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.
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.
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?
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.
They make virtually everything they have. Whatever they need to buy they barter for. They make an extremely limited amount of money, if any.
The point is, they lived this way before and they should be able to continue to live this way.
Why don't you tell me why a person shouldn't be able to provide food instead of cash? What's the problem with that? Everyone eats, the kid eats, why is cash better than food?
IIN to think Child Support Is Unfair!
↑ View this comment's parent
← View full post
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.
--
anti-hero
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
1
1
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.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
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?
--
anti-hero
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
2
2
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.
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
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.
--
anti-hero
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
Again, tell me. How is this person meeting their own personal needs aside from food?
--
Anonymous Post Author
10 years ago
|
pl
Comment Hidden (
show
)
Report
0
0
See More Comments =>
They make virtually everything they have. Whatever they need to buy they barter for. They make an extremely limited amount of money, if any.
The point is, they lived this way before and they should be able to continue to live this way.
Why don't you tell me why a person shouldn't be able to provide food instead of cash? What's the problem with that? Everyone eats, the kid eats, why is cash better than food?