Hypothetically speaking, if a 20 year old single man, with no career or income, conceived a baby with a wealthy multi millionaire married woman with two kids, how likely would he be to win a custody battle and be awarded child support?
Hypothetically speaking, if she is a somewhat decent woman, the guy doesn't have a snow balls chance if he don't have any money.
I don't know where the sexism is in this case; the more experienced parent is also the more financially stable one. I don't know if we've fully debunked the developmental advantages of maternal custody yet, either. He should definitely sue, though; the lawyer has that much more fiscal incentive to try a losing case.
This is a hypothetical. I thought it would be a thinly veiled inverse of an Arian Foster situation. Assuming Arian Foster manned up and tried to get custody based on the girl having no income, being unmarried and having no family life to offer, I think he would still have no chance of winning. Unlike the inverse where I assume the "gold digger" will easily win and get child support. If the courts were unbiased, wouldn't the girl risk Arian simply taking custody then sue HER for child support?
Assuming Arian Foster manned up and tried to get custody...... Thoughts? If a court granted Arian full custody, wouldn't the entire premise of women getting pregnant for money be corrected? A celeb baby would be a money drain and possible cause of imprisonment.
It doesn't change the fact of what his intentions were. If I were the court, I would be suspicious of this sudden and convenient change of heart. You're making an assumption that she got pregnant for the money. As far as imprisonment, for what? But on the child support topic, child support is based on financial needs for the child's welfare - not as some kind of a penalty to the non-custodial parent. If the substantially wealthier parent gets custody and can more than cover the cost of the child's upbringing, why would a court ask the poor party to pay child support?
Ah yes, the woman who gets impregnated and carries a child to full term is a gold digger; while the man who has sex with her without a condom and wants custody as a cost-saving measure is the better parent. I see the sexism right here.
You risk going to jail for not paying child support. If you are 20 and have no job, you likely cannot pay child support. Because two parties brought the child into the world and two parties are financially responsible for it. The custodial parents wealth seems irrelevant.
I put the term in quotes as a joke to her costume. I am not one of the people attacking her in the Arian Foster thread. I am not convinced she didn't just want sex from Arian, I was basically called a moron for posting that in the Arian Foster thread. Check my posts out from that thread if you want http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=8605950&postcount=197 http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=8603643&postcount=99 I'm not at all in Arian's corner. I am just wondering how these cases would go if the mother was as equally scared of the financial implications of having a baby as the father.
You still haven't solved the species-old dilemma of males needing females to give up their professionally formative years so the men can have properly cared for children while still working full time.
That is a bit outdated and mostly cultural. Men and women have equal access to leave from their jobs by law. Outside of the short term medical implications of child birth, why are women more obligated or even qualified to raise the child?
It's a global cultural norm that is too old to be outmoded by a twenty-year old labor law. Men enforce and women accept these gender roles as part of the criteria for spousal selection and procreation, and it's certainly more relevant to family planning, custody and child support laws than your contrived notion of "women getting pregnant for money."
First off, it isn't my contrived notion, it is the notion of most of the guys in the Arian Foster thread EXCEPT mine. Secondly, child support is on a case by case basis. If all else is equal, cultural gender roles should have no bearing whatsoever. The argument that the mother gave birth and should have priority of custody makes no sense to me.
Again, child support is not about parental obligations or penalties. It is strictly about doing what is necessary to make sure the child's custodian has sufficient resources. Child support levels are generally based on your income. So if you have no income... for example, here is Ohio (quick google search): https://www.ohiobar.org/forpublic/resources/lawyoucanuse/pages/lawyoucanuse-45.aspx The total of this adjusted gross income of both parents is then applied to a chart, which identifies the amount of support required to raise children in their parents’ income category. The paying parent will pay his or her pro-rated share of that charted amount. For example, if Mom earns $10,000 per year, and Dad earns $30,000, the combined gross is $40,000. For one child, the charted amount is approximately $6,500 of child support per year. If Dad is the parent paying support, he must pay $4,875 per year, or 75 percent of the charted amount, because he earns 75 percent of the total combined parental income. Lets say she makes $20k per year and Arian Foster makes $5MM per year. Combined, they make $5.02MM per year. So she makes 0.4% of the total income. If Foster got custody and went after child support, the girl would need to pay child support of $26 per year, or $2.16 per month if this were in Ohio. Again, our child support system has nothing to do with trying to create parental obligations just for the sake of it. If the wife is a multimillionaire CEO and the dad has no money, and the wife gets custody, it's unlikely the dad will be expected to pay child support either.
All things being equal, woman gets custody. In Texas at least, and child support is not pro rated in Texas. Doesn't matter how much custodial parent makes. non custodial parent with pay 20% for one child, 25% for two, 30% for three, no matter if custodial parent is making big bucks or not. No tax breaks for non custodial parent. noncustodial must cover insurance and half of all medical claims. non custodial parent, usually dad, gets screwed by the child support system.