawyers are no better than serial killers with a badge.

If the divorce is mutual, you can do it through arbitration very quickly.

 

[moostraks]

Well, i could run down a list of my accomplishments in the first 30 years of my life if I must. I've done more in 30 years than most people do in 80.
I started school early too. It wasn't a race, but our time is limited on this earth. I choose to not waste it chasing butterflies. They will actually come and land on you while you are fishing. I didn't miss out on anything. I got to experience more.

Multi tasking is highly over rated. I could say the same of my own experiences prior to 30 but they were often negative ones due to a difficult childhood causing poor decision making skills.

You never forget a first time if you get the time to savor the experience. Life lived fast is not the same as a full life savored.

So do you loosen your tie??

 

[Danke]

Well, i could run down a list of my accomplishments in the first 30 years of my life if I must. I've done more in 30 years than most people do in 80.

Have you ever done a midget toss? Or seen a Filipino entertainer make exact change out of her private part?

 

[catdd]

If the divorce is mutual, you can do it through arbitration very quickly.

But if only one party wants to be an ass, they can put the other through 1000 hells and the law allows it.

 

[torchbearer]

Have you ever done a midget toss? Or seen a Filipino entertainer make exact change out of her private part?

NO. but i can't publish some things i have done, and most of them would be considered fantasies come true for most men.

 

[torchbearer]

Multi tasking is highly over rated. I could say the same of my own experiences prior to 30 but they were often negative ones due to a difficult childhood causing poor decision making skills.

You never forget a first time if you get the time to savor the experience. Life lived fast is not the same as a full life savored.

So do you loosen your tie??

Dude, I was in a working successful original band for 12 years. I've lived. the tie is only their when protocal dictates.

 

[MelissaWV]

First off my experience was male but by no means is the situation gender exclusive.

Second off I agree with your viewpoint regarding deadbeatness in theory but if one is left with the children to rear them alone with no assistance from the former partner and the custodial parent is providing all their income for their care at the loss of the other's income and physical assistance and unable to make ends meet how is the custodial parent a deadbeat when their entire income provides all the support it is possible to pay for?

At this point living a life of destitution for both the custodial parent and the children is the consequences of her choice (your example) but that does not absolve the non-custodial parent of their responsibilities. No?

And yes she should have kept her legs closed, live and learn and be an example of what not to do and why....

Earlier you had talked about deadbeat guys in particular, but you are right; this whole mess knows no gender. You do realize a custodial parent could easily have NOT been a custodial parent? That they had that choice? Why does the non-custodial parent not get a choice, though? I always found that one odd *shrugs* I also always thought that a child shouldn't be a meal ticket. If it's really about just providing for the child, then the money should be tied to a WIC-like account, so that all transactions are accounted for and must be justified as being for the benefit of the child. As it is, there's no such accounting included. There are way too many times when the money just seems to trickle away on its way to the child.

Yeah, it's based on income of the non-custodial parent. Isn't that a little strange? I mean, how does one child's "well-being" only cost $1,000 a month, and someone else's well-being costs $10,000 a month? The assumption is that the rich parent would have spoiled that child already... what if that's not the case? What if they would have just purchased another yacht instead? Is it really about making sure the child has "enough" to live, or is it about punishing the non-custodial parent? Moreover, what happens to the child support money?

A quick browse on the internet for child support Q&A reveals...

Q: I'll be inheriting $100k from my father's estate. What will happen to my support obligation?

A: State support laws usually have provisions for sudden, one-time injections of income. The court will possibly have discretion to award a lump-sum amount under certain conditions, or might do something different. For example, if your state's percentage for one child is 20%, the court might take $20k and just have you pay it over the rest of the child's minority. If there is 10 years left on the obligation, that would be an extra $2000 a year, or $167 a month.

Isn't that great? Grandpa dies, and the kid gets money. The State deciding who gets your cash when you die, including the grandkids you probably didn't get to see all that often.

Elyse's Question: My husband has not worked for the last 9 months, and things are just about over between us. Would the court make him get a job to pay child support?

Brette's Answer: Your husband is obligated to pay child support - there is a minimum that must be paid even if a person is unemployed.

This one tickled me. The guy hasn't worked for nine months, so the standard here is getting by WITHOUT his income. This woman will actually MAKE MONEY divorcing him! He'll be obligated to come up with money to support the child if she divorces him, but if they stay together he can keep not working.

Kay's Question: Under what circumstances is the spouse of the non-custodial parent (me) required to pay?

Brette's Answer: You're not, he is. His household income is calculated when determining child support. That includes income brought in by you. However the order for payment applies only to him. You have no responsibility to his child.

Another tickler. Not only must the person in question support their child, which you've already noted is the only moral thing to do, but their new spouse, who might never have met the custodial parent and has next to zero rights when it comes to the child in question... that person's income is counted towards calculating support.

Mary's Question: My husband and I have been together for 12 years. My youngest child was six month old when me met, and he has been the only father-figure in her life. Is he required to pay me child support?

Brette's Answer: Your husband is only required to pay child support if he legally adopted your child.

Interesting. It seems that if you had none of the "fun" of conceiving a child, but decided to adopt one, you are still on the hook for support if you divorce. Go figure?

* * *

So yeah, I'm still sticking with the fact that individual cases should be decided on their own merits, rather than "woe is (custodial parent)" and "woe is (non-custodial parent)" stereotypes. The laws, though, are pretty shitty all around.

 

[MelissaWV]

Oops. My bad. I see we're making assumptions about one another and deciding that life experience dictates one's ability to comment on this

 

[kahless]

It gets worse MelissaWV. Do you or anyone remember Bill Bradley? He would not be where he is in politics if he did not make a deal with the devil (anti-father feminist groups) in passing his "Bradley Amendment". The number of the bill in bold is of no surprise.

Excerpts from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Amendment

In United States law, the Bradley Amendment is the common name given to any of a number of amendments offered by Senator Bill Bradley, the most notable of which is the amendment to 42 U.S.C. § 666(a)(9)(c) which requires state courts to prohibit retroactive reduction of child support obligations.

The Amendment was passed in 1986 to automatically trigger a non expiring lien whenever child support becomes past-due.

• The Law overrides any state's statue of limitations
• The law disallows any judicial discretion, even from bankruptcy judges.
• The law requires that the payment amounts be maintained without regard for the physical capability of the person owing child support (the obligor) to make the notification or regard for their awareness of the need to make the notification.

The Amendment has been a controversial law and has resulted in several notorious examples of unintended consequences including:

• A veteran of the first Gulf War who was captured in Kuwait in 1990 and spent nearly five months as an Iraqi hostage being arrested the night after his release for not paying child support while he was a hostage.
• A Texas man wrongly accused in 1980 of murder. After 10 years in prison, the man sued the state for wrongful imprisonment. The state responded with a bill for nearly $50,000 in child support that had not been paid while in prison.
• A Virginia man required to pay retroactive child support even though DNA tests proved that he could not have been the father.

.......a child support agency can move quickly to seize income and assets of a delinquent noncustodial parent without first passing through a judicial or quasi-judicial hearing process."

"The 1986 Bradley Amendment to Title IV-D forbids any reduction of arrearage or retroactive reduction for any reason, ever. This reinforces the approach that inability to pay is no excuse. Needless to say, there are endless stories of men who are now crushed by a debt they will never be able to pay because they were:

• In a coma
• A captive of Saddam Hussein during the first Gulf War In jail
• Medically incapacitated
• Lost their job but were confident of another so did nothing until it was too late
• Did not know they could not ask for retroactive adjustments and waited too long.
• Cannot afford a lawyer to seek adjustment when adjustment was warranted
• Wouldn’t use the legal system even if they could, feeling it alien from their world, so don’t ask for a reduction when the legal establishment expects them to.
• Some say this measure is a violation of due process and cruel and unusual as it removes the use of human discretion from dealing with individual cases, not to mention removing human compassion. But non-custodial fathers do not have the money to fight a constitutional case."

As of 2004[update], the Bradley Amendment was being challenged as unconstitutional and was the subject of a repeal effort.

February 2006 the court case has been dismissed and Congress has made no visible effort to reform the Bradley amendment

 

[moostraks]

Earlier you had talked about deadbeat guys in particular, but you are right; this whole mess knows no gender. You do realize a custodial parent could easily have NOT been a custodial parent? That they had that choice? Why does the non-custodial parent not get a choice, though? I always found that one odd *shrugs* I also always thought that a child shouldn't be a meal ticket. If it's really about just providing for the child, then the money should be tied to a WIC-like account, so that all transactions are accounted for and must be justified as being for the benefit of the child. As it is, there's no such accounting included. There are way too many times when the money just seems to trickle away on its way to the child.

Yeah, it's based on income of the non-custodial parent. Isn't that a little strange? I mean, how does one child's "well-being" only cost $1,000 a month, and someone else's well-being costs $10,000 a month? The assumption is that the rich parent would have spoiled that child already... what if that's not the case? What if they would have just purchased another yacht instead? Is it really about making sure the child has "enough" to live, or is it about punishing the non-custodial parent? Moreover, what happens to the child support money?

A quick browse on the internet for child support Q&A reveals...



Isn't that great? Grandpa dies, and the kid gets money. The State deciding who gets your cash when you die, including the grandkids you probably didn't get to see all that often.



This one tickled me. The guy hasn't worked for nine months, so the standard here is getting by WITHOUT his income. This woman will actually MAKE MONEY divorcing him! He'll be obligated to come up with money to support the child if she divorces him, but if they stay together he can keep not working.



Another tickler. Not only must the person in question support their child, which you've already noted is the only moral thing to do, but their new spouse, who might never have met the custodial parent and has next to zero rights when it comes to the child in question... that person's income is counted towards calculating support.



Interesting. It seems that if you had none of the "fun" of conceiving a child, but decided to adopt one, you are still on the hook for support if you divorce. Go figure?

* * *

So yeah, I'm still sticking with the fact that individual cases should be decided on their own merits, rather than "woe is (custodial parent)" and "woe is (non-custodial parent)" stereotypes. The laws, though, are pretty shitty all around.

Hey just dropped by and saw your rants as to what you view as unfair. Standards were enforced because people are irresponsible. Your way of reasoning is the logic of the selfish and I can't see where we would agree on the matter other than I dislike the state enforcing issues as much as the next person. But- I think people should own up to their responsibilities.

If the grandparent dies and the couple was together chances are high the child would reap the benefit of infused income. If you create a child and refuse to care for (receive custody or pay support to the custodial parent/party) then there should be repercussions to prevent further situations of the same sort. If you get involved with someone who has children from a former relationship it is a package deal. Don't like the package then find someone else. If you adopt a child you have obligated yourself to that child until the age of majority.

I am curious as to where the household income comes into play at as I know in Georgia that does not occur. As such, buyer beware on this issue as it must vary state to state. If you don't want to help your partner with his former responsibilties then keep this in mind for your own decisions.
You seem to dismiss the idea that it all begins prior to the creation or relationship obligation in the dependants life. In order to solve a problem you must get to the root of the issue and dismissing the beginning scenario is ridiculous, imo.

 

[moostraks]

Dude, I was in a working successful original band for 12 years. I've lived. the tie is only their when protocal dictates.

well there is a side of you I would not have predicted

 

[moostraks]

It gets worse MelissaWV. Do you or anyone remember Bill Bradley? He would not be where he is in politics if he did not make a deal with the devil (anti-father feminist groups) in passing his "Bradley Amendment". The number of the bill in bold is of no surprise.

Excerpts from wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bradley_Amendment

That being so I certainly never reaped any benefits from a government agency trying to enforce proper care of one's sperm donation. I can just say beware entangling alliances and advocate abstinence unless you really know the person you are dealing with and know that even in adversity you can find common ground. Much better than mediating in court,imo.

As for the above, focus your attention on changing it if it is your calling. You will not find much support from custodial parents though unless you drop the one sided whine and histrionics regarding slavery. All parents are slaves to minor children in some respects. It is part of the job description. Don't like it then don't apply. There are no do overs.

 

[kahless]

You will not find much support from custodial parents

I do not believe that since new families are ending up on both sides of this issue. You have one spouse in the relationship being the non-custodial parent from a prior marriage and their new spouse being the custodial parent. Regardless no one wants to see their spouse end up in jail for being a few dollars behind in an economic down turn, job loss or illness.

It goes to common sense that they are not going to be able to pay child support if they are in jail. In fact the government makes it worse since they could very well lose their job due to imprisonment and/or be physically injured or killed in jail. Obviously this would make receiving payment much more difficult.

All parents are slaves to minor children in some respects. It is part of the job description. It is part of the job description. Don't like it then don't apply. There are no do overs.

When a spouse in a married couple gets sick and loses a job they do not end up with an arrest warrant, physically injured or killed in jail for being behind on a debt.

I have no dog in this fight since my kids are adults and I am too old to be having more of them. However the rhetoric in your replies indicates you seem to believe people deserve this kind of government retribution when it is of no fault of their own. Why are you in a movement that supports liberty is beyond me since your views clearly lean fascist.

It also sounds like you want to punish the world for what your ex did to you. I am guessing that when you made your decision to have children with him you did not expect the outcome just like the innocents that I describe here that are on the other end of the equation.

 

[moostraks]

I do not believe that since new families are ending up on both sides of this issue. You have one spouse in the relationship being the non-custodial parent from a prior marriage and their new spouse being the custodial parent. Regardless no one wants to see their spouse end up in jail for being a few dollars behind in an economic down turn, job loss or illness.

It goes to common sense that they are not going to be able to pay child support if they are in jail. In fact the government makes it worse since they could very well lose their job due to imprisonment and/or be physically injured or killed in jail. Obviously this would make receiving payment much more difficult.



When a spouse in a married couple gets sick and loses a job they do not end up with an arrest warrant, physically injured or killed in jail for being behind on a debt.

I have no dog in this fight since my kids are adults and I am too old to be having more of them. However the rhetoric in your replies indicates you seem to believe people deserve this kind of government retribution when it is of no fault of their own. Why are you in a movement that supports liberty is beyond me since your views clearly lean fascist.

It also sounds like you want to punish the world for what your ex did to you. I am guessing that when you made your decision to have children with him you did not expect the outcome just like the innocents that I describe here that are on the other end of the equation.

uh...clip the whole sentence rather than picking and choosing out of context portions of what I type. The whole sentence was refering to your dramatics which you seem intent on over substance.

When someone marries someone with children from a former relationship they buy into the whole deal. If they don't like it they need to find a new relationship. It seems you are intent on waving the magic wand for non-custodials. Tough. Once you have sex you live with the consequences. When society begins to take the act of sex more seriously everyone will be much better off!

For example, prior to my spouse adopting my two he put healthcare on them while they still were the responsibilty of their sperm donar. Not for a day, a week, or a month but for years. That is what a real man does who loves and cares for those with whom he is involved. This is someone with moral character and the type of person I am proud to have as a partner. This was not cheap insurance either.

I don't want to punish the world for my mistake in decisions, I want people to be responsible for their actions. Society is too busy passing the pain onto someone else and legitimizing bad behaviour because of their own wants rather than owning up to their responsibilty in the problem.

The only innocent people here are the children that non-paying parents are neglecting. Neglect is a crime and as such there should be repercussions.

As for someone within a relationship having compassion in event of catastrophe, if they chose their mate better then they would not be arguing it in court. They would be able to handle this issue outside on their own. You have to start at the root of the problem and it begins with a choice.

 

[MelissaWV]

Hey just dropped by and saw your rants as to what you view as unfair. Standards were enforced because people are irresponsible. Your way of reasoning is the logic of the selfish and I can't see where we would agree on the matter other than I dislike the state enforcing issues as much as the next person. But- I think people should own up to their responsibilities.

If the grandparent dies and the couple was together chances are high the child would reap the benefit of infused income. If you create a child and refuse to care for (receive custody or pay support to the custodial parent/party) then there should be repercussions to prevent further situations of the same sort. If you adopt a child you have obligated yourself to that child until the age of majority.

You seem to dismiss the idea that it all begins prior to the creation or relationship obligation in the dependants life. In order to solve a problem you must get to the root of the issue and dismissing the beginning scenario is ridiculous, imo.

The bold part is interesting. Chances are high, so you don't mind if the state just assumes the chances were 100%. Why, precisely, do you assume the grandparents would want the product of their child's one night stand (potentially) or failed relationship (by definition) to reap the rewards of their life's savings?

The purple part is also interesting. The adopting parent is going to be punished because they decided to be a part of their step-child's life, but the relationship didn't work out with the biological parent? That seems unusually cruel. The second part, where you talk about dismissing the beginning scenario, intrigues me. Let's take a couple, and for the sake of statistics we'll make it a "single mom" and two men. Let's even give her the benefit of the doubt, and say that she was in a bad marriage that ended when the child was still an infant. The father is on the hook for child support. Now, the kid is five or so, and she finds the love of her life. When the kid is seven, this new guy even officially adopts the child. Unfortunately, when the child is ten, things turn south and there's another divorce.

So. The person who is responsible for the child coming into being should pay child support? Or the person who adopted the child should pay child support? And why does the mom in that scenario, who's on the hook for various bad choices, simply get the child-rearing paid for?

What if, in that same scenario, she'd simply palmed off the kid when it was first born, giving it up for adoption? Should she have to pay for part of the child's upbringing? If we're to follow the logic you have employed throughout this thread, then a mother giving her baby up for adoption should be on the hook for some financial obligation. No? Why not? A mother can terminate her maternal rights, give up a child, and be under no financial obligation. A father cannot simply say "no, I don't want to be a daddy, and I don't want to pay."

Of course, that to you is a rant, and it seems perfectly fair, and I'm the one being unreasonable. Think that all you'd like, but it won't make the system any more twisted than it already is. The laws are crooked and broad, and generally unfair. I'm glad you see a non-custodial parent as responsible, financially, for a child they have little or no say in raising, and the custodial parent as automatically responsible and worthy of being paid for their services. I've heard the world is much easier in black & white I'll still stick to the notion that cases should be heard on their own merits, and that if the child is what is important, the system should not be skewed so that it's far more about punishment than about providing a safe, healthy environment for the child to grow up in.

 

[kahless]

uh...clip the whole sentence rather than picking and choosing out of context portions of what I type. The whole sentence was refering to your dramatics which you seem intent on over substance.

Posting the actual Bradley amendment to the Constutition that sends Americans to be prison for debt without a trial regardless of the circumstances (i.e. hospitalization, coma, or captured in Iraq) is now considered dramatics. LMAO!

When someone marries someone with children from a former relationship they buy into the whole deal. If they don't like it they need to find a new relationship. It seems you are intent on waving the magic wand for non-custodials. Tough. Once you have sex you live with the consequences. When society begins to take the act of sex more seriously everyone will be much better off!

For example, prior to my spouse adopting my two he put healthcare on them while they still were the responsibilty of their sperm donar. Not for a day, a week, or a month but for years. That is what a real man does who loves and cares for those with whom he is involved. This is someone with moral character and the type of person I am proud to have as a partner. This was not cheap insurance either.

I don't want to punish the world for my mistake in decisions, I want people to be responsible for their actions. Society is too busy passing the pain onto someone else and legitimizing bad behaviour because of their own wants rather than owning up to their responsibilty in the problem.

The only innocent people here are the children that non-paying parents are neglecting. Neglect is a crime and as such there should be repercussions.

As for someone within a relationship having compassion in event of catastrophe, if they chose their mate better then they would not be arguing it in court. They would be able to handle this issue outside on their own. You have to start at the root of the problem and it begins with a choice.

If you really cared about children you would agree that they need both parents in their lives and both parents supporting them. Not one forced to be a visitor and subject to imprisonment for falling behind a few bucks due to a hospitalization, illness or job loss. You continue to be for a policy of vengeance against honest innocent non-custodial parents that fall behind through no fault of their own for whatever reason

What I wrote below is clearly not waving a magic wand. As Torchbearer demonstrated these laws do not just effect men but woman that are victims of physical abuse. In his example after being physically abused her abuser used the system to have the government abuse her again with imprisonment through no fault of her own.

If we lived in a free society our options would be in this order of choice with government involvement only after all choices have been exhausted between the parties.

1. Shared parenting. Both parents in the childs life rather than having one as a visitor IS in most cases in the best interests of child. I am sure someone will point out how this will not work for deviants but the overwhelming majority of men are not deviants as some here would like you to believe.

2. If the parent that cannot afford to raise the child and does not wish to participate in option 1 then full custody goes to the parent that can best support the child. Either work it out or lose custody before burdening the system - taxpayers.

3. If one parent wants full custody while the other does not and does not want to participate in options 1 or 2 then no child support changes hands.

4. If a parent cannot afford to raise the child and the other parent does not wish to participate in option 1, 2 or 3 only then should there be a trial. If the last sentance is in fact true then the non-custodial parent should be expected to provide support based on actual documented expenses split 50/50 with the custodial parent. All monies must be accounted for.

The custodial parent must be held accountable for the expenses and maintain receipts. If the non-custodial fails to pay then you have a court date set to deterimine the reason for neglect. It is then determined if the failure was intentional, was it due to job loss, illness or just a dead broke dad with a best effort being made.

What I describe above would prevent honest people from wrongly being victimized by the system as well as horrific example that torchbearer described. It is also in the best interests of the children since it encourages both parents to remain in the childs life. It also keeps the government in most cases out of it so it does not become a burden to the courts or taxpayers.

 

[moostraks]

Posting the actual Bradley amendment to the Constutition that sends Americans to be prison for debt without a trial regardless of the circumstances (i.e. hospitalization, coma, or captured in Iraq) is now considered dramatics. LMAO!



If you really cared about children you would agree that they need both parents in their lives and both parents supporting them. Not one forced to be a visitor and subject to imprisonment for falling behind a few bucks due to a hospitalization, illness or job loss. You continue to be for a policy of vengeance against honest innocent non-custodial parents that fall behind through no fault of their own for whatever reason

What I wrote below is clearly not waving a magic wand. As Torchbearer demonstrated these laws do not just effect men but woman that are victims of physical abuse. In his example after being physically abused her abuser used the system to have the government abuse her again with imprisonment through no fault of her own.

no-claiming being forced to be responsible to ones children is slavery is dramatics...stop putting words in my mouth.

I do care about children and think that if there are two stable parents then 50/50 split is the way to go with the home to be maintained for the children and the adults leave on their 50% time off. Don't assume anything with me as I told you previously we agree to some extent.

I just don't buy into the drama you espouse regarding all these well intentioned individuals who are hospitalized and can't pay. The fact that they are not able to arbitrate out of court is the result of under estimating the need to only have a relationship with stable people you can trust. You keep ignoring that the problem begins somewhere other than where you propose it does. The court only intervenes when someone demands them to and when two people are unable to cooperate on their own.

 

[moostraks]

The bold part is interesting. Chances are high, so you don't mind if the state just assumes the chances were 100%. Why, precisely, do you assume the grandparents would want the product of their child's one night stand (potentially) or failed relationship (by definition) to reap the rewards of their life's savings?

The purple part is also interesting. The adopting parent is going to be punished because they decided to be a part of their step-child's life, but the relationship didn't work out with the biological parent? That seems unusually cruel. The second part, where you talk about dismissing the beginning scenario, intrigues me. Let's take a couple, and for the sake of statistics we'll make it a "single mom" and two men. Let's even give her the benefit of the doubt, and say that she was in a bad marriage that ended when the child was still an infant. The father is on the hook for child support. Now, the kid is five or so, and she finds the love of her life. When the kid is seven, this new guy even officially adopts the child. Unfortunately, when the child is ten, things turn south and there's another divorce.

So. The person who is responsible for the child coming into being should pay child support? Or the person who adopted the child should pay child support? And why does the mom in that scenario, who's on the hook for various bad choices, simply get the child-rearing paid for?

What if, in that same scenario, she'd simply palmed off the kid when it was first born, giving it up for adoption? Should she have to pay for part of the child's upbringing? If we're to follow the logic you have employed throughout this thread, then a mother giving her baby up for adoption should be on the hook for some financial obligation. No? Why not? A mother can terminate her maternal rights, give up a child, and be under no financial obligation. A father cannot simply say "no, I don't want to be a daddy, and I don't want to pay."

Of course, that to you is a rant, and it seems perfectly fair, and I'm the one being unreasonable. Think that all you'd like, but it won't make the system any more twisted than it already is. The laws are crooked and broad, and generally unfair. I'm glad you see a non-custodial parent as responsible, financially, for a child they have little or no say in raising, and the custodial parent as automatically responsible and worthy of being paid for their services. I've heard the world is much easier in black & white I'll still stick to the notion that cases should be heard on their own merits, and that if the child is what is important, the system should not be skewed so that it's far more about punishment than about providing a safe, healthy environment for the child to grow up in.

No the state will intervene when adults can't work it out on their own and the state is brought into the picture. Then when someone cannot form an agreement on their own and recieves a lump sum, guess it sucks to be them. Given your example I can't fathom a way in which one partner could receive $100,000 and it wouldn't affect the household in a positive manner. People should want to care for their offspring. The level of selfishness is just overwhelming from everyone responding regarding this issue. The grandparents chose whom to will the money to and should be aware of what the consequences of the action will result in. It matters not under what circumstance the child was conceived as we aren't talking about rape but consensual sex. A choice was made and so be the consequences.

You seem to think custodial parents live high on the hog. Trust me there are much better ways to make money than by getting knocked up or assuming custody.

Punish the adoptive parent? That is really funny since what an adoptive parent should be concerned about is that their child is being cared for and not the punitive nature of contributing to the welfare of their child. When you adopt it is as if the natural parent never existed. If someone adopts they should place as much weight upon that decision as anyone who choses to have sex to conceive would if not more because they are guaranteeing the child that they will care for it. It isn't a damn puppy for pete's sake. The adoption is a person making a contract to the child not the natural custodial parent.

As for a mother being allowed to put the child up for adoption it takes consent from both natural parents to do so. When the child is adopted the natural parent terminates their rights. This negates any claim to and from the child and natural parent. They are strangers.

Yes I think you are being incredibly selfish considering the substance of your argument. Therefore it comes across as a rant. What is amusing is that you think I support people using the system. Clue in here: there is a way to have children and not be a part of the system. Know your partner!!!!!! The system can only bite you when you participate.

When one party makes an agreement to participate in the life of a child by the initial act of having sex with a partner who might potential hold them to that idea then they made their first fatal mistake. The rest is their problem to work out. THe system could only be seen as unfair if one was mandated to participate and you are not unless you make several mistakes to place yourself in their tentacles. The wise will heed this advice and steer clear!