The Ultimate Child Support Solution

Retired New York Giants defensive end Michael Strahan recent skermishes in divorce court serve to underline why there need to be changes in the child-support laws—and I have come up with the perfect solution. It’s a fact: men that make a lot of money get taken to the wash in divorce court, and that makes sense to me: if your wife is a (quantifiable) partner in your success, then she should be compensated for that investment. Quantifying that investment is complicated, but no matter: alimony, in a lot of cases, is warranted.

People that say ‘the child support solution is to wear a condom’ are generally pretty stupid people who would have you believe they were born in a manger with Three Wise Men bringing gifts. 85% of us were not planned. Most of us were conceived in the back of someone’s car or, like me, on a couch in my grandmother’s basement. The only reason she keeps the couch, she says, is because I was conceived on it. How about that?

Well, that’s another matter entirely.

Re: child support, men should pay up, because the purpose of child support is to provide care to child long after a relationship or marriage has been terminated. That makes all the sense in the world. The vast majority of mothers need this money to make ends meet and support them while they try to make a go of it, single-parent-stylee. I’m down with that. What’s confusing to me is the idea that support should somehow make the child’s life on-par with the father’s life. Nah. These laws are antiquated, and assume that women don’t cake like men do. If Mommy is losing like that, and we want the kid to live like Daddy—>shrugs<—I say Daddy should be given custody. That makes more sense to me.

Most often, the amount paid to the mother seems to be more about adult support than child support, and it’s not uncommon to see mothers riding fine, iced down, and find your seed out there in holey shoes and moth-eaten Old Navy gear, eating pot-pies for dinner. The women sometime don’t work, and child support becomes their primary income. And there is no way to know how much of that is being used for her upkeep, and not the kids. So how do we fix that?

Child support should not be based on the income of the father—that’s ludicrous. That’s basically encouraging women to use children like paychecks and lay back. And if you need child support to survive, again, you should consider giving custody to the father. I think there should be a different formula for determining child support that encourages all parties involved to be responsible parents.

The Ultimate Child Support Solution goes like this:

  • The feds should figure out the median grocery bill for a mother and a child and every stage of development. Support should cover half of that grocery bill. This should include formula, diapers, etc.
  • The feds should figure out the median cost of housing a mother and child, based on price per square foot of a two-bedroom apartment. Support should cover only the price per square foot of the child’s bedroom.
  • Support should cover half of the median amount of all utilities, including cable..
  • Fathers should have to contribute $200 quarterly towards clothing. This will go up $100 per quarter when the kid becomes a teenager.

In order to receive child support benefits:

  • Unless she’s mentally defective, mothers would have to be employed within six months to a year of birth of the child. If not employed, mothers must be enrolled in an accredited certification program or college and afforded grants, work-study or other some-such to pull her own weight.
  • If there is some medical or religious reason why the mother can’t work, the father should be given custody.
  • If a Mother is shacked up with some dude, benefits should be cut by half.
  • Every time the woman had a new baby by a new daddy, the benefits from the previous child would be cut by half. What do I mean?

So say, sister, you had a baby with Bootney, and his payments are $350 per month and then you and Rufus hook-up and make a kid. Congrats. That means while Rufus will pay his full obligation, you just cut Bootney’s payments by half, to $175 a month. Next thing, you have another baby with Lil Murder from up the block. That’s cool. You have just cut Rufus’ payments in half, and now Bootney only has to pay $80-some dollars a month in support. And so on and so on and so on.

What About Dad?

  • Fathers, instead of being jailed for non-support, would be compelled into job-search, work-study, re-hab or job training programs, and would be assigned a worker, parole-officer-stylee, to monitor their progress. Three interviews a week. Two applications a day. For as long as it takes.
  • Fathers paying support would have mandatory 50/50 custody.
  • Fathers who actively elude their parental responsibility could sign away their parental rights, but still have to pay support.
  • There would be no “back support.” You pay while you are working. After three months of unemployment, treated as non-support.

Fathers who would prefer to have custody of their seeds would receive a court-appointed attorney to fight for their rights.

And to prevent abuse, no more child support checks. Support money would be loaded onto a debit card, much like the one used for food stamps, and the same kind of strict purchasing guidelines and monitoring would govern its usage. If a father has custody, then all these things should work conversely.

The Ultimate Child Support Solution prevents men from running from responsibility, prevents women and men from abusing the system, and, most importantly makes everyone responsible and evens the playing field.

What do you think?

September 18th, 2008 | Uncategorized

14 comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

No sure who’s female in this discussion…my guess not many, perhaps 1 besides myself.

Who’s actually a parent here?

“Seed” is not a term oft used by a parent…but, that may be a colloquial thang.

I AM: Black, a woman & parent…The legal term used in my custody decision was, since I did not deny my ex’s drive for shared custody was his having to pay support so the children can live in a lifestyle they are “accustomed.”

We both remarried. I am a homemaker. So is his 3rd wife. I returned to work when they entered preschool, only to find that I could not maintain a job because of two chronic illnesses. They’re degenerative, and each day I ‘get’ to spend with my family is a blessing!

I have professional certifications & BA plus maintain professional associations. But it hasn’t a lick to do about my rights to co-parenting nor the fairness in our child-support decision.

My ex has no degrees. I never made over $50K. He averaged 4x that in take-home.

I firmly believe that my role in my kids’ lives is necessary and fair, because we share a race, sex and blood. My ex is white – our kids are biracial.

Although I appreciate the aim of this discussion is to increase fairness for all –why hate on people with disabilities?

Comment by cyberRAH — September 21, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

There should be no punitive actions taken against either.
The best solution, provide enough jobs so people can support themselves and their families on a single wage.

And do away for jailing parents and taking licenses for unpaid child support. That pretty much guarantees their job potential will be considerably lower and does not help anyone.

the only two bills you will get jailed for not paying is the IRS and child support. Interesting isnt it?

Now the only situation in which I do agree that a woman’s support should possibly be reduced is if she marries a man and say triples, quadruples her household income while the non custodial fathers income remains the same. And increased if the father marries and the mother stays alone.

Ex: Joe and Sarah have a child. Joe makes 25000/yr and Sarah makes the same. Sarah marries Tom. Tom makes 65000/yr. The childs financial needs from the non custodial parent have lessened.

And if Joe marries Tonya and she makes 65000/yr and Sarah is still single
then it should be increased because now Joe has more means.

Comment by guyverx — December 21, 2008 @ 3:56 am

I counted off 17 methods of birth control just now. Over five of them are over 80% effective.

One of them is 100% effective. All day. All night. Infinity.
But you don’t have to take my word for it. I got it off a site For Women, By Women.
http://www.4woman.gov/faq/birthcont.htm#two

So, what are the other ‘excuses’ for a female having sex a with a male that they don’t Love, don’t care for, and have no intention of being with for the rest of their lives?

What other motivation would an intelligent, modern woman have to put herself through something like this…only to rail against it when a guy suggests that her ‘check’ should be balanced, reduced or straight cut off?

Sanctity of Life? Most of the women that I ‘listen to’ that are raising kids absolutely cannot ‘wait for Little 2:45 a.m. Booty-Call Jr.2′ to grow up, get a job and stop being so trifling…just like his daddy…(that she CHOSE to have unprotected sex with)…you should hear what they say about their teen girl-children when they reach puberty. Terrible. Way to go Mom. Good Job.

Preservation and Propagation of the human species? Uh. There are six billion and damn near a half human beings on the planet. Over 40,000 of them die…every…day. I think that the human ’species’ will be fine without on more Little 2:45 a.m. Booty-Call3.

Hmm…nah.

Not money.
Never that.
Women don’t
do things that
they regret

for money.

*This epic clowning and logic bombing
was brought to you by

The Dahakan Of BMV.

Co-Sponsored by
http://www.4woman.gov/faq/birthcont.htm#two

Somebody Lyin’.

Comment by The Dahakan — September 24, 2008 @ 8:24 am

1-Continuous Abstinence
2-Periodic Abstinence or Fertility Awareness Methods
3-The Male Condom
4-Oral Contraceptives
5-The Mini-Pill
6-Copper T IUD (Intrauterine Device)
7-Progestasert IUD (Intrauterine Device)
8-Intrauterine System or IUS (Mirena)
9-The Female Condom
10-Depo-Provera
11-Diaphragm, Cervical Cap or Shield
12-Contraceptive Sponge
13-The Patch (Ortho Evra)
14-The Hormonal Vaginal Contraceptive Ring (NuvaRing)
15-Surgical Sterilization (Tubal Ligation or Vasectomy)
16-Nonsurgical Sterilization (Essure Permanent Birth Control System)
17-Emergency Contraception “morning after pill”

Comment by The Dahakan — September 24, 2008 @ 8:02 am

@L3ESmith

I think that we know the answer(s) to why pololly answered the way that she? did.

In her? mind…it is utterly inconceivable for a woman, a modern human woman, who could/should be educated, enlightened and living in the information age of the 21st century…

to be so scandalous as to lay down, spread her legs open with a guy or multiple guys to get child support money! ONLY!

Doesn’t happen. It’s just impossible.
Nope.
Women don’t do that. Please! (not innocent, blameless women) Phsaw! Never been a record nor a complaint since the history of children of women doing that.

You’d be a fool and a woman-hating communist to believe it, too.

Right, pololly?

Comment by The Dahakan — September 24, 2008 @ 7:56 am

Pololly. Again. Come on, now.

You’ve gone from anger to rage while clearly missing the point.

Nobody said anything about punishing women or harming children, except YOU. Why does ANYONE have to be punished? How about a little compassion and fairness?

And why do people believe that asking folks to be responsible is the same as blaming them for the problem? In simple terms:

Blame = “You spilled the milk! It’s YOUR fault!”
Responsibility = “Who cares who spilled the milk? Who’s going to clean it up?”

As it stands, many black fathers (myself included) will be forced to subsidize their own separation from their children — which, at least in my case, I didn’t want. To be clear: I got no problem taking care of my own. But it’s insulting and demoralizing for a man who WANTS to be there for his kids in EVERY WAY, for that man to find himself labeled a DEADBEAT due to factors beyond his control.

Oh yeah, meanwhile putting up with a stonewalling baby’s momma who makes it hard to see your kid, but still cashes the checks.

So Pololly: Are you saying that as humans, we can’t come up with a BETTER way? I’m not saying Jimi’s plan is flawless, but do you believe there’s a BETTER, FAIRER way?

Comment by L3ESmith — September 19, 2008 @ 12:45 pm

Thank you for showing your true colors – I need a man, do I? I’ll give you this – I’m neither a baby’s mama nor am involved with the joke of a man that will have a baby’s mama, so maybe I’m just not ghetto enough to get this solution.

But why don’t you stop hiding and be explicit about the horrid sexism implicit in your solution. I’ll lay it out for you:

The presumption of automatic female custody should stop. Fine. Children are the decision of both parents and they are not an extension of the mother, so she shouldn’t just get automatic full custody. But wait a sec? If the woman has any other kids, to any other man, she should have her child support payments cut in half? Why? Why should it affect the child? Well, to punish the mother of course. Cos in this situation the child IS an extension of the mother. And it gets better. Of course, the emphasis is all on the preventing the mother from getting pregnant! I thought they were ‘equal partners’? Why shouldn’t Tyrone have his child support DOUBLED every time he has a kid? Because he’s the man? Punish women not men is your solution. Because women who have kids are somehow ‘worse’ than the men they have them with?

Even better – let’s get rid of punitive solutions to deal with fathers because they’re counter productive. Putting men in jail means they can’t earn. But wait – the whole point is that men should wanna do anything to get out of going to jail so it should have a deterrent effect. It’s a bad idea of course. But punitive punishment is FINE for women and children. Put CHILDREN below the poverty line as long as the ‘brothers’ don’t have to go to jail, is that really your solution? Where is the mother’s understanding? Support? Job training? No, just get a job, any job you lazy whore?

As a black man you should feel ASHAMED! You buy into the horrible lazy racist Reagan-esque bs about ‘welfare queens’ trying to trap a man for his money. You really have so little respect for your own race that you go to Republican dogma to form opinions about your own women. Fine, then you are a good for nothing, ex con, white-woman-rapist, crack peddling, lazy wanna be rapper? Then please stop your stereotyping and judgment.

Send those bitches out to work, you cry! By the way, thanks for leaving provision for post natal depression, difficult births and the cost of child care – the umbilical cord is barely cut and you are dragging the women to a likely low wage job which might not even cover the cost of the babysitter. But you don’t care – those women should take any job. But men, they should have training and help and as many chances as it takes to get a good job, right?

How about this – why not give both support and help? Why not remove punitive solutions for both? Why not make it possible to live on one wage (with universal healthcare for example)?

Let’s be honest, black men like you need black women to blame. One commentator said ‘it’s NOT all OUR fault’ – telling words. Some black men need black women to be whores and jezebels otherwise they have no excuse to be the immature lazy excuse for a man that they are. Black women HAVE to be TRAPPING them into kids, otherwise it’d be 50/50 responsibility. Black women HAVE to be spending their child support money on clothes otherwise they’d have to admit they’re not good providers. BLACK women in new relationships HAVE to WHORES LOOKING FOR A PAYCHECK otherwise they’d be good women who they let go.

And it’s true the other way round. Black men are this, black men are that. Everyone’s got something bad to say about black men.

But your solution is horrific. Women should be punished, men should be praised, children should be harmed? Do you work for the Bush administration?

Comment by pololly — September 19, 2008 @ 11:04 am

Well, I do consider that. But I also think that the first child born still needs to be supported, regardless of what his mother does. The obligation from both parents still exists. If a man fathers another baby, he still needs to help support that one, and can’t cease supporting his first child. The mom’s obligation is still there, after all.

I agree that there are women who abuse the system, (especially since it is currently horrible, and easy to abuse) but the other parts of your reform, where the woman needs to be working or going to school can reach some of that.

I don’t think there’s any way to curb all abuse, and I don’t think that it is up to the courts to try to limit reproductive freedom in such a way. Nevertheless, existing children should be supported by both parents. No one should get rich or not have to make her own way by having baby after baby. Of course the easiest way to prevent that, would be for a man who sees a woman doing that, not to have sex with her.

It’s as if we would say that if a man has a subsequent child and support obligation, it should be double that of the first child, to discourage him from running around making babies with all different kinds of women. Some men make that a lifestyle! Well, both things are wrong, but supporting a child (at a reasonable level, and not at a level that also supports the mom) that is yours should not be subject to the mom’s (or the dad’s) later behavior.

Also, the putting in jail of nonpayers is ridiculous. How are they supposed to earn a living, make payments, get a decent job afterward? In addition, the current automatic presumption that mom would be the best custodial parent should be explicitly banned.

Comment by janna1g — September 19, 2008 @ 10:08 am

Jaana,

The diminishing payment model is not about punishing the woman, but more about discouraging having more children than you can afford and relying on child support and welfare services as a way of life. There are women out there with 5 kids just living off child support and family services. That’s a absurd way to live. We have to get back to having only as many children as we are able to feed well. Not just dropping off kids as souveniers. Consider that

Comment by jimiizrael — September 19, 2008 @ 9:24 am

I have thought about this a lot, both when I was receiving child support and now when my new husband pays it. I think some of what you say is equitable, and workable. The government has already decided what it costs to raise a child-it’s what the state is willing to pay someone to have a foster child. That should be the default amount of child support. If the mother or father want to provide more, well great!

I don’t agree that someone having another baby should have the support for the first child reduced. I am not even sure about the reasoning for that, unless it’s somehow to punish her for having another relationship and child? No, each father, if there is more than one, is responsible for the upkeep of his child, and that should not be reduced by the birth of another child. Foster care payments are not two-fers, and neither should child support be.

I agree about the default 50-50 custody for the most part (which should eliminate quite a bit of child support obligation), but there has to be some way for one party to move. And I don’t think the answer is, fine, give the custody to the other one. The children might have some preferences there, and they might want to see their mom. Also, if the child is very young and nursing, I don’t think 50/50 custody can work.

Otherwise, I think this is a thoughtful essay on the custody and child support questions. Adult support is unfair to the payer, demeaning and infantilizing to the payee, and I think results in bad outcomes as far as relationships go with between parents and their children.

In my own situation, we made the child support floor $300 and the ceiling $500. My ex is an attorney and made a lot more than me, but we were getting divorced! I wanted to support myself. People should have pride in making their own way.

Comment by janna1g — September 19, 2008 @ 9:17 am

Pololly, I didn’t say anything even remotely close to that. Why I gotta be a nigga because I want an equitable child support system? Sounds like SOMEbody needs a man and/or a job. No names, Pololly.

Comment by jimiizrael — September 18, 2008 @ 6:05 pm

Pololly. Come on, now.

Just as I’m sure you don’t think ALL men ain’t isht, Jimi’s not saying ALL women are lazy, good-for-nothing whores.

That said, there ARE some “ain’t isht” brothers. There ARE some women who are good at gaming the system, and do it masterfully.

The only thing Jimi’s pushing here is a revamp of an unfair child support system, that puts an undue burden on the fathers without protecting any of their rights.

So let’s say you’re an honest black man working for HP. Good salary. Wanted your marriage to work, it didn’t, but you love your kids and want to be in their lives. You’re paying 15 percent of your HP salary to child support.

Until HP lays off 25,000 people, including you. Now, your child support is based on what you USED to make. You still have your own living expenses, but due to no fault of your own, you fall behind. She takes you to court.

Now you gotta go to jail.

No money. No job. And worst, you don’t get to see your kids. Not because you were avoiding your responsibilities, but because of something you had no control over.

Is THAT fair? Do we really NEED more black men in jail? Oh, and as hard as it is to find a job as a black man PERIOD, now you’re a BLACK MAN WITH A RECORD. Good luck with that.

You tell me: Is that fair?

By the way: Yes, Black men DO need some love. . . . from sisters, preferably. We’ve got feelings, heartaches and challenges. The problems between brothers and sisters are NOT all OUR fault, though media and your beautician would say otherwise. Have a little sympathy for the black men you know. Show a little love.

Comment by L3ESmith — September 18, 2008 @ 4:02 pm

Wow.

Thanks for showing who you are. So black women are lazy, good for nothing whores but black men just need some love?

As a black woman,I’ll speak the truth to you:

As Chris Rock says, “There are black people and there are niggers. And the niggers have got to go!”

Please do us all a favor and just go!

Comment by pololly — September 18, 2008 @ 11:49 am

[...] the child support system: a way that is fair and make sense. This entry is too long as it is, so check out the Ultimate Child Support Solution on my blog.In T.I.’s case, what’s likely to happen is that him and the mother will reach a settlement [...]

Pingback by The Hardline according to Jimi Izrael : Child Support "Arrangements" — September 18, 2008 @ 11:15 am