Child support

[JamesVincent]

No, not in that way. Ran across a couple of cases where a male, even though he was technically raped by issue of age, has been forced to pay child support on children they never knew they had. And, to top it off, have been ordered to pay back child support, past when they were informed they had them.

http://www.businessinsider.com/male-sta ... ort-2014-9

A 24-year-old man who impregnated a 20-year-old woman when he was 14 is being forced by the state of Arizona to pay $15,000 in back child support and medical bills, in addition to 10% interest — even though he was the victim of statutory rape and never even knew he had a child until two years ago, azcentral.com reports.

Although he had sex with the woman willingly and never pressed charges, Nick Olivas was technically a rape victim because under Arizona law a child younger than 15 cannot give sexual consent. But Arizona's Department of Economic Security has a policy holding men in Olivas' situation responsible for paying child support as long as the parent seeking it hasn't been found guilty of sexual assault.

Seems to me, in my understanding of the general laws, you cannot make someone pay for a child that has not been proven theirs UNLESS it is a situation where a couple get together, get married, and one of them had a child from a previous relationship, one night stand, whatever. To make someone pay child support for a child that had never been in their life, had never even known about, and then expect back child support past the time period where he even knew the child existed just seems really out there to me.

Course, I can't even get the courts to make my ex pay child support.

[The Observer]

The real point of all this is, as I understand it, is that the courts, guided by the laws, are as not concerned about whether the father is truly the father as they are about ensuring that the child is provided for. So these situations are going to develop where a man may end up on the hook for child support despite him not being aware that he was a father. As the courts see it, the child is the one who is the true innocent victim in this situation since they have no ability to protect or provide for themselves.

With that in mind, it seems to me that men should be thinking twice about engaging in casual sexual relationships. Otherwise they are opening themselves up to supporting a kid that may or may not be theirs.

The situation with the minor being raped and then being dunned for back child support is one of the strange results of this policy. I would offer that because the teen willingly engaged in sex with the adult woman, the ruling is essentially stating he needs to take responsibility. He cannot enjoy the fruit and expect to walk away from the mess he left, regardless of whether he was a victim or not.

[JamesVincent]

The situation with the minor being raped and then being dunned for back child support is one of the strange results of this policy. I would offer that because the teen willingly engaged in sex with the adult woman, the ruling is essentially stating he needs to take responsibility. He cannot enjoy the fruit and expect to walk away from the mess he left, regardless of whether he was a victim or not.

He was not of the age of consent, thus the issue with statutory rape. So, if he is not of the age of informed consent and not considered to be responsible in a legal sense, how can he be made responsible? Not sure I'm wording it right but that is one of my concerns.

One of my other concerns is this: if a man rapes a woman and impregnates her then he should be responsible towards the child, fiscally, without ever having any form of interaction with the child, IMO. In these cases we have the exact opposite, a grown woman seduces a young man, illegally, and then has a child. IMO since, in this case, the woman is the aggressor, the victim (which is what he is) should have the opportunity to have interaction with the child if he wishes and is paying child support. Yet none of the cases cited seem to allow for that possibility. In fact, the main case cited stated that the young man would gladly pay child support if he was allowed to be in his daughter's life, implying that he currently isn't. After going through I've been through and seen what other fathers have gone through I'm kinda big on father's right which, quite frankly, there doesn't seem to be many. And, also IMO, if the father turns out to be a better parent then the mother, would they allow the father to be the parent he want's to be? Again, doesn't seem so.

To be blunt, I don't see someone who seduced under age boys to get it on with, and they were indeed boys in every sense, to be a very good role model. Maybe the father isn't much better, who knows. And it doesn't seem likely they would allow that, not if they aren't even allowing the fathers in the child's life.

As far as the welfare of the child being put first all I can do is quote: "hornswoggle". That is what a court says, what it actually does can be 100% the opposite of what is good for the child. Too many times in too many different cases the courts have just handed children to the mother without any valid reason other then they are the mother. Quite frankly, if they are indeed doing this for the good of the child, then each case should have a custody evaluation done to see which parent is actually good for the child. Again, doesn't look like it is being done. If you are going to force someone to be a parent, including supporting the child, then they should be allowed the opportunity to be a parent. Especially if they are not the one that committed a crime to have the child.

edit: Again, all in my opinion. I feel that there would be a much better way to handle this and would even be better for the child in the long run. The one court stated that both parents should be in their children's life... yet the father isn't. And that's wrong.

[The Observer]

A lot of the issues you raise are getting a bit away from the core issues. Not that I disagree with your opinions, in fact I agree with a lot of the. But they are opinions and not necessarily in alignment with the rulings that you will get in these situations.

The only way you are going to get the kind of things you would like to see in custody and support rulings is to get legislative changes made that will require the judges to consider and evaluate each situation.

As far as the welfare of the child being put first all I can do is quote: "hornswoggle".

This is one thing that I disagree with you. Regardless of what the results may be, the courts rule with that intent in mind. Since it is possible that we could consider the minor dad and the adult mother to be both unfit parents, how should the judge rule? Either parent could be a problem parent, and delivering the kid to foster parents, the state, or whatever could mean that the kid would be just as bad off.

Our society and culture views mothers as the parent most likely to be nurturing which is important for kids; this is why judges tend to award custody to the mother. If I was sitting on the bench and having to make solomonaic decisions about where the kid would end up, with all things being equal, I would probably award custody to the mother - regardless of Dad being a equally involved and loving parent. I wouldn't ignore situations where Mom was a drug addict or could be shown to be living a risky life style that would put the child's life in danger. But my experience shows me that dads in those situations are on average are just as bad if not worse. So it boils down to the level of the questions where is the lesser evil in this situation.

I admire you for fighting back and being tough to get custody of your children. It wasn't an easy fight and I know that resentment comes easy and is hard to forget when you were made to feel as though you were not a worthy parent in light of your ex's problems, issues and attitude, especially when the court didn't take those isssues into consideration over the years.
This is why you should be an activist, organize single fathers and get the local legislators to start passing some laws that will give sincere single fathers consideration and due process in the court room.

[Number Six]

What stands out to me with child support/"deadbeat dad" problem is the staggering sums of money that are supposed to be paid after court order. I knew a tax cheat who with his second wife and four new kids (he had undone a vasectomy, claiming it was a "miracle") traveled around in red neck and Christian circles with uninsured vehicles and predictably bumped up against law enforcement but not tax authorities as he cashed all the checks at the payee's banks. At any rate there must be a lot of these divorced men deadbeats with huge judgments against them they will likely never pay. And probably there are deadbeat moms as well.

On the rape thing I would just make a rhetorical point; guys get raped too, I'm not sure what the percentages are, probably higher than reported: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/ ... ulted.html

The woman has the choice to bring the fetus to term ultimately because it is her body. I just wish those activist feminists were a little more active in situations, such as organic farms, where the farmer/owner likes to get college girls as "workers" because they make life "interesting" for them. Women (as well as men) should invoke harassment within the workplace no matter how vulnerable they feel.

[JamesVincent]

Number Six, I'm not sure I understood a word you said.

[Number Six]