3 ms·

Worries about child support aren't a particularly good reason to get married or not get married, because they apply iff you are a parent, regardless of marital

Worries about child support aren't a particularly good reason to get married or not get married, because they apply iff you are a parent, regardless of marital status. If you get married and don't have kids, there is no issue of supporting kids. On the other hand, if you don't get married and do have kids, you're still legally required to support them. The obligation to support isn't a consequence of marriage, but of being father or mother to a child. In fact a pretty large proportion of child-support cases that end up in court involve parents who were never married.

noblethrasher 12y ago
At least in Oklahoma, child support laws encourage marriage: I had a friend that ended up paying child support for about six to eight years for a kid that always lived with him. The reason is because his partner got emergency food stamps for a week while he was out of the state taking care of his sick mother. He later married her (though they were living together even before the kid), but was still having his wages garnished for something called “child support”.
baddox 12y ago
Still, the fear of having to pay child support could discourage people from having extended exclusive relationships, and those are generally a prerequisite to marriage.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  Not having "extended, exclusive relationships" doesn't decrease the risk of having to pay child support. (Not having unprotected sex with people you aren't both married to and going to stay married to does, but, all other things being equal, avoiding "extended, exclusive relationships" seems to be more likely to increase that risk than decrease it.)
  - baddox 12y ago
    I suspect it does, given that the likelihood of conceiving a child (from protected or unprotected sex), as well as the likelihood of a female knowing who the father of her child is, increase as relationships become longer and more exclusive.
    - dragonwriter 12y ago
      Exclusivity isn't inherently symmetrical, neither is the interval between different relationships. The effect you are referring to doesn't come from whether the relationship is exclusive on your side, or from whether it is long term, but from whether it is exclusive on the other side, and whether there is a long gap before/after the other partner's previous/next relationship.
waps 12y ago
> If you get married and don't have kids, there is no issue of supporting kids. Nope, but if you get married to a woman who doesn't work, generally you will owe alimony anyway. So technically you're correct, but it's a distinction without a difference. (of course just living together may - depending on the state - also have this result)
dragonwriter 12y ago
> Worries about child support aren't a particularly good reason to get married or not get married, because they apply iff you are a parent, regardless of marital status. Actually, they apply iff you are a parent and not married to the child's custodial parent. Marriage, therefore, has something of a mitigating effect. Marriage does, however, also potentially have a contrary effect that increases the risk, because of the rebuttable or conclusive (depending on the state) presumption of paternity for children born during the marriage.

noblethrasher 12y ago

At least in Oklahoma, child support laws encourage marriage: I had a friend that ended up paying child support for about six to eight years for a kid that always lived with him. The reason is because his partner got emergency food stamps for a week while he was out of the state taking care of his sick mother. He later married her (though they were living together even before the kid), but was still having his wages garnished for something called “child support”.

baddox 12y ago

Still, the fear of having to pay child support could discourage people from having extended exclusive relationships, and those are generally a prerequisite to marriage.

dragonwriter 12y ago
Not having "extended, exclusive relationships" doesn't decrease the risk of having to pay child support. (Not having unprotected sex with people you aren't both married to and going to stay married to does, but, all other things being equal, avoiding "extended, exclusive relationships" seems to be more likely to increase that risk than decrease it.)
- baddox 12y ago
  I suspect it does, given that the likelihood of conceiving a child (from protected or unprotected sex), as well as the likelihood of a female knowing who the father of her child is, increase as relationships become longer and more exclusive.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    Exclusivity isn't inherently symmetrical, neither is the interval between different relationships. The effect you are referring to doesn't come from whether the relationship is exclusive on your side, or from whether it is long term, but from whether it is exclusive on the other side, and whether there is a long gap before/after the other partner's previous/next relationship.

waps 12y ago

> If you get married and don't have kids, there is no issue of supporting kids. Nope, but if you get married to a woman who doesn't work, generally you will owe alimony anyway. So technically you're correct, but it's a distinction without a difference. (of course just living together may - depending on the state - also have this result)

dragonwriter 12y ago

> Worries about child support aren't a particularly good reason to get married or not get married, because they apply iff you are a parent, regardless of marital status. Actually, they apply iff you are a parent and not married to the child's custodial parent. Marriage, therefore, has something of a mitigating effect. Marriage does, however, also potentially have a contrary effect that increases the risk, because of the rebuttable or conclusive (depending on the state) presumption of paternity for children born during the marriage.