Comment by imtringued | Hacker News Reader

Comment by imtringued | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>Think of the reverse perspective - is it fair for a child to have to, for example, give up after school sports, because one of their parents decided that they would prefer not to pay child support?

This is backwards. You're ignoring that the divorce has to be initiated in the first place and that divorce usually results in the removal of custody by the father and thereby creates an obligation to pay child support on the side of the father. Therefore divorce is causal. A desire to not pay child support does not lead to a child having to give up after school sports in the absence of divorce.

So let's replace what you said with reality:

>Think of the reverse perspective - is it fair for a child to have to, for example, give up after school sports, because their parents divorced? Or be forced to change schools and lose their social group because tuition is unaffordable on a single income?

Yes it is fair, because the divorce was initiated despite the expectation of these outcomes. If a man or woman initiates divorce, they must have had a good reason to do so and we should not question that reason by arguing that school sports or tuition are more important than the reason for divorce.

>You're ignoring that the divorce has to be initiated in the first place

Correct. My point is that the child should receive the same standard of living regardless of the dispute between parents.

>Yes it is fair, because the divorce was initiated despite the expectation of these outcomes. If a man or woman initiates divorce, they must have had a good reason to do so and we should not question that reason by arguing that school sports or tuition are more important than the reason for divorce.

Parents may divorce and have whatever disputes they like, but it is not fair for one parent to deprive the child of support and resources that they would otherwise receive because of a dispute with the other parent.

>it is not fair for one parent to deprive the child of support and resources that they would otherwise receive because of a dispute with the other parent.

Only in a rather crazy partnership is that the case. My child's resources and support absolutely fluctuate with my actual income, preferences, and obligations and as a compromise of financial disputes.

Recently I built a house instead of working, willfully drastically lowering my income to 0. The child had all the necessities met, but anything beyond was less plentiful than before and we had to cook frugal foods. The child was not neglected or abused so nothing illegal, but standard of living significantly lowered. It is fair that the child's standard of living lowers with the parents, but your system would have me a criminal were it I didn't have custody.

It doesn't make sense that married people can willfully lower standard of living but non custodial parents cannot. The standard should be the same uniformly but were it the case it would be voted down, thus is a case of the majority buying a sense of smug moral imposition at no cost to themselves against the evil divorcing sinners, to the great benefit of family law practices who often ruthlessly pursue it for profit.

> It doesn't make sense that married people can willfully lower standard of living but non custodial parents cannot.

Of course it does - because both parents are responsible for the welfare of the children, and so if they both decide that they want to lower the standard of living that is a shared/joint agreement.

If the non-custodial parent decides they want to lower their child's standard of living, a) that is a unilateral decision, and b) they (the non-custodial parent) don't have to bear the implications of that lowered standard of living.

> your system would have me a criminal were it I didn't have custody.

Yes, sadly, having children means that sometimes you lack flexibility and can't make the decisions you would like to make.

>Of course it does - because both parents are responsible for the welfare of the children, and so if they both decide that they want to lower the standard of living that is a shared/joint agreement.

So a couple points here

1) we've now moved the goal posts, we went from the child needs the same standard of living, to now it is OK to lower it if both decide, to whatever extent that happens in dual custody situations.

2) except the oversight on child support recipients in most states is not that. The set judgement must be paid, and except for some usually minority line items the rest may be spent as the custodial pleases including the option of unilaterally allocating some stuff for stuff of no benefit to the child. As long as the child is not neglected or abused the custodial can unilaterally raise/lower the sol of child and put to themselves. So you are thinking of something else, it is mostly child support in name and is primarily a redistribution payment without oversight that it is all spent on raised qol of the child.

>Yes, sadly, having children means that sometimes you lack flexibility and can't make the decisions you would like to make.

It means they need necessities. It does not mean they need same qol in the event if divorce, except whoops we will move the goal posts as soon as you mention the double standard.

I didn’t move the goal posts, I was referring to your married couple example. If you are married and you jointly agree to change the standard of living because of your shared goals/values, that’s your business.

When you’re not married anymore, I’m in favor of the idea of making it easier to change child support payments in situations where things are amicable and jointly agreed to. I am very much aware that is not the situation today.

My point about losing flexibility is that when you have kids, your choices are not your own anymore. You can say all you want that they need “necessities”, but I know from experience that the way people interpret that varies widely. I think the only fair way to do it is to keep QOL as the goal. If you want more accountability as to how the money is spent, sure, though I’m not sure how that would work in practice.

You don't have to jointly agree though. If one person is just burned out being a middle manager at a tech company, they can choose to quit and move over to being a construction site traffic controller (holding road signs), for half the pay but a huge boost in happiness. Their partner might not like it, but they're not going to jail over it.

But then they get separated - you no longer have that choice, or you go to jail. It seems orwellian.

I thought of using this argument but realized one could argue the agreement is not divorcing you. If they disagree they will simply divorce and have the judge impute salary at the tech one, which will nearly certainly happen.

If you are married and take a higher pay job that is pretty much always a one way valve where if the spouse doesn't want you to lower it you are trapped. Which of course is how people end up in high stress jobs much longer than they planned, unhappy but no way out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com