Why don't I ever hear anyone in this forum taking against child support when it hits all the libertarian themes?
Government getting into the affairs of private citizens. If someone chooses to have a child with a low earning partner. Where in Constitution does government care?
Citizens being incarcerated for selective debt often in tiny amount. Hypothetical scenario. Citizen A makes $100 million a year has $10 million cash in bank and refuses to pay $1 million hospital bill or $1 million mortgage but will never face jail time for it nor lose driving privileges nor face arrest. Citizen B does not work. Has $1 in bank but is named as father in child support case and is behind $5. He will have his $1 seized and warrant issued for his arrest and can be held indefinitely until he or someone comes forth to pay the other $4.
Unreasonable use of government resources and criminalization of individuals whose crime is poverty when it comes to this specific debt. (Prosecutors, judges, police, correction officers, warrants, bail, TSA, Treasury officers, DMV, etc) to collect a small debt.
search and seizure by the government. DNA samples of any alleged male citizen that is named. Even if samples of ten other potential male citizens was proven false. Potential male citizen has no chance to deny such collection even if they have never met the other party before. They can't refuse to have DNA collected.
A contract by male with female to just be a donor with no financial support ever cannot be enforced. Court says mother cannot bargain away a child's right to support from other parent.
Can't have more than 2,000 in any bank account etc.
Federal Government keeping database of all new hires nationwide to seize funds for child support.
Why aren't libertarians bothered by any of this?
My point is in general. Why isn't any of this alarming to libertarians on this forum nor discussed by them often?
Edit: deleted and condensed since people just wanted to comment on morality of child support instead of just remarking on a libertarian perspective of this issue.
Consequences: New York city recently had a million open warrants many of them related to child support past due warrants. Rikers Island only can hold 15,000 people and has already been over flowing for years.
Virginia recently had over 1 million people with suspended licenses due to court related suspensions including child support suspensions despite only having 5 million people of driving age in the whole state. Virginia has since ceased to suspend licenses over debt. A victory for libertarians.
Posted by nuffinimportant
12 Comments
I speak out against child support and alimony whenever I see the situation come up. They are quite obviously theft.
I have been saying for some time that family courts are an unconstitutional invasion by the government into the private lives of citizens. I ask people – would you let a government official tell you how to run your family? Response is usually well, no. Yet people still believe family courts are inherently good and protect children when the reality is they do far more harm than good, and they seem to love breaking up families and putting children into the foster care system. It’s a gross perversion of government.
Why didn’t your poor relative show up to court and request DNA testing? Every putative father has to be served and allowed time to respond before an order can be issued.
Our government is so big and overreaching we have to pick our battles for sanity purposes! Not every issue can have the spotlight.
If you work even a half day as an family law attorney you’ll realize how bad of a take this is
First of all, I am not defending the way the courts are used for child support and alimony. I am not up to date on the legal process, as in if the state can intervene or interject unsolicited, but if so, then this definitely a gross intrusion.
The part I will defend is the right for one party to seek restitution from another party. I do think in child support cases paternity must be proven. FFS, we have 23andMe and Ancestry services, so DNA should not be a tall ask. If paternity is proven then the parties can make a contractual agreement on child support and custody. The courts should only be involved if mediation is needed and/or committing the contract to record. Unless an agreement is in place beforehand, meaning a pre-concept agreement absolving parties of responsibility or rights, then either parent is within their right to seek restitution. There is absolutely an implicit contract when engaging in sex, and therefore both parties are responsible for that contract including how to handle responsibilities and rights.
With that being said, I don’t necessarily agree with the punishments for violation of that contract. But I’m open to ideas for appropriate punishment for violating the contract.
You didn’t mention how big government gets paid taxes on both sides of this also. Dad using taxed dollars and moms have to claim as income. Winner here is the government ! Fuct
I think the two people who created a child should hold equal responsibility in getting that child to adulthood.
You probably want to look up Title IV-D of the Social Security Act. That is the law that incentivizes states to collect as much child support as they can because the federal government will issue the states grant money based on how successful their support program is. It may even be a dollar-for-dollar grant. Now, 100% of all funds collected for support are sent to the “defendant” in the case. The defendant is the other parent, not the kids. Go figure. So, no one really needs to worry about the state skimming the money. But the federal government does give grants from federal taxes collected to states. There is where the perverse incentive comes in to have easy divorce and support collection practices in each state. They make is super easy to break a marriage and/or take support money.
In my state of PA, divorce, custody, and support are all separate processes. My ex-wife was simply able to move out and file support without even having a job. The divorce retainer was $500. The custody retainer was $2000. Support has no retainer, and lawyers are not needed or required for support. I got shafted by being cheap and not going for custody when I had a case. I went for the divorce. I thought the system was fair and would see I did nothing wrong and grant me custody. That is when I realized (and learned the hard way) that the state doesn’t care about me, my ex-wife, or my kids. They simply wanted to push a support agreement through to gain access to the federal grants. We had agreed personally on 50/50 custody. That was the number support would later use.
I never saw a judge for support. Only a support counselor and a computer program. They took in my salary (decent) and her salary (zero) and factored in the 50/50 custody. And I paid $1000 a month for three kids at 50/50 custody. It certainly felt tyrannical.
So many other systems take priority over this for me unfortunately. I don’t like the state getting involved in marriage but I’m not a huge fan of the institution of marriage for that matter. In the framework of the current rules child support makes sense.
The situation you’re using as in example is also an extreme case. While I don’t think that person should face prison time, the more glaring detail to me is that he is “accused” of having women with multiple partners, which is different from divorcing a long term monogamous partner with who you share a child.
Well, we believe in personal responsibility – why should society pay for all the kids your relative has had? He had a bunch of kids and refused to accept responsibility. If he couldn’t afford to pay, he shouldn’t have played. This is where the courts should step in. I don’t understand how you can possibly defend him.
Intentionally or accidentally impregnating someone has financial consequences, at the very very minimum.
Where there is a judicial system, there is no reason for that system to not also enforce this.
Is it set up perfectly right now? No. But faulty systems do not absolve the parents of their responsibility to the child. Where there are errors, there are solutions. The solution isn’t: “absent parents don’t have to do anything”
IMO, you have a shitty take. Government overreach can be called government overreach and if that’s your issue, say so and make that case. The issue is not that child support is required.