Are Divorced Fathers Just ATM Machines?
Basically “yes” says an article on child support in Massachusetts in the newsletter of Fathers and Families entitled Child Support Guidelines Make Fathers ATM:
This system treats fathers as no more than ATM machines, incapable of making financial decisions for their children. My ex-husband has his shortcomings, but that doesn’t mean he isn’t a good father, capable of making financial decisions for his kids. Fathers made competent decisions on behalf of their children before divorce, so why is it that the state deems men incompetent after divorce, empowering only the mothers? Deciding what to spend on our children should be EVERY parent’s right, not just mothers. The state of Massachusetts has taken away that parenting right from fathers by giving mothers complete financial control.
Women wonder why there are “no good men left.”
The good men are leaving the plantation.
Divorce can turn a man into real man and real father tested tried and True
The good old days when Man could call wife a whore and have her burn at stake as witch or do what the God of Israel do and Have the King of Babylon rape his whore wife and turn her into slave are over in the west …I believe
God in his forknowledge after the Moses death covenaut then call her his daughter not his wife–this would be good for divorced man to look at his ex wife as one of his children to honor her inner child if he wants to be the kind of father the God of heaven is to his children because the father betrayed by his children forgive for the purpose of seeing his children restored to success though hell purgatory then heaven and a child betrayed is in need of parents to restore child so who has the great character to become in the image of the father in heaven? This may seem impossible to do but all things are possible with God and the vision becomes clearer if one has feasted on God’s Divine Love
Divorce is always for childish reasons so when the exife sees her ex as a good father faith in restored to humanity and your children have a great opportunity to become successful
Now what That guv in Texas did to that man on death row who lost his three children in the fire than was blamed and imprisoned for their death then it was being investigated and that guv of Texas stopped the investigation and had him executed when there was proof of his innocence seeming to do this just to get reelected how can he ever be forgiven except through going to hell for such a great sin of a power monger over a grieving man in rage over a great injustice
Jesus say : I want mercy not sacrifice— How can this innocent man forgive from the otherside seeing his kids without their father’s protection ? Repentance of this guv could help and thus he not end up in hell in afterlife as the state of Texas ends up with a hellish appearance in the future
I feel bad for the author but I do need to point out that this is a complete and total distortion of the Hebrew Bible.
Hopefully you people here have enough vision to see how this innocent man executed by the guv of Texas becomes the father of many mistreated in the state of Texas by the True God’s Holy whirlwind decree
Hey there, fella, calm down.
What weird comments for a Saturday.
I am not divorced, my children are educated, grown and not living with us. But I used to think that child support was a minimum. With the father adding to it as required.
Obviously, that does not seem to be the case. And with no accounting required from the custodial parent, it does reduce men to an ATM.
Perhaps the reason that my sons seem to have no interest in marrying.
@ Mike43: The requirement of a “Marriage Licence” is null & void. In the majority of the States in the USA & the Provinces/Territories of Canada, if you cohab more than 6 months and separate, she can sue for alimony (terminologies vary). If you cohab and have a child, then Child Support & Alimony kick in.
Initially, way back when Child Support guidelines where created, they were indexed relative to both parent’s earnings and reasonably fluid (adjustable) when circumstances changed, such as job loss / changes. Roughly in the Mid 70′s the feminists took up the challenge to change the equitable nature of Support & Alimony into what we have currently. Their main reasoning was (and for good reason) that lawyers would use a variety of loopholes and catches and managed to keep Child Support low. These scales are no longer sliding and are not indexed relative to financial or social changes. 90% of of the child support change requests in a court of law are disallowed and often the dad finds himself with the added legal expenses and interest added on top for good measure. There is a lot of dads that are serving time in jail due to unpaid Child Support… how does that help kids when the Government locks them up and has to foot the bill… Tad Ridiculous, considering now he has a strike on his record so when he get’s out, the chances of him gaining a decent job again are considerably reduced.
If your paying 700 a month Child Support while earning 35,000 per annum, this is tight but possibly workable but you must also keep in mind that the $700 is from Net Income and not Pre-Tax income, so dad get’s to pay the income taxes on the money he never sees, Mrs get’s the $700- in the clear and pays no tax on it. So depending on your State/Province and Fed minimum guidelines that 700 is actually more like 1000 in pre-tax dollars which is NOT workable.
Alimony is another beast but it follows similar guidelines and often is in parity with Child Support.
Something to Ponder and this is the Kitchen Sink deal:
If married or cohab and you own a home, regardless if whether you bought & paid for it before you cohabed/married Miss X, or acquired it after getting together, she is immediately entitled to 50% or more of the home, plus a percentage of your pension, retirement funds and the list goes on.
This is not comprehensive (there is a lot more and many variances) but this is a reasonable example what a man faces in today’s Pro-Fem, anti-male system that has evolved.
A result which was not unexpected just ignored:
Unfortunately what the Fem’s have missed on this issue, is that as a result of pushing men away from wanting to be in a cohab, parent position is affecting the general lifestyles of all people. When two people live together, with or without children, they “collectively” have more free & disposable income, when people have extra cash, what do they do with it (other than stash some into savings)? They buy things, take trips & holidays, build additions to their homes or buy homes to start out with. This in turn creates jobs, which means more taxes being put into the system, less strain on government services to back fill, lower crime rates because there is more cash flowing and more people working and wanting to work for overall improvement for themselves & their partners. These are stable people who are dedicated to moving ahead and gaining more wealth… on & on & on. History has proven throughout time that Strong Families (with/without kids) build strong nations and strong economies.
I am all for equality & am often considered moreso as a Equalitarian. Regardless of any identifiable difference, everyone should be treated equally, paid equally for the work they do, be hired/promoted based on their capabilities & qualifications…. but I guess I live in a dream world as that is just not the case at all anymore. Ironically, now that things are this way, the results are showing and very plainly… simply look at what has happened to the economy, the damage that has been caused, how much “underground work” is happening for “cash only pay”… Everyone is losing out because of a group of Self-Empowerment Fanatics.
Steve_S,
Your statement of the law is flat-out wrong in many places.
I don’t know why people just make up things and then write them like they’re chiseled into stone.
Hmmm let me see, after 5 years of active Child & Family Advocacy working with people from across Canada and several in various states. Dealing with everything from Domestic Violence issues for both genders, Children’s Rights Advocacy to BOTH Parents, having attended more court appearances in support of these same people and helping to protecting Children & Families from Child Protection Agents… I have some small clue.
As I stated in my original posting, Terminology varies between countries, states / provinces. Guidelines & laws also vary considerably between all of the above. Some of my statements were “examples” and not 100% accurate relative to where you may be located. BTW: Most systems consider either 6 months or 1 year of cohabitation as equivalent to married status (common law).
“You’re wrong”. That is such a convincing argument I call this the thread winner right there.
/sarcasm
Why don’t you back up your statements? Or can’t you?
Among other things, Steve_S is claiming:
- If you live with a woman for more than 6 months (not married to her – just living with her), she can sue you for alimony
- If you live together with a woman, she immediately has a 50% stake in your separately owned home, retirement plan, pension etc. — apparently immediately upon her move-in date
- And all of this applies in the “majority” of US states
———————–
No, I guess I can’t disprove it in the Interwebz, so that must be the law. Sounds legit to me.
I’d like to point out that under these new laws (that I never heard about – hat tip to Steve_S for the info!), simply renting out a spare room to a woman now makes her co-owner of your house and retirement plans and entitles her to alimony from you if she lives there for more than 6 months. Who’d a thunk it.
OF course men are treated as ATM’s after divorce. It is unacceptable.
The only real justice and fairness is simple.
When the kids are with DAD, then Dad pays and supports them. When the kids are with MOM, then Mom supports them.
50/50 split unless the parents come to an agreement otherwise on their own.
Oh yeah, and no alimony or support for spouses after divorce. Support is what you can request in a marriage, not after one.
Are Divorced Fathers Just ATM Machines? Yes, if the woman wants it that way.
Yes, men should support their children.
But I have to ask, if someone else controls when he can see them, and denies him any say in their education, upbringing, location, and health care, are they really still his children?
I have seen a lot of divorced couples in my life and only two were horror show divorces. In both cases, the persons creating the problem were angry vindictive women who were carrying on a war against what I considered nice men who were very good to their children when they did get to spend time with them.
As far as alimony goes, it makes no sense. Why should someone be guaranteed a lifetime of support while giving nothing in return? The lifetime support was part of a deal, a contract if you will, where each side had obligations that were beneficial to the other, but if one side is no longer interested in carrying out their obligations that were part of the deal, why should the other side still be bound by his obligations? And I said his on purpose, because women paying alimony to men is as rare as Democrats who understand how economies create jobs.
Well, the problem is really no-fault divorce. Under no fault, if the lower income spouse decides they no longer want to fulfill the obligations of marriage they can cheat, bail out, whatever and insist in court they are entitled to be supported in “the lifestyle to which they’ve been accustomed to in marriage”. That makes no sense, no longer fulfill the obligations but still want the financial benefits. The higher income spouse is forced to continue to honor the financial obligation of marriage but receive no benefits. Wouldn’t it be nice if they could insist on continuing to receive “the conjugal benefits to which they’d been accustomed to during the marriage”.
You view it as a contract, so what if the lower income spouse meets all the obligations of the contract but the higher income breaks the contract? Shouldn’t they be obligated to make some kind of financial restitution based on breaking the contract? Especially if the lower income spouse gave up job/training/investment/retirement program opportunities while fulfilling their obligations?
@styrgwillidar :
“You view it as a contract, so what if the lower income spouse meets all the obligations of the contract but the higher income breaks the contract? Shouldn’t they be obligated to make some kind of financial restitution based on breaking the contract? Especially if the lower income spouse gave up job/training/investment/retirement program opportunities while fulfilling their obligations?”
Yes, assuming the other partner did faithfully execute their end of the bargain. However, the usual case is women getting alimony from men, the reverse is rare.
From the data I have seen, women initiate 2/3ds of divorces, and of the ones men initiate at least half are sought because of the woman’s behavior. That only leaves about 1 in 6 where the male has abandoned a female for no valid reason. It is my observation that men are unlikely to leave a happy marriage where they experience a peaceful sane home environment, a supportive wife, and get regular sex. It is women who get bored in such situations.
So to answer your question, I’d say yes, there should be compensation, if the man was leaving a marriage where he walked away from a good home environment and a supportive wife who provided regular loving sex. However, if the wife is creating a chaotic home, given to regular dramatic episodes, or did not provide loving sex willingly, I’d say no. She did not carry out her end of the bargain, so she is not entitled to the benefits that were to accrue to her in that bargain.
Consider the case of an automobile with a 10 year warranty on the engine. You can bet that the contract that is the warranty states that it is your duty to change the oil, and perform other routine maintenance to keep it in effect. In brief, they promise the motor will last 10 years if you treat it properly. Shouldn’t a marriage have a similar balance of benefits and responsibilities? That a man is bound to support a good wife for her entire life, but that support is dependent upon her remaining a good wife.
PS: Sorry for the delayed response, but I thought interest in this post had waned and I did not check it for a few days.
#1. That woman is a saint. Many women are.
#2. Why can’t a man “do the right thing” without signing a legally binding contract of indenture? Children have the “right” to keep their standard of living?
All in all, if I had to live under that sort of thing, I would probably flee the country.
In Texas, if you share property, if you share money, if she performs sweat equity, you’re married under common law. All she has to do is go down to the courthouse and claim common law, even years later after she moves out. At that point, she is enititled to half of everything. It sucks to be sure, which is why I always tell guys to go the courthouse and file for a divorce after she moves out.
We don’t have alimony in Texas. Technically, we do but only in cases where the woman left the workforce to raise children or lie around the pool. Then, the ex-husband is required to pay alimony for a term of two years while the woman undergoes training to re-enter the workforce. There is no lifetime alimony in Texas.
The doctrine of presumptive paternity still applies though. If she is your wife, they are your children, you will pay child support, period, regardless of who the biological father is. The court does not allow evidence of any kind to question paternity in a marriage situation.
In the early 90s, there was a case in Dallas where this man found out, after a divorce, that three of the four children he was paying child support for were not his. In fact, his wife had four children with four different men. He sued, and was denied. He appealed, and was denied. He took his case all the way to the US Supreme Court, and was denied. So he’s stuck with paying child support for three children that he did not conceive. The biological fathers have no financial responsibility whatsoever.
That has to change for the marriage license to mean anything.
Recently, the court in Texas ruled that a biological father, after a paternity test, is entitled to visitation rights, but that doesn’t let the betrayed husband off the hook for child support.
This is why I have never married. Presumptive paternity is the deal killer. There is no way I am going to agree to a fully binding legal contract whereby I am required to pay child support for another man’s bastard. As long as I remain single, I am only required to pay child support for the children I conceive, but I am not about to agree to pay child support for every child she conceives. You always know who the mother is. You never know who the father is.
Besides, every girl I have ever dated or gone to bed with–and I’m going all the way back to junior high, over forty years here–already had a boyfriend. What is there to make me believe it’s going to be any different when she has a husband? The difference is that the husband is required to pay child support.
Growing up in the 70s, just about all of my friends’ parents got divorced. It was the beginning of the feminist movement, and these women thought they wanted to be liberated. So, to my mind, presumptive paternity aside, why get married if you’re just going to get divorced?
Divorce is expensive. It’s very expensive, and harmful to children. The marriage contract is exploitative of men, and the courts system is discriminatory against men. Thus, a marriage license is really a licencse for a woman to betray, abandon and bankrupt the man who stood up and accepted responsibility for her. Why any man would make that deal, when he could just take her to a hotel, is beyond my ability to comprehend.
The Common Law held the rebuttable presumption of paternity. Tried by Common Law courts with the right to a trial by jury. Modern law has removed that Common Law right.
Case on the books show one child generating two child support checks under the current law. One for the ex-husband and one check from the biological father. What type of behavior is the state encouraging?
“In Texas, if you share property, if you share money, if she performs sweat equity, you’re married under common law.”
———
Absolutely wrong, and a misstatement of the law (as is the rest of your post).
Common law marriage has to either be established with a declaration (registering at the court house – almost like marriage itself), or has to be established by a three-prong test: (1) an agreement to be married; (2) cohabitation in Texas; and (3) representation to others that the parties are married.
http://law.onecle.com/texas/family/2.401.00.html
You have to agree to be married, and you have to hold yourselves out as a married couple.
***********************
§ 2.401. PROOF OF INFORMAL MARRIAGE. (a) In a judicial,
administrative, or other proceeding, the marriage of a man and
woman may be proved by evidence that:
(1) a declaration of their marriage has been signed as
provided by this subchapter; or
(2) the man and woman agreed to be married and after
the agreement they lived together in this state as husband and wife
and there represented to others that they were married.
(b) If a proceeding in which a marriage is to be proved as
provided by Subsection (a)(2) is not commenced before the second
anniversary of the date on which the parties separated and ceased
living together, it is rebuttably presumed that the parties did not
enter into an agreement to be married.
(c) A person under 18 years of age may not:
(1) be a party to an informal marriage; or
(2) execute a declaration of informal marriage under
Section 2.402.
(d) A person may not be a party to an informal marriage or
execute a declaration of an informal marriage if the person is
presently married to a person who is not the other party to the
informal marriage or declaration of an informal marriage, as
applicable.
***********************
I’m really getting sick of all this downright false information – presented as if the proponents actually know something.
As a family law attorney, I’ll stick to the experience within my jurisdiction.
That said, I see a lot of divorcing parents that aren’t what I would consider ideal parents; but what I have also personally experienced is a stark reality that more often than not, the mother is at least trying to assert herself in the children’s lives, and not afraid to hire an attorney to do it.
This is not to say that the wife doesn’t try to be as amicable in that divorce as she can.
I will grant you that there are outliers, and I have had cases where the wife has pursued a scorched earth policy as to her husband.
I am not entirely sure why more men aren’t asserting their rights as to their kids. In some cases, I think it’s because the man has already found a new relationship/FWB and is busy pursuing that angle. In other cases, I think it’s the nature of their work; a guy who is a carpenter or an electrician (where I don’t see many women working, although there are more than there used to be) may need to be to work at 5:30 a.m. (or earlier), and that makes it difficult to parent school age children and have them for overnight visits, which in my jurisdiction, is what largely counts for the purposes of child support. And then there are dad’s that are simply not wanting to be assertive. And still, as to others, I think there is some kind of perverse machismo that tells a guy that the doesn’t need a lawyer in order to get divorced. In some cases, this is a correct statement, and in others, they are simply overwhelmed by the process, and yet, unwilling to ask for the legal help they need to protect themselves, their kids, and lessen the long term financial impact.
As a dad, a divorced man, and a the primary placement parent of a 5 1/2 year old, I can’t imagine not being in his life. I have to at least show him how to be assertive as a man (and not in the sense of aggressive or being a blowhard).
One reason why men aren’t more assertive in demanding their custodial rights is because their lawyers flat out tell them, “don’t bother, you’ll lose and it will cost you a lot of money to do so”. Often, judges are prone to automatically give the mother sole custody under the “temporary” orders. By the time the trial comes around, the judges don’t want to disrupt the children’s routine so that the temporary order becomes permenant. SHAME ON MOTHERS AND SHAME ON THESE JUDGES.Unless the fathers have an unlimited source of money, they are just beating a dead tree. Mothers often receive free legal aid and/or their attorneys agree to get their money at settlement. No free legal aid for dad and attorneys would never offer delayed payment for a case that more often than not is a loser. In my personal experience, if the mother demands sole custody, the father doesn’t stand a chance unless they have the money to fight it.
“This is not to say that the wife doesn’t try to be as amicable in that divorce as she can.”
—
Since all different types divorce, that sentence there just smacks of an agenda. You try to make that generalization plausible.
It sounds like you represent a lot of women, which means you’re fine with the overall structure of things (and all the fictions that go along with it).
In my law school, the people headed for family law work involved lots of social-worky types of women and the lower end of the spectrum in terms of grades.
I have no idea why you want to perpetuate that system or why you post a more or less “women good, men bad” type thing.
Do you know me? Please tell me what my agenda is or the fictions as to family law I engage in? Maybe too, in your law school, not a lot of students ended up in flyover country, where I practice.
I’m not here to pick a fight with you, although you took a tacit shot at me in your second last paragraph.
I’m just here to talk about what my experience has been and what I have personally observed.
I’d say my case load distribution is roughly 60% female client, 40% male client in the family law area. I’m a small firm practitioner in a semi-rural area, 10 years experience and there are not a lot of female attorneys in my county bar association.
My writing was inartful and I would rather restate it given the opportunity. As often as not, in my experience, the clients I represent tend to desire as fair an outcome as they can accomplish. To the extent I am able to generalize, I have seen cases of near 50/50 asset/debt split and placement schedules that maximize the amount of time a father may have with his kids. This, again, depends on the willingness of the father to exercise that time. I have also seen cases where the father is the primary placement parent, sometimes because of issues the mother has, other times because of work choices she has made before or during the divorce.
I actually prefer it when the other parent gets a lawyer. I don’t need to run up a huge fee, and the other attorney and myself can usually come up with a system that maximizes child placement with the parties, to the extent that they can come up with a workable plan for the needs of the kids.
You’re right, the second-to-last paragraph was an attempted poke at you, and not especially nice or even accurate.
There’s a lot of crap in family law, and I really do think it’s biased against men (have you ever, for example, seen a judge impute income to a non-custodial, sit-on-her-butt woman for child support purposes? – they sure do it with men), and I don’t know why people want to support that system. One “fiction” is that both make an exactly equal contribution to the marriage. If you are in “flyover” country, you are probably not in a community property state, so the fiction is not as strict. I can’t see giving a woman who watched TV all day half of what the man worked his butt off for during the marriage (or vice versa). Those are the kinds of fictions I was talking about.
As a man who was married for 25 years, I can only speak from experience and observation in the courtroom.
What the law states is meaningless. Consider judges, lawyers, and especially your own lawyer – for odds are he is the one you will be most disappointed in. What actually occurs in divorce court is frightening.
One more time: Considering marriage? Take a week of vacation. Spend it against the wall in the last row of any divorce court anywhere in the nation, and watch what happens. It will scare the britches off you, and blow your ever loving mind. Don’t marry. That is all I have to say.
The difference BTW a divorced father and an ATM, is the ATM stops giving out money once the account is empty… fathers are frequently tasked with providing more money than they make.
Divorce Q? aside, what parents frequently overlook is what their children will do when they are adults. Daughter has seen the wreckage her mom made, and continues with, so I think there is a potential there that she could be normal finding some balance. #1son on the other hand has also seen what happens…
And I have been forced to tell him to avoid marriage. The stakes are just too high. 10 years of marriage are costing me an entire rest of my lifetime of financial ruin, and at least I only had to pay 5 years alimony… so it could be WORSE…
Son looks at that and wonders why anyone would do it, and so I have tried to tell him about being REALLY sure you choose well, but what I say is hollow.
So it is likely that #1 son will opt out, all based on watching his old man get nuked from orbit.
The courts have gone from a harm/remedy model to tyranny. It use to require a criminal act for the state to involve itself in divorce or child custody. Now all that is required is one’s selfish person’s wishes. So instead of punishing unwanted behavior like adultery or abandonment or abuse we have the power of the state deciding what is best. Gone is Due Process, proportionality in the law, trial by jury, …, etc., all have been replaced with the biased opinions of unaccountable judges.
You have to put.something into an account to get.something out of an ATM.
For divorced dads to be like ATMs, you’d have to be able to close the account, never make a deposit, yet be able to still withdraw money from the ATM.
Unfortunately, many men are complicit in the structure, some right up to the day their divorce is final, and some even after it.
I’ve seen men working their butts off – the wife sits at home watching “The Talk” and The View and Dr. Phil without any kids – and the man crows about how his wife has the most important job. Her job is much harder than his.
And then he gets a divorce and the actual reality of HALF kicks in. Then he is really pissed that he has to give half of the assets he built up in the marriage to the wife.
Why? Why would he be pissed?
That is the guy who said that her job was much harder than his. If that is really the case, he should be pleased as punch that he ONLY has to give her 50% of the assets earned during the marriage, because her part was much harder. He should be thankful that he doesn’t have to give her 80%.
A lot of fictions get burst, and he finally starts seeing reality. But right up to that point, he is promoting that crap in the world. He is probably telling other men who see a glimpse of reality that they better shut their mouths, because the woman sitting on her ever-widening butt at home is the bigger contributor.
It almost gets funny.
Yeah, the Stockholm Syndrome is strong in the manginas of the world. I myself was warned to keep MY mouth shut because the opinions I was expressing about marriage, divorce, courts, lawyers, etc, were socially unacceptable and that people would hate me if they heard what I was saying. Of course I did NOT shut up but the guy was correct in that the world does hate me with a passion. The feeling is mutual.
I have even seen men absolutely screwed over in the divorce who still want to uphold these chivalrous, white-knight fictions. They can be destroyed by the system and on the verge of suicide, but they are not going to let go of their notions.
There really has to be an inherent, genetic component to these chivalrous actions in the face of such inequality. It’s that strong.
WTF – you’ve got a point. I am a woman, a wife and mother (married to same guy for 23 years) and I do believe that men get royally shafted by women, and by the courts, who unreasonably favor the mothers despite their often crap behavior, lying, manipulations and emotional blackmail. Women are too often driven by emotions (such messy and unstable things!), believing that their emotions (not logic, not others’ needs) are the most important thing ever, and the whole world should operate so as to make them feel good about themselves every second of every day. In a word: ick.
In my experience, men are far more romantic than women, weirdly willing to put blinders on for the next self-involved gold-digger and be play her knight in shining armor in exchange for feeling useful, heroic and benificent. Their goodness is too often used against them. What astonishes me even more is watching women who want to divorce demonize their perfectly nice (if unexciting) husbands — the same men they CHOSE to marry — not because the men deserved to be demonized, but to justify their own restlessness.
By the same token, I realize that many men behave badly. And kids aside, divorce is all about the redistribution of assets. Women use the courts to punish their husbands because they can. The system should assume both parents want and deserve equal input BUT remember: if the mother is the primary care-taker and the kids are in school, she shouldn’t be forced to work if supporting her while the kids are young (say, under 8) is at all financially feasible. Most mothers really are engaged and the kids really do deserve the attention of an at-home mom.
Does the system treat men as ATMs? Absolutely not. The general idea behind setting child support amounts is that a parent earning X dollars will spend Y% of them on the child. And if men were to be ATMs in fact or in reasonable argument then the system of child support would be set up precisely as with the progressive taxation that is already part of standard payroll withholding. No fuss, no muss. You work, you pay.
But that is not the system as it is, nor is the point anything to do with money at all. The point is no more and no less than to punish the non-custodial parent for being the non-custodial parent. As a substantial effect of the biases presented in the legal system this ends up being the same as punishing men, but it works just as well if the non-custodial parent happens to be the rare lady floating about.
As a first point of shared expenses it need only be noted that it is considered neglect or abuse if both the parent and child do not have their own exclusive bedrooms. If there is one child, one bedroom, and the parent sleeps on the couch then this qualifies as a violation. As such, whether custodial or non-custodial, each parent must individually and independently support the same number of bedrooms as they would if they were still cohabiting with one another. And then the non-custodial parent has to pony up to pay part of the cost accrued for the ‘extra’ bedroom that the custodial parent must maintain to avoid illegality. One may say ‘roll the dice’, but that only goes so far as any grudges maintained between the parties involved.
The second issue is that while the child support assessments are predicated on a progressive scale, as noted above, they are set by whim and whimsy of any relevant judge. Quite aside the issue mentioned of ‘intentionally earning substandard wages’ there is the issue of sudden job loss. If you had such a loss and need the support levels adjusted there becomes a large quandry. If you can afford the time off work, and the lawyer fees, then you obviously could have spent that money for support and so do not need a reduction. But if you do not, or do not get such a reduction, then you trivially fall into arrears.
And arrears are their own magic sauce. If one lacks the necessary savings or financially sound and generous social networks then arrears are instant death. And don’t think I’m whining here as things are much better than they used to be. In the past (in my jurisdiction) arrears were assessed at 65% of gross income. Now it’s only 65% of the after tax income on the check. So it’s improved from not being able to afford bus and laundry on a paycheck to affording both but nothing else. Then, as now, the recipient may choose to attach a 1% compounded interest per month on the balance of the arrears.
Once in such a hole there is nothing to be done save work illegally and underground in a cash-n-carry environment and/or be forced into homelessness and vagrancy. One cannot keep a job if one cannot afford to keep one’s clothes tidy.
There are other burdens that accrue as well. A first step is the loss of a driver’s license. While it seems a rather perverse disability, even if one can find a job with a patient and understanding employer, it is the case that one cannot work in any job that requires a license. If the arrears are not cured soon enough then this leads to the loss of a passport and the ability to travel — and flee. Which seems sensible on the face of it in some manner.
But even if one were to flee early, and could, to seek political asylum of some such in a friendly country such as Canada? Then if the arrears rack up any further then it becomes a felony crime, if the recipient asks for the charges to be levied. Such that any expat flight needs to find its home in a non-extradiction country. But then, if you’re in arrears to begin with you certainly cannot afford to skip town on United Airlines either.
Natutrally, if you’re hit with such a felony then the interest on the arrears accrues whilst in the birdcage. Such that when you are let out you find yourself even further across the felony line than you began. And now with a felony you’ll not even be able to find work with day labor agencies.
At this point you might think of giving up your legal rights to your child to get out from under such a burden. Or even giving them up in any custody or divorce proceeding to begin with. But even if you do, then you will still be placed under this same burden until, and sometimes even after, the child is adopted by some later individual that partners with the other parent.
The point of these issues is not that of treating non-custodial parents as cash-cards. It is of punishment and vengeance only. And this is my story. As I have fallen down every wrong branch in the system save the felony charge on the way. I have spent several years homeless as a consequence and, as of this time, have the benefit of a roof and the internet that I’m typing on only due good graces and personal charity. It’s a massive step up, but I have yet to find anything approaching steady work in this current economy. Without which I cannot whittle down the remaining arrears for my adult son.
As for the felony? Who knows. I may or may not be charged with it currently. But the last thing to do is show up and ask a desk sergeant about the matter. The best thing I can do is skulk in the shadows as if I were on the lam, whether I am or not, and attempt to get it under the felony limit before having any future engagement with a police officer. Even if I should be a victim of violent crime in the meantime.
But that’s the system as it sits (minus a note about confiscating bank accounts). It is about carrying out grudges alone. And I would be sorely thankful if things were improved to the point that I was merely an ATM on a standard payroll withholding such as the federal taxes taken out for every W2 worker.
A good post. Let me edit one thing. “The point is no more and no less than to punish the MAN for being a MAN.”
Because that is who gets to be the noncustodial parent the vast majority of the time. The state protects the father’s money in the child’s life, but not the father in the child’s life. So we have poverty, teen pregnancy, and too many young men in jail and prison. All these ills are most highly correlated with not having a father.
It is not about the money, but money is all the law is interested in in this case.
Trey
I am an attorney whose case load is mostly family law. In responding to the original article snippet, I will simply note that there are simple and obvious reasons child support is set up as it is:
1) The primary residential parent (man or woman) bears most of the expenses for the child. This is true even if other expenses–daycare, tuition, medical expenses, etc.– are split 50/50. That’s because the primary residential parent has to have a place for the child to sleep (increasing housing costs), provide food for the child most nights (food costs), bear increased utility costs for having an extra person living with him/her, usually provide clothes/hygiene products, etc.
Thus, child support goes from the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent to account for these costs. In other words, rent is an expense related to the child, because rent is higher when you get an extra bedroom (or 2, or 3, etc.) to provide rooms for the kids. Food is a child-related expense, extra utility costs are a child-related expense, etc.
2) All this stuff about favoring mothers is 98% nonsense. Family law, at least in my experience in Illinois, favors the residential parent. 9 out of 10 times, the residential parent ends up being the parent who keeps possession of the kids when the parties separate (because judges favor stability). And of those 9 times, I would say 6 of them the mom is the one who keeps the kids. There is no legal reason that this would be the case, because the law has not yet come into the matter yet: no case has been filed. Moms keeping possession when parties separate is almost entirely a cultural phenomenon, and it is far from a universal reality.
The 2% of the time when the law favors the mom is as follows: the police tend to favor mothers over fathers when they are called in domestic disputes (not the same thing as family law, but often plays into family law-type cases), and unmarried parties who have a child together tend to have moms who get possession because they leave the hospital with the child (putting dad at a disadvantage). That’s it.
3) Miscellaneous points based on responses to this thread so far:
A) Alimony (now generally called maintenance) is based on expectations during the marriage. If you are married to someone for a long time, you are at least tacitly planning your later life around your spouse’s continued income. This is especially the case when your spouse makes more than you, when you are disabled and can’t work, when you chose not to work so as to stay at home with the kids, and when you’ve been married a long time. When you then divorce, it would be unfair for the spouse who relied on their partner’s income to suddenly be left with nothing after building a life around an expectation of their spouse’s income.
B) I represent about a 50/50 mix of men and women. I have sought and received both maintenance and custody on behalf of both sexes, and been on the other side of those claims. There is exactly one time I can recall where explicit sex-based discussion took place on the part of the judge, and that was when the judge said it was unusual to give maintenance from a woman to a man, but the law was the law and he (the judge) did it.
C) mzk1 said: “Why can’t a man “do the right thing” without signing a legally binding contract of indenture? Children have the “right” to keep their standard of living?”
My response is: if a man (or woman) can be trusted to do the right thing without a legally binding contract, then their ex won’t file a court case. Someone always has to start the case. If their ex can’t trust them, then the court stands as a backstop.
And yes, I would say kids do have a right to keep their standard of living. Certainly more of a right than non-custodial parents have a “right” to decide what they think the right thing is, and then pay that much. Children are innocent of the problems that led their parents to split, they don’t deserve to live a poorer life just because of that split.
“2) All this stuff about favoring mothers is 98% nonsense.”
In the data I can find (numbers, not experience based) father’s are awarded primary custody in 10 to 15% of the cases.
That is a long, long way from 50/50 Drew. If there were no bias, we would expect 50/50, but instead we get 15/85. I think it is very difficult to accept these as equitable.
So I cannot agree that it is nonsense, perhaps slight hyperbole, but not nonsense. Nonsense would be saying that men are as likely to receive primary custody as women. The numbers are far more critical of that statement than the 98% figure you decried.
Trey
He is just going to repeat that “culture” already divvies that up long before he gets there, TMink, so he can just throw up his hands and continue White-Knighting for the mothers. In many divorces, the kids are already in school most of the day, so mom doesn’t see them either while she’s watching The View.
As far as alimony goes, Drew writes: “When you then divorce, it would be unfair for the spouse who relied on their partner’s income to suddenly be left with nothing after building a life around an expectation of their spouse’s income.”
Yeah, well, and dad was relying on the fact that mom would be around. Stuff happens in life. If she doesn’t want him, maybe she shouldn’t continue to want his wallet.
This just comes down to your view of women. If you think that they should be up on a pedestal and not be given the same responsibilities as men, then that’s how you approach this stuff. I had an aunt back when they took alimony a lot more seriously who truly lived off alimony – never worked – for around 35 years after the divorce, right up until his death. She never made any attempt to get any training or an entry level job, she never had to. If you can justify that – or alimony at all, other than bridge alimony – then you live in a completely different world than I do.
Your notion that the residential parent bears “most” of the expenses is part of the problem. BOTH parents are the residential parent, not just one. That’s the way it is in divorce. One household becomes two. These kids aren’t that fragile. Give me a break. My kids can pack a bag numerous nights a week to stay with their friends or grandparents, but it would be traumatic to pack a bag to live with dad half the week?
BOTH parents have increased food, maintenance and entertainment expenses because of the kids, not just the mothers. BOTH parents need to provide bedrooms for their kids. And the kids need to see BOTH parents paying these expenses, not just mom. So if the fancy house gets in favor of two smaller living spaces, so be it. Having BOTH children in their lives on a regular basis trumps material things. Equalize the salaries, require both parents to work with school aged children.
I’m a working mother and My ex and I provide EQUAL homes for our children and we split extra expenses, according to our salaries % to total. It works just fine. Stop giving excuses to these users
Dear Sir:
Can’t you see that even your less bad description of the legal situation does not encourage anyone to sign up for marriage? I would stipulate to your rosy scenario and still insist that only an idiot would take that sort of risk.
The reality is that all men should insist upon a prenuptual agreement befor they marry. Otherwise, you are left to the whim of the courts and judges in the state you reside in at the time of your divorce.
Although prenuptial agreements are useful if all the i’s are dotted and t’s crossed (she has to have an attorney herself, it can’t involve third parties like children, it should be kept updated (as Jack Welsh will assert), it should observe legal formalities (as Steven Spielberg will especially confirm), no unfair or exploitive terms etc.), remember this:
The law-makers can change family law any time they damn well please. And they have. Many men married in the 1960s under the idea that if they kept their nose clean, they wouldn’t get an unfair divorce. And then along came no-fault divorce in the 1970s – men married under one set of expectations and were now living a marriage under a completely different set. Now Pumpkin can just be bored and jettison him, and get lots of lovely parting gifts.
The trend seems to be going more and more towards favoring women (or marriage partners mostly in the position of women, like the lower wage earner). The legislature of your state could simply declare that prenuptial agreements in general oppress women, especially housewives. And that is that.
Prenups aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on, especially when kids are involved.
Me, I’ve been ghosting for 25+ years, and will probably continue to ghost for the rest of my life.
Instead of a pre-nup just shoot yourself in the head with the highest caliber shooting iron available to you. At least your exploded head can’t be turned into an ATM.
LOL
Child support in many (most?) states is calculated using absurd formulas which reward the lazy, low earning parent way out-of-proportion of actual costs. The calculators assume than any increase in the higher earning parent would result in spending more on the child[ren]. This is simply crazy.
In my case, I know exactly how much each child cost when I was married. I have one, absurdly low-main maintenance child for whom my ex received almost twice what she actually costs. Even my ex, who is not particularly good with money, thinks the setup is nuts. We would both rather I pay her the actual costs of housing and food and we split the rest.
So people understand how nuts this all is; if I take my youngest clothing shopping, I give the receipts to my ex who then writes a check to reimburse me from the check I just wrote her for support!
To add insult to injury, I’m now unemployed. My alimony was reduced (I had the forethought to include a provision for that) however, I have to file a petition with the state to get child support reduced. Yet, were my ex and I still married, the kids would simply have to do with less. In other words, the state has now inserted itself in the raising of my family for no cause.
(Incidentally, my ex treated me like an ATM machine when we were married. My mind still boggles at the amount of money she spent with little to show for it.)
The vast majority of divorces in my state (NJ) are settled by the parties via mediation, not by the judge’s ruling. The child support guidelines are just that: guidelines, not hard-and-fast rules. With a good judge, if you can get the other party to agree to terms, the judge will allow them.
Not all states presume one parent would be the better custodian on the basis of gender. I got custody of my two oldest in my divorce, after the judge told my ex flat out that he wouldn’t automatically give her custody. Since we had 4 children, child support is not really an issue.
That said, there are fundamental inequities in divorce law, starting with the fact that the law allows one partner to unilaterally dissolve the partnership at the expense of the other.
Now we need the study that assesses whether men are treated as ATMs _before_ the divorce.
Best comment on the entire thread!
I think we all know the answer already though.
“Anything that can’t go on forever wont.” As the pundit says. I’ve notice that the birth rate seems to be declining more in the states with the harshest financial treatment of fathers. Not the sole factor in the reduction in the number of children but a factor. I’m wondering about the kids who are saying’” Where’s daddy?, Why don’t I have a sister or brother?” and etc.
The family court system is coming under increasing criticism not only on the matter of divorce but also the handling of juvenile criminals. The “family court system seems to be in the business of destroying families. This whole war against the family seems to me to go against the reality of historical lessons.
US military retirement:
The Uniformed Services Former Spouses’ Protection Act (USFSPA), 10 U.S.C. 1408, accomplishes two things:
1.It recognizes the right of state courts to distribute military retired pay to a spouse or former spouse (hereafter, the former spouse), and
2.It provides a method of enforcing these orders through the Department of Defense.
Basically it outlines the official ’10/10′ policy. If you are married for 10 years on active duty your former spouse is entitled to a piece of retirement (for the life of the service member) regardless of situation surrounding the separation. This is separate from child support and alimony considerations.
The biggest issue I take with this law is that a military ‘retirement’ is not just a pension. It is a retainer.
The former spouse no longer has to endure the ‘hardships’ of military dependent lifestyle (frequent moves, deployments ect) but will collect for life. On the other hand the service member EVEN AFTER RETIREMENT is still considered a life long member of the armed service subject to UCMJ AND CAN BE RECALLED TO ACTIVE DUTY. A retiree is permanently added to the IRR (inactive ready reserve) and don’t think they don’t get called up. During the last 11 years of the war on terror I have personally seen IRR retirees returned to active service, and seen retirement packets denied and time in service extended for the needs of the service.
It’s no mystery why family courts treat men like ATMs, but I’m rather puzzled as to why men accept such treatment. If a man is forced to live in his car, gets fired for looking like a hobo, and is jailed for non-payment, why should he make any effort at all? Only free men have responsibilities.
In fact, many men would tell the system to go fsck itself. These guys get more sex and father more children than wimpy, slavish nice-guy ATMs, and if their relationship (rarely a formal marriage) doesn’t work out, the woman skips family court and goes straight to the welfare office.
“The state of Massachusetts has taken away that parenting right from fathers by giving mothers complete financial control.”
How else would the state be able to allow divorced mothers to milk the fathers for every last dime they can squeeze out?
The statists have a goal, and that is the complete destruction of the traditional family unit.
This is one of the reasons fathers should wholeheartedly support gay marriage, becuase of the eventual gay divorces. When courts begin to fashion tests and guidelines for custody and child related involvement that are gender neutral, men (fathers) will benefit tremendously. The mother wins by default in many jurisdictions, and even in the most progressive, the notion of “mother” is weighted more significantly than gender neutral tests and standards.
I think what will actually happen is that one party will be assigned the man’s role and one party the woman’s role. For instance, if Ellen Degeneres and Portia De Rossi divorce, Ellen will be the man and Portia will be the woman. Any divorce involving Rosey O’Donnell will have her in the role of the man.
Why do I think that? There was a “divorce” between lesbians that was more of a contract case a few decades ago. The tennis star Martina Navartilova was sued by a live-in golddigger (who had previously fleeced the male physician she was married to) named Judy Nelson. Martina was definitely the guy and Judy was the passive sit-at-home. Martina had to give her lots of stuff, even though they were both women.
Martina Navratilova, not what I wrote above. Spelling is hard!
UPDATE! LOL
I see in the Internet that Martina had to give her a reported $3.5 million (quite a bit more today adjusted for inflation). So a lot richer than … YOU.
I see these big awards (Patricia Kluge got nearly 1 billion dollars – and has recently declared bankruptcy), and think: Are these bitches really worth 10,000 emergency room physicians and cancer researchers and all the rest?
No. They aren’t. And the question can arise as to why there are any conceivable laws under which these idiots can clean up. And maybe the family law attorneys involved are as scummy as Johnny Cochran in the OJ Simpson case. That’s reality.
Sorry, double post. Please delete one if that is possible!
UPDATE! LOL
I see in the Internet that Martina had to give her a reported $3.5 million (quite a bit more today adjusted for inflation). So a lot richer than … YOU.
…
I see these big awards (Patricia Kluge got nearly 1 billion dollars – and has recently declared bankruptcy), and think: Are these bitches really worth 10,000 emergency room physicians and cancer researchers and all the rest?
No. They aren’t. And the question can arise as to why there are any conceivable laws under which these idiots can clean up. And maybe the family law attorneys involved are as scummy as Johnny Cochran in the OJ Simpson case. That’s reality.