Why exactly are custodial parents legally allowed to refuse to seek child support if the best interests of the CHILD should come first?
 

Why exactly are custodial parents legally allowed to refuse to seek child support if the best interests of the CHILD should come first?

Also, why exactly don't children have a legal recourse for such a move on the part of their custodial parents--for instance, by being allowed to sue their custodial parents for this (as in, for not giving them as good of a childhood as they could have by depriving them of additional child support) once these children themselves will become adults? For that matter, why exactly aren't children--once they will become adults--also sue their non-custodial parents for this if their non-custodial parents were actually in on this scam? Sure, forcing non-custodial parents to pay 18+ years' worth of retroactive child support would destroy their lives, but who the fuck really cares, right? The best interests of the CHILD come first!

Hey, fuck you!


:deadhorse:

Suppose it is in the interests of the child to be sterilized while they are still a minor? Shouldn't that child have a legal right to get sterilized, even if their parent thinks that they are shit house rat crazy for being obsessed with the idea? Shouldn't they be able to seek emancipation so that they can start seeking answers themselves to these questions? Isn't pee-pee whacking something that the courts are there for the young uns to make decisions about?

Can you accept that it would be absurd to allow children to sue their parents for not having made every decision during their childhood based on what would maximize their income in order to provide them with a "better" childhood? Passed up that job offer to relocate to North Dakota at a higher salary? Refused to work 90 hour weeks? Didn't take that guy in the alley up on his offer to give you five bucks for a blowjob? See you in court, Dad!

Assuming that you can grasp that, can you explain why you think this particular case is an exception to which the ordinary rules of common sense don't apply?

How many beers and how many joints did you consume before casting those little pearls in front of us?

Gotta be in the tens of thousands.

But if you mean today, none so far.

I'm having trouble with this OP. Every time I try to read it, my eyes start rolling so hard that I can't see the laptop screen.

Well, one could argue that there should be a legal duty to seek child support and/or to voluntarily get a paternity test and pay child support if you suspect yourself to be a child's legal father. Should there actually be a legal duty to relocate to North Dakota if you get offered a better-paying job there?

If children are going to be forced to pay child support as a result of causing any unplanned pregnancies (even if they were victims of rape, statutory or otherwise!), then Yes, it actually does make sense to allow children to legally get sterilized. They could freeze some of their sperm beforehand or, alternatively, reproduce through gametogenesis in the long(er)-run.

Dude, sue your parents, the school district and the guy who always gave you the atomic wedgie in the lunch room.

Yes, one "could" argue that. But why would one argue that there is a legal obligation to seek out this particular source of income, but not others?

Besides, why would a parent not want to seek child support? I imagine that the most common reasons would be 1) the noncustodial parent is so abusive or crazy that the custodial parent doesn't want anything to do with them at all, 2) the custodial parent realizes that the noncustodial parent is broke, so why bother, and/or 3) the noncustodial parent is already wealthy enough that it wouldn't make any difference.

In which of those cases do you feel that the custodial parent shouldn't be trusted to make their own judgment about how to handle their situation?

This is my favorite post ever.

In #3, the custodial parent could simply put the extra money in a bank account for the child's use once the child will turn 18 or whatever.

Also, by that logic, why exactly aren't custodial parents allowed to legally indemnify non-custodial parents for all of their losses as a result of paying child support, like Justice Roger DeBruler suggested in his dissent in Straub v. BMT, comparing this idea to liability insurance?

If they're mature enough to consent to 18+ years' worth of child support payments, why not also to sterilization?

As for a non-custodial parent being abusive and/or crazy, put a restraining order on them and then force them to pay child support! Simple. As for a non-custodial parent being broke, tough shit for them. They can do some hard labor in prison to make some child support money if nothing else works for them!

You make a strong argument in favor of trans-orbital lobotomy. :horse:

You still haven’t answered: if you don’t think parents, as a general rule, should be legally obligated to maximize their income by any means possible, why is this particular source of potential income an exception to that rule?

The general rule in our society is that parents get to make medical decisions for their children. Do you think a parent should be permitted to force a child to get sterilized against their own expressed wishes? How about if the child is too young to even understand the situation?

Because talking about birth control is not the same as doing it. Personally, I use my personality to assure population stability with respect to descendents.

It shouldn't, but then again, this raises the question of why exactly parents shouldn't be allowed to have a unilateral opt-out from paying child support in the first place, especially when no additional taxpayer money will actually be on the line, as could be always if we will ever actually have a sufficiently large UBI for every person, including (a smaller amount) for every child.

Ideally, I would prefer not to hunt down unwilling parents for child support in the first place--at all. Ever! But as long as this will continue to happen, then maybe?

My answer would be even more strongly inclined towards a Yes once we will actually be able to do gametogenesis and create artificial sperm.

What's gametogenesis? Self-reproduction while playing a computer video-game?

Uhh, the two underlined, italicized things are mutually exclusive. You need to work on your 'basic logic' skills before you start straining your brain on complicated subjects like this.

Gametogenesis does what Nintendo gameBoy don’t. :deadhorse: You truly are a sick fuck, like the human race needs more ways to make assholes.

Gallium nitride 99.99%, $21.50 per gram.

Creating artificial gametes, of course.

By "voluntarily", I meant "on one's own initiative". Though maybe my use of the term "voluntarily" here was inaccurate.

Then just say that. No need to put on heirs. Your obtuseness is downright zytogezotic.

I just looked up that case and read it. You apparently missed this particular sentence of the dissent (it's the last fucking sentence. how did you fucking miss it? oh, yeah, it's because you're fucking stupid, as well as obsessed.): "If a person promises to pay the father's share of child support then, if that person is able, he or she should pay." [emphasis, mine.] It was never established in that case whether or not she was able to pay. All the judge you referenced dissented to was the idea (which that decision established) was that you can't form a contract that fritters away the right of the kid to any and every kind of support. His point was that if the contracting party promises to pay, and (here's the important part) CAN pay, then the contracting party should be legally compelled to pay, even if, normally, the other party would have a legal obligation to pay. But it was a dissent, not a decision. It has no legal force.

You also apparently missed the fact that it's a decision of the "Court of Appeals of Indiana, Fourth District", and so is not binding precedent in any other fucking state, let alone at the federal level. Hell, given that 'Fourth District' part, it may well not even be binding on all of the state of Indiana. But I'm not going to bother looking up how Indiana courts work. You are on extremely shaky legal ground if you're basing your argument on a decision from a dissent, from a case that bad.

Your legal analysis skills, and logic skills, highly resemble "West Virginia's Dumbest Lawyer". Are you socking, because you don't want people to know that you're obsessed with testicles? Or are you merely as stupid as Ultravile?

I see what you did there:p

More legal stupidity of yours, which makes me wonder if you're an Ultravile sock: They are not 'consenting' to 'child support payments', they are being legally compelled to do it, whether they like it or not. There's a real logical difference there, moron. You might want to go back and read the definition of the word 'consent'. You obviously have missed the meaning.

Well, he's not a lawyer, as he is totally uninterested in screwing anyone.

Actually, screwing a woman, as long as he can do it without functional 'nads is precisely HIS obsession. He just can't find any woman who will have anything to do with him. It's a failure on his part :palatr: rather than some doctor, so he's left to masturbate, furiously. But he will still persist in blaming the doctor who wouldn't snip him.... OH, wait. That's HIS exact complaint. It would seem we're done, here...

:wanker:

Well, if he didn't think his mother was supposed to clean up after him (see "custodial parent") he might clean up his act and lure some dignified woman to his lair.

I've got it! He's SamuelA!

SamuelA actually does get laid. He has to travel to Eastern Europe, and hire underaged sex slaves to get any, but he claims he does get some.

Touche!

Yes, I know that it was a dissent. I'm just saying that it would have been better if it would have been accepted as the majority opinion in that case. Also, it's an Indiana Supreme Court case:

https://law.justia.com/cases/indiana...jv-1284-4.html

It made its way up there from the Indiana Court of Appeals. Justice DeBruler is the one who dissented in that case on the Indiana Supreme Court; Judge William Conover is the one who dissented in that case on the Indiana Court of Appeals.

I got the term from Gwern.

Why not? After all, they can always freeze some sperm beforehand or, alternatively, reproduce through IVF + ICSI--or through gametogenesis a couple of decades or more from now, for that matter!

Better yet would be NEVER hunting people down for child support for children who were conceived when these people themselves were still minors, but since that's not possible, having parents sterilize children is the next best thing here! :)

Did someone just get out of jail for the first time in 15 days and immediately start posting from his Mom's basement?

burp

I think Xen's parents should kick things off. As we know, the best and surest sterilant is direct application of heat.

Just saying. Why exactly force unwilling parents to pay child support "in the name of the best interests of the children" when we already screw over children in various other ways, whether by not legally requiring custodial parents who aren't on welfare to seek child support or by allowing custodial parents to refuse to accept a job offer that would give them MUCH more money?

Don't get it.

Yes?

Because somebody has to pay and they're the ones who had the fun.

Why doesn't child support go directly to the child? Huh? The custodial parent is going to spend the money on whatever she/he thinks is important and treat the kid like a child, even if the "child" is sixty fucking years old. And why, now, that I'm on my own, doesn't my mother, my supposed "custodial parent" not clean my house every time she visits? I call bullshit on all of this. This is all bullshit. Bullshit! Even my grandma thinks it's bullshit. But she won't come clean my house either.