Quote:
Originally Posted by mlr710
Sasori, that swooshing sound you heard was the point going way over your head. If you had read my posts with any clarity whatsoever, you would have understood that it was about the general principle of "child support"...which you seem to think, in a painfully robotic way, is an exact mathematical formula derived from....hmmm...from what exactly? Now how you separate a child's needs or "welfare" from that of the custodial parent is..well...scary...but I guess from your own personal experience...which actually makes my point...you are a little scarred and can't see that obviously raising a child entails more than a hard list derived from menagainstchildsupport.org........ or whatever fringe site that would create such a ridiculous thought. Any man or woman that thinks you can separate a child's welfare from that of the parent they live with is someone that shouldn't even be allowed to own a goldfish.
|
Not scarred by my experience at all, it was the first lesson on what woman not to look for and to never deal with. I believe in accountability in all actions through and through, and that goes for the actions of all.
It didn't go over my head, I'm using what you supplied as the purpose of this thread and its one-sided argument for pity, which I have little to none when you observe the entire situation
Here is the legal definition of child support, and it is mathematically derived
Quote:
|
court-ordered funds to be paid by one parent to the custodial parent of a minor child after divorce (dissolution) or separation. Usually the dollar amounts are based on the income of both parents, the number of children, the expenses of the custodial parent, and any special needs of the child. In many states or locales the amount is determined by a chart which factors in all these figures. It may also include health plan coverage, school tuition or other expenses, and may be reduced during periods of extended visitation such as summer vacations. Child support generally continues until the child reaches 18 years, graduates from high school, is emancipated (no longer lives with either parent), or, in some cases, for an extended period such as college attendance.
|
But to answer your question
My past has shaped my logic and research made it sound. I believe in child support, and I despise dead beat parents... both the non-custodial as well as the custodial. Feelings of absense from one's parent aren't placed in it; if you can't be there, you must pay for the child, for that is all that counts, and the custodian is held in account of their actions of the managing of that money. I don't care how emotions play into it, if one parent has to go to the emergency room or get up late at night... it is the job of the parent and one shouldn't be paid for that job because they are inconvienced as you put it for being the custodial. Support for the child is required by both parents and those to be able to supportive of their children. Child support is there to ensure only that the child is supported financially in absence of one parent, it doesn't absolve the other's responsibilities of overall care or feelings of being overworked and/or under-utilized.
In other words, the custodian of the child should also be able to support their own lifestyle as well as child, and if not, give up parental rights or risk your child becoming a ward of the state. Child support isn't for the parent in any way shape or form, nor will you find the definition of child support to read that way.
Your arguments are for the welfare of the parent as well as the child. You would prefer that the parent [by the points which you are arguing] be taken cared for, but then your argument for this female is one sided, because you skipped over what was previously said to the finances she formerly had before moving out on her own accord to her parents house to file this suit. She had no medical bills to pay, she had no rent to pay, she had no car note to pay, because he took care of it for the duration of the child's 3 months of existence. The bum b.i.t.c.h wanted more from the situation and filed for more when the man originally took care of everything.
He has paid and continues to pay for his child. Not a dime of expense has been paid by her [he has records of payment for the hospital and all other monies in his rebuttal to her argument three days prior in the effort to shame into more money]
Other than initial childcare, which a mother should stay with her child for the first year before making other arrangements, that is as far as I go for direct support of baby mothers, but in their stead, most understand that they need something for themselves if what they have is true independence.
Your arguments is similar to hitting the lottery simply by giving birth, for if the father is a millionaire, the child should be a millionaire, and the person taking care of the child should share in that lifestyle of being a millionaire, and that is not so.