| Jlaff said: Making non-custodial parents pay all, or in the majority of cases (in my view, I'm not going to cite studies on the actual cost of raising a child, and they all vary widely) far more than the cost of raising a child from the outset is assuming they won't meet the needs of the child without state coercion. I'm not being sarcastic when I say this, but really in this day the thought a non-custodial parent might be capable and willing to meet the needs of their children without being told/forced to by the state is not in anyone's contemplation. There is an almost society wide assumption that they won't, without giving them any chance to do so. Exactly the same assumed guilt you acknowledge with stop and frisk. Only in the case of racial discrimination most people can't stomach that, but unjustified, outright transfers of wealth from men to women with children is not something that will attract protests. You can suggest a custodial parent may not petition the state for support if it is being made (and I'm sure this happens), but you underestimate the greed of some who see the potential personal gain for themselves that can be realized by enforcing child support laws even if the needs of the child are being mey without state intervention. When laws allow for this sort of unilateral choice for exploitation of another they are unjust. |
But when we talk about exploitation, if we define it in terms of "needs of the child," then couldn't a non-custodial parent sue to try and declare that the needs of a child are being met even when they're actually not?
We can agree that the system needs to be refined, but how many cases of abuse are there, in fact? It is one thing to say they exist, it is another to quanitfy them, much like the spurious arguments behind voter ID laws.
Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.
