03-11-2006, 06:05 PM
(This post was last modified: 03-11-2006, 06:08 PM by Occhidiangela.)
ShadowHM,Mar 10 2006, 06:04 PM Wrote:*raises eyebrow*"The same living style you enjoy" is both a nebulous term, and beside the point.
And fathering a child and not supporting him/her to the same living style you enjoy is what?
[right][snapback]104205[/snapback][/right]
What are the costs to support the child? What are the necessities? What is a fair share contribution? What is the excuse to penalize future earnings and income due to a perceived "living style."
For poorer (economically) men who split with their wives or are correctly sued for child support/paternity, your argument would "have the child living in debt" since it is the same lifestyle of the disenfranchised, or deadbeat, father.
Good idea? Not.
The means method results in such idiocy as the professional golfer Fred Couples being sued for alimony and child support on the order of $50,000 per month to ensure his ex could sustain her polo habit. That is an extreme example, of course, and he is no deadbeat, but that is the door opened by such loosely worded laws with vague, or no definitions, and thresholds.
The limitation on human greed and digging into another's pocket has yet to be measured. The "family law" practitioners stand to profit from an open ended well of "other people's money" to lower their buckets into. They pursue language in the laws, as do various other agenda bearing persons, to permit an open ended economic leak from a limited sector of society. Lampreys in the pockets of both deadbeat dads, for whom I have little sympathy, and disenfranchised fathers, who are time and again abused by the system. It' a wonder more lawyers aren't killed in their sleep.
There is a cost, an opportunity cost and a material cost, for most decisions. Being promiscuous carries a cost. Giving up on a marriage carries a cost.
Back to Grisdelda's point, a page back: once baby is born, the conceptual problem is people thinking it is still "all about them." The root cause is not addressed by these provisions. The percentage gain for the middle men is too attractive to be eliminated, since the door is always left open for "you owe me more" based on vague criteria.
Occhi
Cry 'Havoc' and let slip the Men 'O War!
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete
In War, the outcome is never final. --Carl von Clausewitz--
Igitur qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum
John 11:35 - consider why.
In Memory of Pete