Maybe
A boy cannot drive a brand new car, go to an expensive college, and cry poverty as to explain why his kid must make do on $26 per week

Being behind in child support payments also means you cannot get a passport. That means no international student exchange for him.
Clearly this is someone trying to play the game

PP, you don't make any sense.

Of course IF the grandparents have money, they can spend whatever they want on their grandchild.

I'm talking about what a man who has fathered a child is required to pay. If he is only earning minimum wage, understand -- it isn't that much money. Certainly not what you seem to think it will be!

Yes, people do get by
Even at 18 and doing minimum wage jobs
and the fathers cannot do like their grandfathers. For them it was a rite of passage to get a girl pregnant and she got shipped off to a home and appeared as if nothing had happened 6 months later.
Now the men have to do their share of child support. If there is family money to send the boy off to college, then the boy can use a student loan to support his kid.
And surely there are no parents of boys who are willing to cut off all contact with the grandchildren. By the sounds of it the youngsters are still together

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here: estimate the court ordered child support payments a young man working FULL TIME at minimum wage ($8.50/hour for a job a high school drop out woudl be lucky to get in this economy) would be ordered to pay:

http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/childsupport/DC/

$255/month

If he were working part time after school, and the mom were, too -- he'd be expected to contribute just $100 a month.

In that scenario the family will be living off welfare
i.e. subsidised housing, vouchers for day care
But if there is a way, welfare checks will stop because of the family support.
Law is on the side of the child. A baby must get the bare bones needed for survival. That means at least $1000 per month for day care, $300 for formula, medical expenses etc
Money must come from somewhere
A rich kid will have his father pay for his college, that means he can take out another $15K per year as school loans to support his kid
Why are you so opposed to the father being made to bear his share of the costs?

Why do you think I am opposed to a baby being supported by its parents??? I am not.

I am simply opposed to your "pie in the sky" thinking. That just because you would like the young man to earn $300 for formula, $100 for diapers, $500 for daycare, $$ for health insurance.... etc.... doesn't mean, at minimum wage, he will earn anything like that. And can't be ordered to pay anything like what you seem to think he'll be ordered to pay! Not when he is working a minimum wage job!!

And I most certainly hope that people advising young women to continue with their pregnancies aren't painting as rosy a picture, as you seem intent on doing here, as to what they can expect to be ordered in the way of child support. I wonder, does that happen, at the Crisis Pregnancy centers run by anti-abortion advocates? Do people promise young women that they WILL be supported, that they can do this, that there will be aid from loving people and by public assistance, and that the families of the young men involved will be required to send $1000 each month, even if the fathers are 18 years old, and barely working a minimum wage job?

Anonymous wrote:Here: estimate the court ordered child support payments a young man working FULL TIME at minimum wage ($8.50/hour for a job a high school drop out woudl be lucky to get in this economy) would be ordered to pay:

http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/childsupport/DC/

$255/month

If he were working part time after school, and the mom were, too -- he'd be expected to contribute just $100 a month.

In that scenario the family will be living off welfare
i.e. subsidised housing, vouchers for day care
But if there is a way, welfare checks will stop because of the family support.
Law is on the side of the child. A baby must get the bare bones needed for survival. That means at least $1000 per month for day care, $300 for formula, medical expenses etc
Money must come from somewhere
A rich kid will have his father pay for his college, that means he can take out another $15K per year as school loans to support his kid
Why are you so opposed to the father being made to bear his share of the costs?

A forum overrun by lawyers and mot one who specializes in family law that can answer the question?

Here: estimate the court ordered child support payments a young man working FULL TIME at minimum wage ($8.50/hour for a job a high school drop out woudl be lucky to get in this economy) would be ordered to pay:

http://www.alllaw.com/calculators/childsupport/DC/

$255/month

If he were working part time after school, and the mom were, too -- he'd be expected to contribute just $100 a month.

Anonymous wrote:

But the reality is that the girl is the one who might get pregnant, and the girl is the one who gets the decision whether to end the pregnancy or continue it.

At that moment in time, as she weighs in everything that factors into her decisino whetehr she can raise this baby, she should NOT assume that the boy will be forced, by law, to provide a certain amount of money for that child SHE is choosing to carry to term.

Because he won't be.

And she should not assume that the boy's parents will be fored, or will decide, to support that baby she is choosing to carry to term.

Because they won't be forced to do any such thing. if they choose to, great, but it is their choice.

Just as it is her choice to carry the child to term and give birth, and raise the baby.

No. The boy will be forced, by law. as he should be to provide for the child. He will pay. If he is under 18, his parents will pay. Absolutely. IT IS NOT THE CHOICE OF THE FATHER.

If the mother chooses to keep the baby and he is proved to be the father, he absolutely must provide for his child.

yeah -- But. Not. That. Much.

Get. It?

But the reality is that the girl is the one who might get pregnant, and the girl is the one who gets the decision whether to end the pregnancy or continue it.

At that moment in time, as she weighs in everything that factors into her decisino whetehr she can raise this baby, she should NOT assume that the boy will be forced, by law, to provide a certain amount of money for that child SHE is choosing to carry to term.

Because he won't be.

And she should not assume that the boy's parents will be fored, or will decide, to support that baby she is choosing to carry to term.

Because they won't be forced to do any such thing. if they choose to, great, but it is their choice.

Just as it is her choice to carry the child to term and give birth, and raise the baby.

No. The boy will be forced, by law. as he should be to provide for the child. He will pay. If he is under 18, his parents will pay. Absolutely. IT IS NOT THE CHOICE OF THE FATHER.

If the mother chooses to keep the baby and he is proved to be the father, he absolutely must provide for his child.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

No woman, or teen girl should, upon learning she is pregnant, assume that the state will force her teen boyfriend to get a full time job and support the baby.

And she shoudl not assume that that teen "tich kid" is actually rich or will have wealthy parents who will provide financial support for the baby.

If she decides to keep the pregnancy and give birth to the child, she should do so knowing that the likelihood of decent support from the teen father and his parents will be minimal. She sould not make a decision based on the expectation that the teen father is capable of providing real financial support to her and the child.

In my opinion, this would be a good reason to end the pregnancy, or give the baby up for adoption.

OK
Lets blame it all on the girl
She is the evil one

Let her baby eat cake

I sure don't think anyone is evil! Accidents happen and kids have sex without thinking through all the consequences; or they use birth control and it fails.

I don't think anyone is evil. Just unlucky.

And I don't blame the girl at all! But if she gets pregnant, she absolutely has a choice. And it is her choice, not her parents' and not the boy's or his parents'. It is her body and her choice.


And as she decides what to do, she should consider the cold hard facts, not her wish (or your wish) about how the world should work.

Anonymous wrote:No teen boy should have sex and assume that if the girl ends up pregnant she will choose abortion or adoption, and he'll be able to skip off to college.

Well, I agree with you he shouldn't.

But the reality is that the girl is the one who might get pregnant, and the girl is the one who gets the decision whether to end the pregnancy or continue it.

At that moment in time, as she weighs in everything that factors into her decisino whetehr she can raise this baby, she should NOT assume that the boy will be forced, by law, to provide a certain amount of money for that child SHE is choosing to carry to term.

Because he won't be.

And she should not assume that the boy's parents will be fored, or will decide, to support that baby she is choosing to carry to term.

Because they won't be forced to do any such thing. if they choose to, great, but it is their choice.

Just as it is her choice to carry the child to term and give birth, and raise the baby.

Anonymous wrote:

No woman, or teen girl should, upon learning she is pregnant, assume that the state will force her teen boyfriend to get a full time job and support the baby.

And she shoudl not assume that that teen "tich kid" is actually rich or will have wealthy parents who will provide financial support for the baby.

If she decides to keep the pregnancy and give birth to the child, she should do so knowing that the likelihood of decent support from the teen father and his parents will be minimal. She sould not make a decision based on the expectation that the teen father is capable of providing real financial support to her and the child.

In my opinion, this would be a good reason to end the pregnancy, or give the baby up for adoption.

OK
Lets blame it all on the girl
She is the evil one

Let her baby eat cake

No teen boy should have sex and assume that if the girl ends up pregnant she will choose abortion or adoption, and he'll be able to skip off to college.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody can raise a kid with $26/a week in child support payments
Except if the mother herself is a high earner. And in your scenario the mother would be living off welfare, and the laws have changed.

Just what were you able to buy with $26 per week ?

PP, are you surprised to find that the father of the child was not "forced" to find a full time job?

Poor little rich kid
Imagine being forced to provide for his kid?

I guess his father organized a bail out for him, like what the men got in his grandfathers generation.
Times have changed. Depending on the cost of living, and the state, kids welfare is what they are after. And that does not mean that the taxpayer does the paying.

No woman, or teen girl should, upon learning she is pregnant, assume that the state will force her teen boyfriend to get a full time job and support the baby.

And she shoudl not assume that that teen "tich kid" is actually rich or will have wealthy parents who will provide financial support for the baby.

If she decides to keep the pregnancy and give birth to the child, she should do so knowing that the likelihood of decent support from the teen father and his parents will be minimal. She sould not make a decision based on the expectation that the teen father is capable of providing real financial support to her and the child.

In my opinion, this would be a good reason to end the pregnancy, or give the baby up for adoption.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nobody can raise a kid with $26/a week in child support payments
Except if the mother herself is a high earner. And in your scenario the mother would be living off welfare, and the laws have changed.

Just what were you able to buy with $26 per week ?

PP, are you surprised to find that the father of the child was not "forced" to find a full time job?

Poor little rich kid
Imagine being forced to provide for his kid?

I guess his father organized a bail out for him, like what the men got in his grandfathers generation.
Times have changed. Depending on the cost of living, and the state, kids welfare is what they are after. And that does not mean that the taxpayer does the paying.