Child Support Is a Useful Euphemism to Extort Fit Fathers Unjustly Denied Their Children
Should everyone support his or her children? Yes. Is court-ordered 'child support' for supporting your children? No law requires court-ordered child support to be spent on the child. And the amount of child support ordered has no relationship to the cost of supporting a child. But using the term 'child support' is a useful euphemism to cover up a massive extortion scheme that harms fathers and their children, families and freedom. Here's how.
Tyrannies always use euphemisms to cover the reality of what they're doing. Orwell introduced the concept of 'newspeak' in his book '1984'. Newspeak represented words or phrases used to alter the perception of what was actually referred to. As an example the Ministry of War was renamed the Ministry of Love. The use of Newspeak was intended to restrict the ability to think critically since we generally think in terms of language. A dumbed-down language is way of controlling thought.
Much of today's 'politically correct' terms and thinking reflects the mind-numbing and thought controlling intention of Orwell's 'newspeak'. Ridding language of the gender-related terms dumbs down the language's information-carrying capability. I'm sure many of you can come up with other examples where phrases or terms obscure the issues at hand. It's all for controlling how you think about issues.
Feminists with their profound influence on government policies, especially within family courts, have devised and reinforced terminology geared to obscure, cover-up, or deflect the meaning of terms used. One such term is 'child support'. This term fits nicely under the tyranny that those policies impose on fathers involved in divorce or paternity suits.
I say tyranny because fathers who have not done anything wrong are deprived by family court judges of their constitutional right to parent their children; and, because of that denial, many other fundamental rights are denied to them also. Constitutional law says that you can't be denied a fundamental right unless you've done something wrong. And the court's 'due process' procedure to deny a fundamental right requires a jury trial and proof that is at least clear and convincing. To be denied parenting rights, you must be proven to be unfit.
Under divorce and paternity suits, fit fathers are overwhelmingly denied equal parenting of their children. In fact, they're denied most all of what each of us would consider the right of parenting. That would include living with your children, directing their day-to-day activities, instructing and admonishing them, determining what schools they attend, what religion they'll be brought up in, what medical procedures they should or shouldn't undergo, their companionship - all of which are the benefits of parenting; and, of course parenting includes the burden of supporting them adequately and as you see fit.
The family court ignores the necessary 'due process' for denying fit fathers their parental rights. The court illegally uses a 'best interest of the child' excuse to deny his right to parent. It's illegal because that excuse is supposed to be used when there's no fit parent. Judges using this excuse also ignore that children are overwhelmingly shown to be better off with both parents strongly participating in their lives And, lastly and magically, judges overwhelmingly give the mother full parenting right despite the fit father asking for his equal rights to parent his children and to be free from gender discrimination.
So the 'best interest of the child' is the euphemism for the courts - and the tyranny it participates in - to ignore constitutional rights, constitutional due process, equal rights, and gender equality. As such, the court - representing the state- uses the phrase to kidnap the child from the father. This process is well within the actual aim of feminist jurisprudence since there's complete silence by feminist influence in government to stop such a travesty of rights.
Now with the fit father illegally disenfranchised of his parental rights to his children, the courts and feminist policy demand that he abide by his 'responsibility' to financially support his children. Of course such 'responsibility' is a meaningless term since the burden of responsibility always adheres to him who enjoys the benefits of what he's responsible for. That's a maxim of law ignored by the tyrannical courts. Such nonbenefitted 'responsibility' is actually slavery or a penalty for having done a 'wrong'!
Child support typically takes about a third or more of a father's gross income - no matter how much he earns. That doesn't leave much to live on after taxes. If he can't pay it all, he'll be ordered to jail for contempt of court. And it's very difficult to get it lowered if his income is lowered.
Interestingly, very little alimony is ordered these days, because the burden of child support is so high. Since child support is supposed to maintain the 'married' living standard of child AND mother, it is better characterized as the 'politically correct' term for alimony. Feminists are against alimony. Single mothers love child support and think they should get as much as possible. Their justification of what they deserve