Why do Fathers Have to Pay Child Support?

[jojo4]

A court has not ruled that a person has zero percent liability to support his or her child just because that person does not have physical or legal custody.

Custody/visitation and support of a child are two seperate issues. Same zoo, different animals.

[danielpalos]

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?

[jojo4]

If one has zero percent legal liability per a court of law, then that person has either been found to not be the parent of the child or that person's parental rights have been terminated. In that case, if all legal responsibility (liability) is set at zero, then there IS no liability. (That was a profoundly redundant sentence.)

You are not clear because you are so focused on using big words that you are missing the entire point that legal responsibility/liability for a child has absolutely nothing to do with the right/privelege of custody/visitation of said child.

Having said that, there are some states that take into consideration the amount of time the parent spends with the child when calculating a child support amount.

If you are looking for federal or state guidelines that outline exactly what authority is in place for setting child support, then just say so.

[danielpalos]

If one has zero percent legal liability per a court of law, then that person has either been found to not be the parent of the child or that person's parental rights have been terminated. In that case, if all legal responsibility (liability) is set at zero, then there IS no liability. (That was a profoundly redundant sentence.)

Your response implies that there is no obligation to make income transfer payments, if there is no legal obligation adjudicated in a court of law.

[danielpalos]

Are parental rights lawful? If they are lawful, why are they not included as legal (thus, lawful parental) custody rights?

[jojo4]

Parental rights are lawful once the parent in question files a motion in a court of law to secure those parental rights.

Are you asking if it is unlawful for a court to bestow and insure that parental rights are secured? If so, would you mind explaining (in plain old English) how to the millions of parents that have the right to custody/care/control of their children?

What part of this are you not understanding? ....or are you just being contrary so you can perpetuate a circular argument that makes absolutely no sense?

[danielpalos]

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 court of law?

[jojo4]

Your response implies that there is no obligation to make income transfer payments, if there is no legal obligation adjudicated in a court of law.

That is exactly correct. If the parents are not married and there is no court order for child support, there is no legal obligation for one parent to pay child support to the other parent. As a matter of fact, until legal paternity (to simplify) is established and a court order is set for child support, I never recommend that the father pay child support. I do recommend, however, that if a man has reason to believe he may be the father of the child, that HE initiate proceedings to establish legal paternity, child support, and custody/visitation.

[danielpalos]

If the parents are not married and there is no court order for child support, there is no legal obligation for one parent to pay child support to the other parent.

This response seems to imply that it may be lawful to require income transfer payments; even if there is zero percent legal and physical responsibility to do so, according to the full faith and credit of such a public act issued by a lawful court of law.

[jk]

Your response implies that there is no obligation to make income transfer payments, if there is no legal obligation adjudicated in a court of law.

Income transfer payments??

Where do you get this stuff?