As a generalized answer, yes. (Jumping back in not having read the recent pages.)
I think financial obligation to children is strictly proportional to possession. If I have 100% possession, I have 100% of the obligation; if I have 0% possession, then I have 0% obligation. Anything other is unjust.
Also, I do not agree that housing is “child support.” Nor are expense elements which may have been affordable under a two-income family, but are no longer affordable under a one-income household, such as the luxurious recreational activities and consumer purchases cited in some posts – things I can not even afford for myself, as a single person, I should certainly not be obligated to pay to a non-resident child.
Women receiving “child support” ought not be permitted replacement male companionship without foregoing the funding. (Agreed, this is impractical to enforce.)
My basic set of ethics is that the standard of living which attaches to my work ethic belongs to me, and to no one else, for any reason.
***
I get that people have strong contrary opinions, and at the end of the day all I can do is avoid liability to these unjust laws by avoiding having children.
So following your logic it would be perfectly fine not support your children. As long as you don't live with them you have no responsibility to them.
Today, like many days I am grateful that my children's father is such a kind and decent man. My children were blessed by his support of them during the years they grew up. Which by the way was freely given as I never asked for or received a court order regarding child support.
Last edited by sqg123; November 5th, 2009 at 09:24 pm.
- November 5th, 2009, 09:22 pm