NationStates Jolt Archive

Category: Social Justice

Child Support


When most men have sex, I know a lot of them don't wear condoms. This results in babies. I know your saying what this have to do with Child Support? When a man sees a baby, what do they do? They run away leaving the mother behind to raise the children. I for one hate to see a child growing up not knowing who there father is. I be believe that the government should give the mother 3 months supply of baby stuff to get her start and little bit of money. And if they find the father within a year and a half, the government will make him pay child support plus 15% more. If he refuses then he will spend 3yrs in prison and still have to pay child support. To all my UN please accept this proposal. I will help out the community in a lot of ways

Hope this is better

When a man sees a baby, what do they do? They run away leaving the mother behind to raise the children.

You know if this really was true I know the military would have a field day. Imagine an invasion without firing a single shot. "Oh no it's a baby ... run away!" Perhaps it is better to say that when a man sees a baby whose diapers need changing, he runs away. ;)

But seriously, I'm not sure that I agree with the resolutions. I'm all for shared responsibility and shared control, but the matter is a very complex one and literally requires the wisdom of Solomon. Very often in the case of divorce, no one is really looking completely for the interests of the children. Even when there is child support there is no guarentee that the money will go to the child.

Once you get into the technical and legal problems to make such a resolution truely fair for the children, you come across the final problem that this is really a regional problem, not an international one. Unless we consider the problem of people crossing international borders to avoid local child support laws, this is a problem that more properly needs to be addressed in individual nationstates, not in the UN.

Let's break this down just a minute. If you're going to put together a resolution that will get anywhere in this UN of ours, we're going to have to do some work. The proposal needs to be broken into two different parts: reasons why this needs to happen, and things to fix the problem.

What are some reasons that you think we need a UN-mandate on child-support? Think about child welfare, the accountability of a person for their actions and things like that. Then, do some thinking about ways to rectify the problem. If boys let their privates wander, how can we get them thinking straight again? List the answers you have for both. We'll go on from there.

This issue would subvert the very essence of national sovereignty. We highly suggest that all nations follow the lead of the enlightened Dominion of New Virgina and remove all children from homes where they can not be properly cared for and relocated to charming state run military academy's.
This gives the nation a never ending, highly trained officers corp and makes sure that the children have the opportunity to grow into strong patriotic adults ready to serve their country. Once again the Dominion of New Virgina leads the way !
Roderick UPS
Ambassador of New Virgina
Minister of Information :sniper:

It's good to see such an enlightened nation standing square in the way of meaningful prgoress. You can jump up and have a big soveriegnty parade, but at the end of the day a powerful case can be made for the UN acting in spite of your policy to ensure that children are given at least a basic amount of attention by parents who choose to leave the relationship.

In New Virgina we will follow our traditional well served policy, and let the Peoples Republic of Sophista mire itself in a system that has little respect for the family unit or the morals that our great nation stands for.
As a case study you may wish to look into the welfare state created by the United States of American in the last half of the 20th century.

Ah, I see we have a psychotic newcomer. Welcome to the UN. Also, mate, the USA couldn't be further from being a welfare state.

Hey, that rhymed...

Well, about the resolution itself. It's a good idea, but I don't like the fact that nations now have to criminalise something. Punishment is called for, yes, but not of that magnitude.

I'm of the opinion this is more of a national societal issue really. Our solution to this problem is tax credits for single parents and welfare help for the employed single parents who still cannot make ends meet, as well as free medical care, but different nations can deal with it as they wish. We prefer to direct our resources to help the mother, you prefer to prosecute the father who abandons the family. Well, to each his own I say.

I agree, yes, this is a problem, but not of the magnitude that it needs a UN resolution.

Yes. Please. Celebrate the family unit and the importance of a nuclear family. And while you're at it, rip children away from their familes instead of providing a legal framework to make parents accountable for their actions.

We highly suggest that all nations follow the lead of the enlightened Dominion of New Virgina and remove all children from homes where they can not be properly cared for and relocated to charming state run military academy's.

I'm sure you'll have plenty of room within that moral code of yours to rationalize away the psychological trauma that such an experience can inflict upon a child. Meanwhile, you would do well not to lecture on issues that you clearly fail to understand. The US is no more a welfare state than Pol Pot was a saint.

American isn't a welfare state?.......let me say that if we have people sitting home with children they cant afford, getting government welfare checks, free food,free housing and free medical that about sums up what a welfare state is, I see there ilk everyday.
And New Virgina doesn't see how the momentary trauma an infant will face from being removed from a unfit parent weighs against having that child learn social responsibility from the unfit parent and itself becoming another unproductive drain on national resources. You express the naive views of someone that has little real world experience.

Roderick UPS
New Virgina

I'm of the opinion this is more of a national societal issue really.
I would agree with that. We don't like to encourage the typical idea of a 'family unit'. It works for us. Some places aren’t like that. I would say that this does not protect the interest of every society.

Giordano,
UN representative,
The Black New World

American isn't a welfare state?.......let me say that if we have people sitting home with children they cant afford, getting government welfare checks, free food,free housing and free medical that about sums up what a welfare state is, I see there ilk everyday.
And New Virgina doesn't see how the momentary trauma an infant will face from being removed from a unfit parent weighs against having that child learn social responsibility from the unfit parent and itself becoming another unproductive drain on national resources. You express the naive views of someone that has little real world experience.

Roderick UPS
New Virgina

Maybe this is better suited to general.

American isn't a welfare state?.......let me say that if we have people sitting home with children they cant afford, getting government welfare checks, free food,free housing and free medical that about sums up what a welfare state is, I see there ilk everyday.

And were all those things true, America might actually be a welfare state. Unfortunately, while those benefits exist, the level at which you qualify for each program (and even some people who qualify are denied access) still leaves millions of Americans living below poverty level, but without government assistance. The amount of money the government provides through Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) payments is nowhere near the full cost of raising a child. It may appear on the surface to be a welfare state, but, like much of your analysis, it is purely superficial.

And New Virgina doesn't see how the momentary trauma an infant will face from being removed from a unfit parent weighs against having that child learn social responsibility from the unfit parent and itself becoming another unproductive drain on national resources. You express the naive views of someone that has little real world experience.

Temporary? Surely you're joking. I refer you to Emily Branscum, Ph.D., currently serving as the chair of the Behavioral Psychology Department at California State University. Branscum writes:

"The short-term effects of seperation on children are usually numerous and quite evident. Many children react to the removal of their parents with sadness, frustration and anger. Schoolwork and activities may suffer as children adjust to new living situations. They may be on their best (or worst) behavior if they feel that they are to blame, or if they are seeking attention. However, the temporary or permanent separation from the parents causes long-term consequences as well."

She continues:

"New trauma research suggests that the effects of seperation can be long-lived and traumatic in nature. (In this context, trauma is characterized as a situation of chronic stress.) Children may appear normal, but be permanently affected in their personal and interpersonal processes. As they grow up, the ways they relate to others and participate in relationships, particularly romantic relationships, often reflect feelings or residual anxiety revoling around the original fraction of the nuclear family. "

No offense, sir representative, but I'm going to go with Dr. Branscum on thise one.

Maybe this is better suited to general.

Yes, I completely agree.

New Virgina, there is an entire debate forum called "General" which some of us *also* spend time in. If you are going to contiune to talk about this fictional place "America" (though references to it are fine) you may find a more promising and diverse debate in this other forum. Check it out as well.

The other representatives have my apologies. I didn't mean to derail the topic of conversation.

The other representatives have my apologies. I didn't mean to derail the topic of conversation.

No worries there my friend. Afterall, sometimes real-world debates / discussions about this often mentioned "America" are welcomed here, as they debates do relate to the general justification of a NS UN ... which is where most of these discussions ultimately end up.

Been there myself many times.

This is a horrible idea! The government shouldn't be held responsible for the decisions an individual makes. :fluffle: <---u see that! that act can lead to the draining of the federal government. If people know that they can get federal funds it will take all the cautious considerations out of parenthood. Suppose the mother and father plan to milk the government of all they have and the father "hides out" until the time that federal funding ceases. It's all just another way to bring the government to its knees.