Child custody, child support, marriage, divorce, alimony

General
1

[Problems]
Child Custody - Many countries like Japan, India, the Philippines, Sweden, Turkey, Algeria, and Greece almost always automatically grant custody to the mother, regardless of circumstance.

Child Support - I could not find a single country that does child support payments as a flat rate. This means that every country that forces a parent to pay child support payments calculates the amount based off of the paying parent’s income.

Marriage - This is a contract that is defined by the govt, not by the parties involved. Over the years, govt has bastardized the contract to be heavily biased towards one side.

Divorce - The way that the govt imposed marriage contract is defined, divorce incentivizes the lower earning spouse (usually women) to break the marriage contract because they often get to take half of the higher earning spouse’s (usually men) possessions. This happens so often, it has its own nickname “divorce rape.”

Alimony (spousal support payments) - Alimony incentivizes the lower earning spouse (usually women) to break the marriage contract because they get paid for doing so. It is extreme govt over-reach to demand how private money is distributed.

[Solutions]
Child Custody - Both parents must sign a “child-rearing-agreement” that will include the percentage of custody each parent will have. This can be re-negotiated in the future. The only involvement of the govt is to demand that some form of the agreement be signed. Possibly the govt could withhold documentation for the child until the agreement is signed by both parties or something along these lines.

Child Support - This falls under the same “child-rearing-agreement”. If a parent refuses to have anything to do with the child or pay child support, there are no legal consequences unless an agreement has been signed. This is where family or private charities would step in and provide a basic flat-rate allowance to help raise the child. If neither parent wants to raise the child, private charities also step in and provide either adoption services or group homes. For those screaming that a refusing parent should be punished, I would argue that both man and woman have been irresponsible if sex occurs without a child-rearing agreement signed, and irresponsibility of both parties is not a situation for govt to come in and fix. Also, the “child-rearing-agreement” will fall under civil law and so no criminal penalties will result from breach of the contract, there will only be financial penalties (See the “breakdancing dad” drama on YouTube for extreme criminal penalties being used against a dad who is unable to pay).

Marriage - Instead of a govt defined marriage contract, there will be privately authored “non-state-marriage-agreements” and/or “cohabitation-agreements”. This will mostly cover how money and property are divided, if at all, and can also include the child-rearing-agreement as a part of it. There will be no legally recognized marriage outside of this agreement. If 2 people move in together but aren’t responsible enough to sign a cohabitation agreement, this is where family needs to step in and apply pressure to get an agreement signed. The “cohabitation-agreements” can later be re-negotiated into a “non-state-marriage-agreements”.

Divorce - This would be covered under the separation part of the “non-state-marriage-agreement” or the “cohabitation-agreements”.

Alimony - If present at all, this would be covered under the separation part of the “non-state-marriage-agreement” or the “cohabitation-agreements”.

1 Like
2

Seriously well put ideas there should be a “standard” form for each of theres types of agreements it will make it more concise, cohesive and from a legal point well settled case law so there are fewer misunderstandings but anyone is free to change the agreements as necessary but yes this has to happen!

1 Like
3

Many years of thought went into this one. I definitely agree it will become a more standardized contract over time. I can see some funny scenarios playing out like a guy is hanging out with a girl in high school and when the guy goes over to the girls house, her parents try to pre-emptively make him sign a child-rearing-agreement, just in case. But his parents have instructed him to never sign anything and to call them if this happens. So the 2 sets of parents are on the phone hashing out a contract that will probably never be instituted.

Or the guys parents just make their own child-rearing-agreement and give it to their son to keep in his wallet so he can try to have girls or their parents sign it if need be.

This type of contract would probably reduce false rape charges too, if she signs a child-rearing-agreement with a guy, it would look to bystanders like she’s at least open to the possibility of sex with him.

There is one serious situation that isn’t really covered by the above solutions: a female gets pregnant and decides she doesn’t want the father to be involved with the child at all, even though he desires to split custody 50/50. Should the govt assume 50/50 custody in all situations unless a signed child-rearing-agreement says otherwise? Could she potentially be charged with kidnapping or deprivation of parental rights?

And another type of serious situation that should be written into the child-rearing-agreement is that if one of the parents is convicted of violating certain laws, they lose all rights of being a parent. But what if no agreement is signed and then one of the parents is convicted of a serious crime? This needs to be written into law, so that the non-felon parent can automatically assume 100% custody the minute the other parent is convicted and can contact law enforcement if the felon parent attempts to see the child.

1 Like
4

Great scenarios I think here. I goes along the line of my probate law idea where it is needed but shouldn’t be used unless there is ambiguity in the contract where clarification is warranted. As time goes on the “standard form” contract will become perfected and optional clauses and or revisions will be SOP for lawyers, paralegals and the public at large.

1 Like
5

Yeah for sure. You know the more we plan out a future country, the more strongly I believe that a ton of “just-in-case” laws need to be put in place from day 1. Even if the laws are never used. Why not include things like a ban on weather-engineering, maybe even in the constitution. It can always be removed later, but it lets future generations know we were very suspicious of it. And to go along with that, next to the law, there should be a written summary of why the lawmakers or voters thought that the law would be good for the society.

1 Like
6

I think it is required here that a summary statement of why law a or b is necessary for the people to pass. But yes the groundwork must be laid in the beginning and if it is found to be unnecessary there can and should be debate about whether or not that law should stay. But I will tell you this weather modification in the future may either look funny in the future like an old Sunday blue law or it is a excellent tool for science, imagine weather wars where one country instead of bombs they use hurricanes or tornadoes and the other country does something to steer them off course or make them dissipate. I like a good sci-fi every now and then.

1 Like
7

Are you saying this necessity summary is already a part of LL rules?

I know a biblical scholar who believes we are currently in the period of the Book of Revelations. His best evidence is that weather appears to be used to destroy cities, as it describes in that book. When you look closely at Lahaina, the Palisades in LA, and North Carolina, it is hard to argue against this point of view.

1 Like
8

I thought of another tricky situation as I was reading the article I’ve linked to below. Let’s say two new parents have a signed child-rearing-agreement, and the agreement includes the childs medical care until they are 18. So let’s say, in this case, the agreement dictates that the child won’t participate in the western medical (Rockefeller) system except in cases of emergency, such as car crash, etc. So the child shouldn’t receive vaccinations or any of the routine idiocies the Rockefeller system tries to foist on parents.

Well the mother, at some point after the birth, decides to just do what she wants to, regardless of signed agreement, and starts getting the child injected with whatever the white lab-coats tell her to. Financial penalties wont work in this situation, because bankrupting your child’s mother is not a good solution.

The only solution I can come to is that the mother starts to lose a percentage of custody depending on each violation of the agreement. And of course this needs to be written into the agreement. But it would be like, if a parent authorizes one vaccination in violation of the child-rearing-agreement, they automatically lose 10% of the custody of the child. This is the only thing I can think of that would prevent rampant violations of the agreement. Thoughts?

9

Yes in a LL law proposal the proposed law must have a preamble stating why the law is necessary and it becomes part of the law when it passed so people in the future know why it was thought of as necessary to pass when adopted into law.

1 Like
10

That is a tough one I really have no ideas for recourse on that one. I need to think about this one, it’s a very thorny issue for sure.

1 Like
11

I have been reviewing the recent changes to some alimony laws in some states. The fact that some states still have permanent alimony at this point in time is barbaric and ridiculous.

The standard argument used by women who are raising children at home is that they have lost income from not being able to work by having to be at home with the kids. This argument is mostly misleading because the man is also losing income because he is now providing financially for the woman and the kids and the majority of his income goes to that.

But I do think that there is some validity to the fact that the woman in this situation is losing retirement ability by not being able to make retirement contributions that will then be compounded to be quite meaningful 20-30 years later.

So, to get closer to standardization of a child-rearing-contract, it should be considered to put a clause in the child-rearing-agreement that has a fixed amount or % of income going into the retirement account of the parent that is at home raising children. This should even the playing field and provide more incentive for women to create families, which they are currently not choosing to do at record rates.