posted on July 15, 2001 01:12:47 PM new
Ok so so many are locked and get 'disruptive' posts, or topics, though the last topic that was locked, I don't think should have been. I think she was trying to make a point.
Yes there are deadbeat parents, mostly fathers, if someone cares to look up the U.S. stats on it, I'm sure it will show more fathers then mothers..
So what should the law do about the deadbeat parents then?
(I will use that phrase, as it seems to offensive to some to just put one parent as a deadbeat)
I believe, in my on very humble opinion, that deadbeat parents get off way too easy.
If they are ordered by a court to pay child support, then they should. If they don't, then I believe some serious consquences should be enforced. In some states they are, but not all.
Sure it *may* be easy for a mother of small children to go and get public assistance. In this case, if the father is found, should pay back the state that funded the mother.
In the case of the man fathering 9 children with 4 women, what should be done with someone like that?
Well, the problem with locking them up, is how is he supposed to earn money for these children?
Or should the law make it so he cannot father more children, which comes to the question of precendent, on everyone: Do you make enough money to even have children? Which somewhere along the lines someone may try to use in court.
Vasectomey or tube tying; many would say that would be cruel and unusual punishment, and it may be. Personally it would be, but there are certain people I would like to be seen taken out of the gene pool.
So what should the law do, or should the law get involved at all? I mean it does take two people to make this child or children.
I, wanted my 2, and they are 12 months apart, had them way too young, I was 24 with the first. I raised them, alone, and I did not get public assistance. They are grown.
My oldest daughter found a law, that says she could sue her father for back child support, as an adult. She never pursued that. I couldn't get child support, he was 'good'. He moved out of state, and couldn't be found, didn't get a real job, so nothing could be traced with his social security etc. We do know now he did go on to father more, we are not sure of the actual count to date..... he's a definite deadbeat dad. My children are grown now, and now, they do not want to have children, after what they have seen, or rather NOT seen of their own father.
So how do you actually enforce child support from parents? Some disappear, some just don't do a thing, and nothing happens.
But there are parents who pay child support, are involved with their children, and although we don't seem to hear a whole about them, they are out there.
But fathering 9 children, and not paying or supporting these children, is criminal, but what to do is the real question.
And the other threads should not have been locked, but that is IMHO.
posted on July 15, 2001 01:21:15 PM new
I think a lot of sanctions are warranted against deadbeat parents but the court ordering that they don't father more children shouldn't be one of them.
posted on July 15, 2001 01:38:45 PM new
As I said in the thread that was brought to a close by a tantrum:
I don't care if the deadbeat is male or female--if you beget a child you should support it. If you can't support it, then for goodness sake, don't have *more*!
Even if there is a divorce, the parents are still responsible for their children. If you want some hysterical reading, try doing a search on the Net on deadbeat parents--there are many sites on the topic, some with very strange viewpoints. One humdinger even proclaims that paying child support cause and/or increases incidents of child abuse!!!
If a man or woman can't be bothered to be responsible for the "fruit of their loins" they should make sure that they don't beget any.
posted on July 15, 2001 01:40:00 PM new
The real trouble is where a ruling like this leads. It is using a flame thrower to clear bugs off the tomato plants.
The logical extention is that the states overriding financial interest can lead them to license the right to bear children based on your ability and potential to care for them for the next 18 years.
To make a child with an unlicensed person may mean it becomes a criminal act for the partner also.
It is an easy step from there to having a limit on the number of children just as China does and requiring abortion of any extra that are not licensed. This is something already in place today not some horror show fiction.
Will you be surprised if having a license to be a parent requires periodic visits by a Federal inspector who can argue with you about everything from how balanced the family diet is or if the house meets building codes to how well they are toing in school?
Why should they issue a license also to a person who has a genetic hazard in their make up or a history of mental illness in the family?
Will non-married people be as well regarded as married or will a religeous marraige be a subtle plus to get your permit with your clergyman testifying for you? Will certain ethnic groups or religions have a harder time getting an OK?
posted on July 15, 2001 01:40:20 PM new
I don't know, the whole thing has some sticky issues.
We can all agree that if a parent doesn't support their children, whether the parent can and refuses to, or can't and is unable to, that's not good.
It becomes sticky when you get to questions you brought up, such as, if a parent already can't pay support for a child, how can he or she pay when he or she is locked up in jail? Nobody's situation is improved that way. The child still doesn't get payment from the non-supporting parent, meaning the child's present condition isn't improved, and the non-supporting parent's future wage earning ability is damaged, so the non-supported child's future might be further damaged as well.
Also, to lock someone in jail for inability to pay a debt comes too close to the idea behind debtors' prisons for my comfort. But how do you distinguish between someone who can pay and won't, and can't pay and doesn't? Should we look at the person who claims he can't pay and say - Well, you could pay if you tried harder? It might be too easy to label many people who can't pay as people who could if they just tried harder. To me, this is a danger.
But, to forbid someone to have a child, under threat of criminal prosecution, on a standard that's economically based, is way too dangerous, to my mind.
posted on July 15, 2001 01:46:22 PM new
Exactly. They should not.
Yeah I've read some and heard some hysterical stories from by both men and women on this.
But for crying out loud do not have children if you cannot afford it, support them, love them, or want them
I really wanted my two, and that was it... everything was taken care of in that area when I was about 35 so no, no more for me.
If a person wants a bunch of kids, fine. If you have a deadbeat parent after having them, either go after them for the child support or just forget that, and support them on your own. Because no one, even the law can make some people pay up no matter what they do.
James, no, I don't believe in sterilization either.
posted on July 15, 2001 01:51:08 PM newI think a lot of sanctions are warranted against deadbeat parents but the court ordering that they don't father more children shouldn't be one of them.
After 9 children there seems to be a pattern with this man. What are the alternatives?
1) lock the father up
2) force the father to have a job and garnish wages under threat of jail (how would you like to be that employer)
3) chemical castration during his parole? (basically harsher than the existing sentence)
4) parole based on him not fathering anymore children?
5) accept the status quo?
My least favorite solution is accepting the status quo.
posted on July 15, 2001 01:55:34 PM new
After looking at the guy with 9 kids, then leaving them, though we really do not know the whole story..... so if its like it sounds in the article, then I am almost afraid to say....with those choices? ..... in this one case, it looks like all this was intentional? then I would have to say number 3 -chemical castration.
Probably not a popular choice, even after I said I don't believe in sterilization for this.... but this guy..... I think he deserves it...
posted on July 15, 2001 01:56:01 PM new
Alternatives:
1) suspend his/ her driver's license
2) publish his/ her name and address in local newspapers in the weekly "deadbeats" column
3) revoke voting privileges
4) put lien on property
I'm sure we can think of more sanctions that don't involve the courts ordering him where to dip his wick.
posted on July 15, 2001 02:20:34 PM new
Isn't there a difference between castration and sterilization? Are you really advocating what I think castration means? Surely not?
posted on July 15, 2001 02:27:29 PM new
I think in the 'enlightened' world we live in castration is now done through chemical means.
I even read an article where a Saudi prince was proudly explaining that convicted robbers have their hand chopped off through a laser procedure that cauterizes as it cuts.
posted on July 15, 2001 02:36:35 PM newgravid: Perhaps not sterilization. But I would support the idea of implants or oral supplement that prevent preganancy & which can be removed or stopped when the parents *want* to have a child.
China is a rather special case. Look at their population (highest in the world). Unfortunately, they have reached a point where they have to consider just how many more people they can support. And if the rest of the world isn't careful we, like India, will also reach that point.
One point made with China (& India) is that the bias is toward male children & that infanticide of females is high. That may change. Ironically, in Japan, another country that has traditionally favored male children, that bias is changing. Seems that females are much more likely to care for elderly parents than males, and now the trend is to hope for a girl...
posted on July 15, 2001 02:37:57 PM newIsn't there a difference between castration and sterilization?
Donny, I was referring to 'chemical castration', basically the man would have to take medication under court order, it would leave him wickless while he was under medication, there would be no sex what so ever for him. Sterilization would allow sex but no babies.
I used to live with a gal that worked at a halfway home for troubled youths. She told me of having to take one of the girls to a clinic to have a court ordered Norplant installed to prevent pregnancies... the girl was 12.
Remember how Alex was controlled in "Clockwork Orange", maybe we should start using the Ludovico treatment and administer "Serum 114."
Personally I think the chemical control makes a lot more sense than prisons and unwanted children when you are dealing with people that have proven themselves to be irresponsible.
posted on July 15, 2001 02:46:15 PM new
I know of one mother who, when young, was a prostitute and ended up with three kids. Not only was she on drugs, but she was not up there in the IQ department as well and the children suffered for it. After the third child, the state of California gave her a choice: no welfare to help her to get off of prostitution or drugs unless she agree to having her tubes snipped out. She underwent the sterilization procedure, rather than keep living as a prostitute.
I've never heard of this kind of thing before or since -- until this court's ruling to that man.
posted on July 15, 2001 02:54:08 PM new
I have paid child support unfailingly every month since the age of ** 16 ** so I have now been paying for 14 years. While I was in High School, while I was in college. I paid, and paid, and paid, ad naseum...and continue to do so.
IMHO, this ruling wasn't harsh enough. Not by a long shot. It makes my blood boil and my skin try to crawl off of my body to run across people who do not pay. There is no excuse. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada. You produce that child? Then by God and sonny Jesus you had better whip out that checkbook every month without fail, without excuse, without delay.
I understand that most seem to find the idea abhorrent that we would actually place limits on the amount of children that certain people can have. Guess what? That's an economic reality. - I - have limits. I and my wife both would have liked nothing more than to have a LARGE family with 6 kids. Guess what? We cannot afford it. So we stopped at two. WE imposed limits on OURSELVES becuase of the economic realities of our situation. We are mature adults able to see what our boundaries are.
However, there are those in society who don't know what those limits are. There are those who know what those limits are and choose to ingnore them. THESE people have to be regulated becuase they are incapable or unwilling to do it themselves.
Sound harsh? You bet it is. Had I been the judge in this situation I would have ordered an immediate vasectomy. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200.00, do not father any more children, ever. He has PROVEN though his actions tht he cannot operate with the same restraint on his reproductive habits that every other responsible parent in America has without court intervention. Can't be responsible enough to wrap it up? Not a problem...we'll take care of that for him.
Some of the nice folks here seem to be of the opinion that we will 'open the door to government intervention as to how many kids you can have'. Ladies and gentlemen, I submit that simply isn't true. If I remember my figures correctly, 10% of the worst offenders owe more than 70% of the back due support. It is these people who must be targeted so that steps can be taken so that first and foremost, they pay what they owe, and 2nd they reproduce no more. The economic impact to society at large cannot be underestimated, dear readers. The scope of my argument is too long to go into in detail, but suffice it to say that it wouldn't be too hard once these people are found to make them pay. It's called WORK RELEASE.
posted on July 15, 2001 03:02:05 PM new
In 1997, there was a bill in the senate committees (bill 5278) that would require "involuntary use of long-term pharmaceutical birth control" (i.e., Norplant) for women who give birth to drug-addicted children. It failed to pass.
In several states, judges have given women convicted of child abuse or drug use during pregnancy a "choice" between using Norplant or serving time in jail. In 1991, 1992, and 1993, legislators in more than a dozen states introduced measures that, had they passed, would have coerced women to use Norplant. Some of these bills would have offered financial incentives to women on welfare to induce them to use Norplant. Other legislation would have required women receiving public assistance either to use Norplant or lose their benefits. Some bills would have forced women convicted of child abuse or drug use during pregnancy to have Norplant implanted."
posted on July 15, 2001 03:11:03 PM new
Uaru, thank you for thr clarification of the difference.
So you are putting forth the idea (I shouldn't say advocating, because you've offered possibilities, not explicitly advocated one or more) of something that would not only prevent a man from fathering a child, but prevent him from having sexual intercourse at all, while involved in this program? Isn't this akin to throwing out the bath water with the baby, so to speak?
Alex's undesirable behavior in Clockwork Orange was violence, sexual and otherwise, and it was that violent behavior that the aversion therapy sought to address. Chemical castration has been brought up as a possibile method of control for rapists and, disregarding the debate over whether rape is only a sexual act or a violent one as well, we might could see how chemical castration would be an appropriate response there.
But, then, if we said the more appropriate response to this situation was sterilization rather than castration, the problem becomes - this situation, the inability or unwillingness to support present or future children, might change in the future, and while chemical castration might be used as a temporary measure, male sterilization is, as far as I know, considered permanent for the most part.
I don't agree with either sterilization or castration myself, but it's an interesting discussion.
posted on July 15, 2001 06:47:04 PM new
meltdown - I think you've got something there. Work release.
IMO, when these parents don't take responsibility for the children they already have, and keep producing more, that (to me) would be a perfect solution. Not being locked up in jail where they can't earn wages to start following court-ordered child support payments, nor just free to go (so to speak).
The prosecutors in many counties are attaching wages, tax refunds etc. of non-paying parents. That's a start. I'd think these people could be found using their SS #s even if they should move to other states, if some sort of national system were in place. Maybe it is by now.
posted on July 15, 2001 06:48:55 PM new
It's *been* 5 years...guess we have 5 more to go...if ever.
the male isn't the one that gets pregnant (thank God.)
And there you have it in a nutshell. You can bet that if men *were* the ones to get pregnant, the drug would have been perfected & on the shelves long ago.
posted on July 15, 2001 07:19:44 PM new
The reason I originally posted this article in the now closed thread, before I sped out the door to go out of town for the day, was because the dilemma about what to do with nonpaying parents seems to raise as many problems as it solves. I certainly don't have the answers. Personally ,I think more has to be done on a national scale to collect these payments which are sometimes not made not because of poverty but out of spite and issues of control. We as taxpayers end up supporting many of these children in poverty level conditions so I don't think it's unreasonable to expect those who brought them into the world to do their share to help financially. It doesn't help to jail someone whose wages are so meager that he/she can barely get by, but the thought of jail sometimes gets more well-to-do folks to consider which is more important - paying up financially or spending a little time in the poky.
posted on July 15, 2001 07:21:16 PM new
"Allowing the government to say who can and can't have children is a VERY slippery slope."
I'm sorry. But your assertion simply has no basis in fact. It is a proven reality that children who come form homes where both parents are not present and where the non-custodial parent does not pay that the children statistically speaking will be at one or more disadvantages than others.
That non payment of support and the resultant economic, social, moral, etc., has a negative impact to the children and to society as a whole is well documented.
No one is going to tell me how many children I can father. You know why? Becuase I can do that myself. I don't need the government to make those decisions for me since I have proven through my actions that I am responsible. For those that are not, government intervention is not only necessary in these cases, but absolutely essential.
Is this a cure-all for all of the ills of society? No. However, it is a necessary step to ensure the economic and social well-being of this counrty as a whole.
Freedom, ladies and gentlemen, is the right to SELF-CONTROL. If these people cannot demonstrate self-control, then civilized society has a mandate to do it for them for the good of the whole.
posted on July 15, 2001 07:29:32 PM new
[i]No one is going to tell me how many children I can father. You know why? Becuase I can do that myself. I don't need the government to make those decisions for me since I have proven through my actions that I
am responsible. For those that are not, government intervention is not only necessary in these cases, but absolutely essential.[/i]
What if the court decides that you MUST father a child because you have proven yourself responsible?
This is what I'm talking about with a slippery slope.
What if your idea of responsible is not the courts idea of responsible? What if you spank your child? Or don't spank them enough?
Again, slippery slope.
As with freedom of speech it is easy to say, "Ohh those KKK groups need to be shut down!" The majorty would agree, however....again slippery slope.
posted on July 15, 2001 07:35:44 PM newthen civilized society has a mandate to do it for them for the good of the whole.
This statement makes my blood run cold. WHY? Because it is an arguement that has been made many times. "Getting rid of *this* part of the society makes it better for all of us (who don't happened to get run out of our homes/murdered)"
NO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT IS WHAT YOU ARE SAYING But once that mentality takes over, what stops those in power from deciding that miniorities aren't doing 'what they are supposed to for the good of society'? Women? Children? Men?
Again, slippery slope. Once you've taken that first step who is going to draw the line?
posted on July 15, 2001 07:53:42 PM newBut your assertion simply has no basis in fact. It is a proven reality that children who come form homes where both parents are not present and where the non-custodial parent does not pay that the children statistically speaking will be at one or more disadvantages than others.That non payment of support and the resultant economic, social, moral, etc., has a negative impact to the children and to society as a whole is well documented.
That may be in some or maybe most cases. My children were not a burden to tax payers, nor did they have whatever disadvantages you are talking about.
I supported them, they had male figures in their lives, and still do, my brother, their grandfather. They grew up ok, and are doing fine.
I do think it is great that you do pay child support, and don't #*!@ about it. A lot of non custodial paying parents do.
In the case of the guy that fathered 9 children, I still believe in this chemical castration, or whatever it takes, short of sterlization, to end this, what I believe is insanity.
This guy could go on and on, and God only knows how many kids, and where will it stop?
posted on July 15, 2001 08:13:55 PM new
Where are we going to draw the line? Where is there a shread of evidence that we've drawn any line at all?
THAT is my entire point. A line needs to be placed in the sand stating that THIS is acceptable but THAT isn't. Furthermore, it also needs to be clearly stated what the consequences of non-compliance are.
Also, thanks for pointing out that I'm not advocating that we get rid of any segment of our society. Either deadbeat parents or even the KKK for that matter.
But don't you see? Your argument is apples and footballs. You are prepared to make the leap that once the government puts deadbeats on work release and steralizes them that this will lead to widespread abuses against minorities, the elimination of other segments of our society, and forcing 'responsible' people to have more kids against their will because by that time the governmental leaders will be so drunk with power that they won't be able to stop? Are you really serious? I'm sorry, but I simply refuse to subscribe to your interpretation of a possible outcome based upon my suggestions. I have more faith in my government than that.
I take my freedom to heart and I know to preserve my freedom I have to excerise self-control. I expect and demand of my fellow citizens that they do the same. If they don't, they can suffer the consequenses of their actions. And in this case, the consequenses were NOT harsh enough. Not even close.
I tender the soapbox again.
[ edited by meltdown891 on Jul 15, 2001 08:22 PM ]
posted on July 15, 2001 08:35:20 PM new I have more faith in my government than that.
I don't.
You are prepared to make the leap that once the government puts deadbeats on work release and steralizes them that this will lead to widespread abuses against minorities, the elimination of other segments of our society, and forcing 'responsible' people to have more kids against their will because by that time the governmental leaders will be so drunk with power that they won't be able to stop?
Yes, I am prepared to make that leap because I see no reason why it would *NOT* happen. One reason is something you touched on, that governmental leaders will be so drunk with power that they won't be able to stop. It has certianly happened before.
As a woman, as a human, I don't want to take that risk. Any time government comes into our bedrooms (regulating type of sex, who one can have sex with, AND reproductive CHOICES) we ALL run a risk that what we find acceptable will be next on the list of 'banned items'.
I'm not saying that tomorrow morning we will wake up with a social worker at our doors saying, "You will be allowed 1 child", "You will be allowed no children" (unless we are taken over by China in the dead of the night). HOWEVER, I do very much believe that ANY ruling such as the one in question COULD lead to such things.
