Both parents should be responsible for supporting their children. And when men start getting pregnant, they'll have the option to decide whether they want to carry their child to term or not. Until then, women get to make the decision. They're the pregnant ones after all. Men who don't like this should think more carefully before having sex . . .

"Men who don't like this should think more carefully before having sex"

That's remarkably similiar to the argument prolifers use. "If you don't want a baby, you shouldn't have had sex"

Women have a choice, men should have a choice too.  

I don't at all think a respectable case can be made for reducing the quantity of resources getting directed to children


That's because you have no experience or education in the topic, and you really haven't thought about it. What qualifies you to spout on the subject apart from your cred as a feminist? How come you aren't self-aware enough to recognize your own ignorance?


The current formula in most states is based on a percentage of the parent's incomes as opposed to the actual costs involved of raising the children. Think of your inner economist that Brad DeLong insists you have within you. Are there poor economic incentives caused by this formula? And then Mr. Philosophy-nudgenik, what are the philosophical and real world implications of such a formula?


Hint: what happens to arrearages when the non-custodial parent loses his or her job? What should society do when the non-custodial parent wishes to change occupations for a more spirtually rewarding but less monetarily rewarding occupation?


To put it bluntly, why are divorced fathers trapped in their current jobs? What if divorced fathers want to go back to school? What if divorced fathers want to start their own business? Even if they are eager and able to pay the actual costs for their children, they are not allowed to change occupations without their ex-wive's permission. If they lose their jobs, they still have to pay the support based on their old position until they can go to court. They are then forced not to find the best job for them (and their kids) but are forced to find a job fast enough to satisfy the court and with a high enough wage to satisfy their ex-wife.


I lost my job during the dot-bomb and didn't know that I had to get to the court immediately. I went to court when I next had a job and could afford the time and the lawyer, 10 months later. In the meantime, I had in fact paid my ex over 20,000 (two kids) in those 10 months, but due to the prior agreement, I still "owed" her 15,000. Um, I had a good position, but not that good. Think about a formula that says that in 10 months, two kids required $35,000 to support them. When I got to court, I was informed that due to the Federal Bradley Amendment, judges cannot retroactively reduce support payments. Though I had no income for that time, I still owed $15,000 in arrearages. Basically, that came from what I should have paid to Uncle Sam and now I am in trouble with my Uncle.


My ex moved to another state, which is one reason it took so long for me to find a new job. In that new state I found a job as a full-time employee as opposed to a dot-com hourly contract worker. That new state's salary is normally about 30% less than the Bay Area, but add in the difference between what an hourly contract dotcom engineer earns and a full time engineer earns and my salary decreased by 50%.


When I finally got to court in the new state, my ex was asked if my changing positions, changing from hourly to fulltime, and change of salaries were okay with her. If they weren't we could have let the judge sort all of that out.


I live in a 2BR apartment. My ex has a mortgage on a 5BR house, and a new $40K SUV, and a cabin. I take my kids on vacation by driving them to local campgrounds, my ex flies them coastal destinations.


In prior court appearances, I was ordered to pay that $15,000 off monthly $250 each month. In the new state, 3 years after losing my job my support was finally changed from $3K+ per month to $1200 per month. In response, my ex has now taken me to court again to increase that $250 to $1250.


Divorced non-custodial parents s really are treated like wage slaves in a way that no other adult is and that is PRECISELY due to the current formula basing child support on percentages of income as opposed to actual expenses.


Stupid haarvaard philosophy students should strive to avoid getting a real world education in these matters.


I recommend to you reading Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrell, two feminists that are now associated with the "shocking!" father's rights movement.


Check out ACES Leaders Face-off on Bradley Amendment


Read all of Glenn Sacks. It will piss off Amanda Marcotte, but it will actually inform you a great deal.


In fact as an exercise for yourself and your readers, read Glenn Sacks and Warren Farrell and then come back and tell us if they are feminists or not.

There is an interesting set of studies called the Self Sufficiency Standard Studies, which detail the cost of living, at a barebones, bottom-of-lower-middle-class standard -- in other words, all the basic needs are met, but there is no discretionary spending.  Each study is for a different state, and perhaps 4 to 6 of these get published each year -- about 35 states have been studied so far. 

THey show the bare-bones cost of living for a single adult, for a single parent with a small child, a single parent with two young children, and a couple with the same age two children, by city and county.  It seems to me that such figures could be used to help establish appropriate child support, and that the same data might also be used to help make the argument  that TPMMAL (above) made about anti-abortion folks putting their money where their mouth is and helping to support a child financially throughout its youth as an inducement and compensation for someone who is debating whether or not to abort a pregnancy she can't afford by herself.

The lifestyle the SSS studies show is at the very very bottom of the lower middle class, and I don't see why a child should suffer if the parents choose to divorce.   I don't know how we achieve equity for all involved, but I am convinced that the children's welfare needs to be very high up in the hierarchy of needs to be considered.  They didn't ask for the situation.

lvtfan

http://www.wealthandwant.com ... if you'd like to see an end to poverty

"Insofar as a child is going to be born,"

Isn't that rather the point though? The idea of allowing a father to disclaim the child is to remove the freely availible ATM machine from the mother's reach, and discourage her from having a kid until she is in a place to support one.

Obviously forced abortion or childbirth is out of the question. A man has no say in whether a pregnancy is terminated or carried to term because it's an issue of personal autonomy (and rightly so) but a woman also has the right to to forfeit her parental responsibilities & offer her child up for adoption. The man, should he choose, should also have the option of forfeiting any parental rights to his offspring should he also choose to do so.

If he wanted to be sure, he could have used his own birth control, couldn't he?

It's an interesting argument to make that it's unfair to require the father to support the child and therefore we should transfer the obligation to the state--which means transfering the cost to the taxpayer. But the taxpayer had even less of a choice about having the baby than the father. So why is it fair to stick him with bill? It seems to me that without ever having the pleasure of getting laid, the taxpayer ends up being screwed.

PRECISELY, yoyo. 

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"

And when the woman agrees to fill-in at the father's job to earn the child support money, she should have the option to force him to pay child support.  He is the one earning it, after all...

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"

A day or so ago, I posted on this issue on my own blog. 

"You say I'm a dreamer.  We're two of a kind.  Looking for some perfect world that we both know that we'll never find." - Thompson Twins, "Hold Me Now"

Regardless of who pays, the state or the father, I hope we're all past the absurd feminist dogma that single mothering is a swell thing or that it should be encouraged.

One of the biggest blunders of the radical feminist movement was preaching that fatherless homes were actually superior (yes you read that right) because it would spare the children from having a father inflicted upon them. Of course there was no such problem with financial support.

I once confronted a well know feminist on Salon about that when she wrote an article from her single mother perspective. I pointed out she shouldn't glamorize single parenting due to the tremendous difficulty financially and having to carry a heavier burden in many ways where otherwise two people share the load. I was impressed she wrote back to admit the feminist pro-single mothering movement had been a mistake and to make clear it is very hard being a single mother. Having said that, her article still read as rather pandering to the old feminist movement and I’d wager she’d continue to publicly, after all a single mother has to pay the bills and if pandering is what it takes...

It goes to show what a foolish time the 60s and 70s were for some. We can see how Reagan's 80s crusade against welfare mothers was reactionary meanness but it did have some basis in reality and was given ammo by idiotic radicals. The other day Fukuyama still expressed support for such Reagan policies as the bulwark against that sort of foolish radicalism from his POV.

Bottom line is it never helps to have such foolish and short sighted radicals on one’s own side because they invariably do more harm than good.

He shouldn't have to pay child support if he doesen't want a child whether the pregnant woman decides to have the baby or not. She is perfectly able to give her child up for adoption if she doesen't feel she's capable of caring for it. The man has no such option for forfeiting his parental benefits & responsibilities if he feels he isn't capable of financially supporting a child.

If feminists wanted to cut Roe V. Wade for Men down at the knees they would agree that child support costs would only be based on actual agreed on or court ordered expenses.  That would vastly eliminate the agency problem.

which is what purplestate is trying to say so poorly

Thanks Nick for applying your superior brainpower to the issue.

I also see purplestate is resorting to ratings abuse.

Just thought you might enjoy a taste of your own medicine.

Ahh no, I give you 1s for making simplistic knee jerk comments. I gave you a 2 when you managed to include a half-baked argument.

Express your opinions more reasonably for a change and I'll be happy to rate you higher.

Your comments above exhibited several qualities typical off your posts.

There was the knee-jerk straw-man argument where you repeatedly missed the point and tried to put words in Ridgeway’s mouth. You also peeled off several emotional, pissy, and argumentative comments with no point but to troll Ridgeway. Your posts are also filled with presumptions which you never substantiate.

I don't know how we achieve equity for all involved, but I am convinced that the children's welfare needs to be very high up in the hierarchy of needs to be considered.  They didn't ask for the situation.

True. Nobody (smart) wants to penalize the innocent kids, especially considering that may perpetuate the cycle.

Having said that it’s important to be fair to the parents as well and try to strike the right balance. As Jerry pointed out, it’s unfair to make divorced fathers (or either working non-custodial parent) into an indentured servant, especially if the other parent is abusing that for revenge purpose.

OTOH, one  must also consider systems which disincentivize accidental pregnancy, single parenting, divorce, and other root causes of the problem. There is a error in trying to fix all penalties associated with problematic actions because doing so may actually creates more problems due to lack of feedback mechanisms to the acting individual.

Not saying I have all the solutions, just that there are several competing considerations and it's a very difficult problem.  It's certainly one of those issues where nothing is accomplished by looking at a single POV such as some posters are doing. (not saying you are, just saying in general) 

There goes purplestate with the rating abuse again.

There is no sense in which a father is a "freely available ATM machine."  The mother has to go to court to get the father to pay, and if the father doesn't pay anyway she has to go to court again