wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (07/24/85)
><218@ihlpl.UUCP> zubbie@ihlpl.UUCP (Jeanette Zobjeck): >>Child support is money paid by the father for that >>support of the child which the child would normally (without the divorce) >>have reason to expect and was therefore legally due to the CHILD. This >>includes food, clothing, housing ,medical care and a reasonable >>amount of education up to the time the child is legally of age >>(This in most cases does not include college). > ><1086@vax1.fluke.UUCP> tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee): >I have troubles with the phrase <therefore legally due to the child>. I >suppose that technically this is correct but I much prefer to think of it >as a moral responsibility. I, too, wondered when I read the original posting regarding the legal duty of child support. Therefore, I have enlarged the scope of the discussion to include net.legal, and post this legal query: If there is a legal obligation on parents to support their children, this would apply whether or not these parents happen to be divorced. Could a child (or his/her legal representative [might even be the state *in loco parentis*, like in child abuse cases, right?]) take legal action against his/her parents to collect support that is being denied or withheld? For example, consider two siblings -- the parents dote on one and not the other (the second is not *abused*, per se, just not given the same favoritism as the other ["Mom always liked you best!" T. Smothers]). Could the second child here have a legal case on which to base a suit against the parents to force them to provide equal treatment and benefits to both children? Or is there some *absolute* standard of child care that is applicable here? That is, parents must provide some array of basic goods and services to each child? Or must spend X% of their family income up to some fixed $ level, on each child? I don't recall hearing of either of these sorts of things ever really happening. Does this mean that there really is *no* legal obligation to support your children, and the issue only ever gets treated by the law in cases of divorce, where it suddenly appears? That is, the children have no "right" to support when their parents are married, but *do* once they file for divorce? This seems to be a convenient legal fiction, if so, maybe for tax purposes to distinguish "alimony" from "child support". To those who will say that this is silly and there is no point in discussing a situation that would never happen: families are such seething pools of emotions that *nothing* is impossible in interpersonal familial relations. I would not find it surprising that some children would so dislike their parents that they would take advantage of such "child support" rights, if such exist. Considering the number of runaway children, this would be more common than at first supposed. Legal opinions welcomed! Regards, Will Martin UUCP/USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA
linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) (07/31/85)
> > If there is a legal obligation on parents to support their children, > this would apply whether or not these parents happen to be divorced. > Could a child (or his/her legal representative [might even be the state > *in loco parentis*, like in child abuse cases, right?]) take legal > action against his/her parents to collect support that is being denied > or withheld? For example, consider two siblings -- the parents dote on > one and not the other (the second is not *abused*, per se, just not > given the same favoritism as the other ["Mom always liked you best!" T. > Smothers]). Could the second child here have a legal case on which to > base a suit against the parents to force them to provide equal > treatment and benefits to both children? > > Legal opinions welcomed! > > Regards, > Will Martin > > UUCP/USENET: seismo!brl-bmd!wmartin or ARPA/MILNET: wmartin@almsa-1.ARPA I also wonder whether adults who were victims of child abuse could sue their parents for damages.