Is it normal to think child support is unfair!

32% Normal
52 Comments

I don't think our current system of child support is fair to everyone, especially those with alternative lifestyles.

Why does it have to be paid in cash? If a person makes little or no money but perhaps has other resources and skills like gardening and raising animals for food, why can't that person provide food for the child instead of cash? Especially if he or she could provide MORE for the child if this was permissible.

What if a person has strong religious/philosophical beliefs and having a traditional job goes against their beliefs in some way? I don't think it's right to force a person to get out and make more money just to pay support if it causes them to have to break sacred vows or do things they are against. Of course, one would have to prove that they have been faithfully following their religion or philosophy so that not just anyone could get out of paying support.

is it normal to think there should be some exceptions and leeway?

Voting Results
32% Normal
Based on 28 votes (9 yes)
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 52 )
  • dom180
    10 years ago

    1) Can I ask why a single parent should have to experience great inconvenience just because someone doesn't like the idea of "compromising their principles"? Sometimes people have to compromise their individual wants in order to play their role in a collective.

    2) The value of food is subjective, and things like tax and child support are paid in money because money has an objective value and resources do not. You can't just be vague and say "well, that's about $50 worth of potatoes", it has to be objective. What if what you produce has no subjective value to the single parent?

    3) What about the single parent's lifestyle? That's just as important, isn't it? Many people don't have the time or skill to cook with raw ingredients every single day, and why should they be forced to if they don't want?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    2
    2
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      10 years ago

      Why should a non-custodial parent be inconvenienced just the same?

      If the child lived with the other parent, they'd be eating whatever food that was provided so what's the difference?

      If they want to eat, they'd find the time. Eating is not a want, it's a need.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • dom180
        10 years ago

        If we accept that both parties will be inconvenienced either way, why make any special exceptions?

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          10 years ago

          If it infringes on religious practice it should be excepted.

          I also don't see why a person, who has lived a lifestyle that CAN provide, in ways other than cash, can't be allowed to provide in those ways. I don't see it reasonable to expect or force such a person to abandon their lifestyle for some random job just to make a minimal support payment. Their partner accepted this lifestyle prior to having the child so it should remain acceptable. That shouldn't magically change. If the food provided was OK before, it should still be OK now, if it isn't then why did you have a kid with this person?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
  • cȱɱpɩɛx
    10 years ago

    It's totally unfair. As soon as you hit 18, they cut you off. It's age-ist is what it is and I for one won't stand for it. I demand child support for adults. And I want it to be delivered in a Christmas stocking.

    We can call it an adult support stocking.

    Or a truss.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      10 years ago

      While you make a good point, it's off topic.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      -1
      -1
        -
      • Demundo
        10 years ago

        It isn't off-topic, there is usually an underlying message in cȱɱpɩɛx's comments.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        0
        0
  • myboyfriendsbitch
    10 years ago

    Hippie is not a religion and buddhist monks usually do not have children.

    This sounds like an extremely rare case. There might not even be laws surrounding such a case.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      10 years ago

      The two examples were nether mutually inclusive nor exclusive. I think you misunderstood.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
  • anti-hero
    10 years ago

    Well if these people couldn't have a traditional (cash paying) job based on their religion then they wouldn't have an income. Since child support is based on your income, I assume they wouldn't have to pay anything.

    If they have skills such as growing food, be it animal or vegetable. Why couldn't they sell the food at a farmer's market and then give the cash from that in child support?

    Children need a lot more than food to live a good, healthy, happy life. They need diapers, wipes, clothes/shoes, medicine, school supplies, toys, soaps/shampoos/lotions/creams/toothpaste and so on and so on. Food alone is not enough.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    1
    1
      -
    • Anonymous Post Author
      10 years ago

      Incorrect. Not having a job doesn't mean you won't still get ordered to pay support. It's far, far more common than not for a jobless person to be ordered to pay support.

      There's multiple reasons why selling the food is either impossible or not the best idea. To sell anything at a "real" farmers market you have to pay membership fees and have a big costly insurance policy. For meats and prepared foods, gov't inspections are required and you have to adhere to certain standards (costly). Other factors like transporting the food may be impossible or impractical.

      Say a "food raising" parent is ordered to pay $50 a month but he/she has no other resources. True, this parent could try to sell some food, most likely at a rinky-dink roadside stand at a serious discount. But WHY? Why make them sell the food for the cash? Their child needs food, providing the food would sustain the child. Giving the food directly to the child eliminates any loss of value, loss of product, the costs involved in selling it, and the other parent then saves the $ they'd be spending on food and can now use it for non-food items.

      A parent such as this would most likely provide MORE than the minimum amount if allowed to give the food (or other necessities) instead of cash. Forced to pay cash, it's more likely that a parent with little/no money will default all together or only pay the bare minimum, all the while being stressed out and under threat of arrest.

      Now, I'm not saying that this is for everyone. I just think these exceptions should be able to apply in cases where there's a strong documented history of strict adherence to religious/philosophical principles, or proof of ability to provide in alternative ways besides cash.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
      0
      0
        -
      • anti-hero
        10 years ago

        If they have no other resources how are they paying for things like medicine, toothpaste, clothing, etc.? (Assuming they have no power bill, water bill, insurance etc. Let's say they live in a tent in the woods.) So what are they doing to meet all of these other life requirements? I don't think this post is very realistic. You are basically describing a homeless person that grows their own food. Like I said before, the kids need a lot more than food. Both parents should be contributing to the child's total well being, not just filling there stomach.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
        1
        1
          -
        • Anonymous Post Author
          10 years ago

          You're over-complicating it.

          Simply stated, if a person could provide in food, then why not let them? If a person with no income is mandated to pay cash that they don't have, why can't they pay it in food? EVERYONE eats food every day. Providing the food is just as valuable as providing cash. If he/she just gave cash it would be spent on RETAIL food, when it's all told. What sense does it make to force a person to sell their food so they can get cash so that their kid can buy food? Why not just GIVE them the food directly?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
          0
          0
            -
          • anti-hero
            10 years ago

            It is totally irresponsible to bring a child into this world with no way to provide for all of it's needs. If this person is only paying $50 a month anyway, that isn't anything. So they might as well pay nothing.

            Because at that moment they might have food from the other parent and need... let's say medicine. That is the way life works. Sometimes you need something when you need it. If they fridge is full and you have no medicine to treat the child, handing over a tomato isn't going to help.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
            2
            2
              -
            • Anonymous Post Author
              10 years ago

              Well...what if this is how these people lived before and during having a kid? Why when they separate does money become a necessity?

              $50 is a lot for someone who has $0 but can provide otherwise.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
              0
              0
  • Demundo
    10 years ago

    Correct me if I am wrong but are you suggesting that you don't want to contribute money but you want to contribute in other ways?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0
  • soul-man
    10 years ago

    The system is corrupt, the conservatives aren't pro-life but rather pro-birth, we would be so much better off if we were living in a socialist country instead.

    And now I find myself with a pervasively unnerving sense of deja vu...

    Comment Hidden ( show )
    0
    0