I think the meaning is closer to ... The Man is obstinate. Your analogies don't line up and the people you're arguing with have better things to do with their lives than look up parental and family statute just to carry on a conversation.
I have a little more spare time a the moment.
Parental rights and obligations are not federal issues and are not covered by the US Constitution. Each state makes its own laws, but I'd assume they're basically the same. I looked up the TX statutes because I was curious just how finely these things were really defined. Answer: pretty frickin fine.
First we have to agree what a parent even is. Is it the sperm donor? The name on the birth certificate? The guy that sleeps/slept in the master bedroom?
That is covered legally in TX with the Uniform Parentage Act [
LINK] which goes into great detail who parents are presumed to be and how parentage is determined in case the presumption is in dispute.
Once a person is designated as a parent, that person is endowed/burdened with certain rights and duties. These rights and duties are enumerated for Texans in the statute entitled, oddly enough, Rights and Duties in Parent-Child Relationship [
LINK].
Since both parents have the same rights and duties toward any given child, it is inevitable that conflicts will occur. When the parents can't resolve such conflicts on their own, they can ask the courts to intervene and decide who has what rights and what duties.
SO, once the court decides that (for instance) the mother has the right to physical possession of the child, and the father has the duty to pay $X.xx toward the child's feeding, watering, and general upkeep, the father's duty cannot be considered a debt (he's not purchasing the child) but an obligation.
The obligation is to the state, not the child nor the mother. Neither of them can unilaterally relieve the father of the obligation; only the courts can do that. Failure to pay court ordered child support is no different from failure to pay any other duty to the government. I guess it becomes more like a tax.
So when a deadbeat dad goes to jail for failure to pay child support, he's not going to jail for not paying a debt to another person but for not paying a duty to the government - meaning the people, or society.
A little semantics on obligation and debt...however the result is still the same.
Example...you are behind say 4 payments ....you are now in debt.
You go to jail because you owe that debt.
You are obligated to pay rent for instance or get kicked out...a court can find you owe that money as you lived there during a stated time period...it is now a debt.
On to child support...A person is jailed for non compliance resulting in civil contempt of court.
In order for civil contempt to be proper the state would need to show cause that one being placed in contempt IS ABLE TO COMPLY...which means the state would need to show that the father actually had the funds for back child support.{but refused to comply}
If the state could show the father actually had the funds they could simply garnish them.
Additionally courts are designed to adjust payments within your means....Lets say you owe the hospital 10 k..and get put on payments of 200 a month via garnishment.....You DONT go to jail when you lose your job and no longer have a check coming in....the garnishments occur again when you start getting pay checks again.
Back to contempt{failure to pay}....which would be applicable if the court could show you had means but refused....Savings account for instance with the funds.
And yes it is very much a constitutional matter due to protection violations alone...both parents are not given equal protections from suffrage.
Methods to determine amounts are also flawed...based upon what you make...not by the cost of raising a child.
Granted the more money you make the more you will spend on your child to a point
Lets say he makes 25 k a year and she makes 25 k a year...they are doing well and the children have all the needs met as well as have money for recreation toys boy scouts etc.....this is possible because there is extra money...now what if that couple was paying rent and utilities on another building, paying for a car at that building and whatever else it took to live....they would not have the extra money as before.
This is what happens during a split up 2 households now have to be provided for,more vehicles, more insurance, more electric ,more natural gas,more rent
We can no longer have the same means of provision for the child as prior.{as before the split}
Se we provide for our children within our means...Johnny might get a Cadillac when he is 16...Jake and old beater chevy.
Johnny would not get that caddy if it not was within the parents means...if Johnnies family were paying additional rent utilities ect..that caddy may not be possible....I would like to point out the Caddy isnt a need ...but an extra {as Mom and Dad can.}
This same holds true for fast foods to the clothes you wear.
If you dont have extra funds beyond basic living..you will not see 4 wheelers outside for example
As said the govt is failing to provide equal protections,,,and are actually creating unequal protections and suffrage.
Another small example of this is tax credit...if you have been forking half the money to raise a child through child support{as you have someone dependent upon you}*cough*..then one should have half that credit...the state already declared the child a dependent for you...and
you provided by garnishments.
The mother often gets back thousands a year in tax credits..since the man can not claim his dependent he loses much in taxes.
This is an offset of several thousand dollars in itself....this thousands she receives is not considered income for funds available to raise a child...nor is his loss t deducted in calculating income.
Therefore the Custodial Parent is often several thousand dollars ahead when 2 make the same wage.{just from tax credit alone.}
It gets worse when you get poor...A rich man can pay through the teeth and still make a living...A poor man doesnt stand a chance as shown by the sample chart
He will have roughly 35 bucks a months to live on.{AND HE IS NOT BEHIND ON PAYMENTS}
She will have about 2200 bucks a month...if we average in tax credit now rather than lump at the end of the year..it will be about 2600 bucks.
Which means she has 74 times more available funds when they both make the same wage.
I want to see a study that shows that 74 dollars of 75 earned in wages goes toward the expense of a child.
Additionally..when the custodial parent loses a job...they receive aid for that child...why does the NCP not receive aid when they are also caring for that child?{in the event they lose their job} as they are supporting that child.
So yes ACC states may have their own laws but they are not exempt from constitutional protections.
