Child support - men don't like giving money to women they are no longer having sex with

This is the issue, right? There are some men who don't think they should have to support their own children because, in doing so, a woman they no longer have sex with will receive money from them.

I've heard men say, "I send the check and some of the money goes to things for her." I've heard men say that women should have to keep receipts and itemize where every cent goes so they know she isn't getting any groceries for herself or anything. Or using the money for rent. Even though that's part of what child support is for. (These would be men I used to work with - don't worry, I don't have friends like this.) My brother pays child support and seems quite happy to because he wants to do right by his children and feels it is his responsibility. I don't know the proportion of men see it the way my brother sees it compared to the ones who don't want to throw a dime even in the general direction of a woman who is no longer a sexual partner or sexual prospect.

This guy planned to kill either the mom or child in order to avoid paying. That's how big a deal it was to him. He'd rather go to prison for the rest of his life, or be executed, than give any money to the ex. And, yes, he killed his own child.

http://enews.earthlink.net/article/nat?guid=20090103/495ef0d0_3426_1335020090103745721419

For some men there seems to be a need to control former sex partners through the money intended for child support. It's treating child support like alimony.

I wish that alimony was discussed as a standard part of child support orders. The bruised egos may understand the difference between the two if language like this were included in the order:

"Ms. X is not granted any support from Mr. Y. Support to little XY is ordered in the amount of $$$ with Ms. X as the person authorized to receive and expend these funds on housing, food, clothing and other expenses related to the well being of the child. It is understood that such expenditures do not need to be limited to discrete items for the child but may be used in partial support of the household."

It'd be nice to have a judge ask the noncustodial parent whether he/she understands the order too, but that assumes that the other parent is in court when the matter was decided.

No pleasing-the-partner obligation. No supporting-the-partner's-disproportionate-health-expenses obligation. And no child support obligation if a sexual relationship causes a pregnancy.

It's the definition of misogyny. Disgusting.

In a sad, sick kind of way is historically, pregnant unmarried women were considered immoral, unfit, what have you. They were encouraged or forced to give their children up for adoption, rather than live "in shame". Men, of course never had to deal with this onus, never had to feel "shame" for their irresponsible fucking, never had to feel irresponsible either. Could just deny paternity.

So marriage itself was sort of a contract for women to have sex, willing or not, without being a slut, to bear children, often over and over without choice, to submit to their husbands, who generally controlled all the finances, all that old shit. And it wasn't all that long ago either.

It's not surprising to me giving the history of women, sex, marriage and choice that certain men have a just walk away attitude, or that they consider child support "payment" for whatever reason, rather than a total and complete responsibility for their side of the DNA donation.

Many men don't feel that way and are responsible. This particular case in seems we're dealing with a psychopath who is a straight up is a representative for patriarchy..

My ex-wife refuses to pay child support, and has spent more on attorney's fees to harass me through the court, than she owes, not an insignificant amount either, upwards of $12,000.

Scumbags come in both genders.

You may wish to read the "Welcome" message on the first page of the forum.

Does it link to the Cameron Brown case?