On Tue, 19 Dec 2006 19:18:16 +0000, Richard Miller
Post by Richard Miller Post by Cynic
As an extreme example - the woman deserts her loving and caring
husband for a multi-millionaire. They move hundreds of miles away,
making regular contact between the father and his children impossible.
The father earns very little even though holding down two jobs, and
struggles to pay the bills. Every holiday the children are given the
choice between staying with their father in his run-down bedsit, or
going on an exotic foreign holiday with mum and stepdad. So the
father loses out. Do you feel it right that the father should be made
to pay more than he can afford to "support" children that he has
little hope of having any relationship with, when the money is not
needed at all, and in fact comes to about as much as the woman tips
her hairdresser each week?
Emotive claptrap. I expect better from you, Cynic.
Sorry - it was not *intended* to be emotive at all. I was looking at
the situation from the POV of what is or is not *just*.
The law as it stands IIUC takes no account whatsoever of the
circumstances. If the man is the father, he pays.
IMO the law should attempt to follow the *moral* position as far as
possible, unless it conflicts with the practical issues, in which case
it should take a pragmatic stance.
Here's what I feel about the moral position wrt *financial*
Firstly, with medical science what it is, there is no need to have a
baby at all if it is not wanted. My position is that if one partner
wants the child and the other does not, the person who insists on
having the baby should bear *all* responsibility for the child
(obviously in practise this will almost always be the mother).
In the event that both parents wanted the child, my argument is that
this is almost always on the understanding that both parents will take
part in raising the child as a family, and both will be a major
influence in the child's life. If one of the parents thought that
they were to be excluded almost entirely from their child's life, I
doubt they would have agreed to conceive the child in the first place.
If therefore one parent unilaterally decides to split up and remove
the child from the care and influence of the other, then the
"contract" is broken, and the defaulting parent must take on all the
financial responsibility for the child's upbringing.
If a 3rd party comes along and takes on the role of parent to the
child(ren), then IMO that person should also take on the financial
burden as well.
Post by Richard Miller
Everything you say
here is only an issue about what the system should be and how much
should be required by way of child support.
Yes - that was all I intended to comment on - just your bald
Post by Richard Miller
It has nothing whatsoever to
do with the question whether confiscation of passport and driving
licence are an appropriate measure to enforce payment of maintenance
once the assessment has been made.
I am in principle against that measure unless it were to be available
in general for all outstanding debts where there has been a legal or
quasi-legal decision as to repayment terms for the debt. After all,
the children of a man who cannot afford to provide for them because
his customer has defaulted on paying him what he is owed suffer just
as much as the children of a father who is not paying maintainance.