Debtor's prison for dads

[Guest American Woman]

My take on this:

1. It is likely in part a deterent against divorce or throw away sex partners. Those you knock up and abandon. (This is why people who don't want children should be careful about who they sleep with, because it is not only sexual gratification but also an economic responsibility if you get someone pregnant.

2. As for the amounts: Taxes are based on earnings so why not child support? Of course it should be considered a "net loss" since you don't control the resources and are like a payment - thus should be deducted from gross income. Also it should be counted as "income" for the person with custody.

Other than this that is it. You don't want to pay don't knock the person up. Raising a family shouldn't be seen as a passtime, it is serious business.

If you can't live with the person don't inseminate them.

I agree, but it applies to the person who gets pregnant, too. It's most definitely an economic responsibility for the woman, too.

[Scotty]

Sorry, but you're going to have to provide proof of that or it will just remain your obviously biased take on it. I have a difficult time believing that the courts in Canada wouldn't enforce visitation rights when a non-custodial parent pursues it.

How would you suggest they enforce such orders when the mother agrees, then simply dodges things? The child is not available, or is staying elsewhere, or the mother "forgot" or whatever. The only remedy the courts have, given that they will not touch child support because that's "for the child" is to put the mother in jail. The courts are extremely loathe to do so, leaving them with, in effect, nagging, as their only "enforcement".

[Scotty]

I agree, but it applies to the person who gets pregnant, too. It's most definitely an economic responsibility for the woman, too.

The difference is it's her choice all along the way. The mother can choose to abort (the father has no say). She can choose to simply give the child away (the father cannot similarly disavow his responsibility).

[pinko]

They paint a picture of frustration and anger. They tell tails of outrageous conduct by their exes and lack of interest in any rights they, the non-custodial parent, has with regard to their children, along with inflexible insistence on support payments, regardless of economic ability.

Your anger is showing through, sir. The process available provides redress whether you acknowledge that or not. Certainly there are ways to frustrate the process but that does not mean what you present is valid.

[pinko]

How would you suggest they enforce such orders when the mother agrees, then simply dodges things? The child is not available, or is staying elsewhere, or the mother "forgot" or whatever. The only remedy the courts have, given that they will not touch child support because that's "for the child" is to put the mother in jail. The courts are extremely loathe to do so, leaving them with, in effect, nagging, as their only "enforcement".

You are mistaken if you think that is the only remedy available.

[Guest American Woman]

The difference is it's her choice all along the way. The mother can choose to abort (the father has no say). She can choose to simply give the child away (the father cannot similarly disavow his responsibility).

She can't choose to give the child away without the father's consent any more than the father can give the child away without her consent. Both parents must relinquish parental rights.

Edited January 23, 2011 by American Woman

[Topaz]

This person must have been really down and losing one job can do that to a person and being a man and a father he could have felt he was letting his kids down, besides the present family he had. Mental health issues must be have more support and where this person could have gone to seek help, if just to talk and hear other views. The saddest thing about this is his kids are without their father and the mother will not have the financial help she was getting and she will find they won't die without the help, life will go on for them.

[dre]

The OP exxagerates in my opinion but does hit on a valid point in terms of it being too hard to get the size of payments changed when the payers income changes. If some or all of your income dries up, then you should be able to get payments adjusted very easily and quickly. It makes no sense at all to drive the paying parent (which isnt always the dads btw) into bankruptcy... everybody loses.

[Guest American Woman]

How would you suggest they enforce such orders when the mother agrees, then simply dodges things? The child is not available, or is staying elsewhere, or the mother "forgot" or whatever. The only remedy the courts have, given that they will not touch child support because that's "for the child" is to put the mother in jail. The courts are extremely loathe to do so, leaving them with, in effect, nagging, as their only "enforcement".

Another option is to go for joint custody if the custodial parent doesn't abide by visitation, or even fighting for custody. If the custodial parent doesn't abide by the court order, it will not bear well in court.

Edited January 23, 2011 by American Woman

[Scotty]

You are mistaken if you think that is the only remedy available.

Perhaps you could suggest others?

[Bonam]

While the events described in the article are tragic this man had an obligation to contribute to the upbringing of his children.

An obligation to contribute monetarily, but no right to contribute anything of himself? No right to interact with and help raise the child? The one is meaningless without the other. The joy of having a child, the reward of it, is in raising them and seeing them grow up, in passing on to the next generation some element of yourself, not only of your genes, but of your personality, your character, which you do by raising a child. If one parent prevails upon a court to sunder the other parent from the lives of their children, then the "non-custodial" parent should be absolved of all obligations, since they no longer get to partake in any of the rewards.

In cases of shared custody, monetary arrangements should be worked out, but in cases where a court abrogates all of one parent's rights in regards to their children, it is not just for them to insist that the responsibilities remain. Rights and responsibilities go together. A person stripped of rights but saddled with responsibilities is a slave.

[jbg]

Fortunately, the courts don't allow for that; the courts will enforce child visitation rights if need be. If there is a court order that the custodial parent is not adhering to, the courts will intervene.

Except that I know of many quite involved fathers who arrive for their appointed visitation and the mother simply refuses to make the child available. The problem with judicial remedies is that the time for the visit has long passed, and all that the Court can do is issue another order which is then roundly defied. Or else an excuse is given that the child is sick, has a religious obligation, etc.

I know of two children whose mother was not religious. She lived in Ohio, the father in Virginia. The mother put the children in Sunday school, in order to disrupt the father's visits. The father outsmarted her and got a job as a substitute teacher in that Sunday school. And this is far from the worst case.

[Molly]

An obligation to contribute monetarily, but no right to contribute anything of himself? No right to interact with and help raise the child?

I find your post troubling because it sounds like a claim of property rights... "I paid for that child. It's mine!"... the only issue being the duration of rental.

(Off-topic and with tongue in cheek, I look at your pronouncements about rights vs. responsibilities, ruefully wondering which is which. My own anecdotes include women telling of exs who flatly refused any childcare role while they were married, insisting that they contributed money so the rest was her problem. Suddenly upon divorce, that money was supposed to be buying rights to the presence of those children instead of the right to avoid them like a bad smell. It buys neither, nor should it.)

[pinko]

Except that I know of many quite involved fathers who arrive for their appointed visitation and the mother simply refuses to make the child available. The problem with judicial remedies is that the time for the visit has long passed, and all that the Court can do is issue another order which is then roundly defied. Or else an excuse is given that the child is sick, has a religious obligation, etc.

I know of two children whose mother was not religious. She lived in Ohio, the father in Virginia. The mother put the children in Sunday school, in order to disrupt the father's visits. The father outsmarted her and got a job as a substitute teacher in that Sunday school. And this is far from the worst case.

jbg:

The games people play aren't confined to females when matters of custody are involved. As you must know from your experiences as a lawyer the main problem in many of these cases is one of communication. If the adults involved in these disputes would only focus on what is in the best interests of the child the situation you describe above would happen with less frequency. That adults will spend thousands of dollars on lawyers rather than attempt to find mutually suitable solutions which recognize the needs of all concerned is a sad commentary on human nature.

I think Molly has, in her tongue in cheek retort, summed things up quite well.

Edited January 24, 2011 by pinko

[Guest American Woman]

An obligation to contribute monetarily, but no right to contribute anything of himself? No right to interact with and help raise the child? The one is meaningless without the other. The joy of having a child, the reward of it, is in raising them and seeing them grow up, in passing on to the next generation some element of yourself, not only of your genes, but of your personality, your character, which you do by raising a child. If one parent prevails upon a court to sunder the other parent from the lives of their children, then the "non-custodial" parent should be absolved of all obligations, since they no longer get to partake in any of the rewards.

Children aren't put on this earth to fill our needs. We're the adults who bring them into the world, therefore they are our responsibility. It's not up to the child to provide "rewards" for their parents, earning the parents' support by doing so. It's the parents' responsibility to raise the child, provide for the child, and that goes for both the custodial and non-custodial parent. The idea that the child isn't providing you with rewards so you're not going to provide them with support is difficult to understand. Furthermore, as I pointed out, the child is an adult a lot longer than they are a child of support age, and if a parent takes that attitude, I doubt if there would ever be any possibility of a decent relationship, ever.

In cases of shared custody, monetary arrangements should be worked out, but in cases where a court abrogates all of one parent's rights in regards to their children, it is not just for them to insist that the responsibilities remain. Rights and responsibilities go together. A person stripped of rights but saddled with responsibilities is a slave.

Who's ever stripped of rights? I've never heard of a court that didn't order visitations. Even in the case of an 'unfit' parent, supervised visitations are arranged for.

Edited January 24, 2011 by American Woman

[Guest American Woman]

Except that I know of many quite involved fathers who arrive for their appointed visitation and the mother simply refuses to make the child available.

By the same token, I know of many fathers who don't show up for their court appointed visitation -- they had to work late or something came up. Other fathers take their child only to leave them with a sitter or grandma while they go out with the boys. We could play the tit-for-tat game all night and never run out of examples. Both mothers and fathers sometimes don't do the right thing.

But I've been very careful to refer to "custodial" and "non-custodial" parents, because it's not always the mother who has custody. Seems some want to make this about 'the poor man' and 'the awful women who do them wrong.' That's not the way it works. As I said, we easily could exchange story-for-story, but it would prove nothing.

The problem with judicial remedies is that the time for the visit has long passed, and all that the Court can do is issue another order which is then roundly defied. Or else an excuse is given that the child is sick, has a religious obligation, etc.

A non-custodial parent can care for a sick child as well as the custodial parent can. Any non-custodial parent who runs into the other parent denying them court ordered visitations should keep a detailed record of it and take it to court to fight for joint custody or even main custody. If the custodial parent constantly denies visitation, it will not bear well in court.

I know of two children whose mother was not religious. She lived in Ohio, the father in Virginia. The mother put the children in Sunday school, in order to disrupt the father's visits. The father outsmarted her and got a job as a substitute teacher in that Sunday school. And this is far from the worst case.

And again, I could match that story with one of my own, and it wouldn't be the worst case, either. But I won't waste my time, because what's the point? It proves nothing, other than both mothers and fathers sometimes do the wrong thing.

Edited January 24, 2011 by American Woman

[Saipan]

I find your post troubling because it sounds like a claim of property rights... "I paid for that child. It's mine!"...

Your words.

[Bonam]

I find your post troubling because it sounds like a claim of property rights... "I paid for that child. It's mine!"... the only issue being the duration of rental.

Then you misunderstood. It is obviously not about ownership, no human being should be thought of as the property of another, but about a right to contribute to raising that child.

(Off-topic and with tongue in cheek, I look at your pronouncements about rights vs. responsibilities, ruefully wondering which is which. My own anecdotes include women telling of exs who flatly refused any childcare role while they were married, insisting that they contributed money so the rest was her problem. Suddenly upon divorce, that money was supposed to be buying rights to the presence of those children instead of the right to avoid them like a bad smell. It buys neither, nor should it.)

I don't know the nature of your anecdotes. I just know that if I had a child, I would want to contribute to his or her upbringing. That doesn't mean writing a check and forgetting about it, but means being there with the child a reasonably significant portion of the time. A parent's right to raise their children comes not from money, but from the fact that they are the child's parent, and such a right should not be stripped of any parent by a court unless there is serious reason to believe that the parent poses a real danger to the child. By the way, when I am talking about raising a child, I don't mean "visitation", where you get a few hours every couple of weeks, at the convenience of the other parent.

[Bonam]

Children aren't put on this earth to fill our needs. We're the adults who bring them into the world, therefore they are our responsibility. It's not up to the child to provide "rewards" for their parents, earning the parents' support by doing so.

You are deliberately misstating what I said. "It is not up to the child to provide reward", obviously I agree. Raising a child is its own reward. That is why people have children. If you take away the opportunity to raise a child, the right to involvement in the child's life, the child is no longer your child in any of the most meaningful senses. Yeah, they have your genes, but so do the children of a sperm donor or surrogate. Does a sperm donor or surrogate have to provide money for the children they contributed genetic material to? No.

Who's ever stripped of rights? I've never heard of a court that didn't order visitations. Even in the case of an 'unfit' parent, supervised visitations are arranged for.

Visitations does not equal having the opportunity to raise a child.

[Bonam]

By the same token, I know of many fathers who don't show up for their court appointed visitation -- they had to work late or something came up. Other fathers take their child only to leave them with a sitter or grandma while they go out with the boys. We could play the tit-for-tat game all night and never run out of examples. Both mothers and fathers sometimes don't do the right thing.

All the "tit-for-tat" crap that you mention is petty and irrelevant. What matters is that a parent should have a right to significant involvement in their child's lives (visitation is not anywhere close to sufficient). If a parent doesn't care to participate and leaves the whole responsibility to the other parent, then obviously they are at fault. But a parent who wants to be involved and yet is prevented from doing so by a court is having some of their most precious rights viciously trampled on.

But I've been very careful to refer to "custodial" and "non-custodial" parents, because it's not always the mother who has custody. Seems some want to make this about 'the poor man' and 'the awful women who do them wrong.' That's not the way it works. As I said, we easily could exchange story-for-story, but it would prove nothing.

I have also been very specific to use gender neutral terminology, because my above argument applies equally to a parent of either gender.

A non-custodial parent can care for a sick child as well as the custodial parent can. Any non-custodial parent who runs into the other parent denying them court ordered visitations should keep a detailed record of it and take it to court to fight for joint custody or even main custody. If the custodial parent constantly denies visitation, it will not bear well in court.

You talk again and again of visitations as if they are a real solution to anything. They are not. An occasional visit where you get to chat for a bit with the child does not allow you to have the role that a real parent would have in a child's life.

And again, I could match that story with one of my own, and it wouldn't be the worst case, either. But I won't waste my time, because what's the point? It proves nothing, other than both mothers and fathers sometimes do the wrong thing.

And the rights of both need to be protected unless that wrong is a criminal wrong. Not to mention that the child themselves would almost always benefit from having significant involvement in their lives from two (non-criminal) parents.

Edited January 24, 2011 by Bonam

[Guest American Woman]

All the "tit-for-tat" crap that you mention is petty and irrelevant.

No, it's not irrelevant. What makes the other side of the story less relevant than your/others' observations/experiences? It's not.

What matters is that a parent should have a right to significant involvement in their child's lives (visitation is not anywhere close to sufficient).

Then the non-custodial parent should go to court to petition for joint custody or several weeks during the summer, during the holidays, etc. Too often parents complain as they do nothing to actively try to change the legalities of the situation.

If a parent doesn't care to participate and leaves the whole responsibility to the other parent, then obviously they are at fault. But a parent who wants to be involved and yet is prevented from doing so by a court is having some of their most precious rights viciously trampled on.

"Prevented by the court" how? In what way does the court prevent that?

I have also been very specific to use gender neutral terminology, because my above argument applies equally to a parent of either gender.

That's good, because it does apply to either gender, but all the examples given in this thread seemed to be in reference to men being denied/done wrong by women. Even the OP was very biased in that direction. You yourself, evidently inadvertently in light of your clarification now, made it sound to me as if you too were speaking solely of fathers, as you referred to "....no right to contribute anything of himself," so I appreciate your clarification.

You talk again and again of visitations as if they are a real solution to anything. They are not. An occasional visit where you get to chat for a bit with the child does not allow you to have the role that a real parent would have in a child's life.

I'm not speaking of occasional visits. At the very least, visitation involves some weekdays and every other weekend. In other words, regular visits, not occasional. Most times it includes some holiday time, too. I don't know of any instances where it hasn't. If all the non-custodial parent does with that time is to "chat a bit," I'd say they are not using the time to their advantage. Also, a non-custodial parent can volunteer at school and after school activities, chaperon events that the child is involved with, meet with the teacher to stay on top of how the child is doing in school, attend parent-teacher conferences, make phone calls, email, text, send cards, find ways to stay in touch.

And the rights of both need to be protected unless that wrong is a criminal wrong. Not to mention that the child themselves would almost always benefit from having significant involvement in their lives from two (non-criminal) parents.

Absolutely. I couldn't agree with you more.

Edited January 25, 2011 by American Woman

[TimG]

Then the non-custodial parent should go to court to petition for joint custody or several weeks during the summer, during the holidays, etc. Too often parents complain as they do nothing to actively try to change the legalities of the situation.

First - going to court costs money. Second, even if the court orders visitation there is no effective mechanism for enforcing it (only the option of jailing the custodial parent which can obviously only be used in the most egregious cases). As a result, many custodial parents do refuse to provide court ordered access with impunity.

If the government is going to cover the cost of an agency that collects deliquent support payments they should at least cover the cost of going after custodial parents that deny access.

Frankly, I think you are minimizing the problems with the system when it comes to access. It is really nothing but a system that depends on both parties acting in good faith for the good of the kids but the reality is many are out the screw their ex-es and the kids are a weapon.

Edited January 25, 2011 by TimG

[Guest American Woman]

You are deliberately misstating what I said. "It is not up to the child to provide reward", obviously I agree. Raising a child is its own reward. That is why people have children. If you take away the opportunity to raise a child, the right to involvement in the child's life, the child is no longer your child in any of the most meaningful senses. Yeah, they have your genes, but so do the children of a sperm donor or surrogate. Does a sperm donor or surrogate have to provide money for the children they contributed genetic material to? No.

A sperm donor or surrogate is providing a service; it's a business transaction. They don't even conceive the children together. They are not "parents," only service providers.

Visitations does not equal having the opportunity to raise a child.

Visitations equal the opportunity to be involved in the child's life. They equal the opportunity to spend time with the child. They offer the opportunity to be an influence in the child's life. And all are opportunities that sperm donors/surrogates don't have any legal right to.

[TimG]

A sperm donor or surrogate is providing a service; it's a business transaction. They don't even conceive the children together. They are not "parents," only service providers.

In England they are on the hook for support payments:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7125895.stm

A man who donated sperm to a lesbian couple is being made to pay maintenance by the Child Support Agency (CSA).

Andy Bathie, 37, from Enfield, north London, claims he was assured by the couple he would have no personal or financial involvement for the children.

The story above is a perfect example of the tyranny imposed by the 'best interests of the child' meme. We will never have justice in family law until the 'best interests of the child' are balanced against what is fair for the parents given the context of the relationship.

I realize that the people pushing the 'best interests of the child' meme are doing it with the best intentions. But remember that best intentions pave the road to hell.

Edited January 25, 2011 by TimG

[Guest American Woman]

First - going to court costs money. Second, even if the court orders visitation there is no effective mechanism for enforcing it (only the option of jailing the custodial parent which can obviously only be used in the most egregious cases). As a result, many custodial parents do refuse to provide court ordered access with impunity.

Missing court ordered visitations can also result in the loss of primary custody. And yes, going to court does cost money, but so do a lot of other things involved in raising children. So do a lot of other things that people choose to do in life.

If the government is going to cover the cost of an agency that collects deliquent support payments they should at least cover the cost of going after custodial parents that deny access.

I couldn't agree with you more. What I take issue with is that this is a gender issue; that it doesn't work both ways -- and that both mothers and fathers can be, and are, at fault/guilty.

Frankly, I think you are minimizing the problems with the system when it comes to access. It is really nothing but a system that depends on both parties acting in good faith for the good of the kids but the reality is many are out the screw their ex-es.

I agree that too many people are out to screw their exes, both men and women, but there are a lot of disgruntled people who do nothing but complain, too.