Should the state pay child support??

[grecoroman]

Do you believe the state should help women and give them child support instead of the father??

[grecoroman]

poll added


I believe the state should pay for child support.

[Jana]

It should be paid only to poor working families who dont have enough money for child needs. At least one parent needs to be employed to qualify for child support.

No to child support for families where both are unemployed and have no desire to work, that creates leeches. Children need to be taken from such parasites.

[grecoroman]

It should be paid only to poor working families who dont have enough money for child needs. At least one parent needs to be employed to qualify for child support.

No to child supoort for families where both are unemployed and have no desire to work, that creates leeches. Children need to be taken from such parasites.

I agree. It's unfair for a father who earns 1400 a month. To pay 400 in child support to his baby's mother.

[♥ Lily ♥]

I think the laws may vary in differerent nations.

In the UK the state will only fund unemployed parents for the first 2 children. New laws state that anymore than 2 children born after a certain date since the new law came into effect will no longer be funded by the state.

This new UK law of the state funding a maximum of 2 children per family is to prevent welfare fraud by unemployed people having more than 2 children just to claim welfare payments for each child.

Why should hard-working tax-payers and the state fund the child or children instead of the parents funding their own child/ren?? That's just leeching from the state.

I think the same law applies if parents only planned to have one child... but suddenly they're expecting twins, triplets, quadruplets, or more all at once!

In the UK if two parents aren't living together or are seperated for whatever situation, circumstance, or reason in life, the absent parent (the mother or the father) has to legally pay child support payments until each child is 18.

The UK has a very low unemployement rate of less than 4% of the population - but I think even an unemployed parent is still legally obliged to pay regular child support contributions which is automatically deducted from their welfare payments.

Once children are in school, the parent that the children are residing with is also legally obliged to seek work in the UK. If two parents are both employed but separated, the other parent is still legally obliged to pay child maintenance payments to the parent where the child/ren reside.

The laws may be different in your country though.

[Maintenance]

It should be paid only to poor working families who dont have enough money for child needs. At least one parent needs to be employed to qualify for child support.

No to child support for families where both are unemployed and have no desire to work, that creates leeches. Children need to be taken from such parasites.

Or just make it simple, cant afford a kid? dont get one period.

[♥ Lily ♥]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if I remember correctly, didn't you make a recent thread asking if your pregnant girlfriend should get an abortion because you think a child will 'ruin' your social life...?

You addressed this poll and question only to single mothers receiving child support payments from an absent father - so I'm under the impression that this question is just related to your own personal situation - otherwise you would've also included single fathers legal rights to receive child support payments from the mother in the poll too if this was a general interest type of question.

But anyway... yes to both situations of a single father receiving child maintenance payments from the child's mother - or a single mother receiving child payments from the child's father - when a couple are no longer living together for whatever reason. The other parent should fund their child/ren rather than the state - and they're legally obliged to do so - unless the other parent has fallen sick, has become severely injured, or has died.

If people are responsible enough to create and make a new life or lives, then they also have a moral and emotional and legal obligation to support and fund their child/ren too - even if they have submissively allowed that child or children to live with the other parent in any agreed legal custody cases in court.

I feel very sad though for single parents who may've lost a partner through a tragic accident or death or other circumstances... and also for people who were employed when their child/ren were born, but who've suffered from an accident at work or a sickness which caused a disability or ill health - although they can receive compensation for industrial accidents and financial help from the state if they're severely physically or mentally unable to work.

If a parent is in receipt of any welfare benefits, I think child maintenance payments are still deducted from their disability cheques or their unemployment cheques.

Anyone who cares about their child(ren) wouldn't have an issue with paying regular child support payments... and would also happily give the child/ren clothes, toys, would be happy to pay or contribute when taking them out to places, and wouldn't object to giving the other parent top-up money for the child out of love and support.

It's just human nature to love and finanically and emotionally support a child/ren even if the parents are no longer living together for whatever situation in life. It's also a lovely feeling when buying children presents and new clothes and toys and taking them out to nice places, etc.

Even if neither parent is in receipt of any welfare and both parents are working in full-time jobs as soon as their children are old enough to be in school - regular child maintenance support payments are still a moral and legal obligation to pay - providing the other parent isn't dead.

[grecoroman]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you make a recent thread asking if your pregnant girlfriend should get an abortion...?

You addressed this poll and question only to single mothers receiving child support payments from an absent father - so I'm under the impression that this question is related to your personal situation - otherwise you would've also included single fathers legal rights to receive child support payments from the mother in the poll too.

But anyway... yes to both situations.

If people are responsible enough to create and make a new life or lives, then they also have a moral and emotional and legal obligation to support and fund that child/ren too.

I feel very sad though for single parents who may've lost a partner through a tragic accident or death or other circumstances... and also for people who were employed when their child/ren were born, but who've suffered from an accident at work or a sickness which caused a disability or ill health - although they can receive compensation for industrial accidents and financial help from the state if they're severely physically or mentally unable to work.

Anyone who cares about their child(ren) wouldn't have an issue with paying regular child support payments... and would also happily give the child/ren clothes, toys, taking them out, and giving the other parent top-up money out of love and support.

It's just human nature to still care and support a child even if two parents are no longer living together.

Even if neither parent is in receipt of any welfare and both parents are working in jobs when the children are in school - regular child maintenance support payments are still a moral and legal obligation providing the other parent isn't dead.

I believe single fathers should also get state funded child support. Instead of the mother paying from her hard earned money

[Jana]

Or just make it simple, cant afford a kid? dont get one period.

Since when poor cared about that ? There will be kids born from poor in future too.

Goal should be to make it possible to support a family even with lowest paid job, and to penalize lazy people and unemployment from those who want to live off taxpayer money.

[♥ Lily ♥]

I believe single fathers should also get state funded child support. Instead of the mother paying from her hard earned money

No, I totally disagree with that. Females should contribute to the funding of their child/ren by legally paying child maintenance payments to the father. Why should the state be forced to pay for her child/ren instead?

I think that's quite cheeky and parasitic to expect other hard-working taxpayers to have to fund their child/ren instead of paying from her own wages, (or at least contribute something towards child maintenance payments if she's become unemployed, has fallen extremely unwell, or has a disability and is living on welfare payments and is receiving a low income.)

Why should females be exempt from the legal rules of paying child maintenance?