Jlaff said:
sc94597 said:
Mr Khan said:
sc94597 said:
Mr Khan said:
That has more to do with the idiocy of the War on Drugs than problems with parental rights' law.
Lack of visitation rights but obligation to pay is due to spouses who posed a danger of abuse to their spouse/children, and so could not "safely" be around them. Should they be rewarded for being deemed a danger by not having to pay, while more upstanding divorcees are stuck with the burden of child support?
|
These laws might be designed for those particular people, but they harm others as well. It's much like the death penalty in my opinion. Death penalty laws are designed for serial murders (and other people on their level) but they harm other people as well, and that is why I oppose them. I think if somebody is so dangerous that they can't see their child under supervised visits then the best bet is to remove them from your life entirely. It isn't rewarding them.
|
I mean, if you want those people to become a burden of the state when the missing spouse could hypothetically provide them full support. Child support is about saving children and single parents from poverty. So that is what must be weighed against the infringement of rights towards the departed spouse.
|
Full support usually sums up to $100 a week. It's nothing compared to the cost of raising a child. I'd rather have people be able to have more impaactful interactions with their kids than child support. I'm thinking of the people who are wronged here and how their kids development would benefit from them being in their life. That is not monetary.
edit: More often than not these type of parents don't pay child support because they are in jail all their lives. From child support non-payment or something else. So no money is found anyway.
|
So assuming you agree both parents should contribute, you think it costs in the neighbourhood of $900 a month to raise a kid (excluding all the extra curricular, day care or any other extraordinary expense that would be tacked on as additional payment over and above basic child support)?
Also, my experience may be with Canadian support, but there is a very narrow range of income that would require support at that amount. And that would be when making in the neighbourhood of $40k a year.
|
It depends on a plethora of factors, most importantly cost of living. Where I'm from cost of living is ow and $900 a month would be enough for one child. In the city, that isn't true. But that isn't my point. Having both parents in your life will do so much more to get you out of poverty than getting $400/month, and only maybe if your shitty parent isn't in jail and if the state is garnishing his/her wages, and if he/she doesn't get it reduced. So rather than focus on getting money out of that small minority of rocks, we should focus on having both parents involved in their children's lives. And that means removing barriers which prevent willing non-custodial parents from seeing their children.
