https://cdn.pixabay.com/photo/2015/03/17/15/44/case-law-677940_960_720.jpg

It is all too frequent in our society that at some point a marriage is shattered, for any reason, and there is a child (or children) that needs to be taken care of, despite the end of this marriage.

The lawmakers have created several legal measures to ensure that the child will grow normally, typically by one parent paying a part, or the whole, of the expenses needed for the child.

Although the law can differ from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, it is often the case that the legislators give the judge a lot of power to decide the "needs" and the amounts that will have to be paid. However the degree of subjectivity employed per case also creates paradoxes where a judge might order a parent to pay a lot of money which he doesn't even have - while the child might have significantly less expenses than those ordered.

Unfortunately, this also creates situations where a parent who wants to act parasitically against their ex-husband or ex-wife, is allowed to do so.

Child exploitation

The other day I saw a gypsie in a traffic light holding her baby and begging for money ("to feed her child"). Now this kind of child exploitation is considered both unethical and illegal. I mean people using their children for begging, or sending them to beg if they are old enough (I'm also seeing this frequently), is by definition child exploitation.

And then, as I evolved that thought into my mind, I got a "click" that linked the two conditions. Why is it unethical for a mother to use their child for begging (which is after all voluntary for the one giving the money) and it isn't when, say, a mother, tries to blow up the "costs" of raising a child in order to leech the father and create for herself a monthly income out of nowhere - all originating from a deception (claims of high maintenance costs that the state judge accepted and then forced on the father).

Since the money are supposedly given for the child and not for the mother, then the mother, if she was honest, would not ask a cent more than is required. Putting the child in front, as an excuse, and then asking for money (that she will receive) is essentially what the gypsie did at the traffic light, but in a far worse form - a state enforced (violent) relation of leeching one's income for the benefit of another individual that has no legal right to this money.

I don't know whether I'm too idealistic, but this type of thing is ruthless and ethically bankrupt - at least by my standards. Using the kid as a front to make money for yourself, from someone who will be forced to pay this money, is probably near the bottom of what can be done. In my mind it's really just another form of child exploitation.

So, what should be done instead?

I'm not an expert in family law, nor do I intend to become one. However I think that a proper child support law should always have some benchmarks in terms of actual child-raising costs, or be based on actual expenses that are necessary. It would also have to factor-in the condition of the parents. I mean if one can marginally support themselves they can't be required to pay, say, their entire income in child support. The state should respect all the lives involved in a scenario like this. You can't just say, ok, you should die from lack of necessities so that your child (and ex-partner) can live at your expense. This is unacceptable.

I think a special penal provision for child exploitation should be created for the parents who try to benefit from the money given by the other parent, and which were intended for the child - with the penalties being a mix of loss of custody, damage reparations etc. Something like this could possibly serve as an adequate disincentive to exploiting a child for the associated "income" that it can create due to a divorce situation.

Conclusion

In a world where, morally, anything seems to be "fair game", I find it disturbing that some parents try to use their children in order to create an income stream for themselves, by using the money that were intended for the child. I find it even more disturbing when I talk about this with others and they have accepted it as "part of life".

Although I do not have an easy solution, I think the legislators should acknowledge that the good intentions of the system (towards the child) are often being actively exploited by the parent with the custody and amend it in a way where this is penalized for what it actually is: Child exploitation. This is not something that should be tolerated, let alone be promoted or assisted by the state.