Male parental responsibilities

Split from 'Is there a secular argument against abortion?'

Anything that doesn't fit anywhere else.

Moderators: Blip, The_Metatron

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#1161  Postby The_Metatron » Jul 26, 2017 11:17 pm

Might be an assumption I made, judging by the name of the outfit. I didn't think they'd need to try to collect from people who were discharging their responsibilities properly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 20165
Age: 55
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Male parental responsibilities

#1162  Postby purplerat » Jul 26, 2017 11:29 pm

The_Metatron wrote:Might be an assumption I made, judging by the name of the outfit. I didn't think they'd need to try to collect from people who were discharging their responsibilities properly.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ya, I'm not sure either. I read through some of it and it sounds like they are assisting states who don't have modern collection systems. Might it might be that they are only or primarily assisting with non-payment.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 12255
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#1163  Postby Nicko » Jul 27, 2017 12:42 am

Nicko wrote:One thing you might want to look at are the actual reasons people default on child support payments, and what measures might lessen the prevalence of those situations.


From this study (my bold):

Sumati N. Dubey wrote:The government's spending on the child support program has increased dramatically since 1978. Total administrative expenditure by the federal government grew from $808.450 million in 1978 to $1.343 trillion in 1993. Spending by states has also grown rapidly during this period: $366.263 milion in 1988 to $651.80 million in 1993. Combined federal and state expenditures on child support enforcement grew from $1.70 billion in fiscal year 1988 to $1.998.649 billion in 1993.


There is a difference between budget and expenditure, as anyone who has ever spent more than five seconds studying governance and public policy well knows.

Sumati N. Dubey wrote:Out of 150 respondents, 38.65 percent indicated that they had no money; 23.33 percent indicated that they did not pay because the mother of the child would not allow visitation; 14 percent indicated that they did not have any control over how the money is spent, 12.67 percent said that they were not responsible for the children because they did not want to have a child and the women were the ones who wanted to have a child; 12.67 percent indicated that they were not the fathers of the children for whom child support was sought.


Now, obviously the sample size is smaller than any of us would like. It also doesn't allow for the possibility of inaccurate responses. Going by this study, however, slightly less than 13% of non-paying non-custodial parents fall into the category of "didn't want to be a parent".

I would also point out that the most common reason for non-payment is cited as "having no money", suggesting that the US system is extremely unresponsive to genuine financial hardship experienced by non-custodial parents (as if the way it's administered didn't suggest that strongly enough already). Simply characterising all people who default on child support as "deadbeat dads" is just inaccurate and reveals a complete ignorance of the subject (or an active desire to mislead, though I don't think anyone here is guilty of that). Not least because women ordered to pay child support seem to default at a higher rate than men.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8612
Age: 41
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#1164  Postby purplerat » Jul 27, 2017 1:06 am

Nicko wrote:
Nicko wrote:One thing you might want to look at are the actual reasons people default on child support payments, and what measures might lessen the prevalence of those situations.


From this study (my bold):

Sumati N. Dubey wrote:The government's spending on the child support program has increased dramatically since 1978. Total administrative expenditure by the federal government grew from $808.450 million in 1978 to $1.343 trillion in 1993. Spending by states has also grown rapidly during this period: $366.263 milion in 1988 to $651.80 million in 1993. Combined federal and state expenditures on child support enforcement grew from $1.70 billion in fiscal year 1988 to $1.998.649 billion in 1993.



I think your bolded bit contains a typo. I'm highly skeptical that the figure was 1.343 trillion in 1993. Or any year for that matter.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 12255
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#1165  Postby Nicko » Jul 27, 2017 1:46 am

purplerat wrote:
Nicko wrote:
Nicko wrote:One thing you might want to look at are the actual reasons people default on child support payments, and what measures might lessen the prevalence of those situations.


From this study (my bold):

Sumati N. Dubey wrote:The government's spending on the child support program has increased dramatically since 1978. Total administrative expenditure by the federal government grew from $808.450 million in 1978 to $1.343 trillion in 1993. Spending by states has also grown rapidly during this period: $366.263 milion in 1988 to $651.80 million in 1993. Combined federal and state expenditures on child support enforcement grew from $1.70 billion in fiscal year 1988 to $1.998.649 billion in 1993.



I think your bolded bit contains a typo. I'm highly skeptical that the figure was 1.343 trillion in 1993. Or any year for that matter.


"Billion" would seem more correct.
"Democracy is asset insurance for the rich. Stop skimping on the payments."

-- Mark Blyth
User avatar
Nicko
 
Name: Nick Williams
Posts: 8612
Age: 41
Male

Country: Australia
Australia (au)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#1166  Postby The_Metatron » Jul 27, 2017 2:37 am

Nicko wrote:
purplerat wrote:
Nicko wrote:
Nicko wrote:One thing you might want to look at are the actual reasons people default on child support payments, and what measures might lessen the prevalence of those situations.


From this study (my bold):

Sumati N. Dubey wrote:The government's spending on the child support program has increased dramatically since 1978. Total administrative expenditure by the federal government grew from $808.450 million in 1978 to $1.343 trillion in 1993. Spending by states has also grown rapidly during this period: $366.263 milion in 1988 to $651.80 million in 1993. Combined federal and state expenditures on child support enforcement grew from $1.70 billion in fiscal year 1988 to $1.998.649 billion in 1993.



I think your bolded bit contains a typo. I'm highly skeptical that the figure was 1.343 trillion in 1993. Or any year for that matter.


"Billion" would seem more correct.

Depends on your country.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I AM Skepdickus!

Check out Hack's blog, too. He writes good.
User avatar
The_Metatron
Moderator
 
Name: Jesse
Posts: 20165
Age: 55
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#1167  Postby scott1328 » Jul 28, 2017 12:48 am

So totally fucked up.

Woman commits fraud, the fraud is revealed, misidentified man being forced to pay anyway.

http://www.inquisitr.com/4386084/texas- ... de21677fc8
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 7960
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Ads by Google


Re: Male parental responsibilities

#1168  Postby purplerat » Jul 28, 2017 1:25 am

scott1328 wrote:So totally fucked up.

Woman commits fraud, the fraud is revealed, misidentified man being forced to pay anyway.

http://www.inquisitr.com/4386084/texas- ... de21677fc8

The criminal justice system is full of individual cases of outrageous injustices as well. That's not justification for doing away with all criminal responsibility though.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 12255
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#1169  Postby scott1328 » Jul 28, 2017 4:14 am

purplerat wrote:
scott1328 wrote:So totally fucked up.

Woman commits fraud, the fraud is revealed, misidentified man being forced to pay anyway.

http://www.inquisitr.com/4386084/texas- ... de21677fc8

The criminal justice system is full of individual cases of outrageous injustices as well. That's not justification for doing away with all criminal responsibility though.

this is not a criminal case. It is a fucked up law in Texas. Whatever your view on paternal opt-out. You have to admit this travesty is fucked up beyond belief.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 7960
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#1170  Postby purplerat » Jul 28, 2017 4:32 am

scott1328 wrote:
purplerat wrote:
scott1328 wrote:So totally fucked up.

Woman commits fraud, the fraud is revealed, misidentified man being forced to pay anyway.

http://www.inquisitr.com/4386084/texas- ... de21677fc8

The criminal justice system is full of individual cases of outrageous injustices as well. That's not justification for doing away with all criminal responsibility though.

this is not a criminal case. It is a fucked up law in Texas. Whatever your view on paternal opt-out. You have to admit this travesty is fucked up beyond belief.

I know it's not a criminal case. I'm making the point that even in criminal law injustices happen but that is in no way an argument for no holding people legally responsible.

As for this guys story, if we're taking his side of the story at face value, sure it's pretty fucked up. But I suspect there is more to it than that. Like if he knew about the kid and maybe even believed it was his but just skipped out on the support order for 10 years or so. Even though it turned out he really wasn't the father that wouldn't justify him skipping out on a court order for so long. Similarly, if an innocent person is charged with a crime but then fails to make their court date it's not going to turn out good for them even if they do eventually prove their innocence.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 12255
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#1171  Postby scott1328 » Jul 28, 2017 4:57 am

Your analogy is misguided. This is a civil case. Under civil law you are not required to pay a debt you did not incur even if you did make some payment toward that debt. Your also have course of action if fraud was involved. But in fact Texas passed a law to fuck men over apparently because genetic testing was showing that too many men were (rightly) absolving themselves of fraudulent paternity claims.
User avatar
scott1328
 
Name: Some call me... Tim
Posts: 7960
Male

United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#1172  Postby willhud9 » Jul 28, 2017 5:05 am

Right, having a child is not a criminal suit. Having a child and not wanting to pay for it is also not a criminal case.

It is civil law and needs to be distinguished as such. Someone defaulting on child support should not be seen as a criminal. :dunno:
Fear is a choice you embrace
Your only truth
Tribal poetry
Witchcraft filling your void
Lust for fantasy
Male necrocracy
Every child worthy of a better tale
User avatar
willhud9
 
Name: William
Posts: 18401
Age: 27
Male

Country: United States
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#1173  Postby purplerat » Jul 28, 2017 5:23 am

scott1328 wrote:Your analogy is misguided. This is a civil case. Under civil law you are not required to pay a debt you did not incur even if you did make some payment toward that debt. Your also have course of action if fraud was involved. But in fact Texas passed a law to fuck men over apparently because genetic testing was showing that too many men were (rightly) absolving themselves of fraudulent paternity claims.

Can you provide a citation of the law? I'm not being pedantic but the source citing the law is FOX news so I'd be interested in some verification of what it is. Of course it's also Texas so it could be screwed up anyway.

I'm also wondering how you are so sure it was fraud. You said the fraud was revealed so I'm assuming you have some evidence.

That said, I'm not a lawyer but my understanding is that if you fail to show for court and a default judgment is found against you then you are liable. Even in civil court.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 12255
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#1174  Postby purplerat » Jul 28, 2017 5:34 am

willhud9 wrote:Right, having a child is not a criminal suit. Having a child and not wanting to pay for it is also not a criminal case.

It is civil law and needs to be distinguished as such. Someone defaulting on child support should not be seen as a criminal. :dunno:

You're failing to understand my analogy. I'm not arguing that it's the same as criminal law but generally speaking skipping out on a court date thus resulting in a default judgment against you is not a wise idea. Try it with your rent or mortgage and you'll find yourself evicted even if you really did nothing wrong.

Now maybe this guy really didn't know but there are a couple of red flags here. One, support was taken out of his paychecks and he claims he just didn't notice. I guess somebody could be that dumb, but secondly, if the state knew who he was in order to garnish his paychecks for a while then how did they miss him for so long after? Maybe Texas has some really poor system but if they have his SS# necessary to garnish his pay in the first place then typically it's pretty easy to find somebody anytime they pop up later at a new job or when they file their taxes. It'd be interesting to hear how this happened.

But either way, if he really didn't know then that sucks. If he did and he just ignored the problem thinking it would go away - without even knowing if the kid was really his or not - then that's pretty stupid and irresponsible on his part.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 12255
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Re: Male parental responsibilities

#1175  Postby purplerat » Jul 28, 2017 5:51 am

To be clear, my initial comparison to criminal law had nothing to do with the guy being at fault or held responsible. Rather it's to say that sometimes the justice system gets things fucked up or has a fucked up way of dealing with things. But that doesn't mean the underlying premise of the law is wrong. i.e. I think sex offender registries are a fucked up thing. But that doesn't mean I think kiddie diddling should be legal.
User avatar
purplerat
 
Posts: 12255
Male

Country: Only in America
United States (us)
Print view this post

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users viewing this topic: No registered users and 1 guest