[onion2k]

The crux of the argument here seems to be that the author doesn't want to pay 650euros a month in child support for his kid. I have very little sympathy. The important person in all of this is the child, not him. His life is going to suck and he'll have no money. That's unfortunate but if the choice is between his life being rubbish and the child's life being rubbish it's a bit of a no-brainer.

[giantg2]

650 a month is neccessary for a life not to be rubbish? Don't forget he's paying half the existing mortgage and needs to find a new place to live and support himself. It alludes to those costs adding up to be greater than the 1600 per month he makes...

[markvdb]

What I've seen the alimony paying parent do in Belgium on the financial side:

- start to work part time as an employee.

- formally earn about the relatively high non-impoundable minimum.

- pay zero alimony.

- start a limited liability company to do business.

- have the business pay himself/herself zero wages, just benefits in kind (no or low tax).

[giantg2]

Yeah, I've heard of similar things in the US. I think it requires going to court to have the amount reduced or eliminated. I think it usually requires that the change in occupation be involuntarily (like being fired or laid off) so that people can't game the system that way.

And sometimes the system fails the other direction too. My wife's father got divorced and had a high paying job, so he was required to pay a lot of child support. He was in a car accident which resulted in him being in a coma for months. Since he wasn't making money during that time in the hospital, his bank account was emptied and the court issued an arrest warrant since the child support was not being paid. He lost his job and was never able to get a new one. He's now living on food stamps and waiting to reach the social security age. The family court system ruined his life.

[thx2099100]

there's no guaranty made in place that a cent of that money will go to the child. I've heard of plenty cases where children in these situations don't get to benefit from it.

[candiodari]

It's funny how moral systems work. Obviously what you say is the system we have democratically chosen to use, and yet you get downvoted seriously ...

So people want this system, even to the point they're willing to destroy people's lives over it (mostly, but not exclusively, men's lives), and yet they consider it offensive if one points out the nature and consequences of this choice.

There are other consequences too: obviously it is easy for the man to avoid this responsibility: simply lose your job. There's a legal saying "you can't force blood from a stone". In other words, if this man wants out from under his responsibility, he is guaranteed to achieve that, laws or no laws. And yet that, too, people are unwilling to consider and I'm sure is offensive to bring up too.

If you think it through, you'll realise that this system gives the power to the person willing to do the most damage to the other and the child and because of the preexisting conflict encourages exactly that. This guy can cause repossession of the house, take away 2/3rds of the woman's income, and have child services take the child away. And there is absolutely nothing any additional laws or judgements can do to prevent this, in other words, the judge, any social help and/or the police are totally powerless to do anything about it. Obviously if this guy plays hardball negotiation, if he is willing to use the child to get what he wants (just like the woman was using the child in the court case), he will obviously win such a negotiation, especially if he can fall back on his parents for living expenses. He is threatening, after all, to damage himself, and her only recourse ... is to damage him. In other words, she has no recourse. The judge has no recourse. Social services have no recourse. They will lose if he presses through.

You don't believe this will be the result? Ask child protection services for their "most common problem". This is it.

I'll get downvoted as well I think.