3 ms·

> I can explain it to you, and this is backed up by studies. I find this incredibly hard to believe. Please link a study or studies that shows that children wh

> I can explain it to you, and this is backed up by studies. I find this incredibly hard to believe. Please link a study or studies that shows that children where the father dodged and refused to pay child support had worse outcomes than children where the father paid child support as ordered.

diob 4y ago
Well, I can't do the impossible and conjure up your specific study. But I can point you to a dearth of studies on the outcomes of unwanted children. The most famous is https://journalistsresource.org/economics/abortion-crime-research-donohue-levitt/ https://journalistsresource.org/economics/abortion-crime-res.... They even revisited it to address criticisms and found the same results. It seems straightforward that forcing something on someone is going to lead to them victimizing someone. And if you think you can prevent it by policing them, I think you'll find it difficult (parents in America and around the world have a lot of leeway with how to treat and raise their children). I grew up in an abusive household, so I can confirm anecdotally some of these things. I made it out alright, my sister unfortunately did not. Two questions if I may: Why do you find it hard to believe? Did you have loving / supportive parents?
- ameister14 4y ago
  1. In either situation, the child is unwanted. The only difference is money, not time. I find it hard to believe the lack of both money and time is better than the lack of time. It just doesn't make logical sense to me. Now, if it was the difference between no child and a wanted child, that makes sense. But that's not what we're talking about - we're talking about the difference between a child where the father pays child support and a child where the father does not pay child support and instead the child is supported by state social services. 2. Yes I did. Why do you ask?
  - diob 4y ago
    For 1, I don't understand. What do you mean the only difference is money, not time? Are you suggesting compelling payment but withholding visitation rights, contact with the child, etc? For 2, I ask because I was wondering where your baseline belief in parents starts at.
    - ameister14 4y ago
      I now get where the confusion is coming from - custody and child support are two totally different things, legally speaking. I'm only talking about child support, not custody. Whatever the custody arrangement, a person can't walk out on their financial obligation to a child they fathered. This means that yes, even if there is no visitation, the child is still entitled to child support.
      - diob 4y ago
        Right. So if you're forcing child support, most are going to hold a grudge and demand custody of some sort. I literally know so many cases like this where the "bad" parent then tortures the child, doesn't feed them or gives them substandard care, etc. etc. The real world kind of sucks. Which is why I'm saying there's no good way to force someone to pay without them taking revenge. I'd rather if they don't want to be involved, let them not be involved. Like, let's say you propose allowing them to cut ties but then child support is higher. Most assholes are going to choose custody with less child support, and just be absolutely fucked up to their kids. That's the real world. And unfortunately, most courts don't care. There are horror stories upon horror stories of being unable to restrict / take away custody from abusive parents.
        ameister14 4y ago
        > So if you're forcing child support, most are going to hold a grudge and demand custody of some sort. Fortunately, that's not actually true. I get that you likely know of lots of times where this has happened, but the vast majority have uncontested custody. Where custody is contested, the father usually wins at least some version of shared custody, but most of the time that doesn't result in an abusive home. It's been my experience and it's backed up by HHS data that the most common abuser in these situations is actually the mother, and the most common form that takes is neglect. Access to abortion and resources is more important to solve this than reforms to lessen child support payments.

diob 4y ago

Well, I can't do the impossible and conjure up your specific study. But I can point you to a dearth of studies on the outcomes of unwanted children. The most famous is https://journalistsresource.org/economics/abortion-crime-research-donohue-levitt/ https://journalistsresource.org/economics/abortion-crime-res.... They even revisited it to address criticisms and found the same results. It seems straightforward that forcing something on someone is going to lead to them victimizing someone. And if you think you can prevent it by policing them, I think you'll find it difficult (parents in America and around the world have a lot of leeway with how to treat and raise their children). I grew up in an abusive household, so I can confirm anecdotally some of these things. I made it out alright, my sister unfortunately did not. Two questions if I may: Why do you find it hard to believe? Did you have loving / supportive parents?

ameister14 4y ago
1. In either situation, the child is unwanted. The only difference is money, not time. I find it hard to believe the lack of both money and time is better than the lack of time. It just doesn't make logical sense to me. Now, if it was the difference between no child and a wanted child, that makes sense. But that's not what we're talking about - we're talking about the difference between a child where the father pays child support and a child where the father does not pay child support and instead the child is supported by state social services. 2. Yes I did. Why do you ask?
- diob 4y ago
  For 1, I don't understand. What do you mean the only difference is money, not time? Are you suggesting compelling payment but withholding visitation rights, contact with the child, etc? For 2, I ask because I was wondering where your baseline belief in parents starts at.
  - ameister14 4y ago
    I now get where the confusion is coming from - custody and child support are two totally different things, legally speaking. I'm only talking about child support, not custody. Whatever the custody arrangement, a person can't walk out on their financial obligation to a child they fathered. This means that yes, even if there is no visitation, the child is still entitled to child support.
    - diob 4y ago
      Right. So if you're forcing child support, most are going to hold a grudge and demand custody of some sort. I literally know so many cases like this where the "bad" parent then tortures the child, doesn't feed them or gives them substandard care, etc. etc. The real world kind of sucks. Which is why I'm saying there's no good way to force someone to pay without them taking revenge. I'd rather if they don't want to be involved, let them not be involved. Like, let's say you propose allowing them to cut ties but then child support is higher. Most assholes are going to choose custody with less child support, and just be absolutely fucked up to their kids. That's the real world. And unfortunately, most courts don't care. There are horror stories upon horror stories of being unable to restrict / take away custody from abusive parents.
      - ameister14 4y ago
        > So if you're forcing child support, most are going to hold a grudge and demand custody of some sort. Fortunately, that's not actually true. I get that you likely know of lots of times where this has happened, but the vast majority have uncontested custody. Where custody is contested, the father usually wins at least some version of shared custody, but most of the time that doesn't result in an abusive home. It's been my experience and it's backed up by HHS data that the most common abuser in these situations is actually the mother, and the most common form that takes is neglect. Access to abortion and resources is more important to solve this than reforms to lessen child support payments.