Why do Fathers Have to Pay Child Support?

[jk]

I may not have been clear in the point I was making.

What kinds of liability are there, in a court of law, if it has been determined that one individual has zero percent legal liability, according to the law.

In other words, if we have laws and legal liabilities resulting from those laws; and a judgment is passed that adjudicates zero percent legal liability (i.e. zero percent legal and physical custody); what authority nullifies the effect of a judgment that states an individual has zero percent legal obligation, while maintaining the full faith and credit of that public act?

Nobody said there was no liability (except you , of course).

0% legal and physical custody does not equal 0% liability.

No matter what custody is in place, the father is always 50% liable for the birth of the child and the mother is the other 50% liable.

Liability has nothing to do with custody. Obligation to pay for ones child is the liability. That is an entirely different situation than a court awarding no custody.

[seniorjudge]

Income transfer payments??

Where do you get this stuff?

He bought a thesaurus.

[cloudnine]

He bought a thesaurus.

BAHAHAHAHA!

And I'm sure the pages are already worn out.

[jojo4]

Liability has nothing to do with custody. Obligation to pay for ones child is the liability. That is an entirely different situation than a court awarding no custody.

I tried to explain that. Maybe my words weren't big enough.

[danielpalos]

Income transfer payments??

Where do you get this stuff?

I am arguing this from a legal theory, not law perspective; since it allows better tools (in the form of words) to work with similar concepts that are not peculiar to any given market.

[jojo4]

Okay, to put it bluntly, the legal theory is that all parents are responsible for finanacially supporting their off-spring, whether they want to be a "parent" or not.

The law agrees.



Since when is the law on the market? Can I pick them up in my local Piggly Wiggly? Maybe Tom Thumb or Kroger has a better supply.

[danielpalos]

0% legal and physical custody does not equal 0% liability.

You seem to be implying that legal rights may not be the same as parental rights. What is the source of authority for parental rights that are not legal rights, in a lawful US court of law (sufficient to ensure the full faith and credit of such an act)?

[danielpalos]

Okay, to put it bluntly, the legal theory is that all parents are responsible for finanacially supporting their off-spring, whether they want to be a "parent" or not.

The law agrees.



Since when is the law on the market? Can I pick them up in my local Piggly Wiggly? Maybe Tom Thumb or Kroger has a better supply.

You seem to be implying that legal rights may not be the same as parental rights. What is the source of authority for parental rights that are not legal rights, in a lawful US court of law (sufficient to ensure the full faith and credit of such an act)?

[jojo4]

No, I am clearly stating AGAIN (as opposed to implying) that legal responsibility is a seperate issue from parental custody and/or visitation rights. Which state would you like specific information for? Or would you just prefer that I provide the federal guidelines for you to peruse?

Ah heck, here, since I'm such a nice person, here is a case that should at least give you a starting point to know what to ask.

http://courts.co.calhoun.mi.us/01dom018.htm

[jk]

Did you notice his response to jojo was a cut and paste of his response to me?

You seem to be implying that legal rights may not be the same as parental rights. What is the source of authority for parental rights that are not legal rights, in a lawful US court of law (sufficient to ensure the full faith and credit of such an act)?

I said nothing of the sort. I said legal obligation to support your children has nothing to do with legal or physical custody, which as jojo pointed out, is the same thing he (she?) stated and this post is simply a reiteration of another post of his.


SJ; you are a riot today