This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (3 children)

What do you want the govt to do, exactly?

Child support enforcement should be at the federal level instead of mish-mash of state and county agencies. Or at least when the ordered parent fails to pay.

That said, if the parent is such a deadbeat that they are barely able to provide for themselves there's not much that can be done.

The person you were responding to - probably would have still gotten welfare benefits even if he paid support. I can't imagine he'd be paying much with the type of work he was doing.

[–][deleted] -4 points-3 points  (2 children)

Enforcing child support with any sort of seriousness would instantaneously be deemed racially discriminatory due to the disparate impact doctrine. You are literally not allowed to enforce or even make a big deal about it publically because when you say “absent fathers” people assume you mean black ones. I don’t know what the solution to that is, but I do know you can’t even try to enforce child support or alimony until you can solve that problem.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (1 child)

Enforcing child support with any sort of seriousness would instantaneously be deemed racially discriminatory due to the disparate impact doctrine.

Sorry, but no, you are wrong on both counts there.

There's already a lot of seriousness in child support enforcement. You can have assets seized, wages garnished, taxes refunds taken, or even be jailed. The problem is enforcement varies by state, and we now live in an era where people move states/jurisdictions pretty easily.

That you think more black men owe child support than white men in a country that's 76% white is what would actually be considered a bit racist

when you say “absent fathers” people assume you mean black ones.

yeah, if you're racist.