Talk:Child support/1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note: This is an archive of Talk Page discussion for the Child support article. For current discussion, please see the active Talk Page located at Talk:Child support.


Contents

[edit] Article Size and Tone

Certainly a good length article - the unbroken appearance left me suspiscious of copyright infringe. - which isn't the case - but shouldn't it be broken?

Lotsofissues 01:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I find the sympathetic tone toward non-custodial parents suspicious. Perhaps it is difficult to manage on 50% of your earnings, but try being a full-time employee and a full-time mom, and working an additional weekend job, and still not having enough to to pay all the bills. That's giving more than 100%, and it's a very typical situation. It's rare that anyone asks if the burden is too much for them, only if taking child support from the non-custodial parent is "fair", perhaps because most custodial parents are women and they are the custodial parent by default, because the father walked away from his children for personal convenience. I don't see this article as fair and balanced since it does not address that side of the issue.

  • Comment. I reviewed the article in light of this (apparently anonymous) criticism, but dont see validity in the criticism. The article is factual and the only place any bias appears is in that section criticizing the imposition of child support obligations. I dont like the language "custodial" and "non-custodial" parents in the article (partially because either can be made to pay child support to the other and partially because the terms rely on out-dated language that family law courts are abandoning), but it is true that "custodial" parents usually receive child support and "non-custodial" parents usually pay child support. Certainly, "non-custodial" parents sometimes pay sums they don't feel they can afford; however, "custodial" parents just as often feel that the child support they receive isnt enough to pay for the child's essentials. The article talks about "dead-beat" parents, but that has been the focus of Congress in the Welfare Reform Act and other recent enactments. The fact that some disagree with the Congressional mandate and the fact that some believe child support is too high (or too low) doesnt belong in this article. The Wikipedia is an encyclopedia -- not a soapbox. Ronels talk 19:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
    • I agree with Ronels. This article is fairly balanced considering the article's length and the topic's incendiary nature. Subjects like this are bound to generate considerable emotions in the many people whose lives are affected by child support issues. As someone who has never dealt with any aspects of child support, I read this article and found it mostly neutral. With subjects like this, we should take special care to remain objective, non-emotional, and dutifully present both sides of an issue in a neutral point-of-view perspective. This article is extremely detailed, well-documented with reliable sources, and seems to address both sides with objective neutrality. My only concern is that this article may be a bit long and perhaps should be broken up into some sub-articles. 66.17.118.207 13:58, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment. What bothers me is when the father has the right to visitation privileges and the custodial parent, in this case the mother, does not comply. The article should have addressed Deprivation of Parental Right's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pittsie (talk • contribs) May 17, 2006.
    • Response to Comment. This article is about child support -- not Deprivation of Parent's Rights. Wikipedia is not a soap box or a place to complain about real or perceived wrongs done in life, love or court. Ronels talk 02:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Child support in the United States - new article

took material from here to a new article Child support in the United States, further summarising required here. More work there. Paul foord 02:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Editing

I've done some copyediting here and added a small bit of new content (about non-custodial parents and college expenses). I deleted nothing; everything's still here. I did move a few paragraphs to other sections where they seemed to be better fits. DanielEng 06:25, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some say...

Some say is not a valid citation, nor evidence of anything other than pure speculation. Half of the "Criticisms" listed in this article are uncited, unsourced speculation. I'm going to tag all these lines and see if anyone can rustle up evidence to support it. SiberioS 18:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Deadbeat Parents

The section seems POV, contains weasel words, and lacks citations. I tagged it as such. Pleases revert my edits if you feel I was being to picky. Triad man 20:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Worldwide views

Most of this article appears to be specific to the United States, with a little bit of content from other places. While generalisations are fine when talking about overall concepts, one needs to be specific and clear when talking about procedure. While Courts may be the ones that determine child support in the United States, this is not always the case in other countries and the article needs to make that clear. Country specific situations need to be explained in that context. -- Cameron Dewe 04:15, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Somebody has tagged the External links section of the article for cleanup. However, none of the links seem to deal with child support around the world, only in specific jurisdictions. With that being the case, wouldn't it be better that each jurisdiction section have its own External links section? -- Cameron Dewe 12:08, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I believe Cameron is correct on this. What does everyone think? --Triad man 21:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong title

An article titled "child support" should be about child support; which would require a much broader discussion and set of sources than just those representing the current - extremly contraversial - policy. If the title was "current child support law (2003)", or something thereabouts, it would better represent the content of the article. Rogerfgay 11:19, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] lacks credible sources

The sources are all interested involved parties with a history of presenting misinformation. There's even an article by Geraldine Jenson - really going overboard to demonstrate a lack of intent to create an objective article on the subject. Rogerfgay 11:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] needs NPOV

Child support law has gone though radical changes in the United States and other western nations as the result of federal reforms that were triggered by the creation of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement in 1975. Federal legislation in the 1980s and beyond led to arbitrary manipulation of amounts awarded, which no longer have any reasonable relation to supporting children.[1] The driving force behind the reforms and their acceptance was and is billions of dollars in federal funding, which linked the amount of funding received to the amount of child support paid. This also led states to apply the federal reforms, which were created as "welfare reform" in all cases rather than limiting the application to welfare cases. The arbitrary increases and new enforcement measures that ignore basic civil rights caused widespread pain and suffering which to a large degree created the fathers' rights movement. These problems were dealt with by agencies and private collection companies with a financial stake with a long-term propaganda campaign that popularized the term "deadbeat dad". The contentions supporting the deadbeat dad concept were supported by government "studies" and statistics provided by those who had / have a financial stake in the government programs. These contentions have been proven as myth; for example in the largest federally funded study of divorced fathers by Sanford Braver (book ref: Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths). Rather than covering the subject of child support with an NPOV, this article presents the very limited government perspective - such as would be found on a website maintained by the Office of Child Support Enforcement. In order to provide an NPOV, the article needs to adequately cover the history and contraversy of the subject. Rogerfgay 09:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"In order to provide an NPOV, the article needs to adequately cover the history and controversy of the subject."

I agree that in order for this article to maintain a NPOV, it needs to cover the history and controversy of the subject. The term "child support" itself is controversial, for it has been suggested that "child support" should be changed to "parental transfer payments." The article should include citations and statements should be attributed so that the article can maintain a NPOV. IMO, this article requires the attention of one or more experts. Michael H 34 23:31, 21 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The issue of deadbeat dads is already covered in a separate article, so any controversies on theories regarding that topic are better addressed there. As to the term "child support" it might be going out of vogue in the USA but it, along with "child maintenance," is still the standard term in the rest of the English-speaking world, and Wiki is for all anglophones, not just Americans. DanielEng 15:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
And it says nothing about "child contributions" (barnbidrag) in Sweden. Sweden also has "child support" (barnstöd), but child support policy in Sweden is not represented by US policy. Rogerfgay 09:16, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Well the way to remedy that is to create an article about "Child support in Sweden" and link it to this one. What does one have to do with the other?DanielEng 17:21, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm very concerned about the set of countries chosen for this article. These are countries that have recently undergone major reforms as a result of a single international political campaign. Why would these particular countries be chosen even to represent "child support policy"? They represent one rather extreme view of family policy, being promoted by a political movement that is alive and kicking today. Whether intended or not, lack of coverage of history and contraversy has the effect of rewriting history and placing this particular set of child support policies under the broad title "child support" looks like an attempt to define child support according to this particular political movements ideas. The material in this article can be merged with articles on child support policy, politics, and agencies in the articles that already exist for the countries this article has chosen to highlight. If authors want an article expressing the political POV implied by this article, it would be best, most encyclopedic, to accurately identify that political philosophy and its constituents; and make that the focus of the article, naming it appropriately for that purpose. Rogerfgay 09:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with DanielEng, that the title of the article can remain "Child Support." I also agree with RogerFGay, the article has a narrow focus, and therefore is not encyclopedic. As a result, this article does not present a NPOV. I agree with DanielEng that the issues about Deadbeat Dads are best handled in the article of that title with a link from this article. Similarly, I agree with Rogerfgay that the country-specific information from this article should be moved to the appropriate country-specific article. Michael H 34 14:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34
It seems the most practical solution is to delete this article, allowing its content to be merged with other pages. The article that appears here provides limited information that is specific to government programs in selected countries. It is not even general enough to be "child support in [country names]" - but carries a focused interest in uniform child support [under government order] enforcement practices in a few places. It would be impractical to have one page providing comprehensive information about all such government programs in all countries. No effort has been made in the development of the current article to write about the more general topic "child support" - so no loss there. The concept for such an article has not even yet been developed. Rogerfgay 10:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
  • sigh* "No effort has been made to write about "child support." Child support as defined is about government law and policies and enforcement of them. That is what this article is about and should be about, not your own subjective views on what child support should be or include.DanielEng 15:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Please also see Wikipedia's naming policy which states "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity". And IMHO this article (its name and the content) does this. Slp1 16:56, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm an English speaker, and I have no trouble at all recognizing the difference between child support (generally) and select policies pertaining to child support orders and enforcement in select countries. Now that I see the stubborness of the resistence to reasonable, if not obvious editing changes ... I'm beginning to suspect that there is a political agenda behind this article. It's not that hard to see really. If you present your policy preferences under a generic title, it's as though your policy preferences exist by basic definition. Isn't that so? Rogerfgay 09:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
On the subject of the words "Child Support": I am an English speaker, in possession of a dictionary, and also a number of English-speaking friends. My dictionary (the Canadian Oxford) says that Child support means "money paid to a divorced spouse or guardian of one's children". DanielEng has provided an extensive survey showing that the "narrow" definition used in this article is the commonly held definition of the word. I and my friends agree too. I can see the reasons why you would prefer to define it more broadly, and even that it might be logical in terms of semantics. However, Wikipedia is not the place to try to change prevailing definitions. You need to provide Independent reliable sources showing that your definition of the words Child Support is the what the majority of English speakers would recognize. Slp1 11:29, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Sip1: I know I'm repeating myself. The term "child support" can be used appropriately within the context of this article; hence, there is nothing about what I'm saying that is disproven by a dictionary entry that includes this meaning of the term. I have however given several concrete alternative examples of the appropriate use of the term. If a sufficiently scoped article is produced for "child support", then perhaps the other articles that already cover the material here could refer to that more general article. Rogerfgay 14:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
And I am repeating myself too (and that of other editors) Find some reliable sources that this is something more than just your opinion and your original research Slp1 17:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moveoptions

As titled "child support", the article is far too limited in its presentation to provide an NPOV. It would not be a particularly bad article if titled something like "The Official Position of the Offices of Child Support Enforcement in a Few Countries with additional commentary acceptable to private collection agencies and some feminist groups". Alternatively, the article could be moved out of Wikipedia altogether, placed on an government agency site, the site of a private collection agency, or a feminist group site; then used as a reference to one POV for a Wikipedia article that covers the topic in a substantial and objective way. Or perhaps even a simpler title such as "Child Support Policy." Although the article is currently limited to a few countries, it might grow over time. Eventually, it might even include countries whose policy is not to order child support. The title "Child Support" on the other hand, suggests that the article will provide a more basic perspective on the subject, which the article does nothing to provide - certainly the basic subject "child support" is not adequately covered by a list of the outcome of a few recent and extremely contraversial political decisions in a few countries that currently have similar policies. In an article properly titled, it might then be possible to provide one section pertaining to critisisms of policy (or perhaps one per country) - which would make adequate coverage of the policy issues feasible. I don't believe it is practical to work toward an NPOV on the more basic subject of "child support" from an initial article that focuses on providing a very clean perspective on current policies in the few countries selected. Providing such a narrow perspective on policy choices under the much more fundemental title of "child support" provides room to believe that the article intends to promote a particular political view internationally. Because it ignores the contraversy of the policies themselves, and limiting itself to a few countries with similar policies, it is not really even adequate at this point as an article on child support policy for those few countries. Changing the name will not provide an NPOV, but it will be a step in the right direction - making it easier to cover the more limited ground suggested by a more limiting title. Rogerfgay 11:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Title "Child Support Policy" might be considered to provide a general overview on the types of child support that governments deal with and the variation in policy throughout the world. This would not be limited to "child support" that is sometimes ordered to be paid by one parent to another when the parents are not married / living together; but would include government support as well. Authors / editors should take note that the term "child support" has a variety of meanings in different countries and contexts. Historically, policies regarding private and public child support payments were designed in a way that naturally fit their political economic systems (although there has been divergence from that general rule in recent years, specifically in the countries chosen by authors of the current article) providing an appearance of widely diverging policy, which when viewed without sufficient depth of analysis gave the impression that child support was generally an arbitrary political choice. The policies of specific nation states are themselves complex features which would best be handled in separate articles, at least one per country. Rogerfgay 10:18, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree with renaming this article "Child Support Policy," and I agree with suggestions that government support of children be included in the article. Michael H 34 14:39, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34
Comment. I don't think this article needs to be moved or renamed to anything. The term "child support" is the most widely used and accepted; and the article gives a very straightforward definition right at the beginning. Welfare, ADC, food stamps, foster care and other governmental aid programs for children are already covered under those articles. In other countries, these things are not considered to be maintenance/child support any more than they are in the USA. As to moving the article to a "feminist site"...that somewhat suggests a POV bias on your end, yes?
The encyclopedia article is not supposed to be an in-depth look at the entire political system; merely an overview of how child support is awarded and paid. I think the present article handles this well. DanielEng 15:25, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
In the right context within the article, I would agree that the term "child support" can be used. The issue is however, that the breadth of the article is not sufficient for "child support" to be its title. The article covers only a limited perspective on child support policy - (not even including welfare entitlements for example) - limited to only a few countries that have similar policies. Beyond that, most actual child support is not provided in relation to government programs, it is provided by parents. An article entitle "child support" might for example, provide a break-down of sources of support for children. But even that would have to be done on a very high statistical level, with for example, differences between family income and spending patterns in rich verses poor countries.
Comment But as discussed above, in both law and media, the term "child support" is specific to the actual court ordered support payments required of parents for children, not just in America but elsewhere. It is not a blanket term used to describe every single source of financial assistance to children and families. Other monetary payments and support, such as welfare, are considered "aid to children" and are amply covered in the articles about those issues. The same way the alimony article focuses on that topic, and not any other things that might be decided in a divorce decree, such as custody. Putting information about other sources of support for children in this article would be confusing the issue and getting off-topic. If you want to add other sources of aid to children as "See also" links that's one thing, but putting them into the article itself would be a very misguided move. DanielEng 17:14, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Additional Comment: Proof from various sources that the phrases "Child Support/Child Maintenance" are the accepted legal, governmental and standard English-language terms specifically pertaining only to the issue addressed in the article:
Canada:[2] "Child support is the legal right of a child to receive financial support from his or her parents." (British Columbia Attorney General)
USA: [3]: "Financial support paid by a parent to help support a child or children of whom they do not have custody. Child support can be entered into voluntarily or ordered by a court or a properly empowered administrative agency, depending on each State’s laws." (OSCE)
Australia: [4] "What is child support? When parents separate, they need to make financial arrangements for their children. How they do this depends on when they separated and when their children were born." (Australian Child Support Agency)
New Zealand: [5] "Child support is money paid by parents who are not living with their children to help financially support their children" (New Zealand Inland Revenue)
UK: [6] "Child maintenance is money paid when parents live apart...the parent with whom the child does not live is responsible for paying child maintenance." (UK CSA)
South Africa: [7] Every child has the right to basic necessities...Children should get these basic needs from their parents or relatives...This support given by parents or relatives' is called maintenance. (Western Cape governmental information service)
Singapore: [8] "Maintenance is financial support...Under section 69 of the Women’s Charter, you can apply for maintenance for your child from the other parent, if he or she neglects or refuses to provide your child with reasonable maintenance" (Subordinate Court of Singapore)
Changing the name of the article from "Child Support" to something else would be discarding the accepted international term and the definition of said term to something completely subjective. Incorporating other sources of aid would also be in direct contradiction to the legal definition of the term. DanielEng 21:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

As discussed above in "needs NPOV" one might consider an article like the current one for the US titled "Office of Child Support Enforcement." But I've also suggested elsewhere, that this material is not needed at Wikipedia. A major problem is that policies change and the material that's being included now in Wikipedia pages can easily be referenced to outside sources such as the Office of Child Support Enforcement; without rewriting their views in detail; perhaps with just an overview of what OCSE does and then reference OCSE web pages for additional detail. This would provide a more honest presentation. Readers would understand that material they get at an OCSE website is a view presented by OCSE rather than independent scholars. The official views of the OCSE, HHS in the US and the other few countries selected for showcase in the current article are not even representative of child support policy and politics of all governments and government agencies throughout the world. Rogerfgay 09:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Wikipedia as an encyclopedia covers all aspects of culture and information, and that includes public policy. An article that describes current public policy is certainly within the guidelines of the project. Wiki is not a place for anaylsis by independent scholars (see WP:NOR).
Child support is no different than any other issue of Family Law, and thus warrants an article. If you chose to put this up for AfD (not recommended) as being "unnecessary" I can 100% guarantee that it would result in a Speedy Keep with overwhelming consensus. I would also add that you appear to be one of the only editors who is so strongly opposed to this article as it stands; many have contributed here and have deemed it worthy of attention.
As to the global view of child support, it is currently the norm in most, if not all industrialized nations. The United States currently has reciprocal agreements on child support enforcement on the federal and state levels with a wide variety of nations from very diverse cultural and religious backgrounds, including but not limited to Bermuda, the British West Indies, Nigeria, Greece, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Fiji, France, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Jamaica, Mexico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Palau, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic, South Africa, Sweden, the UK, Australia and Canada [9]. The United Kingdom has a similar scheme called Reciprocal Enforcement of Maintenance Orders (REMO) which includes most European and African nations, some Asian, South American and Middle Eastern countries, Australia, New Zealand and the USA. [10] If these countries are willing to enforce each others' child support orders in spite of varying national governmental policies, this would very strongly suggests that the legal policies represented in this article are widely accepted throughout the world.
Wiki cannot give a full global view of every single country in the world. If you go to the articles for divorce or any other family law issue, you're not going to find policies for every single country there either. Since this is the English-speaking Wiki, a focus on the policies of major anglophone nations makes sense. If you click on the versions of this article in the other language Wikis, you will notice they do not focus--or even mention-- American or British policy, they focus on that in their own country/language group. If you would like to expand this to include other anglophone countries such as South Africa that is certainly doable with sufficient research, but you know, they have child support too. DanielEng 17:19, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


"The encyclopedia article is not supposed to be an in-depth look at the entire political system; merely an overview of how child support is awarded and paid. I think the present article handles this well."

I disagree that this article should be merely an overview focused (exclusively ?) on English-speaking countries. I suggest that a new article be created title Child support by country. Child support by country could include information from this article, appropriate citations that you have added to this section of the discussion page, and links to other articles such as Child Support in the USA, etc. This would create space in this article to include, not an in-depth look at the entire political system, but a broader perspective of child support written from a NPOV and including citations to reliable sources. Michael H 34 22:45, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The title should be narrowed further so that it accurately reflects the purpose of the article. As mentioned earlier, most "child support" is provided by parents and has nothing to do with government programs. The fact that laws and government agencies use the term within a narrow context does not change that. In fact, a more comprehensive look at the laws would soon convince you that they express the context adequately so that the laws explicitly state that they're talking about "court ordered child support following divorce or in the case of out of wedlock births" or "enforcement of child support orders" or "authority granted to the Office of Child Support Enforcement concerning ....". It is not logical to conclude that the mere fact that the term "child support" is used within such specialized and narrow contexts means that the narrow meaning should be substituted for the broader actual meaning of the term. That would result in an extreme bias toward the narrow meaning and context. Rogerfgay 10:50, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Current article has to do with current administrative procedures. I agree with Michael and Daniel that any article that attempts to cover material broadly enough to use a comprehensive title (administrative procedures related to child support orders, for example) would need to leave details to referenced pages. It would be most appropriate to simply reference pages at the appropriate government agency website rather than repeating material in Wikipedia pages that would have to be constantly maintained - in detail - as admin policies change. It would be much more practical, and encyclopedic (if indeed specific admin procedures are an appropriate subject for an encyclopedia at all), to provide a very general overview, and leave the details to referenced pages on agency websites. Rogerfgay 12:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

PROPOSED: The material in the current article is far too narrow for the title and all of the material can be merged with other articles. All suggestions related to renaming the article also involved reconceptualizing - i.e. really starting a new article that is not based on the material presented in the current article. I propose deletion of this article. See new section, proposed deletion, below. Rogerfgay 12:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

PROPOSAL REJECTED.' Child support is a family law matter. It needs to be discussed as such, and it needs to be discussed as such on a page entitled "Child Support." Saying that the way the term is defined under international policy is too narrow is ludicrous. All of the terms you have included: "enforcement of child support orders" et al fall under that definition, the same way "immigration" covers a wide expanse of governmental policies and laws. Obviously, any article on child support should have sub-sections on how child support orders are enforced, what can be done in cases of non-compliance, et al. The current article has all that.
Please have a look at the WP:NPOV and WP:NOR articles. This is an encyclopedia, not a place to write essays and analyze child support policies. We write articles based on the accepted international policy and definitions, not what editors interpret those definitions to mean.DanielEng 15:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Daniel. If you move the article to one titled "International Policy and Definitions Related to Child Support Orders and Enforcement in 2007" then you might have something. Rogerfgay 08:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Nope. The material in the article pertains to child support, it belongs at an article entitled "Child support." DanielEng 08:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The material is far too narrow in scope for such a generic title Daniel. I am aware that a great deal of political effort went into getting these specific policies accepted in the countries covered in the article. But political success is not the same thing as success in logically or scientifically providing a definition of the term "child support." The policies do not reflect any broadly accepted definition of the term; nor universally accepted policy (narrower scope), etc. Rogerfgay 09:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] deep history of policy

Once the move decision is made to provide a limiting title, the article could be improved by a deeper presentation of the historical background for the policies currently in use in those countries chosen by the authors of this article. Current child support policy in the chosen western countries has its roots in old Soviet policy, which did not change much after the fall of the Soviet Union. RSFSR (1969) Article 68 of the Russian Soviet Family code established July 30, 1969; one quarter of earnings for one child, one third for two, and one half for three or more (modified by Code No. 223-FZ of December 29, 1995; see RFFLC, 1995) RFFLC (1995) Article 81 of the Family Code of the Russian Federation No. 223-FZ of December 29, 1995 (still applies a percent-of-income formula, see RSFSR, 1969). Such a discussion would also be better informed if it includes general discussion following the communist revolution on reforming bourgeois institutions of marriage and family, such as in http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/26jul/russianwoman.htm Rogerfgay 13:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Comment Child support laws have existed in North American since the 17th century. They're based on British law far more than anything recent. [11] DanielEng 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Daniel: North American child support law was based on traditional British common law practice up until 1990. Federal reforms in the US from 1975, 1984, and finally 1988 changed all that (1990 the year of first non-British common law type implementation). This was a fundamental change that completely swapped out the British common law approach for one based on the Soviet model (well documented and currently being discussed much on talk radio). People interested in the topic held their breath awaiting constitutional rulings on the reforms. In 1993, in P.O.P.S. V Gardner, a federal appeals court accepted the reforms by reclassifying family issues as "social policy" (it was private issue law with a high degree of constitutional protection). "Social policy" does not have the constitutional protections that relate back to British common law and the classic liberal relationship between the individual and the state. An example of social policy is the setting of welfare entitlements. Recipients have no rights other than equal treatment under law. It was this fundamental change that also led to rulings by state courts on same-sex marriage. Once the constitutional requirement became "equal treatment" on ONLY equal treatment, some state courts found it necessary to treat same-sex couples equally in their desire to marry. Other countries used in the current article here followed suit. The current article therefore represents a singular, narrow, and rather extreme political view. Rogerfgay 10:17, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
It is only your opinion that it is an "extreme political view." It is one that the Hague and the United Nations have both endorsed since the 1950s, most recently in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. As mentioned earlier, if it is a view that countries all over the world are willing to accept and have put into law, in spite of their diverse political policies, it can hardly be considered extreme. In addition, what you fail to recognize is that even social policy is backed up by law. In your example of same-sex marriage, for instance (which I am completely in favor of, FWIW), the idea that couples must be treated equally has been backed up by ordinances passed by local governments to support that view. In the case of child support and welfare, guidelines and enforcement issues are again regulated and enforced by a framework of laws and ordinances, not by social policy. When a REMO-member country pursues a noncompliant parent who has fled to another country to avoid paying child support they do so under both international treaties and enforcement of recognized law. DanielEng 15:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Daniel: Thanks for providing more political background with reference to bodies that generate policy. I am well aware of the political success of this movement. I think the article could be much improved if it focuses on the poltical movement itself and its political effects. These radical reforms started going into effect in the US in 1990 and around the same time in the other countries covered in the article. It is now 17 years later and they are much better understood by the general public. Beyond the initial, very successful political campaign that led to these policies, now objective studies have been completed about them, scholarly articles and books about them have been written, articles and books about have been published on the political campaign to get them politically accepted etc. In the US, this topic has become hot on talk radio. In the UK, there are people in super-hero costumes standing on roof-tops and bridges in protest. Perhaps you support the reforms and the political perspective upon which they are based. But if Wikipedia articles are written merely to support that one perspective then Wikipedia will just look downright silly. It becomes a propaganda site rather than an encyclopedia. Rogerfgay 08:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

See notes above in discussion of move options. This article, as written, is far too narrow to cover the more general topic "child support" and is limited to government policy of specific countries / states and the role of government agencies. There are already articles specific to the topic that this article covers and its contents should be merged with those other articles. Rogerfgay 10:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with suggestions to merge any notable contents of this article into the country-specific articles. I agree with suggestions to change this article into a shell article that provides links to the country-specific articles. I suggest that the shell article can be expanded with verifiable and reliable citations, and that the article can be written to cover the general topic of child support with a NPOV. Michael H 34 14:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

You do know that by merging the articles you're going to create one giant behemoth of a page, right? Merging combines them into one. If you want to move content from one article to the other, you don't need an official merge to do that. You just edit it like anything else. If you want to create a section that links to child support in other countries, just create a section saying "Global child support policies" and add the links to the other articles. DanielEng 15:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand. I do not mean that the material from those other pages providing child support enforcement and agency information in individual countries should be moved into this article. I mean, to the extent this article has any useful material not already covered by those other articles, material here should be moved there. This article is unnecessary and redundant. Rogerfgay 09:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
This was my understanding, and I agree with it. I would define the useful material from this article as the material that includes citations to reliable sources. A skilled editor may be able to salvage more by finding reliable sources. Michael H 34 14:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34
Comment. Yes, that was my understanding as well, that you wish to incorporate information from one article to another. However, the tag you currently have on the article does theopposite of this. When you put a merge tag on an article it means you are seeking to combine them and one of the two articles will cease to exist. DanielEng 17:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the following comment to the wrong section, and so I'll repeat it here:

I suggest that a new article be created title Child support by country. Child support by country could include information from this article. Child support by country could be a small article that provides similarities and contrast between countries and links to other articles such as Child Support in the USA, etc.

This would create space in this article to include, not an in-depth look at the entire political system, but a broader perspective of child support written from a NPOV and including citations to reliable sources. Michael H 34 23:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

If it were something that were created along the lines of Use_of_capital_punishment_by_nation, I would support this. However, you will note that in that case, there is still an in-depth article on the death penalty (not a shell) that leads to the sub-article. DanielEng 00:25, 24 October 2007 (UTC)


Discussion in the section above on deep history might be the appropriate level for an article on "Child Support Policy". The material the current article deals with is much narrower. Maybe something like: "Current Laws and Rules Pertaining to Court Ordered Child Support in a Select Group of Western Countries that have recently adopted Soviet Style Family Law and Legal Process". Rogerfgay 11:41, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, this simply shows that your goals for changing this article are based in your own POV and bias, not fact. The scope of the article is not too narrow. If you consider the international definition of the term and discussion of such to be too narrow, it is your own opinion, but it is not going to be the basis for this article's material. You might be better off taking your views to a website that is anti-child support, as you appear to be. DanielEng 15:58, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Daniel. I can see that you are emotionally involved in this topic. Please avoid personal attacks. Also - please do not remove the merge tags from the article page. Rogerfgay 07:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
The creation of a new article starting with material from this article: I repeat my support for the creation of an article titled "Child support by country." The scope of the new article can be described in its first paragraph with a couple of sentences such as: "This article provides information about and compares child support policies of various countries and does not provide a worldwide view of child support. For more general information about child support, please see the main article: Child Support." This article should be written with a NPOV based on reliable sources.
The Current article titled Child Support: I suggest that after moving material from this article to the new article that includes the disclaimer about its scope, the remainder of this article "Child support" could start as a shell and then expand into an encyclopedic article about child support that would justify its title. The expansion of the article should be written with a NPOV based on reliable sources. I leave it to more knowledgable editors to decide what sentences or sections (if any) should remain in this article. Michael H 34 14:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34
OK. Acknowledged. We should be focusing discussion more on the parts where some of us have the best chance of reaching agreement. I hope you can understand that "child support by country" still has the same problem with scope if the focus of the article is still limited to the scope of the current article. The term "child support" is not incorrectly used in the current article (at least for US), but the scope of the article is only on child support ordered by courts or other governmental bodies to be paid by one parent to the other or through a government program in cases where the parents are legally separated and enforcement. This amounts to a minor fraction of support for children. The term "child support" is also used in other contexts - any context in which children are supported; in fact in a variety of ways - not only financially. Articles pertaining to specific government policies and programs should really be titled by policy or program. I note that Child Support Agency and Child Support Agency Australia and Connecticut Commission for Child Support Guidelines take this approach. Material from this article can be moved into those articles and others like them. A master article should be titled something like Child Support Enforcement Agencies by Country - or something to that effect. But the term "child support" is far too broad for the narrow focus intended by this article or the others linked in this paragraph. Rogerfgay 10:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of this article

See comments and discussion under Moveoptions and Merge above. The content of this article is far too narrow for its title and extremely limited even in the context of its narrowness. All of the material in this article can and should be merged with other existing articles. Every idea about renaming the article leads to ideas about a completely different article. Rogerfgay 12:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposing deletion of an article on an important family law policy is beyond ridiculous. This article, as any other family law issue, can and does lead to sub-articles. If you feel the current scope of the article is too narrow, it behooves you to try edting the article with appropriate references and creating pertinent additional sub-articles, rather than trying to throw the baby out with the bathwater, renaming, deleting, merging, etcetera.
Based on your comments, it appears you have a strong bias against current child support policy and are trying to modify this article to reflect that bias, in spite of your claims of NPOV goals. Can you point out specific examples in this article that are currently NPOV or inaccurate? Can you explain why these examples--if you can find them--are beyond repair, and why you cannot simply edit them with appropriate footnotes if you feel so strongly about them? DanielEng 15:16, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
I suggest that the creation of a new article (with a disclaimer about its scope) based on your [Roger's] suggestion of moving material from this article, will create space in this article to hopefully allow its expansion into an article that would justify its current title. If the entire article needs to be moved, so be it. Michael H 34 15:44, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34
There's no real reason for a new article. I'm going to pull the move tag, because it was clearly placed with a POV bias. The original initiator of this move/rename/delete nonsense clearly was interested in bending the article to his particular viewpoints, rather than what the article is intended to discuss. I strongly suggest that if there is a concern about specific text in the article's context, it is worked out within the article or this talk page first, before any other steps are proposed. DanielEng 15:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand (1) why this article should be deleted and started again from scratch or (2) *precisely* why this article's definition of child support is "too narrow". I skimmed through the subsections of this talk page above and never found a coherent rationale explaining why the article is too narrow. Perhaps I missed it. Can someone, in perhaps a paragraph or less, please answer my two questions? · jersyko talk 16:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rogerfgay that this article is written with a narrow perspective. I suggest that it be written with a broader perspective with a NPOV based on reliable sources. Michael H 34 16:38, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

(edit conflict)

I agree that suggesting the deletion of this article is totally inappropriate. However, if Rogerfgay wishes to try, then he needs to follow the instructions at WP:AFD instead of proposing this here. It might be interesting to get the feedback, even if I feel pretty sure what the outcome will be. As others have observed, Roger F Gay does have a strong point of view. He has also self-published (in WP terms) many articles on external websites on this subject. Given the conflict of interest issues I am not sure that suggesting he edit the article directly is a good idea. Instead, I think he should stick to posting suggestions for changes here. Though I agree that they should be specific suggestions, backed by reliable sources, and not POV commentaries.Slp1 16:48, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia's policies regarding COI, should be observed. However, having a "strong POV" and being self-published should not be dispositive with respect to an editor's ability to edit an article. Michael H 34 21:42, 24 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34
Sure it does. From WP:COI: Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable. Roger is attempting to bend the article to his wishes and opinions, rather than respecting the recognized facts and global issues of the subject. He's entitled to a strong POV but he is not entitled to edit here if it is going to influence his input. As to being self-published, there is nothing wrong with it, but again, it demonstrates a strong outside bias and interest in promoting the views he is trying to push here. In addition, self-publishing would indicate that these views are not substantiated or supported by any legitimate mainstream or academic institution or publication, and would actually be further evidence that he is trying to introduce a fringe viewpoint here and edit along the lines of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. I honestly didn't know about Roger's outside interests until it was brought up here, but it it definitely a COI that should preclude his participation in editing this article. DanielEng 22:02, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
Daniel. I think you need to deal with this objectively -- i.e. without resorting to personal attacks. I maintain some material on the web myself, including results of studies that I have done. But I have been published much by web publishers and print of various kinds, including academic publications. My work has also been cited in other academic work. But try to stick to the subject rather than going after other editors personally. Above, you agreed with much of what I've said about the current article and some - but not all - of my suggestions on what to do about it. Rogerfgay 07:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I certainly did not agree with your POV suggestions, and I have not personally attacked you. Have a read of WP:NPA. DanielEng 08:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry for wading in again, but I still don't understand precisely why the article is "too narrow". What specific topics, for example, need to be covered in this article that are not already covered? Second, why does the alleged narrow focus of the article support deletion instead of expansion? · jersyko talk 00:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Summary: The article covers a narrow range of laws and administrative procedures in a few countries from an agency perspective. "child support" is a term with a much broader meaning than the material represents. It has also been noted that the term "child support" is not even used in all the countries in the article for the specific narrow purpose of the article. Terms such as "child maintenance" are used for example, rather than "child support." Some suggestions have been made about what an article titled "child support" should be about, but we leave that for now. In the context of this discussion, those suggestions merely illustrate that "child support" is a much broader topic. There are already articles on child support for each of the countries involved that are of the same character as the current article, providing similar material and pov. Beyond deletion discussion: We have tried to figure out what this article should be called if it were to be renamed, so that the title actually reflects the material. But no one has been able to come up with a clear explanation on what this article is intended to represent. The only thing I have to go on is that it selectively covers countries and policies that resulted from recent radical reforms in family law; all instigated by the same political agenda. I do not know whether or what connection the authors of this article may have to either the political movement behind the reforms, or the many sub-groups that are now profiting from them. Rogerfgay 07:54, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
It has not been explained above. You have failed to provide any specific examples of POV in the article, and you have also failed to explain why the internationally recognized definition is not sufficient. Your only justification for trying to make drastic changes to the article seems to be that it is based in "radical current policy" with which you personally disagree. See WP:IDONTLIKEIT and WP:COI. Not to mention that the citations provided in the article prove that what you claim to be "radical policy" is actually a matter of international law and policy, and have been accepted in the global community since the 1950s. Every single United Nations member has signed the CRC. I would hardly think that Cameroon and Vietnam have the same "political agenda" as the USA, and yet, they all recognize the right to child support and the concept. At this point, since you have failed to provide even one example or justification for your proposals, one can really only assume that you are trying to use this article as a platform for your own political and social (ie, anti-child support) agenda.DanielEng 09:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Daniel. Don't forget to sign your posts. I can see that you have a strong emotional investment in this article and the pov that it represents. I have not said that the content of this article cannot be expressed on Wikipedia. It need not be lost. What it does need is an appropriate title and scope. I've made several suggestions above. If you want to take charge of that effort, be my guest. But we won't get anywhere in an argument about maintaining a very narrow focus - excluding any broadening of the topic or pov and the logical contradiction that you want this narrow perspective under the broadest possible title. Narrow the title so that it accurately corresponds to the pov / subject of the article, and it should be ok. Rogerfgay 08:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, as a strong supporter of human rights, I am in favor of child support. "Emotional investment?" I don't think so. I'm neither a parent myself nor the child of a deadbeat parent, so this isn't a subject in which I have any personal stake whatsoever. However, even if the current policy reflected the opposite of what I believe, I would be obligated to report it. I have worked on other Wiki articles that were completely contrary to my personal POV. You have not made a single valid suggestion here. Nor have you explained why the policy accepted by an overwhelming majority of the global community, or the definition thereof, is considered a POV. Nor have you provided one single, specific example of the supposed narrow scope of the article. DanielEng 09:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Daniel please: "Well, as a strong supporter of human rights, I am in favor of child support." No one is against support of children. There is no representation of that pov in this discussion. I think you know that's not what the contraversy related to human rights is about. Rogerfgay 15:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

So it is apparent that you are a strong supporter of the particular policy preferences expressed by this article and I would guess, knowingly or not, a supporter of the political movement that brought these policies into effect in the countries selected for this article. I will repeat again - I think there is a place on Wikipedia for presentation of this political movement and its pov and list of political achievements. But they should not be presented in an article generically titled "child support" - as if their narrow pov is truth and the whole truth by definition. I also fully understand that the term "child support" is often used in these select countries when talking about child support ordered under these policies. But once again, you need to recognize that people can talk that way - once the narrow context is stated; for example, in law - this can be accomplished when "child support" appears within subcontexts in divorce or welfare law that already defines the very narrow context in which "child support" is being referred to. Wikipedia does not provide that sort of structure, and we must rely on appropriate titles. Rogerfgay 09:22, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You don't know me. You're apparently confusing objectivity with political POV. I'm not going to waste my time discussing this with you any further, because you are doing nothing but repeating yourself over and over again. You are perceiving accepted family and international law with "political movements." In conclusion, though:
  • "Narrow POV" Once again, instead of generalizing and giving blanket terms, give specific examples. Pick out the pieces of text that are "too narrow" and explain why.
  • "I also fully understand that the term "child support" is often used in these select countries when talking about child support ordered under these policies." Explain how the entire body of the United Nations constitutes "select countries."
  • "a supporter of the political movement that brought these policies into effect" Explain how an international convention that is accepted across a wide variety of countries ranging from conservative theocracies to liberal democracies considered "a political movement." Also explain how this political movement has existed at the UN since the 1950s.

You have given absolutely no evidence, rather than your own POV, to justify your comments or suggestions here. DanielEng 09:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Daniel. The current article is too narrow for the title "child support." Most child support is provided by parents, and has nothing whatsoever to do with select government "child support" policy in any set of countries or the United Nations. If you want to build an article about international child support efforts, including the UN, you might start with the UN Food Relief programs such as WFP. The term "child support" is used in relation to the subject of the article, but it is used in many other contexts as well. The focus of this article is only on a small corner of the general subject "child support." Parent, WFP, and other suggestions I've made regarding a new article entitled "child support" are specific concrete examples that illustrate that the current article is too narrowly scoped for the title. I suggest deletion of this article because the policies and programs in this article merely repeat the subject of other exising articles on the select policies and programs for the countries selected for this article. Even from the narrow perspective of the specific policies and agencies selected, this article is far from providing a universal perspective. My comments are not arguing that the UN does not have suggested child support reciprical agreements in its family law diplomacy effort. As an aside however, I will mention that it goes too far to suggest that the UN accepts the more specific policies and practices of the specific selected countries generally - in for example, setting amounts or heavy handed police tactics used in collection. That would go way beyond the charter of the UN and the work that its international family law section has done. Rogerfgay 10:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
As mentioned above [12] in more detail, your "broad" definition of "child support" may be logical semantically, but it is not the prevailing, commonly used way the term is used. Per WP:NAME, we must use the term that most English-speakers would recognize, and unless you can provide evidence (other than your own opinion) otherwise, it is appropriate that this article to remained named the way it is, and containing the subject matter that it does.--Slp1 11:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand. Please cite a Wikipedia policy or guideline that supports deletion of this article instead of expansion or editing. Assuming, arguendo, that your concerns are correct, I fail to see what supports deletion in this case. Second, regarding the merge proposal(s), this article is clearly implementing or attempting to implement summary style. Merging the articles noted in the template currently at the top of this article would make this article longer and more unwieldy. Thus, I don't understand the merge proposal, either. Finally, I'm still not certain what "other contexts" this article should be covering. Parenting seems like it should be covering some of the concerns you have, though, again, I'm still not sure that I fully understand your concerns. · jersyko talk 12:52, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable."

Yes, but the article as it currently exists is not written with a NPOV.

Provide a specific example of how the article is NPOV.DanielEng 14:36, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

"As mentioned above [13] in more detail, your "broad" definition of "child support" may be logical semantically, but it is not the prevailing, commonly used way the term is used."

It is acceptable to me to leave the article title as Child Support. While I may agree that the prevailing use of the term is based on the more narrow definition, I suggest that it is not encyclopedic to completely limit the information included in this article to the "narrow perspective" and suggest that some portion of the article include a discussion based on a broader perspective.

As stated at the top of this discussion page, this topic is controversial.

The very term "Child support" is controversial and the article should include this. Where's the criticism of child support policies and guidelines in this article? Where does it belong?

This article currently devotes significant space to the child support policies of certain countries. I suggest that this information should be moved to a new article titled "Child support by country" (or nation). Michael H 34 14:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Child support is controversial among a 'small number of individuals, most of whom tend to have a personal vested interest. It's hardly like the death penalty, abortion or prayer in schools where people are marching on the Capitol. The UNCRC is the only United Nations treaty that has received unanimous support among member nations, and within countries, child support reform tends to be bipartisan. There has been no major formal opposition to child support and no legislation has been introduced to eliminate it (again, unlike abortion, prayer, etc.). Is it being reformed? Sure. Most legislation on most topics does as things evolve over time. If you looked you could probably find a group who opposes every single family law policy on Wiki--some people hate the UN. Others dislike interracial marriage. Some people think divorce is wrong. They might even organize to discuss and protest these issues. It doesn't mean they deserve space in the article.
In addition, I note that the issue of "child support controversy" is covered in the men's rights and father's rights articles, both of which are linked in "See also." It has its 15 minutes there where it is in context; there's no need for it here. DanielEng 14:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
"Child support" if we were actually talking about that, is not a contraversial topic at all. I haven't met, spoken with, read, heard, and am not aware of anyone who opposes support of children. The contraversy related to the politics and policy that the current article focuses on is quite intense. Academics have critisized it intensely, an international political movement has developed against it, easily 10s of millions of people are against it. It is intensely extremely narrow pov to claim that the particular politics and policy involved in the current article have something to do with a universally or near universally accepted basic definition of child support. Rogerfgay 15:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You are really wasting everyone's time here.
You're still insisting that the universal definition is POV. The definition of child support as put forward in this article is universally or near universally accepted. You haven't been able to prove anything to the contrary. You've been requested, several times and by several editors, to provide specific concrete examples and proof of what is NPOV or a "narrow political view." You haven't been able to do it. You've also been asked several times to provide actual sources to back up your opinion about the scope of the definition of child support. You haven't been able to do it. You've been asked to explain why international laws and policies that date back over 50 years, and stretch across ethnic, religious and cultural boundaries, are considered "particular politics."
I have a strong feeling you know there is no real POV issue in this article. You're just frustrated because your beliefs are not represented or considered the mainstream and accepted opinion, and you're seeking to craft the article into something that would reflect that.
  1. You claim the internationally accepted definition of child support is "narrow" and politically motivated. So show us specific links and examples in nonpartisan, mainstream media, reference materials, policies, et al that demonstrate the use of the exact term "child support" to describe other forms of aid to children. Then show us, through the same means, that they are used more frequently than the internationally accepted definition. That doesn't mean repeating what you've said for the tenth time, it means providing real proof. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanielEng (talk • contribs) 15:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  2. You claim there is an "international political movement" against it. So? The Aryan Nation is a "international political movement" too. Should we consider their opinion in an article about interracial marriage or Judaism? Or would that "international political movement"'s views best be discussed on its own page? As mentioned, child support is addressed on father's rights pages. If this is the "international political movement" of which you speak, its beliefs are just that, beliefs, not fact or policy, and have no place in an article about family law.
  3. Speaking of a different "international political movement?" OK. Prove it exists. Provide us with resources--and not resources from partisan men's rights sources--that illustrate this. Give us news articles about the millions marching on Washington. Provide mainstream news articles that describe the "tens of millions" opposed to it. Show us legislation that supports your view. After all, a movement with "tens of millions of people" would surely have some legislation and some mainstream support from both politicians and the media. I would also note that critical analysis of child support, and measures for child support reform, do not constitute opposition. They very often constitute a desire to improve and reinforce the system.
  4. And finally, show us the specific Wiki policies which would justify moving, renaming or changing the scope of this article based on the opinions of you and one other editor without reliable sources or anything more than your own beliefs. DanielEng 15:27, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Daniel. I have to ask what your connection to the topic is. It is way too obvious that you do not represent a npov. Do you have any connection to the government or private child support collection "industry" (whether you agree or disagree with the term)? Or are you in any way associated with any of the special groups that have an ulterior motive for supporting this particular brand of family law politics? Rogerfgay 15:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
That is an inappropriate question for Wikipedia, and one I have no obligation to answer. Looking for another angle for a personal attack, are we? Since I have nothing to hide, however, my answers are no, no, and no. I'm simply able to do research. I have no interest in this topic other than ensuring that it remains on-topic as well as NPOV.
I notice you haven't been able to answer my questions, or those posed by other editors. I also wonder why you would accuse any editor here of having a special interest or POV. I've been able to back up my information with sources; you've only given us your personal views over and over and over again. You have not been able to give any proof of substance that you are doing anything more than pushing your personal agenda, especially given your outside COI. In addition, you'll notice that aside from another men's rights editor, nobody here or elsewhere has really stepped up to endorse or verify your POV and claims. If everyone else here is opposing you, perhaps that should tell you something. DanielEng 15:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on Daniel. I think I should have the leeway to ask since you're taking up so much of my time and effort when I'm trying to take care of an obvious problem. You're way over 1000 words now ducking what is a really a very obvious issue, some of your comments have been emotionally loaded, etc. Don't you think any reasonably intelligent reader has figured out that you have a personal stake in the issue? We know that lots of people care about these political issues and how they're perceived. That's just human to be involved in something that has to do with being human - and no where is it more human than with family issues. And no where do family issues get more contraversial than when government intrudes. So why are you so dead set on supporting the view that this article represents? Rogerfgay 16:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
  • shrug* I don't have to justify myself to you. I don't like seeing people try to bully others into accepting fringe views or using Wikipedia as a platform for them. It's interesting that you would feel that anyone who would support the article's view or have the ability to articulate points about it must have some personal stake. POV on your part again. I notice you're still not answering the questions posed to you, which are completely reasonable for anyone seeking to make drastic changes to any article. If you want to change something, it is your responsibility to prove why it needs to be changed. It's your responsibility to provide sources proving it needs to be changed. You haven't done that and you've tap-danced around when you've been asked to do so. Ergo, you're really not doing anything but pushing your own POV, wasting everyone's time, and frankly, exhausting patience here. And since you don't have any evidence or sources to back you up, but nobody is backing down, you're getting angry, you're throwing back words other editors have said to you, and resorting to trying to find ways to make personal attacks. As noted, the one here with POV problems and a significant COI is you.
In addition, you've neatly avoided the point that aside from your peer in men's rights, no other editor has supported you. If your POV were acceptable, you would have support. Do you really think that every single Wikipedian has a personal interest here?DanielEng 16:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Not getting any better: "Child support" refers to support of children generally. Calling that a "fringe view" underscores my point. Don't treat us all like idiots. Wikipedia does have a policy re: WP:COI and it's obvious that you have a stake in this issue. Rogerfgay 16:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
As I said, I don't have to justify myself to you. You're seeking a way to attack, and I'm certainly not going to give you any personal information about myself. In terms of WP:COI, you as a self-identified "expert" above all have a stake in this issue, and you have given no evidence that you are trying to do anything other than promote a specific POV. Throwing back the same COI page that editors have been giving you for the last three days...you seem to be trying to turn everyone's criticisms back into your own attacks. It really won't work, you know.
You're still not getting it, either: your opinion is not a reliable source. Repeating the same phrases ad nauseaum will not advance your position. Answer the questions posed above. It's not a fringe view? Prove it. Provide the sources and information requested. That is how it is done in every single article. Ask yourself why no other editors are supporting you. It's not because we know or care who you are IRL. I don't know you from Adam, and I don't care to. It's not because we give a damn one way or the other about the issue--this is your special interest, not mine. It's because Wiki is not here to be your personal platform, and we're going to ensure that it isn't. If you want to advance these views so strongly, go create your own Wiki (the code is free source, AFAIK) or your own personal website and go on to your heart's content. DanielEng 16:39, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
I think I've figured out what your stake in the issue is. I don't blame you for not admiting it. But you should recognize that it's not fair to the rest of the world for you to carry on so. Beyond your own self-interest, this stuff is causing incalcuable harm. Rogerfgay 17:17, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
*shrug* Whatever. I've already confirmed I have no personal interest, so I'm not sure what you think I should be admitting here, but hey, if you want to think I'm a supervillain of some sort with a secret identity, it's of no consequence to me one way or the other. You're veering very close to a WP:NPA vio, though, as mentioned below.DanielEng 21:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
Time out. Roger, though you have claimed on another page to have "been through much of the initial hard learning and adaptation" to Wikipedia, I am not sure, based on the comments that you have made here and on other pages, that you undertand the core policies of WP. Can I politely ask you to carefully review the policies and guidelines about WP about Original Research Verifiability Reliable sources Neutral Point of View and Conflict of interest? This will likely help to further your learning process. Also please note that thinly veiled personal attacks like the above are not appropriate, or helpful Slp1 17:25, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, perhaps we are, inadvertently, getting somewhere. Above, Rogerfgay says "'Child support' refers to support of children generally." Thus, I presume, Rogerfgay would prefer that this article discuss supporting children in ways that are non-monetary or are not, for example, in the context of divorce or legal obligation. This type of "child support", however, would most appropriately be covered in the parenting article. Child support is a legal concept with a substantial history. As such, it should be presented as a legal concept in this Wikipedia article. Yes, that includes policy--policy justifications or arguments accompany any legal concept. Policy considerations must be given appropriate weight, however. Please let me know if I misunderstand the issues here. · jersyko talk 17:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not as though I haven't given this same explanation several times. Even in the more limited rhelm of financial support, most "child support" is not court ordered and enforced through government programs. Even in the even more limited context of government programs related to financial support of children, the topic is broader than that of the current article. Public support ("welfare"), UN WFP, even education is a form of public support of children (i.e. that it is largely - but not exclusively - paid for by public sources). And yes, emotional and other support are extremely important to child development. That can be included in a general topic on "child support" as well as far as I'm concerned. Individuals, groups, and even government agencies have included that in their overall definitions and views on "child support." Even if the article was given an appropriate, much more limting title, it still provides a very narrow pov - of select laws from select countries that have all been the subject of recent very similar and very contraversial reform. Rogerfgay 17:49, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
But reliable sources use the term "child support" in the context of its legal definition, no? For example, I just glanced through the first 100 news links in a Google News search for "Child Support" and found that all 100 uses of the term were limited to the definition currently used in this article. Are you aware of reliable sources which use the term with a more general definition in mind? · jersyko talk 18:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
You've already been told, many times, that your personal explanation does not constitute a reliable source. You have not provided eve one reliable citation for your position here. DanielEng 21:53, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Should this article include NO criticism of child support policy ?!?!? Michael H 34 21:08, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

In nearly any article about a legal concept, policy is relevant. Is the criticism you reference related to child support as a general legal concept or a specific child support regime in a country? If the latter, then perhaps it would be most appropriate in the particular article for that country. If the former, then it might be relevant here. There are two concerns, however. First, the criticism must be referenced to reliable sources. Second, the criticism must not be given undue weight here. · jersyko talk 22:03, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The criticisms are many and they apply to more than one country. I agree that they should not be given undue weight. I agree that any of the criticisms that are for example US-specific can be included in the Child Support in the US article. I also believe that the article would be improved by including some information about alternate definitions of child support. I agree that they should also not be given undue weight. Finally, I suggest that the article is currently cluttered with discussions about individual countries, which should be retained in a new article titled Child support by country.

Best wishes, Michael H 34 02:20, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34


Reliable Sources, Michael, Roger, you can end this discussion in a few seconds by supplying Reliable Sources. you can keep arguing here until your blue in the face fingers, but until you provide Reliable Sources backing you up this will just keep going in a circle. Reliable Sources Mad031683 18:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Is there agreement that the inclusion of attributed criticism based on Reliable and Verifiable Sources would be helpful to create an article written with a NPOV? Michael H 34 21:33, 26 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Yes. And that's not a matter of agreement; it's Wiki policy: from WP:PROVEIT: 'The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. In other words, if you want to add something to the article or claim something in the existing text is not correct, it's on you to prove it; not on other editors to defend what is there and properly cited.
See WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:CITE for some additional helpful information. You'll notice that everything in the article right now is footnoted to a reliable, neutral source. If you want to add criticism, it would have to be backed up the same way. You will also need these sources--as well as the specific examples of POV text from the article that have been requested over and over again--to support any claim that the current article has NPOV issues. There has been no valid proof provided that would indicate this thus far.DanielEng 22:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
And just to be clear, the reliable sources in this article cannot be from websites, blogs or other self-published sources, because here, unlike the Fathers' rights movement page, here they would not be being used "in an article about themselves". I apologize if I am stating the obvious, but I just wanted to be clear so as to avoid any possible confusion.Slp1 23:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
To follow up on that, given the nature of the discussion here, it might be wise to make specific suggestions for edits to this article (with appropriate citations) on this talk page before adding something to the article. WP:CONSENSUS should be our goal, after all. · jersyko talk 23:23, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

I heartily agree. The statements themselves will be attributed, since they are criticisms. Michael H 34 18:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34


[edit] UN Convention on the Rights of the Child

"In family law and government policy, child support or child maintenance is defined as the ongoing obligation for a periodic payment made by a non-custodial parent to a custodial parent, caregiver or guardian, or a government agency for families receiving assistance for the care and support of children of a relationship or marriage that has been terminated."

"The right to child support and the responsibilities of parents to provide such support have been internationally recognized. The 1992 United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, a binding convention signed by every member nation of the United Nations and formally ratified by all but two,[8] treats child maintenance as a fundamental human right, citing it in several articles, including 18 and 27.[9]"

[14]

Article 18 1. States Parties shall use their best efforts to ensure recognition of the principle that both parents have common responsibilities for the upbringing and development of the child. Parents or, as the case may be, legal guardians, have the primary responsibility for the upbringing and development of the child. The best interests of the child will be their basic concern.

2. For the purpose of guaranteeing and promoting the rights set forth in the present Convention, States Parties shall render appropriate assistance to parents and legal guardians in the performance of their child-rearing responsibilities and shall ensure the development of institutions, facilities and services for the care of children.

3. States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to ensure that children of working parents have the right to benefit from child-care services and facilities for which they are eligible.

Article 27 1. States Parties recognize the right of every child to a standard of living adequate for the child's physical, mental, spiritual, moral and social development.

2. The parent(s) or others responsible for the child have the primary responsibility to secure, within their abilities and financial capacities, the conditions of living necessary for the child's development.

3. States Parties, in accordance with national conditions and within their means, shall take appropriate measures to assist parents and others responsible for the child to implement this right and shall in case of need provide material assistance and support programmes, particularly with regard to nutrition, clothing and housing.

I do not see an "ongoing obligation for a periodic payment made by a non-custodial parent to a custodial parent, caregiver or guardian, or a government agency"

I suggest that what is written in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child be quoted more directly. Michael H 34 18:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The UN CRC guarantees the right to child support. You left out Article 27.4:
4. . States Parties shall take all appropriate measures to secure the recovery of maintenance for the child from the parents or other persons having financial responsibility for the child, both within the State Party and from abroad. In particular, where the person having financial responsibility for the child lives in a State different from that of the child, States Parties shall promote the accession to international agreements or the conclusion of such agreements, as well as the making of other appropriate arrangements.
The definition of child support footnoted has the definitions, taken from various jurisdictions around the world. Also, you took out the second part of the definition, which was for the care and support of children of a relationship or marriage that has been terminated, and which is noted in the footnotes. I've revised it to:
In family law and government policy, child support or child maintenance is the ongoing obligation for a periodic payment made directly or indirectly by a non-custodial parent to a custodial parent, caregiver or guardian, for the care and support of children of a relationship or marriage that has been terminated. DanielEng 21:47, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Your edit is an improvement.

You are quite correct that I left out Article 27.4, and agree that this section was important to include. Michael H 34 22:45, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I've changed back your UCRC edit a little. I deleted the part about Article 27.4 because it's already addressed directly in the section on enforcement, and I've changed some of the rest because it seems to veer back into the broader 'definition' of child support, which has not been sourced or justified. DanielEng 00:51, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Section on Court Services moved here

'== Court services ==

 The neutrality or factuality of this article or section may be compromised by unattributed statements.
You can help Wikipedia by removing weasel worded statements.

Some opponents of child support claim that requiring non-custodial parents to pay child-support creates jobs to sustain the divorce industry. They point out that in the US family court judges earn $90,000 to $160,000 per year (cf. p. 1 table) and each judge requires a staff. One association claims the industry consists of "60,000 professionals includes line/managerial/executive child support staff; state and local agencies; judges; court masters; hearing officers; government and private attorneys; social workers; advocates; corporations that "partner" with government to provide child support services and private collection agencies." An industry of 60,000 professionals would comprise less than one-twentieth of a percent of the United State's 147.3 million-person workforce.

In the United States, state courts typically maintain a child support division - essentially an accounting department recording amounts owed and paid. Some maintain that because the county clerks responsible for record keeping are not certified accountants, inaccuracies concerning child support payments are common. Some people also claim that outside auditors do not monitor the accuracy of child support reports. In many counties, like Illinois’ Cook and Kane counties, the division audits themselves. However other jurisdictions adopt different methods - for example, in 2003 independent auditors reviewed and audited the Child Support Enforcement Agency of Hawaii. The state of Texas has also conducted such an independent audit. The Clark County, Nevada district attorney's office has also been independently audited (in 2003) regarding child support payment collections. And also in 2003, the state of Maryland recommended outside audits on its five metro child support enforcement operations.

[edit] Recent Edits

I made some suggested edits. Please revert any that you wish.

I added information from this article into new article titled "Child support by country." I did not delete the information from this article, and prefer to wait for agreement. Michael H 34 19:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I think your edits here have been very good and objective. I've tweaked the one sentence that is problematic. Well done, especially for keeping a neutral POV. Best, DanielEng 21:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. I intend to edit with a neutral POV by using reliable sources and by attributing the statements that I add to the article. I invite other editors to move, edit, delete any of these added statements as they wish. Michael H 34 00:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34
I did change back your child support vs. visitation edit. "Parenting time" vs. "Visitation" is another debate loaded with POV. The current legal term in use is visitation or contact: Visitation, in United States Law, the term for the right of a non-custodial parent to visit with their children, elsewhere known as Contact See Contact (law) for cited definition. [15] I've changed 'access' to 'contact' as per the CRC. If you feel the term "parenting time" will "get the job done," again, the impetus is on you to provide reliable sources that prove it is the most commonly used term in the mainstream. I am aware that this is a term used in the father's rights movement, but this is not the article for that, thus the terminology they use is not appropriate here. See WP:NAME. DanielEng 01:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The support order graphic

I took a closer look at the scan of the support order that is included in this article. While a few sections of it are blacked out, there are others where both parents' first and last names are clearly visible, as is the jurisdiction. Which all might be considered invasion of privacy under WP:BLP, and might be problematic.

I'm thinking that this might have to be deleted. Even if I saved the graphic, blacked out everything identifying and uploaded it as a revised version, the original copies of the doc would still be there in the image's page. I've asked a question about it here, [16] but until we get an answer, I think it should be pulled from the article. Better safe than sorry with a privacy issue, right?DanielEng 01:16, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this graphic should be deleted. Michael H 34 01:20, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

The admins agree; it's been speedily deleted. DanielEng 01:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism of child support

Child support policies are criticized. The guideline amounts are criticized as arbitrary and unrelated to the child expenses. They are also criticized for creating a financial incentive for divorce and for creating an incentive for parents to contest for primary or sole custody. The enforcement of child support is criticized for lacking due process.

If there is agreement that the criticisms should be included in the article, then should these criticisms be included in a section titled "Criticism of Child Support Policies" or should these criticisms be dispersed among the various sections of the article? Michael H 34 02:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

OK. Before we agree to put anything of this nature, I suggest the following:
  1. First and foremost, sources, sources, sources. Reliable, neutral sources. As noted by other editors, blogs, self-published websites, etc. are not reliable. Specifically, I've also noted from the discussion over at the Reliable Source board that both fathermag and mensdaily are not considered valid sources. Also, the opinions of individual activists are just that, and not reliable sources (not just in this issue--for instance in an article about religion we'd never add "Priest X from the church across the street thinks this religion is wrong"). I would suggest that before anything of this nature is added to the article, the sources are given here, and we discuss them.

Assuming that we have valid sources and they are discussed and approved by consensus,

  1. Separate section. I'd also suggest that wherever possible, criticism should be added to articles on the countries themselves, rather than here. Stuff on enforcement might be better off in the Deadbeat dads article than here. And a lot of the criticism you've mentioned might distort the issue. For instance, how many child support cases involve divorce, and how many are filed by mothers who have had children outside of marriage? That certainly influences the "divorce industry" and custody claims.
  2. Identification of who is being critical. For instance, "child support policies in the United States have been criticized by mens' rights activists" is more descriptive than "child support is protested everywhere." DanielEng 02:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I strongly agree that statements should be specifically attributed.

I also agree that where a particular criticism relates only to the United States for example, it is more appropriate for that criticism to be added to the Child support in the USA article.

I agree that the criticisms should not be given undue weight.

The following is the template for one of the suggested reliable sources for criticism:

Taken Into Custody - The War Against Fathers, Marriage and the Family by Baskerville, Stephen (book)

Michael H 34 03:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Good, we're on the same page here. The book you've mentioned is a critical analysis from the men's rights movement, not an objective source, though. It's appropriate to use it in context of talking of child support on the men's rights or father's rights page, but it's not neutral and is thus inappropriate for this article (see WP:SOURCES.
Some examples of relevant, reliable and neutral sources would be:
--Articles in mainstream media (The New York Times, The Chicago Tribune, the London Independent, etc. with interviews with critics of child support
--Documents such as legislative bills showing proposed reforms of child support with criticism of current policy
-- Objective mainstream media reports of landmark cases involving the issue
-- An academic book that studies the issue from both sides, without taking one or the other
--It's much easier to use sources locatable online so others can check the work.
I'd also suggest that we leave this for a day or so, as to gain consensus. DanielEng 03:40, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"I'd also suggest that we leave this for a day or so, as to gain consensus."

Agreed.

"The book you've mentioned is a critical analysis from the men's rights movement, not an objective source, though. It's appropriate to use it in context of talking of child support on the men's rights or father's rights page, but it's not neutral and is thus inappropriate for this article (see WP:SOURCES. "

I disagree. Reliable sources need not be objective. The statements must be attributed. This is an example of a statement that I would consider adding to this article:

"Members of the fathers' rights movement state that current child support guidelines provide a financial incentive for divorce or separation."

Michael H 34 03:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Yes, they must be. From WP:SOURCES: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Sources should be appropriate to the claims made: exceptional claims require exceptional sources. Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking or with no editorial oversight. Questionable sources should only be used in articles about themselves. Articles about such sources should not repeat any contentious claims the source has made about third parties, unless those claims have also been published by reliable sources. Material from self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources in articles about themselves
If the section on criticism is simply going to repeat the views of the fathers' right movement, it is not appropriate for this article, and belongs on the fathers' rights page. You might want to expand the issue there, and we could add a more prominent link to that page. Also note that if we present that POV here in this article, we are obligated to provide the opposite, ie, from child support advocates or those who directly disagree with FRM. So that wouldn't be just "Members of the fathers' rights movement state that current child support guidelines provide a financial incentive for divorce or separation." It would end up being something like "Members of the fathers' rights movement state that current child support guidelines provide a financial incentive for divorce or separation. However, child support advocates note that X% of child support petitions originate from

unmarried parents." See the abortion article for a good example of a short critical section, and note that both viewpoints are equally addressed through neutral sources. DanielEng 04:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Baskerville is not neutral, but he is a neutral source for a POV, which would be properly attributed. The weight of this viewpoint then becomes the issue.

"You might want to expand the issue there, and we could add a more prominent link to that page. "

Adding a sentence such as "Current child support policy has been criticized for various reasons." along with a link or links to other article(s) is an acceptable and reasonable solution. Including criticism would then not be necessary in this article. With regard to controversial topics, the NPOV guideline suggests that articles not be split, but that would not be the case with this proposal. The other article(s) will include additional information and this solution avoids duplication. I agree with this proposal.

Best wishes, Michael H 34 15:11, 29 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

  • nods* I'm glad this proposal will work for both of us, and that given that we appear to have differing opinions on this topic, we have been able to work in a civil and productive fashion to come up with solutions. This seems as though it might be the best option. The abortion article also does this, with links to pro-choice and pro-life articles, so I think we'd be OK in not counting this as a fork. Best, DanielEng 15:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As per the discussion above, I've created the new section and link. I've also deleted a few links from the "see also". The only links deleted were those that were either a) listed on the Family Law sidebar already; b) listed in the article already.

If these edits are cool, I suggest we try to generate consensus on removing the neutrality tag. The article has been sourced from a global standpoint, links to articles reflecting alternative points of view have been created, and no other specific points have been raised. DanielEng 01:33, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your edits. Good job, sir. Michael H 34 05:26, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

I agree that the neutrality tag should be removed. Michael H 34 05:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC) Michael H 34

Thank you. :) Seeing as this proposal has been up for more than 24h now and we've had no dissent, I'm going to take down the tag. Best, DanielEng 15:30, 31 October 2007 (UTC)