# HB197 delinquent child support = no hunting



## hunting777 (May 3, 2009)

https://www.ksl.com/article/46716605/owe-child-support-no-hunting-and-fishing-utah-bill-says

What are your thoughts and opinions on this?


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

I LOVE IT!!

https://utahwildlife.net/forum/21-great-outdoors/201459-hb-197-child-support-licenses.html


----------



## bfr (Apr 26, 2009)

IMO it’s a sad state of affairs that a law should HAVE to be considered for a parent to be made to support their kids. If they can’t be responsible for them, how can they be trusted to be responsible with a firearm. I realize that some “mothers” abuse the system and don’t always use the money for the kids benefit as designed and that’s to their shame. If it can be documented then they should be held accountable too.
Bottom line, kids aren’t here by their actions, they are here by the parents actions! Accept your responsibility, no excuses.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Removing liberties from people when they haven't been convicted of a crime doesn't really sound like America. Child support problems are more complicated, especially in today's world where women can game the system HARD. They take alimony that puts them well above the means they lived at before because they get support from other undocumented sources, namely living with or taking money from a boyfriend who is essentially their common law husband, and we also live in a world where we compete with women for pay.

The fact that women are just expected to need child support and alimony is a failure on the part of the state and the educational system. If we're going to just sort of declare equality there needs to be some more accountability. Think about it for a minute, if two men were raising children, regardless of sexuality, would you expect that one would get alimony and child support for 15 years? No, he'd have to get unemployment and be required to look for a job, maybe he would have to get some education, training or certifications.

It sounds like I'm going off on a tangent but the idea of removing freedoms from people like this is a FURTHER codification of a system that is broken. Treat divorce like unemployment and stop infantilizing women.


----------



## BPturkeys (Sep 13, 2007)

NO NO NO! The office of recovery services should not be given the ability to regulate hunting and fishing. 
What's next...sorry you smoke cigarettes, or, looky, you haven't got your dog licensed...no fishing for you! Does that sound crazy to you, well, this ain't to far from that.


----------



## DallanC (Jan 13, 2009)

So, if we implement that other bill that gives someone the "Right to Hunt"... are we now talking you loose your "rights" over non-payment for child support (which btw, I fully support).

Just saying because we get in strange territory when talking giving up "rights" for various reasons. Can you loose right to own guns over child support non-payment? Rights are Rights... and they should be equal. If you can loose one, you can loose others.

See where this gets weird? Without the other bill making hunting and fishing a "right", I am full support of this bill. IF the other bill passes then I am hesitant over passing this bill... I am a full "constitutionalist", rights are rights and it should take something HUGE to get someone to loose "rights".


-DallanC


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Jedidiah said:


> Think about it for a minute, if two men were raising children, regardless of sexuality, would you expect that one would get alimony and child support for 15 years? No, he'd have to get unemployment and be required to look for a job, maybe he would have to get some education, training or certifications.


Actually, the custodial parent would receive child support in this case too. People can fight about alimony all they way, but if someone isn't paying to support their own children, I really don't have time for their complaints.

Dallan, if the "right to hunt and fish" passes as written today, it would likely make this bill being considered here unconstitutional. In my opinion...


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Vanilla said:


> Actually, the custodial parent would receive child support in this case too.


We both know that the expectation is that the female in the relationship will be drawing larger, continuous payments until the children are adults, while the same situation would not continue for a male. These are just simple facts.



Vanilla said:


> People can fight about alimony all they way, but if someone isn't paying to support their own children, I really don't have time for their complaints.


Agreed. And the parent who chooses not to improve their ability to earn and pay for their children should be required correct that issue and report on their progress.

Consider for a moment that they're trying to pass a bill that targets people of a specific gender and economic class. It's actually pretty disgusting. I don't have kids myself, by the way.


----------



## middlefork (Nov 2, 2008)

The formulas they use to determine child support are pretty straight forward and black and white. I'm not sure how you think they are targeting a certain gender and economic class.

I know in my small circle of friends several women who are paying child support to their husbands.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Jedidiah said:


> We both know that the expectation is that the female in the relationship will be drawing larger, continuous payments until the children are adults, while the same situation would not continue for a male. These are just simple facts.


That's actually just a simple opinion. It's not fact at all. This link will help you better understand how this works so your opinion can be better educated.

https://www.utcourts.gov/howto/divorce/support.html

You are still free to disagree with the bill. You are free to disagree with what the law says. You are entitled to whatever opinion you want to have on this. But you're not entitled to your own facts.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

middlefork said:


> The formulas they use to determine child support are pretty straight forward and black and white.


It definitely is yes, but men continue to pay longer than women and it's just expected. Arguing that is just silly, you can't be a normal human being living in this world and think people are going to believe otherwise. I'm not arguing that child support payments shouldn't be established, I'm arguing that continued child support without any effort to correct the wage gap between the two parents should be addressed. Forget arguing that child support is not needed, that's not the issue.



middlefork said:


> I'm not sure how you think they are targeting a certain gender and economic class.


The article itself quotes one of the state representatives specifically talking about men. Women do not typically hunt and fish independently of the men in their lives. We all know that middle class and lower income people hunt and fish more than those who are wealthy.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Vanilla said:


> That's actually just a simple opinion. It's not fact at all.


Faaaaaaaaaaaacts:

https://www.verywellfamily.com/us-child-support-statistics-2997994

https://www.npr.org/2015/03/01/3899...child-support-moms-at-a-higher-rate-than-dads

https://family.findlaw.com/child-support/child-support-statistics-and-trends.html

Are you for real man? Let's argue that the sky isn't blue next.

Forget the gender argument if you want, the fact that people shouldn't be gaming the system to take payments and live an easy life is still valid and it still happens and is supported by the current legal environment. Those people should be required to improve their ability to pay for their children and not rely completely on the state and their previous spouse.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

What do those links have anything to do with the custodial parent being a male vs female and how much and for how long they receive the support? 

It's all statutory man! Like I said, educate yourself before you come in too hot.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

No one here needs any education to know that men pay far more and for a longer period than women in child support. Do you have a point here Vanilla? If it's arguing I need empirical evidence and studies that that point is valid, you're ridiculous.

Let's not forget the irony that we're having this discussion over a bill sponsored by female representatives who are specifically talking about men when discussing the bill, lol.

Edit: Thought I'd add this image. If you want I can modify my point to say that men end up paying more overall because the system is biased and allow that the reasons why that's the case are debateable. It doesn't really matter if the real reason you're arguing the point is that taking men's fishing licenses away smells like fascism.


----------



## Hunttilidrop (Jun 12, 2018)

Is this why deer killer got banned??😏 jedidiah I can assure you the only one being ridiculous about this subject is you! I have a ton of experience from both sides here. The child support calculations are spot on in my opinion. In most cases I would bet that the dad pays for a lot less time as they’re not legally bound after the child turns 18. I have two 21 year old step sons who require financial help and I’m glad to do it with their mother. Their biological father however has been off the hook since they turned 18. The statues are very well thought out and very fair otherwise.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Jed, all I can think is that you are conflating alimony and child support. Do I think there is support for the contention that men are disproportionately required to pay higher amounts of alimony for longer periods of time than women, all things being held equal? Yes, but probably not as extreme of a difference as you might think. But alimony is NOT child support. 

The length of time that child support is required to be paid by the non-custodial parent has NOTHING to do with gender of the custodial parent. It is based on the age of the child. Period. 

The AMOUNT of child support is a statutory formula and is based on the gross income of BOTH parents, with a percentage allocated to each parent based on how much time the child spends in each home. The math there works out to be if both parents earn the same and have 50% custody then neither parent would pay the other for child support. 

As for wanting to get into requiring the parents to close the wage gap between the two, oof. Talk about enforceability issues. Not to mention now you are going to have to address the demonstrable gender wage gap.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

I'm sure the child support calculations at the time of divorce are very much fair, I don't recall saying anything to the contrary. What I'm arguing is that the person taking the payments needs to work on their ability to earn.

I posted this before seeing the last couple posts, of course you can't expect someone to move their earning potential up to equal another person's, but if they're completely unemployed and unemployable, that is an issue that affects the children involved also. That's a huge part of why child support payments fail, a single person can't be expected to pay living costs for the spouse, the kids, house payments or rent on two households, car payments, etc. But this does happen and the reasons it happens are based in sexist assumptions.

I'm conflating alimony and child support, but the two are definitely linked. Look guys, I'm not arguing that kids shouldn't be fully supported in the best way possible but I definitely am saying that the system gets gamed and a blind eye is turned.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Jedidiah said:


> I'm sure the child support calculations at the time of divorce are very much fair, I don't recall saying anything to the contrary. What I'm arguing is that the person taking the payments needs to work on their ability to earn.


Uhh....



> Originally Posted by Vanilla View Post
> Actually, the custodial parent would receive child support in this case too.
> _We both know that the expectation is that the female in the relationship will be drawing larger, continuous payments until the children are adults, while the same situation would not continue for a male._ These are just simple facts.


So ^ sure looks like you stating that it is an unfair system and men get the short end of the stick.



> Think about it for a minute, if two men were raising children, regardless of sexuality,_ would you expect that one would get alimony and child support for 15 years? No, he'd have to get unemployment and be required to look for a job, maybe he would have to get some education, training or certifications._


^Here you say that for male same-sex couples it wouldn't be the same unfairness between treatment for heterosexual couples. Mmmkay.



> Quote:
> Originally Posted by middlefork View Post
> The formulas they use to determine child support are pretty straight forward and black and white.
> It definitely is yes, _but men continue to pay longer than women and it's just expected_.


^Again (ignoring that it is demonstrably false), you claim different treatment based on gender where men get the bum deal and pay child support longer than women.



> No one here needs any education to know that _men pay far more and for a longer period than women in child support._


I could repeat myself but I wont.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

"at the time of divorce" Reading comprehension, Johnny. It's not fair that women draw payments and aren't expected to improve, I'm not letting that point go.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

I lack the patience and crayons necessary to explain it to you. Good luck. 

As for this bill, I certainly hope Utah passes it. And even if the state constitutional right to hunt gets passed, I don't think it would necessarily be a problem. Once the person who is behind on their child support payments decides to fight the law and sue, then the court is going to look at the law and evaluate whether it is narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling government interest. And my money would be with the state on this one.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Jedidiah said:


> "at the time of divorce" Reading comprehension, Johnny. It's not fair that women draw payments and aren't expected to improve, I'm not letting that point go.


You can hold on to that point all you want. You still don't get to decide your own facts. Just state it as an opinion and you don't look like a fool. (And as an aside, the man receiving child support is also not "expected to improve" any more than the woman. That is where your facts diverge into opinion.)

State it as a fact, and you look uneducated, like here in this thread.

Keep telling others they are dumb, or ridiculous, or they can't read, or anything else. But you are flat wrong in your contentions here about who is awarded child support and who isn't. You can have an opinion that it isn't fair, or should be changed. You're entitled to that. But your "facts" aren't factual at all.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

johnnycake said:


> I lack the patience and crayons necessary to explain it to you. Good luck.


Not the first time you've gone with this option. Please man, just because you don't agree doesn't mean the right option is to make allusions to my intelligence with no real argument. Just don't argue if you don't want to.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Vanilla said:


> You can hold on to that point all you want. You still don't get to decide your own facts. Just state it as an opinion and you don't look like a fool. (And as an aside, the man receiving child support is also not "expected to improve" any more than the woman. That is where your facts diverge into opinion.)
> 
> State it as a fact, and you look uneducated, like here in this thread.
> 
> Keep telling others they are dumb, or ridiculous, or they can't read, or anything else. But you are flat wrong in your contentions here about who is awarded child support and who isn't. You can have an opinion that it isn't fair, or should be changed. You're entitled to that. But your "facts" aren't factual at all.


You've got a few of your standards going here, which all rely on putting words in my mouth. Women do get awarded child support more often by far, and it's fairly calculated. The system we work in where it's typically expected that that will never change is not fair iiiiiiin my opinion, (you see what I did there?) Are you going to argue that women don't get more total child support? Sorry, I'm not sure you can do that.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Well, now the argument has changed. Yes, women are awarded child support more than men because historically men have been primary breadwinners and children more often then not are with their mothers more than their fathers. 

But none of that was your original point. It wasn't even your point on page two when you were given ample opportunities to make it your point. But now that we're to page three, you've finally caught on, which is good for you. We all congratulate you. 

We're not going to pretend that you didn't say everything you said originally, however, and act like you never said it. Good on you coming around finally, however.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

The ability to take input and change your point as you talk through it is definitely the sign of a rational clear thinking person but I don't think I've changed my points at all, I've just more clearly explained it. Now another point to be made here is that typing an opinion on a forum requires condensing some of what you would normally verbalize into finer points.

To be clear, I'm still saying that:

This bill targets men.

Men pay more money for longer than women. (Go look at how often women stop paying and are not successfully pursued legally.)

Divorced individuals should not be allowed to sink into a completely non-productive lifestyle and rely purely on their ex-spouse and the government. 

Progress should be mandatory because minors are involved who have no ability to improve the situation themselves.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Vanilla said:


> Well, now the argument has changed. Yes, women are awarded child support more than men because historically men have been primary breadwinners and children more often then not are with their mothers more than their fathers.
> 
> But none of that was your original point. It wasn't even your point on page two when you were given ample opportunities to make it your point. But now that we're to page three, you've finally caught on, which is good for you. We all congratulate you.
> 
> We're not going to pretend that you didn't say everything you said originally, however, and act like you never said it. Good on you coming around finally, however.


Bingo.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Alllllright Tweedle Dum and Tweedle Dee. It looks like you're going to do your usual and pretend I'm saying something I'm not. I'm out, but there's not really much else to say anyway.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Jedidiah said:


> Think about it for a minute, if two men were raising children, regardless of sexuality, would you expect that one would get alimony and child support for 15 years? No, he'd have to get unemployment and be required to look for a job, maybe he would have to get some education, training or certifications.





Jedidiah said:


> We both know that the expectation is that the female in the relationship will be drawing larger, continuous payments until the children are adults, while the same situation would not continue for a male. These are just simple facts.


You actually said these things. Not me. Not that big dumb dumb head up in Alaska. You did. We are not putting words in your mouth. This was YOUR argument, using your words. I'm glad you're changing your tune, but it would be much more respectable to just admit you came in a little hot, were not correct in doing so, and see where you were wrong in it than to try and blame others for calling out your incorrect statements.

But blame away. It's the thing to do these days, apparently.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Boooooth of those things are true, and in line with the last post I made clarifying my points. Sorry Vanilla, are you smoking something? I'm starting to feel like it's either that or you have eye problems.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

And here we are right back to page one. No, both of those things are not true. And no, I am not smoking anything and while my eyes aren't what they used to be, I'm still corrective lens free. 

You might be the only person that has read this thread that thinks you are acting sane right now. Just so you know...


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

You know that same sex marriage is not fully legalized in the state of Utah, right? Men don't actually have grounds to sue for support in the case of a separation of a same sex relationship, there's literally nothing there.

Point number 2 is the cornerstone of what I've been saying, women do get more money for longer (that's just a matter of statistics.) I'm not saying they're legally awarded an unfair amount at the time of divorce, but the court is definitely on their side thereafter.


----------



## MWScott72 (May 23, 2011)

While I support the premise of this bill, indo believe that it can be better written. As it stands right now in the proposed legislation, if a person is $2500 behind on their child support, they could be denied a hunting or fishing license/tag. Now, what if that individual is trying to get current on the overdue amount? I believe that those who are trying to do this should not be punished. For argument's sake, let's say a person in arrears needs to demonstrate compliance with child support payment for a year previous to the application period. Whatever the time frame, I don't really care, but as long as an individual is actively trying to get current, I don't believe said individual should be barred from hunting or fishing privileges.

Let's face it, there are plenty of dead beat moms and dads that owe child support. Separated families are a very big problem...more so on the kids than the adults. I don't want to see a mom or dad barred from taking their kid hunting or fishing as long as they are trying to get back to even keel. The situation sucks already and I don't want to see it get worse by being overly harsh in our application of this proposed bill.


----------



## Hunttilidrop (Jun 12, 2018)

Lol! No offense Jed as I can clearly see you have a strong opinion on what your supposed belief is. I applaud tweedle dee and tweedle dum for their best efforts to explain what the facts really are regarding child support and who pays what and why and for how long. I have to wonder though..🤔 Do you have a close male friend or relative that has been unfairly treated by the system or gamed so to speak? As you said you have no kids so there for would have no experience in the matter. I however do. And I will tell you it’s very possible for a female to try and game the system in their favor. Which I think you alluded to in the beginning.. When me and my x seperated she absolutely tried everything to ruin my life. Most of it was clearly to benefit her financial income. She tried to get me less time with my kids, she tried to show less income and more for me. She upped her insurance costs so I’d have to pay more. ( I’m still stuck with that one no thanks to my attorney! ) she tried to take my house away when she wasn’t even on the mortgage. I had put her on the deed prior just Incase something happened to me, her and the kids would have a place to stay. It took 3 years of court appearances and a ridiculous amount of attorneys fees to keep her from ruining my life. I won’t get into the logistics of it all but she was not a nice person and if I wouldn’t have been able to fight for my self with a attorney she absolutely would have gotten paid big time and I would of suffered dearly. I was some how able to pay off my attorney in the end and she bankrupted on hers. Which showed her true colors even more in the end. So with all that being said I can see your point only in this reversed situation where the guy would be getting screwed. My brother also got child support from his child’s mom for 16 years I believe. There! If that doesn’t explain things then at least I tried...


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Its not a bill that targets men. It does target Utahns who don't pay their child support and hold a state fishing/hunting license. Those aren't the same thing in the eyes of the law even if it leads to similar outcomes demographically. 

If my marriage ended in divorce and we had children than I would be the one filing for child support. And I'd get it. 

You are right that divorce and child support are complicated. But your summaries and expectations are simple. Expecting a child's primary care giver to suddenly be hirable in a job market they've been out of for years or decades is problematic on its face. I say that as a man who sidelined his career to be a homemaker. I get wanting to prevent gaming the system but I think that's a nuanced revision outside the confines of the proposed ban. 

I can't imagine what the misery and difficulty of carrying financial obligations after a marriage is like. But it makes total sense for a state agency to revoke a privilege if you are in defiance to a state Court's order, assuming said privilege doesn't limit the ability to earn. I think the amount owed and timeframe should be honestly debated but the spirit of the bill seems just.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

https://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/statbriefs/chldsupp.html

"Not only do women have better chances of being awarded child support ....
.... they are more likely to actually receive payments."

"Women who received child support in 1991 were paid an average of $3,011 that year, about one-third more than their male counterparts ($2,292). On average, these support payments constituted 17 percent of 1991 money income for the women, but only 7 percent for the men."

https://www.verywellfamily.com/us-child-support-statistics-2997994

"52.7% of custodial single mothers were awarded child support in 2016
39.6% of custodial single fathers were awarded child support during the same year"

Uhhhhh....

Edit: Honestly I wasn't expecting a counterargument on my original statements but it's great how this is going. Thanks fellas.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

As a person that is watching this happen. I fully support this law. My grandson has a dead beat dad. The man (if you can call him that) hasn’t paid a single penny of child support in the two years of his sons life. He has put all financial burden solely on his sons mother. 

If she didn’t have the support of her family she wouldn’t be able to support her son. 
People are always saying that women game the system and I didn’t know how bad the system was until I watched it play out for the last 2 years. 

The honest women just want the support that’s their child deserves. 

Today’s dead beats are the lowest form of life. To not support their children Shows just how far our society has fallen. 
For a single mother to raise a child without any support is a struggle and a hardship no child should have to go through. 

I think we need to punish these deadbeats even more. While it’s nice to see some privileges Revoked but honestly its not enough we need to hold these dirtbags accountable


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

If they're not going to pay and no one is benefitting, why not just arrest them? It's a crime just like anything else really. Arrest, incarceration, due process, parole. THEN the reduction of rights. I guess if you believed otherwise and if you lived close enough to Russia you could just take a boat over there and be perfectly happy but this is America.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

That first link is of data 25+ years old, Jedidiah. Can't find the 2018 data the other hyperlink claims to represent.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

I don’t think some of the people posting don’t really understand how big of a problem this really is


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

This has been one of the most entertaining reads I’ve had in a while. Thanks for the material, Jed. You’ve been given every chance imaginable to be educated on this one. It’s up to you to take it or not. 

I am curious as to why they targeted hunting and fishing licenses. But I guess this is one way to address point creep.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Hoopermat said:


> I don't think some of the people posting don't really understand how big of a problem this really is


Jedediah's hypothesis or child support delinquency?


----------



## CPAjeff (Dec 20, 2014)

This thread pretty much sums up the words of Edward I. Koch for one poster,

"I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you."

Deadbeat sperm donors should be castrated and have one of their kidneys sold to pay off the debt owed. The words "Dad" or "Father" shouldn't be used when describing one who shirks his responsibility and duty to care for those he helped bring into this world.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

It is also amazing to see some Men that are willing to step up and support a child that is not their own. 
Men that take on the role of father without even a question and men that adopt a child out of pure love is a magical sight to see


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

backcountry said:


> Hoopermat said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think some of the people posting don't really understand how big of a problem this really is
> ...


Both


----------



## Hunttilidrop (Jun 12, 2018)

Hooper Mat, it really is incredible what different kinds of walks of life there is out there as far as fathers go. My dad isn’t my biological dad but he’s my dad in every sense of the word! I’m 43 years old now. My biological walked away when I was too young to remember and never had to pay a dime! Still bothers me to this day and I turned out great because of my real dad but still... If you have the means I’d definitely get the courts involved in your daughters case. You probably won’t even need an attorney. I watched a mother defend herself against a dead beat and it went rather smoothly for her. He was something like 2500 behind and the commissioner calmly told him he either had 30 days to pay it and stay current or six months in jail to serve! It was fun to watch. If you took him to court I’m fairly confident that he’d be obligated to catch up the two years he hasn’t paid and then stay current or spend time behind bars. The courts absolute don’t take it lightly they just need to know. I hate seeing these dead beats get away with abandoning their obligations. #isupportthisbill. #stillnoideawherejediscomingfrom


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

The deliquency issue seems massive from my understanding.  

I'm all for legislatures debating reforms to existing laws. If a law is applied discriminately than I say bring it to them or the courts. That is if one has strong evidence. 

On the other hand I don't think we can diminish the benefits of a bill/law simply because a few people game and cheat the process. They exist in every human system. If it's not a small number than bring it to the courts or legislature.

I see a justified reason for state agencies to act in a unified manner when it comes to revoking privileges for those in non-compliance with court orders. I think the proposed bill needs extensive scrutiny on how/why someone is added to such a ban as well as clear, effective processes to eliminate said ban once proper conditions are met. If it can do that than it has my support.

It becomes more complex and nuanced if the hunting rights amendment is adopted. I would hope the legislature is accounting for such a possibility.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

CPAjeff said:


> "I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you."


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Hoopermat (Dec 17, 2010)

She is already going through the courts. It’s not as easy as you would think. She has had an attorney for the last 17 months and it has been costly. It’s a multistate case so it get complicated. She is a full time student working on her PA and is on her way to becoming a surgeon along with a full time job it’s hard to watch her struggle but she is strong and will provide a better life for her son then dead beat ever could have. It really is hard to watch and not step in.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Jedidiah said:


> https://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/statbriefs/chldsupp.html
> 
> "Not only do women have better chances of being awarded child support ....
> .... they are more likely to actually receive payments."
> ...


Even assuming the age of the data set makes no difference, this just shows that you still aren't understanding what tweedle dee and I (or am I tweedle dee?) are saying.

Child support payments are formulaic based on the total income for both parents and what percentage of time the child is in their respective custody.

The easiest reason why the actual amounts of payments received by women are in nominal terms higher, and higher as a percentage of a woman's income on average are functions of two things: 1. women tend to get more custody over children than men (which nobody has tried arguing against that I've seen); AND 2. men make more money than women.

#2 there is very obvious with your included statistic about what percentage of the income the child support payments represent. It shows that in that data pool, on average women earned $17,711.76/year while the men (not all men, just those who received child support mind you) earned $32,742.86/yr. Women only earned 54.1% of the annual earnings that men who receive child support had.

Frankly, you come across as complaining that because women are paid less in the workplace, are more likely to sacrifice their work experience/future earnings to support the family at home during the marriage, that the state/society should then turn around and make them bear additional burdens to "correct" that after a divorce. I'm not saying that is actually what you are saying, just that is how what you are saying comes across.

After a divorce, neither parent is obligated to improve their earnings/career/etc. The answer to your 'women should be required to try and close the pay gap' might be as simple as, "if you don't want to get stuck paying child support to a person who will then try to 'game' the system to leech off you after a divorce, then don't stick your dick in lazy/crazy to begin with."


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

CPAjeff said:


> This thread pretty much sums up the words of Edward I. Koch for one poster,
> 
> "I can explain it to you, but I can't comprehend it for you."
> 
> Deadbeat sperm donors should be castrated and have one of their kidneys sold to pay off the debt owed. The words "Dad" or "Father" shouldn't be used when describing one who shirks his responsibility and duty to care for those he helped bring into this world.


I thought about using that one, as it is my go to most of the time. But my momentary lack of access to crayons appeared more fitting in this case.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/demo/tables/families/2015/chldsu15.pdf

Here's data from 5 years ago. 60% of mothers were awarded child support, while 47% of fathers were. Better than 29 years ago but not much, and not good enough by far.

https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/techdocs/cpsapr16.pdf

2016 report. What's bothering you guys more about all this, the factual correctness or the moral correctness?

johnny: all of this data is about CUSTODIAL parents. Child support for the parent with CUSTODY. It's rude when you don't read the information.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Hoopermat said:


> She is already going through the courts. It's not as easy as you would think. She has had an attorney for the last 17 months and it has been costly. It's a multistate case so it get complicated. She is a full time student working on her PA and is on her way to becoming a surgeon along with a full time job it's hard to watch her struggle but she is strong and will provide a better life for her son then dead beat ever could have. It really is hard to watch and not step in.


Sorry to hear that. My brother dealt with a dead beat mother and chose not to go through the courts because of such a challenge.

To clarify, my court comment was more to Jedidiah's claims about the problems with existing child support laws and structure.

I wish it was easier for custodial parents to collect from deadbeat parents. I know the toll it took on my nephew.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

Hoopermat said:


> It is also amazing to see some Men that are willing to step up and support a child that is not their own.
> Men that take on the role of father without even a question and men that adopt a child out of pure love is a magical sight to see


X 100

This post is pure gold on this thread!!!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Jedidiah said:


> johnny: all of this data is about CUSTODIAL parents. Child support for the parent with CUSTODY. It's rude when you don't read the information.


Rewind, go back and re-read what I wrote in post 49, now read this again.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

johnnycake said:


> The easiest reason why the actual amounts of payments received by women are in nominal terms higher, and higher as a percentage of a woman's income on average are functions of two things: 1. women tend to get more custody over children than men (which nobody has tried arguing against that I've seen);


This part. The data I quoted is about custodial mothers and custodial fathers. Custodial fathers are awarded child support considerably less than custodial mothers. Women not paying anything when they should be obligated to do so, even if their income is less than the father. The amount should reflect the difference in income but it should be some amount. Furthermore, the fact that the courts tend to believe that women should have no financial responsibility in such cases is a CLEAR indication that we have failed women and girls educationally.

BOTH parents should be responsible for the children, and I am not saying fathers shouldn't pay at all, and I am not saying that fathers who do not have custody shouldn't pay a fair amount of child support.

I reported your last sentence, by the way.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Jedediah,

From what I saw in a quick search the awarded child support is noticeably evening out in regard to gender/sex of custodial parent in the last 20+ years.

Can you show me where this data supports your claim that child support is allocated in a discriminatory manner? Or correct me if I misunderstand. Because those descriptive statistics don't inherently support such a claim. That data doesn't account for the variances that lead to such judgements, like overall length of child habitation with each parent, income differences, cost of childcare, etc. Those are all elements that go into court rulings on the matter.

I'm all for revising laws that discriminate based on sex/gender if people have evidence. Bring it to the courts or the state.

But it's a rather oblique attack to go after deadbeat legislation like this and claim its discriminatory (seems to be claim with reference to men and dads) when it doesn't contain any such language. It's seems to be an equal opportunity bill designed to revoke hunting privileges for anyone behind on child support.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Sure backcountry, it was quick math from the numbers on pages 6 and 7 of the document from 2015.

As far as discriminatory goes, I mean, a direct quote from the original article:

'Snow said the bill may “interfere” with some “sportsmen,” but the priority should be children first.'


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Uh, you know sportsmen is the plural for all hunters and fishermen, correct? Including women. That's not targeted or discriminatory language under current usage of terms.


----------



## 3arabians (Dec 9, 2014)

backcountry said:


> Uh, you know sportsmen is the plural for all hunters and fishermen, correct? Including women. That's not targeted or discriminatory language under current usage of terms.


Bingo! I think this is where the confusion + a personal experience may have led Jed astray?That's just my personal fact in this argument.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Hunttilidrop (Jun 12, 2018)

Hey Jed! Without any stats I already know what you trying to get at in a confused sense on your part. Johnny has already broke it down to you in the best possible way and if you still don’t get I’ll try one more time. The reason women receive more child support benefit percentages then men is because men simply for the most part don’t need it! Period. Point blank. End of story. If the custodial parent is the dad he more than likely makes a lot more than the mother in which case he would receive very little. Utah courts like to see the children in the mothers primary care more than not for good reason. There better at nurturing and what not. It’s their instinct. Not saying dads can’t but let’s be honest. This is where the stats your providing and your argument makes no sense what so ever!


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

Quick math isn't possible for an issue claiming statistics support your stance on discrimination. In fact I'm not convinced it can be run with the descriptive statistics you provided. Someone more proficient can correct me, but to find statistical confidence 
for discriminationn based on sex/gender we'd have to have the actual data set (ie each custody case along with relevant variables). 

That is public information. It can be gotten through a freedom of information act request. Multivariate statistical analysis isn't hard when you have such a data set. If custodial fathers have a legitimate claim it would behoove then to use such data and analysis to change the laws. But citing those charts isn't enough by any means, especially when simple math isn't accurate with those statistics.

I'd be shocked if that type of discrimination is so common that a group hasn't already done what I've described

In short, you haven't proven your claim.


----------



## Vanilla (Dec 11, 2009)

Jedidiah said:


> I couldn't agree more.


I believe you. And therein lies the problem. Willful ignorance is by far the most dangerous form of ignorance.


----------



## Jedidiah (Oct 10, 2014)

Did you even look at the pages? "actual data set"? There are literally tables for child support requested by custodial mothers and custodial fathers. What is wrong with you people? You tell me to cite sources for what everyone knows is common knowledge and I do, and you choose not to look. Sorry, I didn't know this was pointless. Next time if you could not engage when you have no intention of looking at actual facts while asserting that I have no facts or just let me know that would be great. Wow.


----------



## backcountry (May 19, 2016)

The source you provided is descriptive statistics, at least on the pages you cited, not the dataset. There is a big difference between those two and it affects what you can do with that information 

Look to your own source. It did not proclaim discrimination from what I can find. We would need the real data set and all relevant variables to do a multivariate statistical analysis to show that the null hypothesis, ie that the common variables others here have stated, aren't enough to explain the gender/sex based differences you see, ie there is confidence in a hypothesis of discrimination. 

Nothing is wrong with me. I've told you multiple times I support you trying to eliminate discrimination in the child support laws. But you have not substantiated your claims to us. And I have clearly looked at your sources. I think I understand them and their limitations better than you.

A short version.... descriptive statistics cannot explain or support your claims.


----------



## johnnycake (Jul 19, 2011)

Jedidiah said:


> Did you even look at the pages? "actual data set"? There are literally tables for child support requested by custodial mothers and custodial fathers. What is wrong with you people? You tell me to cite sources for what everyone knows is common knowledge and I do, and you choose not to look. Sorry, I didn't know this was pointless. Next time if you could not engage when you have no intention of looking at actual facts while asserting that I have no facts or just let me know that would be great. Wow.





Jedidiah said:


> This part. The data I quoted is about custodial mothers and custodial fathers. Custodial fathers are awarded child support considerably less than custodial mothers. Women not paying anything when they should be obligated to do so, even if their income is less than the father. The amount should reflect the difference in income but it should be some amount. Furthermore, the fact that the courts tend to believe that women should have no financial responsibility in such cases is a CLEAR indication that we have failed women and girls educationally.
> 
> BOTH parents should be responsible for the children, and I am not saying fathers shouldn't pay at all, and I am not saying that fathers who do not have custody shouldn't pay a fair amount of child support.
> 
> I reported your last sentence, by the way.


Jed, seriously, I'm fighting (and admittedly failing to a degree) to not get really snarky here.

Run some numbers through the state's official calculator, and pay attention to the variables. Then flip the scenario between the mother and father using the same numbers. It is interesting how the $ amount of child support remains the same, but flips to the other parent.

https://orscsc.dhs.utah.gov/orscscapp-hs/orscscweb/actions/Csc0002

Child support is one of the few areas under the law that actually relies entirely on math and not numbers (note, that division of custody is a separate issue from child support). The general idea/goal of child support is so that the child will still receive approximately the same total financial support from both parents that they would have if their parents were still together. It is trying to look at the gross income for both parents combined, determine what a reasonable amount spent per child would be, and then allocate that based on how many days the child is at each house.

There is nothing that skews the calculation of the payment owed in favor of one gender over another. What does skew the final dollar amount averages are things like how women are more likely to get custody (hence they bear a larger % of the costs of housing the child) and that on average women make less money than men (this even holds true when you correct for career choice differences). Since women tend to earn less money, but house the child more time, that is going to result in a higher child support payment on average being received by women than men.

I'm not sure I understand why certain posters such as yourself feel the need to inform another poster that they reported them. Are you looking for a gold star? Misguidedly thinking that I'll cow before your awesome ability to run to a moderator because you don't like that I made a very reasonable statement about how one might avoid finding themselves in the situation you appear to be quite concerned with? 'Cause frankly, if all of this is a real concern that you struggle with then yeah, do your absolute best not to copulate (also known colloquially as 'stick your dick in' 'tap' 'insert your penis into her vagina' and other colorful and scientific terms) with a female that is lazy or crazy. That will go far in decreasing the likelihood that you have children with a woman that ends up trying to "game the system" against you in a divorce.


----------



## Bax* (Dec 14, 2008)

Closing the thread. The conversation hasnt remained civil.

I saw this story earlier today and my first thought was: "Oh boy... here we go."


----------

