re: California woman wins child support from ex-husband nearly 50 years after divorce

quote:

---

Most think the ex is going to spend all that money on herself (some do). Raising kids isn't easy or cheap.

---

Yes, because a school aged kid can reasonably cost more than 2 grand a month.

In those circumstances you are driving an Accord around while your ex gets a larger house and BMW payment subsidized.

......That doesn’t mean it’s not wasted, and as a result not “for” the child.

For frick’s sake, putting aside into the college fund would be better than Mommy’s lease.

The Scandinavians generally don't have this problem. Because custody is typically shared and when child support is assigned it is an essentially flat amount instead of fluctuating with income.

Why is this better? Lots of reasons. It assumes the child is wanted by both parents which is a systematically better assumption and results in fewer maladjusted children. It is an application of real feminism which assumes men and women are equal and equally responsible for important choices. It also avoids prolonged custody battles because financially it isn't worth it and that avoids exacerbating conflict that further damages shared parenting.

For anyone who stops to consider the consequences of our current system they ought to be horrified by not only poor outcomes for children but also the evil nature of getting pregnant to use the baby to make a profit from a man. Even if you don't give a damn about the inequality men typically suffer in this case you ought to be deeply troubled by the incentivizing of creating unwanted children raised by single mothers that wanted them for financial reasons.

quote:

---

The Scandinavians generally don't have this problem. Because custody is typically shared and when child support is assigned it is an essentially flat amount instead of fluctuating with income. Why is this better? Lots of reasons. It assumes the child is wanted by both parents which is a systematically better assumption and results in fewer maladjusted children. It is an application of real feminism which assumes men and women are equal and equally responsible for important choices. It also avoids prolonged custody battles because financially it isn't worth it and that avoids exacerbating conflict that further damages shared parenting. For anyone who stops to consider the consequences of our current system they ought to be horrified by not only poor outcomes for children but also the evil nature of getting pregnant to use the baby to make a profit from a man. Even if you don't give a damn about the inequality men typically suffer in this case you ought to be deeply troubled by the incentivizing of creating unwanted children raised by single mothers that wanted them for financial reasons.

---

Appreciate the info. I don't disagree with you but there are deadbeat dads out there too. Some men and woman are just trash, period.

quote:

---

But the payment of high amounts of child support is an evil policy designed to encourage single parent households, unwanted children, and increased societal harm from the maladjusted people you end up with

---

It definitely needs to be revamped. Not sure it encourages single parent households (may make it easier).

I have mixed thoughts on this.

No sympathy for a guy who abandons his three year old little girl. Absolutely frick deadbeat Dad for sure and it's a good heads up notice for single women struggling to make ends meet to pursue enforcement and a solid warning to the deadbeat dads as well.

But she seems a bit disingenuous.

quote:

---

"I kind of put it on the back burner and just kind of forgot about it over the years," said Anderson. She supported her daughter while working as an interior designer in Los Angeles at a firm her daughter now runs.

---

quote:

---

"I'm not negating the fact I was able to send my daughter to college, Paris. We traveled and had a good time. But the money runs out."

---

quote:

---

"I think he's a little bit panicked.," said Anderson of her husband's reaction to her pursuit. "And I'm very happy because I was panicked all these years. Now, it's his turn."

---

She sounds as if she had complete care and custody over the child without interference or negative influence from deadbeat Dad. Apparently made enough money to support herself and daughter fairly comfortably. Which I realize is not the determining factor. But, 50 years later she is now feeling the pinch? She sounds panicked now, not so much back then as she claims. Sent daughter to school in Paris, traveled and had good times, but hey, the money runs out?

It seems as her just sort of forgetting about child support, putting it on the "back burner" was more of a calculated trade off than simple forgetfulness.

She achieves good riddance of the deadbeat dad by ignoring his non-payment of child support rather than risking enforcement of the court order that might give Dad reasonable visitation rights complicating her and her daughter's relationship and lifestyle.

Interest over 50 years for her forgetting to enforce something he'd be responsible for 18, 21, 25 years? He's a deadbeat for sure but she's no daisy either. I sure don't care for either of them.

But, judge not lest ye be judged so... ...and, the law is the law, so, there it is.