Should non custodial parents be sent to jail for failing to pay child support

Plopsu

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

No. Female Just a realist.

I wouldn't call what I quoted realistic. Perhaps you should actually talk to some men who have been forcibly seperated from their children.

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

:eek:

ARE YOU ****ING KIDDING ME???

Ok ...i am out of touch with reality. That is not anywhere near my own financial situation or anyone in my family. So sorry i wasn't aware of what a typical situation was for other people.

I didn't realize most people were so badly providing for themselves for whatever reason.

Do you not speak to colleagues or friends about this? I don't know how anyone with two feet on the ground can think that most people have private pensions (no offence)

banie01

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

It seems there are no real men.

I wonder if I was to label the female gender in this manner what the reaction would be?

There is a level of misandry that is tolerated on threads such as these that far outweighs real life and would not be tolerated in any other sub on Boards.

B0jangles

silverharp wrote: »

im saying there is an unfair court system in the US which is biased against men

I though that the stats show that where fathers actively seek custody in the US, they generally get it, and that the disproportionate number of female single parents is not due to the courts generally favouring the women, its that the default is assumed by all parties; fathers and mothers included, to be that the children should live primarily with the mother.

ILoveYourVibes

Esther Rhythmic Schoolhouse wrote: »

This is as bad as the anti women stuff here. "No" real men?

How come some folk simply cannot think along the lines of "some women are arseholes, some men are arseholes, most people are not"?

It seems really difficult and yet it's so simple.

I see people expressing opinions no real anti women stuff.

ILoveYourVibes

B0jangles wrote: »

I though that the stats show that where fathers actively seek custody in the US, they generally get it, and that the disproportionate number of female single parents is not due to the courts generally favouring the women, its that the default is assumed by all parties; fathers and mothers included, to be that the children should live primarily with the mother.

You are correct they do.

But obviously men PERCEIVE they are treated unfairly and sometimes that is as important as other information.

ILoveYourVibes

banie01 wrote: »

I wonder if I was to label the female gender in this manner what the reaction would be?

My friend i would agree with you 100%. And you would be correct.

Why this is ....is complex though. Its not entirely women's fault.

ILoveYourVibes

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Do you not speak to colleagues or friends about this? I don't know how anyone with two feet on the ground can think that most people have private pensions (no offence)

I would definitely never talk about money. People are iffy about it. I am iffy about it.

Yeah you would not be the first to tell me i don't have my feet on the ground in fairness. I am not in the slightest offended.


I did honestly think most people had private pensions i was genuinely shocked.

Kimsang

B0jangles wrote: »

I though that the stats show that where fathers actively seek custody in the US, they generally get it, and that the disproportionate number of female single parents is not due to the courts generally favouring the women, its that the default is assumed by all parties; fathers and mothers included, to be that the children should live primarily with the mother.

Largely what you say is true, but it has its caveats.

"In just over 51% of custody decisions, both parents agree that the mother should become the custodial parent. In roughly 29% of custody decisions, this is made without any assistance from the court or from a mediator. 11% are determined with the assistance of a mediator, and 5% are determined following a custody evaluation. By comparison, only 4% of custody cases require going to trial before primary custody is decided. Overall, 91% of custody decisions do not require the family court to decide. "

This doesn't take into account the fact that most lawyers will tell their clients not to challenge for custody because they will lose, and it will only cost them money. So mostly they seek amicable arrangements, usually at the behest of the mother.

B0jangles

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

You are correct they do.

But obviously men PERCEIVE they are treated unfairly and sometimes that is as important as other information.

The answer is to give them the correct information then, not reinforce the mistaken perception.

If a father is led to believe that he has no hope of getting custody of his children, he might just give up before even trying, and that would be terrible for him and for the children. We should all fight these misconceptions, not repeat them because some people want to cling to their sense of victimhood.

ILoveYourVibes

Maybe we are not getting to grips with the social issues these men are facing.

Most non custodial parents who don't pay are from working class or poverty backgrounds etc. Poor education difficulties.

Perhaps programmes encouraging single young fathers to engage in education?

Gimme A Pound

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I see people expressing opinions no real anti women stuff.

There is absolutely unfair tarring of women here by some, like your unfair tarring of men.

B0jangles

Kimsang wrote: »

Largely what you say is true, but it has its caveats.

"In just over 51% of custody decisions, both parents agree that the mother should become the custodial parent. In roughly 29% of custody decisions, this is made without any assistance from the court or from a mediator. 11% are determined with the assistance of a mediator, and 5% are determined following a custody evaluation. By comparison, only 4% of custody cases require going to trial before primary custody is decided. Overall, 91% of custody decisions do not require the family court to decide. "

This doesn't take into account the fact that most lawyers will tell their clients not to challenge for custody because they will lose, and it will only cost them money. So mostly they seek amicable arrangements, usually at the behest of the mother.

Do you have any stats/data to back this up?

ILoveYourVibes

B0jangles wrote: »

The answer is to give them the correct information then, not reinforce the mistaken perception.



If a father is led to believe that he has no hope of getting custody of his children, he might just give up before even trying, and that would be terrible for him and for the children. We should all fight these misconceptions, not repeat them because some people want to cling to their sense of victimhood.

You can't really deal with feelings like that. Besides telling people they are crazy negates the reality they are experiencing.

If you are a working class male maybe dropped out of school had a child too young or even in your twenties it can be a very real reality that the world or the odds are against you.

Facts are not always the truth.

ILoveYourVibes

Arguing who is better or worse is not nearly as effective as helping everyone.


We'll all need it in different ways. Maybe not financial. But even if you don't need it financially you will need it in other ways.

B0jangles

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

You can't really deal with feelings like that. Besides telling people they are crazy negates the reality they are experiencing.

If you are a working class male maybe dropped out of school had a child too young or even in your twenties it can be a very real reality that the world or the odds are against you.

Facts are not always the truth.

Sometimes people are crazy.

Sometimes people are wrong.

Coddling them by telling them that their reality is just as valid as everyone else's, even when it's clearly based on incorrect information is not helping them, it's patronizing.

ILoveYourVibes

B0jangles wrote: »

Sometimes people are crazy.

Sometimes people are wrong.

Coddling them by telling them that their reality is just as valid as everyone else's, even when it's clearly based on incorrect information is not helping them, it's patronizing.

This is an instance in life where i feel my feminine wisdom to try and please everyone to come to a greater state of harmony where the problem can be solved, is being misunderstood. :rolleyes:

Its these traditional lineal male argument styles that get us nowhere.

I have the facts ..you have the facts.

I'm not here for it.

I have to acknowledge the feelings of both sides.

I'm infuriating really aren't I?

Lillyfae

Kevin Irving wrote: »

Correct.

But on the other hand, a 50:50 split in terms of access, and hence patenting responsibilities, would in theory leave no maintenance to be paid either way.

It's very easy in many people's minds for maintenance and access to be judged together, because while legally speaking they're not related, in practice, they are.

One thing to consider is that perhaps the non-custodial parent is non-custodial for good reason- maybe unfit or dangerous for the child to be around? In that case why shouldn't they pay?

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

In the real world men do not wish to be left holding the baby.

Of course women should be the best wives and mothers they can be.



Keeping a family loving strong and together, setting the tone of the home etc is obviously very important.

A lot of this has obviously been a woman's role. Keeping home life together.

Appreciating those skills in society is important.

Interestingly we don't really appreciate or respect femininity. We don't respect softness etc.

Women don't want to be as sensitive anymore. They want to be strong like men. Confident like men.

Because men of course have been so successful at ruling the world.

Gentleness, empathy, sensitivity, caring, sweetness, compassion, tolerance, nurturance, deference, and succorance are traits that have traditionally been cited as feminine. They are usually key to holding a family together and setting the right tone to a home. But ironically they are the traits least respected in society. And often things people inc women are told are valueless in today's harsh world.

I however disagree i think they are very valuable. And should be brought MORE into the world not less.

Women should be MORE feminine. And shine that light right into the darkest places. Even the business world.

The world should be MORE feminine and more yeilding not less.

I agree with what you have which i have put in bold in your quote.But you would have to be very easy to disincentivize if you are honest.

So in short we should teach the world to respect the feminine more. So women will no longer strive to be men to gain respect.

So yes we SHOULD teach women to be better wives.

But consider this perhaps if the world respected feminine traits they would still be around.

That has nothing to do with men vrs women. Its simply kindness and sweetness are not revered in the world aggression is. It's why they are dying out.

In fact we worship aggression and competitiveness too much. Women are constantly being told be to less caring less emotional less sensitive.

That's not feminism. Its the patriarchy taking over the feminine mind.

Oh christ on a scooter, I had started to have hope for you after your first post. What a colossal disappointment.

B0jangles

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

This is an instance in life where i feel my feminine wisdom to try and please everyone to come to a greater state of harmony where the problem can be solved, is being misunderstood. :rolleyes:

Its these traditional lineal male argument styles that get us nowhere.

I have the facts ..you have the facts.

I'm not here for it.

I have to acknowledge the feelings of both sides.

I'm infuriating really aren't I?

I am also a woman. I do not think it is fair to credit your unique perspective to your gender.

ILoveYourVibes

B0jangles wrote: »

I am also a woman. I do not think it is fair to credit your unique perspective to your gender.

I know you are.

I wouldn't dream of it. I am just lightening the tone.

I credit it to my genius!

(yes i am being silly its cuz i am a woman!)


We have to be sympathetic to men. We're just so impossible.

meeeeh

I might be old fashioned or unwomanly but my thinking is if you have kids you take care of them. And if you don't state should force you without the nonsense of transporting people into the prison signing them in and sending them back out 3 hours later. I really don't know why property tax is the only non income related tax that can be deducted at source. If they can collect property taxes they should be able to collect other fines and maintenance.

Lillyfae

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I would definitely never talk about money. People are iffy about it. I am iffy about it.

Yeah you would not be the first to tell me i don't have my feet on the ground in fairness. I am not in the slightest offended.


I did honestly think most people had private pensions i was genuinely shocked.

If your private pension is work related wouldn't you have presentations by the provider every so often? Surely that would encourage a bit of water cooler talk...

BrokenArrows

The answer depends on affordability.
If the person not paying can easily afford it then yes they should be jailed or the payment removed directly from salary.

However it's more complicated when the person supposed to pay is struggling or borderline.

ILoveYourVibes

Lillyfae wrote: »

If your private pension is work related wouldn't you have presentations by the provider every so often? Surely that would encourage a bit of water cooler talk...

NOPE.

meeeeh

BrokenArrows wrote: »

However it's more complicated when the person supposed to pay is struggling or borderline.

The person who has kids and is struggling doesn't have the luxury of not finding food for them unless they are highly negligent.

Lillyfae

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

NOPE.

Am I missing something here? Do you expect some kind of admiration for not asking questions or requesting information about things you don't understand?

morphman

I don't think there should be a tarring of anyone here. I think each situation is different, I am one of these dad's, not deadbeat, I pay my way but the frustration I have gone through over the past 18 years since I split with my ex has been unreal. I now have zero relationship with my daughter thanks to all of it. I stopped paying maintenance for a period in an effort to get access to my daughter and I was brought to court by my ex.
The judge made an order for me to pay the maintenance which I did not have a problem with ever, when we came out of court and my solicitor looked for my ex's bank details, all she wanted to know was when she would get the back money. No back money was awaded.
The money I didn't pay I saved and this went to pay for a deposit for accommodation for college for my daughter.
I still pay maintenance to my ex as my daughter is in full time education, does my daughter see this money, no and I would rather pay it to her but I can't do that.

ILoveYourVibes

meeeeh wrote: »

I might be old fashioned or unwomanly but my thinking is if you have kids you take care of them. And if you don't state should force you without the nonsense of transporting people into the prison signing them in and sending them back out 3 hours later. I really don't know why property tax is the only non income related tax that can be deducted at source. If they can collect property taxes they should be able to collect other fines and maintenance.

Seems like common sense.

And i would never call you unwomanly.

meeeeh

Lillyfae wrote: »

If your private pension is work related wouldn't you have presentations by the provider every so often? Surely that would encourage a bit of water cooler talk...

It's in the media constantly, you don't need the water cooler talk to know the statistics around Irish pension hole. (which btw is a lot smaller than on continent where they are dreading what is going to happen because of low birth rate in countries like Italy or Germany).

ILoveYourVibes

morphman wrote: »

I don't think there should be a tarring of anyone here. I think each situation is different, I am one of these dad's, not deadbeat, I pay my way but the frustration I have gone through over the past 18 years since I split with my ex has been unreal. I now have zero relationship with my daughter thanks to all of it. I stopped paying maintenance for a period in an effort to get access to my daughter and I was brought to court by my ex.
The judge made an order for me to pay the maintenance which I did not have a problem with ever, when we came out of court and my solicitor looked for my ex's bank details, all she wanted to know was when she would get the back money. No back money was awaded.
The money I didn't pay I saved and this went to pay for a deposit for accommodation for college for my daughter.
I still pay maintenance to my ex as my daughter is in full time education, does my daughter see this money, no and I would rather pay it to her but I can't do that.

Sounds heartbreaking.

Thank you for sharing your story.

I take your point about taking it on a case by case basis.