“I only seek to continue to hold the man accountatle when he has already established a father-child relationship with the child, and the child knows the man as their ‘daddy.’ Like I said, any way we cut that will case harm, so I say harm the adult rather than harm the child. “
Is the child’s relationship with the father one of parental love or one of money? Your arguments waver on this point. I have a hard time with your assertion that there is a parental bond but that this bond is expressed by money sent to the CP.
I think your thinking derives from a scenario where the NCP has known and raised a child not his and then the couple separates.
Firstly, there are many situations in which support attaches. I’m sure somewhere in the 400 posts you’ve probably read a few. People get judgement against them in absentia while they’re serving in the military, if they don’t appear in court (sometimes they get bad advice); paternity is asserted for any children born in wedlock no matter what. Upshot is that frequently the relationship you’re thinking of between Dad and kid is non-existent. There is no bond other than “Mommy gets a check” in many cases, often at the express design of Mom.
The law ought to be able to handle these situations and presently it cannot. It has only one hammer and uses it to drive nails and screws alike: establish support against someone, anyone, and then enforce that for 19.5 years. They clear murderers and rapists on DNA evidence, but not child support payors. Hmm.
“I don’t know where you got the impression that I felt the child may starve.” You’ve used the term ‘harm’ in your reply and previously. ‘Harm’ means that the child would be impacted if not-Dad’s support obligation ceases. If Mom is able to provide, then there is no harm if Mom doesn’t get a check from not-Dad; if she is not able to provide, she will get a check from the State anyway and not-Dad was only reimbursing the State.
The other aspect of ‘harm’ is the established relationship you mention between not-Dad and child, which has nothing to do with cash but is a factor of love and parenting time.
Personally I think it does a child considerable harm to teach him or her that government exists to take money from people who aren’t Dad and give it to Moms.
The problem is that the whole system is driven by money. The money works like this. The Feds have various programs, entitled IV-A and IV-D and Medicaid and so forth, which are administered by the states. The Feds provide incentive money to the states to collect support in reimbursement of these programs, so that we, the taxpayers, aren’t paying for kids which ought to be supported by biodad. This is a good idea as it takes people off welfare. Child support is usually a good thing.
However, whenever you have incentive money, that’s the result you get. Therefore the State is driven, in the same way as States are hungry for tobacco revenue at the same time as they claim to want people to stop smoking, to get those collections. Thus the laws are set up so that in the event of an injustice as in the situations described in this thread, there is no recourse.
At the same time, just like liberals flock to journalism and so most journalists are Democrats, misandrists love to work in child support. In this state custody goes to Mom 93% of the time. When you combine a system that’s set up to extract money, worker bias, and no possibility of recourse, there will be and is trouble.
Again, the idea of child support is ok, but any system in which there is no appeal is just asking to be abused. These abuses are coming to light and need to be addressed, not blown off with blanket statements about “it’s for the children.”
It doesn't waver - it is about both. If the personal relationship exists, then money is a component of the relationship. It's not either-or, and I don't know what makes so many Freepers consistently reduce it to such a simple dynamic.
If a man is biologically the father of a child, he should be responsible for financially supporting that child. If the man self-identified as the father, but not the biodad, in some circumstances he should be responsible too.
Your unusually narrow reading of the word 'harm' to justify comments others made about starvation is silly and immature. Certainly my use of the word harm doesn't mean to convey any kind of harm a child may bear.
I'm very pleased that the kind of thinking I have seen on the thread isn't the way the courts handle it. It's not perfect, but the behavior I have seen here shouldn't be encouraged and I am glad it isn't. Men who are unduly fearful should just never get married, or get married with a complex prenup and not have children, and avoid these traps entirely. Of course, such fearful men have to find a good woman first, and women have a habit of rejecting fearful men. That's to their credit, of course, as difficult as it is for many in the FR 'women suck' continent to swallow.