There should be a law...

[hokeshel]

Thsi really burns my butt. Why aren't people arrested for child endangerment if they abandon their family adn dont pay child support or see the children? My husband can leave me and the kids and not help out at all financially. They take away his dirver's license. That is it. He doesn't know if they have a home, food or clothing. Yet, nothing is done. If I left them at a friend's house and did the same thing, I would be arrested immediately and he never would be because he left first.
My point is, why the hell aren't these crimes treated identically? I find it appalling.

[mamab]

I agree, there should be something done about parents (either sex) that leave their family and don't provide for them. I'm not saying the parents have to remain together for the kids, because often that is NOT the best thing for the children or either spouse. However, if you were a part of bringing the children into the world, you should be held responsible for caring for them.

[dong]

This appears to be a problem significant enough that it finds its way onto not just current affair shows but fictional media avenues. And when it comes to that, by golly it's the clearest sign that this obviously shouldn't continue.

I take it your ex has already no visitation rights/other rights regarding family etc.?

[tater03]

Firstly I have no clue or understand how a father or a mother could ever not want to see or support their children. I can understand not staying in an unhealthy marriage for whatever reason but just to leave and not look back is just totally irresponsible to me. Not helping to support them moneywise is one thing but to not want to see them I just don't get it.

[FourBear]

It's in light of situations like these that I consider myself extremely lucky. When my parents divorced, they split assets in a reasonable manner and delegated costs as well: for example, my dad was able to claim me on his taxes, while my mom could claim my brother. While I wish that most parents had the sense to provide their children in the case of divorce without the added push of a law, I still think that a law could be a good idea. Unfortunately...might be extremely hard to enforce.

[mamab]

I still think that a law could be a good idea. Unfortunately...might be extremely hard to enforce.

I think that's the problem. If I'm not mistaken there ARE laws concerning dead-beat parents. They haven't been enforceable, that's why there are so many people in these situations. The laws might not be federal, but I'm pretty sure most states have some type of laws on the book.

[tater03]

Yes, there are laws in most states. From what I can see a lot of the times it is hard for the parent that is raising the child to get assistance to help them go back to court when the other spouse is not following the terms of the divorce.

[framed]

This is going to be an unpopular thing to say but... oh well its what I think.

I can think of a few cases where someone is justified in not paying support.

1) If a guy wanted his gf/wife to have an abortion but she refused
2) If someone sought custody of kids and was denied (usually that would be the man.)

Its pretty obvious in today's society that when it comes to the parents rights over their kids, that the males are the underdogs. Courts side with women by default in custody unless theres a reason to do otherwise, and while women have the "right" to an abortion, the male doesn't have any "right" to similarly end their obligations for a kid. I think rights must go together with responsibilities, so unless you fix those things the man in those specific cases is very justified in saying "this isnt my problem".

For the record I'm not the cause of any children.

[hokeshel]

I can definatly see the logic in situation one. In some cases, I would agree with you. But, I am having a hard time grasping situation #2. Why should someone who does not win custody not pay child support?

[framed]

A few reasons:

1) The person who does win custody should be fiscally responsible.

2) By taking sole custody the mother is effectively saying "this baby is mine, not yours". If thats the case then the mother should be supporting whats hers with her own money. Its similar to what many parents tell their kids about having pets growing up "if you want it you have to take care of it". If the father is being excluded from the life of the child intentionally by the mother, why should the mother be entitled to his money to raise the child?

3) Its not reasonable to expect people to pay for whats not theirs. A judgment that you don't have custody of your kid effectively makes it not yours.

4) If you have full rights over a child, you should have full responsibility. That includes financial responsibility. Rights and responsibility should almost never be separated.

[tater03]

Yes, but quite honestly just because you don't have custody doesn't mean that you are not still responsible for those children you helped create. That is the problem if you ask me, parents need to take responsibility whether they have sole or partial custody. Those children rely on you as parents to support them no matter what happens in the relationship between the parents. And that is the way it should be.

[framed]

You say that as if all other things are equal in the discussion. Its not a random occurrence that someone unwillingly loses custody. It happens because the other parent sought it out that you should lose your rights. When you lose your rights you generally should be relieved of your responsibility. As a parent seeking sole custody, you're asking the world to give you more rights over the child. That should come with more responsibility, alla financial responsibility.

From my perspective its wrong for a parent to seek sole custody if they cant support their child. Doing so denies the other parent's rights over their children while trying to offload the responsibility to them anyway. Its just broken to think that someone should support you and your child when you're doing nothing but denying them rights. If a parent is unable to support their child alone, they have no business seeking full custody over the other parent's wishes, regardless of their current relationship with the other parent.

[hokeshel]

I can't disagree with you more, framed. Someone has to have custody of the child, rarely is an equal joint custody given because it just is too difficult to make equal. Most people I know who are divorcing both seek custody. You are tyring to make it sound like it is all or none. That is ridiculous. Just becasue someone doesn't have custody of their child doesn't mean they can't see them every again, that is very rare. There is a huge difference between not getting custody and having no parental rights. If you have your parental rights terminated, it is probably for a good reason and you won't have to pay child support anyway. If the other person won custody (assuming you are referring to full legal and physical custody), it was done for a reason, too and the child is probably better off that way. But, you can still have visiting rights and as your situation changes, you can go to court again and have it changed.
Furthermore, by your way of thinking, all one need to do to get out of payign child support is ask for custody and then make sure they don't get it, that would be very easy to do. There are enough losers who have children and don't support them, we don't need to make it any easier on them. If we went by your view, we would have ven more poor children.
I also believe that people who comit crimes against children should never be allowed anything to do with their children other than paying child support. They shoudln't be around them because it is best for the child but,they still brought the child into the world and owe them certain provisions.

[tater03]

Thank you so much Hokeshel. You said exactly what I was trying to say in my above post. So much better than how I put it. Thank you. I could not agree with you more.

[framed]

Oh well, I knew it would be an unpopular position.

If you read what I said in my original post I was talking a very specific situation where parents were divorcing, and both sought (and could handle) shared custody of a child. I was not remotely suggesting that people breaking the law with their children, or otherwise unfit parents should get off the hook on support.

Parents who live in the same school district or parents who make use of private schools are very capable of making shared custody work. In those specific situations, denying the rights of a capable and loving parent but still expecting to be able to send him the bill is silly. Yes there are cases where one parent is more capable than another, but no I'm not talking about those cases.

In any case I have sympathy and can understand the position of a loving and capable father who's denied access/shared custody of his kids in a divorce. The fact is the case of two equally fit parents the legal system tends to side with the mother, even in cases where joint custody is reasonable. A father in that situation is completely justified not paying child support to a mother who is doing nothing but denying his parental rights. The mother in that case should be owning up to the fathers rights in order to continue receiving his support. Irreconcilable differences or not, parents have an obligation to work together to take care of their kids. That should not by default mean one doing all the parenting and the other just writing a check. Believe it or not some fathers actually want to be good parents to their kids, even after a divorce.

[tater03]

I kind of get where you are coming from but in most situations there has to be a court order that states that they cannot see their children and it would have to have come from some reason the judge felt it was needed. Now in the case of a mother just not letting their child see the father because they are being vindictive and getting so called revenge is just plain wrong. I can see where the father might not want to pay child support but at the same time shouldn't that father go back to court if she is in violiation of a court order?

[framed]

I'm definitely not a lawyer, and not even having been married I can't say I have experience with how it exactly works. I'm trying to put myself in the mind of non-paying fathers and see what they might be thinking, since most people are inclined not to give them the benefit of the doubt. All I could come up with as legitimate reasons were:

1) This never should have been my problem - which is where my comment about abortion came from, and its a valid thing for someone who asked for an abortion to think, especially since men are required to defer all their rights in this area to women.
2) "She stole him from me." -I bet this is thought quite a lot, and in some cases its probably a valid since our legal system is biased towards women when it comes to parental rights.

Actually I bet both of these thoughts go through support-paying parents minds quite a bit, though realistically most cases its probably not valid. (Did you really tell her to get an abortion and she refused? Did you really do nothing to deserve loss of custody?) I only bring it up because non-paying dads get about as much sympathy as murderers, and in some cases they most likely deserve more than that.

The whole topic really points more to me about how broken marriage is in general. It seems almost routine that parents will have to decide custody of their kids at some point, and it will undoubtedly be nasty and leave bad feelings for both parents and the kids involved.

Maybe this is a consequence of the "looser" sex and easier-to-terminate marriages that came along with woman's lib. <pause> I can feel the hellfire coming down already so let me explain... I do not mean to say that women's lib is or was a bad thing in general, I'm rather saying that as women became less dependent on men, divorces became something they could realistically seek. Like any major social change it would naturally have both positive and negative effects. In this case the definite upside of getting women out of bad to devastatingly-bad relationships, but the downside of weakening the durability of families. (This idea just came to me while I was typing the previous paragraph, I'm not desperately attached to it. Anyone have any opinions? )

[Plumley]

2) By taking sole custody the mother is effectively saying "this baby is mine, not yours". If thats the case then the mother should be supporting whats hers with her own money.


Not at all. Custody is awarded by a judge and is a decision made in the best interests of the child. The person who has custody is responsible for making decisions about the child and providing a home but not having custody does not exclude a parent from a child's life. The non custodial parent is not legally cut off and usually has visitation with the child and input into decisions about him or her. Also, more and more, joint custody is being awarded to both parents and there is no longer a great bias in favor of awarding custody to mothers.

[tater03]

I would agree that it is easier for an independent women to get a divorce nowadays. I don't know if I would agree that womens lib made this possible because of the fact that nowadays a women 9 times out of 10 needs to work to help with the financial aspects of the home.

[framed]

Hmmm thats interesting. I have no idea what the cause and effect is there. You think the "traditional family" of old is economically not possible for most anymore, or do you think most families are buying more than they need, thus "need" the second parent's income? I'm thinking of things like flat screen TVs, 3 cars, vacation homes, etc. I know some people who go that route, but I also know some who live more modestly.

It seems odd to think that with all the efficency gains in the past decades that a family in the 50s could get by on 40 hours a week, whereas no they "need" 80. I'm not saying I'm denying it, but I'm wondering if/why its true.

[hokeshel]

I think our views on what is necessary have certainly changed. At one time I had no car, no television no phone and not even a vaccuum clearner for a while. People couldn't understand how I got by. Many people consider even television a necessity now. So, I think that although many families have to have two incomes, I think that they could scale back if they needed to. Once you are forced to do wihtout, it is surprising how your views change.

[Plumley]

I think women work for all sorts of reasons. Some work because their families couldn't survive if they didn't, some work for the fulfillment of a career, some work for achievement. There's no simple answer, really, and economics is only one factor.