Parents should be legally identified and held responsible

In Cons points (1) and (2) he asserts that parents may not have control over their children, and therefore ought not be responsible for the child's actions. The present resolution only holds parents responsible for the cost of support of the children. This is made clear in the opening argument, ".. to enforce the moral responsibility for parents to support their children, to reduce the financial burden upon the taxpayer, and to discourage irresponsible parenting ..." Responsibility for the actions of the child remain as they are under current law. I presume that responsibility falls upon whoever has custody of the child. That might be both children if they share custody, with one parent if one has custody, or with the state if the child is institutionalized. In the case of a dissolved relationship, the following definition applies: "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, or the government, for the care and support of children of a relationship or marriage that has been terminated" http://en.wikipedia.org... The article goes on to state, "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] declares that the upbringing and development of children and a standard of living adequate for the children's development is a common responsibility of both parents and a fundamental human right for children, and asserts that the primary responsibility to provide such for the children rests with their parents." Con argues, "3) If my child dost even live with me why should I accept responsibility." You should not have to be responsible for the child's actions. That falls upon the custodial party. However, the responsibility for providing "a standard of living adequate for the children's development is a common responsibility of both parents " remains by virtue of having conceived the child. Con further argues, "4) I'm not financial stable" That situation is covered in paragraph (e) of the proposed system: "The Courts shall be responsible for determining the amounts." This provision recognizes that the circumstances of each case must be considered individually, and amounts set by the Courts accordingly. This parallels the determination of child support payments in a divorce settlement. "EVERY PARENT in this world doesn't need to deal with this. we all make mistakes and we all need a helping hand." The burden of child support is entered into voluntarily at the time of conception. The responsibility may be avoided by not conceiving a child. Every parent needs to deal with it. This is not a difficult concept. An anthropologist interviewed a primitive tribe in the remote Amazon jungle. The anthropologist asked, "Members of your tribe are always naked. Why is it it that you are not having sex all the time?" The tribesman responded (paraphrasing), "Don't be ridiculous. We couldn't possibly afford to support all those children." The responsibility is apparent when there is no one upon whom to foist the responsibility. As to receiving help, nothing in the resolution precludes receiving social services. In fact, by identifying both parents it facilitates the direction of both parents to the appropriate services.