Daddy Nobucks: When Involuntary Fathers Are Forced to Foot The Bill
…it seems to me that the man ought to pay regardless of his expressed desire to avoid having children.
Define, please. “Pay” means involuntary conscription into a system where all basic rights must disappear…for that system to exist at all?
And define “expressed desire”. Are verbal contracts not contracts? Are written contracts not contracts? Is willfully misleading a fellow citizen so as to take vast sums from him under penalty of law legal? Is the law that does so itself legal?
Lastly, where does this abstract, groundless notion of “I think he should have to pay” (and pay regardless, including when he’s simply not dad at all) come from? From more cost-to-society rubbish? When the real cost to society of our corrupted, amoral, unfolding support/custody law debacle is so blindingly clear, both in fiscal and human terms?
When doing so is to openly admit we’re helpless to order our own lives and must rely on our fellows to pay even greater costs to society to perpetuate this wreckage of a system upon all of us simultaneously?!
Title IV-D’s costs are truly astronomical. So are the costs of paying society for fatherlessness.
