Take a Break from COVID Discussions—Something Else to Argue About?

I’m SO sick of talking about COVID, so I thought I might post something on a topic that usually gets folks fired up. Any replies don’t necessarily have to continue on the topic I’ve posted here, so long as they don’t mention COVID-19! I just need a break from that particular subject and thought others might as well. Playing Devils Advocate here, so don’t kill me! I’ll start…

[I wonder if our cousins in the U.K., Germany, France and elsewhere have a similar law on their books? Regardless, please join in!]

DEADBEAT DAD LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

“Passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment abolished slavery in the United States and provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." — www.archives.gov...

The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits Indentured or involuntary servitude. When a father (or putative father) is order by a court at the behest of his ex-wife to pay child support and/or alimony, it creates a condition of involuntary servitude. If he refuses or fails to pay, he goes to jail. Historically, shirking one’s responsibility to one’s children is not a crime in the traditional sense, I.e. ‘violent’ crime. Nor is it understood as a ‘theft’ or property crime, since the parent is not actually stealing from his children but is withholding something from them. Like they say, it’s not against the law to be an a##hole.

Thoughts?

originally posted by: Thoughtcrime
I’m SO sick of talking about COVID, so I thought I might post something on a topic that usually gets folks fired up. Any replies don’t necessarily have to continue on the topic I’ve posted here, so long as they don’t mention COVID-19! I just need a break from that particular subject and thought others might as well. Playing Devils Advocate here, so don’t kill me! I’ll start…

[I wonder if our cousins in the U.K., Germany, France and elsewhere have a similar law on their books? Regardless, please join in!]

DEADBEAT DAD LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL

“Passed by Congress on January 31, 1865, and ratified on December 6, 1865, the 13th amendment abolished slavery in the United States and provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." — www.archives.gov...

The Thirteenth Amendment prohibits Indentured or involuntary servitude. When a father (or putative father) is order by a court at the behest of his ex-wife to pay child support and/or alimony, it creates a condition of involuntary servitude. If he refuses or fails to pay, he goes to jail. Historically, shirking one’s responsibility to one’s children is not a crime in the traditional sense, I.e. ‘violent’ crime. Nor is it understood as a ‘theft’ or property crime, since the parent is not actually stealing from his children but is withholding something from them. Like they say, it’s not against the law to be an a##hole.

Thoughts?

Not too late for you to change topics .

a reply to: Thoughtcrime
Having children and bailing on them financially, emotionally, or physically is immoral. There are other laws based on immorality so I'd say expecting a parent (not just dads) to help provide the needs of their children is within the scope of this too.

A child cannot change their circumstance and shouldn't suffer from the decisions of the parents. Parents need to put the child before personal/emotional issues with the other parent.

My personal view is that too many men believe women just delight in child rearing and don't need any help. Child rearing is a relentless, tiring job that puts a person at risk of poverty simply due to the cost of childcare and the often lower wages of average women's jobs. Children raised by a stressed, worn out parent naturally won't have it as good as those raised by a pair of parents who take turns even if they hate each other but put the kids first.

a reply to: Thoughtcrime

Its really very simple.

If the man chooses to leave the relationship after accepting responsibility for fatherhood by placing his name on the childs birth certificate then yes he should pay/support.

If the woman chooses to end the relationship and omits the father from the relationship against his will then she's on her own from pay/support from the father.

Most laws on alimony are a joke.

a reply to: igloo

“ a reply to: Thoughtcrime
Having children and bailing on them financially, emotionally, or physically is immoral. There are other laws based on immorality so I'd say expecting a parent (not just dads) to help provide the needs of their children is within the scope of this too.”

Agreed. There IS a moral obligation by the father (or mother) to this topic. For arguments sake, someone once said ‘you can’t legislate morality’—usually in the context of Prohibition/anti-alcohol laws. Yet there are still laws against prostitution in most of the States. But I digress…

a reply to: CthruU

“ If the woman chooses to end the relationship and omits the father from the relationship against his will then she's on her own from pay/support from the father.

Most laws on alimony are a joke.”

Yup. It SHOULD work both ways. From what I understand, things are changing, judges are more open to the changing times we live in. For example, look at the Russel Brand, Katy Perry split; I think the judge awarded him a MASSIVE amount of alimony since she makes a lot more than he does and, as the saying goes, he needed to be ‘kept in the lifestyle he’s become accustomed to’.

On a side note: I’m a new member and didn’t notice is started this thread in the Breaking Political News forum?! How do I move this post & threads to a more appropriate forum like Chit Chat or Relationships? Or can I?

a reply to: Thoughtcrime

So sooooooooooo sad and pathetic.

Every man knows that every coupling can result in a pregnancy. Even with contraceptives which are not foolproof.

If he chooses to do so, then he has given his informed consent and assumed responsibility for the results.

If a man does not want that responsibility (and joy) in his life, then he also has the option of not doing the deed... or getting himself snipped so that it is not a possibility. Self-service is also a perfectly viable option.

Easy peasy.

a reply to: Thoughtcrime

I agree with you 100% and that is why I waited until I was married to a high quality guy who I know won't bounce if things get tough before I had my babies.

On the other hand, I know someone who had 3 kids by 3 different guys, none of the relationships lasted longer than a few months after birth and she collects child support from all 3 to the tune of about 2k a month. She just recently got impregnated by a new guy she was dating for about 6 months so this will be 4 kids by 4 different fathers, and honestly the current one is a joke and refers to the baby as "it" and doesn't want anything to do really with her other young kids. It is pretty obvious this guy was just going to hit and quit but now he is trapped for the time being, until he will probably leave too and end up paying child support as well.

If child support didn't exist, there would be a lot less single moms because they wouldn't use babies as cash machines. So I wholeheartedly agree with you.

My argument is that if a mother wanted to abandon a child they can do so to a fire station or hospital no questions asked and they are not forced to care for that child in any way shape or form.

Fathers don't get the same privilege. Even if a father gives up his rights to a child he is still forced to pay support. So much for equality.

So mothers can abandon children consequence-free and fathers have to pay no matter what. There have even been cases of fathers being forced to pay child support for children that are not adopted or biologically theirs.


My Ex even tried pulling some crap like this. We were going through a divorce and I was in a very rough financial spot and she offered to not force me to pay child support if I relinquished my rights to my daughters. My lawyer thankfully had seen this a million times where a father gave up their rights and hadn't seen their children in years then suddenly they get hit with a summons to pay child support including arrears. Happens all the time he said and most fathers are to stupid to read into it

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: Thoughtcrime

So sooooooooooo sad and pathetic.

Every man knows that every coupling can result in a pregnancy. Even with contraceptives which are not foolproof.

If he chooses to do so, then he has given his informed consent and assumed responsibility for the results.

So, does the woman also bear responsibility for uncrossing her legs?

In fact, since she is the one who will be most impacted, I think she bears far more responsibility than the father.

Also, how many women lie about being on the pill or some other way in order to trap someone?

Anyway, in the case of a marriage, I agree that who bears the most financial responsibility lies with who ended the relationship - depending on the circumstances. The one thing I do know is, any accusations of abuse should have to be proven at least by a preponderance of the evidence before any actions can be taken against the father (or whoever is accused).

Assets can be complicated, but in general, I think the whole 'in a manner to which she is accustomed' is ridiculous. Why should some woman who has nothing be entitled to millions of a man's hard earned wealth just because she married him for a few years (and the reverse goes as well)?

Any replies don’t necessarily have to continue on the topic I’ve posted here

Well here we are, entering the second half of August and still we have not had the promised report on the Maricopa County Audit. So what's the deal huh? As the weeks have drawn on and far exceeded the original projections of the time it would take, not to mention the funding it would take, we still have no results other than ''just wait until''

The magic date set by Lindel has come and gone with Trump not being re-instated. He has modified his projected date some time into September and that's fine I guess. Another case of ''just wait until''

Dead beat dads??? Oh yeah, what a society that raises so many of it's male population feeling free to abandon their cubs. I don't know if that is a step up or down in the evolutionary line from dads who just beat their children because they do not fit the dads expectations and dreams.

originally posted by: Thoughtcrime
a reply to: CthruU


On a side note: I’m a new member and didn’t notice is started this thread in the Breaking Political News forum?! How do I move this post & threads to a more appropriate forum like Chit Chat or Relationships? Or can I?

Only a mod can help with that. They will likely move it automatically for you. Also no need to type out your quotes, just hit quote icon and delete what you don't want included.

I'm making a pledge this morning. My pledge it for one week to stop clicking on the articles in my Yahoo news feed with titles like ''Megan Thee Stallion Rocks a New Skimpy Bikini''.

I can do this folks, root for me.

a reply to: tanstaafl

So, does the woman also bear responsibility for uncrossing her legs?

Of course!

In fact, since she is the one who will be most impacted...

Hmmm... nine months of having your body put through massive changes -- both internally and externally, often with major serious side effects and adverse conditions (including death), followed by horrendous excruciating pain of labor and delivery, and all its inherent side affects and adverse conditions (including death), with more internal and external bodily changes following delivery... um, yeah, I'd say the woman is definitely most impacted. Fair enough!

...I think she bears far more responsibility than the father.

Their responsibility is equal. But the woman definitely works harder for it, and definitely suffers more.

Also, how many women lie about being on the pill or some other way in order to trap someone?

Doesn't matter. Birth control is not foolproof, so there is always a chance of pregnancy even if birth control is used. No man is "trapped." Every man knows exactly what the truth and facts and consequences are.

Anyway, in the case of a marriage, I agree that who bears the most financial responsibility lies with who ended the relationship - depending on the circumstances.

I would say financial responsibility should be equal no matter the circumstances of the split. And quite frankly, any parent who would punish and deprive their child for the sins of the parent is a POS.

The one thing I do know is, any accusations of abuse should have to be proven at least by a preponderance of the evidence before any actions can be taken against the father (or whoever is accused).

I don't see how abuse should enter into providing for the needs of the child. What goes on between the parents is not the fault nor the responsibility of the child. Regardless of how pisspoor the adults act, their responsibility to the child is completely separate.

Assets can be complicated, but in general, I think the whole 'in a manner to which she is accustomed' is ridiculous. Why should some woman who has nothing be entitled to millions of a man's hard earned wealth just because she married him for a few years (and the reverse goes as well)?

I didn't think alimony was even a thing anymore... but that's also what pre-nups are for.

Every situation is different though and has to be considered on its own merits and earning $$ is just part of the picture. For example, when our son was born, I was working and supporting us while my husband went to technical school. When my husband took a trainee job, at a trainee's wages, I took on extra work at home and worked outside the home at nights to support the family. It was an investment in our family and our future. If he had walked out on me/us, I/we would have been royally screwed. Is that fair? We decided together that we would promote his career to earn the bulk of our living, while I carried the lion's share of running the home and family... and I also managed to work and earn some money along the way. But always -- ALWAYS -- his career came first. My husband literally could not and would not be where he is now if not for what I did on the home front. That counts too.

If we really want to go down this road, should wives/mothers demand child care costs/credits for taking care of their own children? How about housekeeping fees? Gardener? Accountant? Travel agent? Laundress? Chauffeur? Because I can guarandamtee you that I did the overwhelming majority of all of that!!!

Hmmm... nine months of having your body put through massive changes -- both internally and externally, often with major serious side effects and adverse conditions (including death), followed by horrendous excruciating pain of labor and delivery, and all its inherent side affects and adverse conditions (including death), with more internal and external bodily changes following delivery... um, yeah, I'd say the woman is definitely most impacted. Fair enough!

a reply to: Boadicea

Completely and totally irreverent. DNA/God/Universe, pick your flavor gave that to women. It also gave most women the desire to risk all that. Otherwise we would not be discussing this. The current legal system favors women. That simple. They can choose to get out of 18 years of financial burden with at least 3 different choices. Men have no choices.

a reply to: Uknownparadox

Completely and totally irreverent.

Absolutely relevant... and absolutely necessary.

DNA/God/Universe, pick your flavor gave that to women.

Oh my... the transphobe police will be coming for you soon!!!

It also gave most women the desire to risk all that.

Um hum. Many men want children also, and are quite happy to risk a woman's health and well being for it.

And, of course, men were given other... um... desires...

Otherwise we would not be discussing this.

Indeed.

The current legal system favors women. That simple. They can choose to get out of 18 years of financial burden with at least 3 different choices. Men have no choices.

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

Of course men have a choice. Plenty of choices. Their own wisdom and self-discipline is what separates the good men from the whining and crying man-boys.

I don't have any children, so it's not really my fight, but I would say a major overhaul of the system is needed, taking into consideration the income of the fathers.

There are many father's who have been put into the poor house and made destitute because some judges have exacted to much in payment for children. And as horrible as it is for children to be abandoned financially and emotionally there are some cases where if the parents wouldn't have divorced, the children wouldn't receive as much money for their care, as is awarded in child support after a divorce.

It's a complex problem and there is no simple and easy solution.

a reply to: Boadicea

Would you like some cheese with that whine?

I was should have asked you the same thing.

TextOf course men have a choice. Plenty of choices. Their own wisdom and self-discipline

Those are the same choices women have. Given to everyone by the DNA/God/Universe.
American law gives men no choices. That's a fact. But it gives women choices. That's a fact.
You are being disingenuous at the least, to say men have any legal choices lady.

a reply to: Thoughtcrime


child neglect/abuse is illegal at both federal and state levels. to with hold something from a child that affects their well being is considered child abuse /neglect.

warning opens a PDF

Child abuse and neglect are defined by Federal and State laws. At the State level, child abuse and neglect may be defined in both civil and criminal statutes. This publication presents civil definitions that determine the grounds for intervention by State child protective agencies.1 At the Federal level, the Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act (CAPTA) has defined child abuse and neglect as "any recent act or failure to act on the part of a parent or caregiver that results in death, serious physical or emotional harm, sexual abuse, or exploitation, or an act or failure to act that presents an imminent risk of serious harm.
Children’s Bureau/ACYF/ACF/HHS 800.394.3366 | Email: [email protected] | www.childwelfare.gov... STATE STATUTESCurrent Through March 2019 WHAT’S INSIDE Defining child abuse or neglect in State lawStandards for reportingPersons responsible for the childExceptionsSummaries of State laws To find statute information for a particular State, go to www.childwelfare.... gov/topics/systemwide/ laws-policies/state/. Definitions of Child Abuse and Neglect

passed by congress and been federal law since 1988, and as far as i know has not been declared unconstitutional by the supreme court.

a reply to: Boadicea

And yet this not a good argument against abortion on demand?