fathers and custody?

[Tweety14]

And see... this right here is the thing that baffles me the most.

I'm not an economics major, but I do know how to do math.

DFS, when awarding TANF (a welfare check) to a CP says you can get.. $250 a month cash for one child. (not an exact amount, just a nice round number I'm using as an example). This amount is what the state says it costs to raise a child per month, this is what the state "pays" you a month for one child.

So, tell me... if the state says it only costs $250 a month to raise a child and cover basic needs (food, clothing, housing)... why is it that we see the same state order CS awards for one child of $700 a month? $800 a month? $1500 a month? Remember... they've already made a stand that it only takes $250 a month to provide for 1 child when THEY are paying the CP. When it's another private individual though that needs to pay, that amount doubles, triples, quadruples, etc.

I don't buy the "maintaining the same standard of living before the divorce" argument either. How can that be applied to parents that were never married or lived together? There is no combined standard of living to maintain in those cases as they were never married nor lived together. Another reason I don't buy it, is that now... one person (the formerly married to the CP, NCP) has to maintain the same standard of living in 2 separate households on the same salary they were mantaining one on? It's not gonna happen unless you're highly paid. They have to maintain the standard of living for the children at the CP's house because they have physical custody of the children, and they have to try to keep it up at their home as well for when they have the children for visitation/parenting time. If they don't, the CP is then here asking how they can prove the NCP unfit because they don't have a "good" place to stay, they had to move into a one-bedroom apartment, they don't have beds for the kids and they're sleeping on the floor or in the bed with the CP... We've all seen it.

Do you see? It's a never-ending cycle. NCP's in the majority of cases (and I'm talking those NCP's that live at poverty level up to middle-income level) can't win for losing. Average, everyday people working at an average, everyday job making an average everyday wage, and having to support 2 households on one income. Most married people have to have both spouses working to make it today, yet an NCP is automatically expected to become a supermom or superdad and pay for not only 1 household but 2, since their children don't live with them full time. I'm also not talking about NCP's that have remarried, have stepchildren or additional biological children to support... I'm talking about a simple NCP who lives alone, only has the children of the CS order to support, and their own household expenses. Just because they divorced or whatever doesn't mean they don't need a place to live, food to eat, and clothes to wear just as much as their kids do. This applies even moreso to states that don't even take the CP's income into consideration and only bases CS of a flat percentage of the NCP's gross or net income.

Damn, that was a tangent... But my point was, why does the state say it takes $250 a month for a CP to raise a child when it's them paying TANF to the CP, yet say it costs double, triple, quadruple that when it's a parent that has to pay the CP?

Great post...... The CS system is really messed up.

 

[ashley361]

A Few Real Cases an Ruling in our State.

TX

BB is correct in all areas. I have JC but have been had PC of my daughter since 2 yo. An BM did sign her over. She wanted to sign over FC but her atty suggested she not do that because the judge would have to question her. She was doing some really bad things and did not want them known. She and the guy she was having affair with took off with her other son from a previous affair very seldom looks back. The damage they caused so many families involved. My wife now is 110% more of a mother than her BM. I am not saying all BM are bad most of them are incredible. My wonderful wife now was divorced when she was 21, with 2 babies (3yo & 1 yo). She had a high school education but had been married since she was 17. She had to take pt jobs i.e waitress, bartender, temp services. Dad was only paying $300 a month, even though his income was over $70,000 a year. She managed and went to nursing school with the help of family with bills. When dads support was going to be raised and his mom wanted her oldest daughter 1st grandchild. She did not have a chance in hell. Although, she had always provided the upmost for the children medical, clothing, food, and many extra. She did not have the money to fight her ex mil, she is close to a the riches person in that small town, with many connections. Father got custody but it was short lived. The children were close to teens, they now live back with us and I will not say hate(because we do not use that word) but strongly dislike their father and want very little contact. He does not pay support and we survive. But on to orgingal question. My daughter BM is now asking for custody back because she want her little $200 CS reduced. There is alot more to taking care of children and their needs besides the basics. Why should they do without "extra's" when NCP and other siblings are livign high on the hog. I have alway carried medical, dental, and eye coverage on my daughter, and 2 step daughters. I pay for all projects, activities, church, school. She does not offer and I do not ask. But her is a link at actuall cases.*Please note case on Feb 20th* And the answer is yes in your statement about being NCP paying less than raising child. At least in my case. NCP gets off almost scott free from major $$$ issues. She even brought daughter home 1 day ealier for Christmas CO visit last year because she only bought santa for son. She stated that we probably already had her santa stuff. This is a women who income was over $110k last year. Her and her family have hardly no bills (i.e house payment, car, water, electric, gas, medical insur,home owners insur). The only things she is responsible for is their car insurance, phone (cell and home), gas for vechicles. She only pays CS of $200 to her daughter.
http://www.vernerbrumley.com/Newswire Archives/Newswire February 2004.htm

February 2004 Newswire Archive

Verner & Brumley, P.C.

3131 TurtleCreek Blvd.
Penthouse Suite
Dallas, Texas 75219 214.526.5234
1.877.238.6499
214.526.0957.fax www.vernerbrumley.com
[email protected]



February 20: In detailed opinion, Austin affirmed trial court's allocation of above-guideline child support which included raising obligor's share to $4,000 monthly for three kids. Mom totaled expenses for year, then divided by 12. Expenses included: rent, food, meals away from home, clothes, shoes, ADHD medication, counseling, school lunches, car for son, class ring, tutoring, physical therapy for growth plate injury, orthopedic treatment for ankle injury, orthodontic and dental care, glasses, allergy prescription medicine, scientific calculator, flute lessons, choir expenses, after-school care, high school dances, sports equipment, Girl Scout activities, birthday parties, Christmas gifts, school and sports photographs, books, magazines, pet expenses, church activities and retreats. Austin recited usual over-guideline rules: Needs of child not limited to "bare necessities" of life; "extravagances" not to be considered; amount not to be determined by ability of obligor to pay; amount to be paid depends on child's best interest; abuse of discretion review. Dolan v. ******e, 2004 Tex. App. LEXIS 1694 (Tex. App. - Austin Feb. 20, 2004). Comment: It would be a rare case where a trial court could abuse its discretion under these rules.


For ones who can not pull link up!!!

 

[Tweety14]

This is the problem with people answering questions without the slightest idea what the law states.

The fact is, you do NOT have to prove a mother (or, for that matter, a father) unfit to gain custody. There is NO set policy or legislative guideline for custody. The fact that more mothers have custody or are awarded custody is a matter strictly of history, NOT law.

You have as much right and possibility of gaining custody as the mother. Based on the Tennessee statutes of 'best interest of the child' and your ability to parent.

and THAT is why NO ONE can answer such a question. Because no one knows you, your situation (we only know one side) or the particular judge.

Now, if you have a LEGAL question ask it. But the way you asked your question there is NO ONE on earth who can give you a definate answer.

Thanks BelizeBreeze ! I know no one can give me a definate answer. I was just looking for opinions and the stats that you have provided has been great. I have read and read the Tn statue, and it is confusing to me. Can you tell me an opinion on what is considered a "change in circumstances"?

Also, on the court order (Dec 2002) dad has only standard visitation. However, for 2 yrs dad has been getting the child every other week as long as he pays support . As soon as he goes to modify and the mom finds out, she will probably get mad and go by the papers. Is there any kind of emergency order dad can get to the keep getting every other week until the court date? This child loves her daddy and it break her heart not to see him often, just because mom is mad.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

Thanks BelizeBreeze ! I know no one can give me a definate answer. I was just looking for opinions and the stats that you have provided has been great. I have read and read the Tn statue, and it is confusing to me. Can you tell me an opinion on what is considered a "change in circumstances"?

A change of circumstances is relevent only if there is a standing court order and one party's standing based on that order changes to the point that it affects the best interest of the child in the eyes of the court.

Based on your post, there is little to support such a change since the circumstances since the issuance of the original court order continue to be the same or similiar per your own words.

Would having never provided a steady home for a child, example.: living with boyfriends and friends , just anywhere she takes a notion. Also, only having the child a day or two when it is her week to have her.She is married but seperated and also has another baby by another guy and the paternal grandparents have that baby( father is not the guy she is still married to)

These situations, in and of themselves, are not grounds to find her unfit and since they likely existed (per your own post) at the issuance of the original order, not likely grounds to amend the current order.

Also, on the court order (Dec 2002) dad has only standard visitation. However, for 2 yrs dad has been getting the child every other week as long as he pays support . As soon as he goes to modify and the mom finds out, she will probably get mad and go by the papers.

And that is her right.

Is there any kind of emergency order dad can get to the keep getting every other week until the court date?

No. Such an order would require notification to her (we do have a constitution in this country which requires 'due process').

This child loves her daddy and it break her heart not to see him often, just because mom is mad.

I'm sure she does love her daddy....just as much as she loves her mommy.

The only thing I can advise dad to do in this situation is to monitor the situation and, if necessary, call CPS if and when the situation escalates to the point that it presents a danger to the child.

In the meantime, dad needs to decide how much he wants full custody and the price he'll pay if he pursues such. Have him consult with a local family law attorney (preferably an older woman) about the situation and his options.

 

[Whyte Noise]

Oh, and I didn't mean to imply that all Bio Moms are the bees knees or the best thing since sliced bread. I hope no one took it that way. There are bio moms that have no more of a maternal instinct than my tomcat does. There are many reasons why mothers don't have custody; and just because a mother willingly gave up custody doesn't mean she doesn't love her children in each and every case. In some cases, like ashley's above, this may be true but it's not ALWAYS like that. That's a point I want to get across.

Tweety, if they have been practicing an EOW custody switch (where dad has her 7 days, mom has her 7, then they just keep alternating) that in and of itself is a "change in circumstances" from the original order if he were only granted standard visitaiton originally. If you meant that he gets her every weekend as opposed to the court ordered every OTHER weekend, that would qualify as a change as well, although not as significant one as an every other week custody pattern.

He's got a 2 year status quo going for him with every other week custody (if I interpreted your post correctly). If this has worked for the child, it's not a far stretch to think that a judge would make a new order with dad keeping that same exact schedule.

 

[ashley361]

NC Mother CS

37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights. (Source: p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.)

and the figures for the lastest census are within 3 percentage points.

40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse. (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)

"Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father`s continued contact with his children...." (Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125)

Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input when it comes to handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and close friends & relatives rated 16%.(Source: EDK Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November 1994, p. 36)

In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more. Originally published Sept. 1992

66% of single mothers work less than full time while only 10% of fathers fall into this category. In addition, almost 47% of non-custodial mothers default on support compared with the 27% of fathers who default. (Source: Garansky and Meyer, DHHS Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, 1991).

Total Custodial Mothers: 11,268,000. Total Custodial Fathers 2,907,000 (Source: Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991).

The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy, Oct. 1991, Authors: Meyer and Garansky.

Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6%
Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9%
Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9%
Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9%

Now, be sure you come with more than that poor me crap when you want to argue with me.

As for the questions asked, they were answered as to the EXACT question.

BB

In regards to NC Mothers: My ex has wrote over 15 NSF checks for CS. After telling her I was going to call authorities and go to court to ask judge to make her responsible of charges from bank. Her current husband set up an allotment to come out of his check direct to my daughters saving account. The military does not play when it comes to that stuff.

 

[BelizeBreeze]

BB

In regards to NC Mothers: My ex has wrote over 15 NSF checks for CS. After telling her I was going to call authorities and go to court to ask judge to make her responsible of charges from bank. Her current husband set up an allotment to come out of his check direct to my daughters saving account. The military does not play when it comes to that stuff.

Did you file theft by conversion charges against her?

The problem with the ex's spouse paying support is that there is no obligation for such and whether or not the court gives credit is up to the individual court.

Your ex's spouse could be giving you a gift financially each month and not relieving your ex of her financial obligation.

 

[MrsK]

40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse. (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.)

"Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father`s continued contact with his children...." (Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125)

Wow, interesting statistics BB.

I found these two to be the most sad. This also reminds me of my husband's daughter's mother a LOT. She likes to ask us to not take sd sometimes so she can do stuff with her b/c its "not fair" that the judge awarded my husband AT LEAST 2 days a wk & my husband happens to be off on weekends only. we dont even take her every weekend & she likes to call & ask us to let her keep her so she can do stuff with her....and she's also admitted that she doesnt think father's are important LOL I guess thats b/c she doesnt have a father, either (way to break the cycle...you'd think she'd want better for her kid)

I dont have the actual statistics in my state but apparently in Louisiana fathers cant get custody unless the mother is the biggest crackwhore around, and even then its tough.

 

[MrsK]

I don't buy the "maintaining the same standard of living before the divorce" argument either. How can that be applied to parents that were never married or lived together? There is no combined standard of living to maintain in those cases as they were never married nor lived together. Another reason I don't buy it, is that now... one person (the formerly married to the CP, NCP) has to maintain the same standard of living in 2 separate households on the same salary they were mantaining one on? It's not gonna happen unless you're highly paid. They have to maintain the standard of living for the children at the CP's house because they have physical custody of the children, and they have to try to keep it up at their home as well for when they have the children for visitation/parenting time. If they don't, the CP is then here asking how they can prove the NCP unfit because they don't have a "good" place to stay, they had to move into a one-bedroom apartment, they don't have beds for the kids and they're sleeping on the floor or in the bed with the CP... We've all seen it.

Do you see? It's a never-ending cycle. NCP's in the majority of cases (and I'm talking those NCP's that live at poverty level up to middle-income level) can't win for losing. Average, everyday people working at an average, everyday job making an average everyday wage, and having to support 2 households on one income. Most married people have to have both spouses working to make it today, yet an NCP is automatically expected to become a supermom or superdad and pay for not only 1 household but 2, since their children don't live with them full time. I'm also not talking about NCP's that have remarried, have stepchildren or additional biological children to support... I'm talking about a simple NCP who lives alone, only has the children of the CS order to support, and their own household expenses. Just because they divorced or whatever doesn't mean they don't need a place to live, food to eat, and clothes to wear just as much as their kids do. This applies even moreso to states that don't even take the CP's income into consideration and only bases CS of a flat percentage of the NCP's gross or net income.

Damn, that was a tangent... But my point was, why does the state say it takes $250 a month for a CP to raise a child when it's them paying TANF to the CP, yet say it costs double, triple, quadruple that when it's a parent that has to pay the CP?

I've been pondering this since my husband started paying support.

I'd also like to know why the CP can get a job making almost the same amount as a NCP (in my state) & the support gets lowered like....$60-80 a month than if the CP had NO job whatsoever....what is that about??

And, why the state isnt interested in helping NCP's get visitation/custody from CP's but they will be happy to get $$ from them. Visitation (for NCP's who WANT it) is just as important to the child as money. To me, thats really sad.

 

[ashley361]

BB the link interest to you all so!

TX

This is 361 wife. He ask me to read the post from all. Just to let you know I have been on both sides of this sword. A CP and a NCP . I did not whine or bad mouth my ex when the roles reversed. The one thing all mothers should remember if they are not a CP ****Even though you miss your child/children, it gives them a different perspective. NC moms need to remember this if you have done your best to care, love, and support your children. They remember that. Your children are in the worse position in a divorce/custody. Us as parents need to set our priorities "Not our self-esteem, our image to community, nor our venage to an ex". Anger, jealously, and resentment will only tear you and your children up. Because of the old standards that children should be raised by their mother (girls with mom and boy with dad) or all children with mom. Children who live and raised by 1 parent then are ordered/choose to live with other parent get to see all sides of the spectrum.*** I know that is a wrenching feeling to be asked do you have any children? Girls or Boys? Why don't they live with you (especially if the children are girls). The roles today have very much changed since the 60's. Where mom stayed at home cooking. cleaning, and taking care of children and home. Women can now go to school and advance in careers that once were strickly a man's world. They were only a man's proffession because women stayed at home. This is not the 60's!!!! Not only does our economic dictate that women can no longer stay home but most do not want too. Although, NC mom miss their children and feel cheated by ex and court. Do something with your feelings in a creative way. Let your children know you love them, exercise all visitation, call to keep update. But instead of sulking go back to school, join a club, get invloved in community projects i.e. cancer walks, AID awareness, SIDS and Premature Baby campaigns, church organizations, single parent or NCP classes. Not only will this take things off your mind but they will make you a better person. These things also look very good on your behalf in the court. Basically, get a life! Do things (good) that you may not be able to do trying to care of children at home. And if your have other sibling at home do not take your feelings out of them (self consumed with situation of other child, trying to replace absent child, etc).. Just my opinion: "Women and men both are born with the rights and means to have children! Not all should".

 

[Tweety14]

Oh, and I didn't mean to imply that all Bio Moms are the bees knees or the best thing since sliced bread. I hope no one took it that way. There are bio moms that have no more of a maternal instinct than my tomcat does. There are many reasons why mothers don't have custody; and just because a mother willingly gave up custody doesn't mean she doesn't love her children in each and every case. In some cases, like ashley's above, this may be true but it's not ALWAYS like that. That's a point I want to get across.

Tweety, if they have been practicing an EOW custody switch (where dad has her 7 days, mom has her 7, then they just keep alternating) that in and of itself is a "change in circumstances" from the original order if he were only granted standard visitaiton originally. If you meant that he gets her every weekend as opposed to the court ordered every OTHER weekend, that would qualify as a change as well, although not as significant one as an every other week custody pattern.

He's got a 2 year status quo going for him with every other week custody (if I interpreted your post correctly). If this has worked for the child, it's not a far stretch to think that a judge would make a new order with dad keeping that same exact schedule.

Yes, he has been getting her every other week (dad 7 days, mom or whoever 7 days.) This mom like to use her CP as authority, always expecting him to jump when she says.
I really think the judge would make a new order, surely for him to have joint . However, he is worried what will happen to his little girl in the meantime. She is so used to being with him everyother week, and if the mom went back to the standard out of spite, both the child and dad would suffer.Court dates could take a long time, couldn't they?
It says they are supposed to go to mediation first, but this mom is not going to agree to him having joint . She wants control and CS. Any suggestions? Thanks!

 

[Whyte Noise]

I've been pondering this since my husband started paying support.

I'd also like to know why the CP can get a job making almost the same amount as a NCP (in my state) & the support gets lowered like....$60-80 a month than if the CP had NO job whatsoever....what is that about??

And, why the state isnt interested in helping NCP's get visitation/custody from CP's but they will be happy to get $$ from them. Visitation (for NCP's who WANT it) is just as important to the child as money. To me, thats really sad.

As for the second question, the answer is really simple.

The Federal government funnels money into the states for collecting child support. The more money the state collects, the more money the Feds give them. Simple economics. It's technically called "reimbursing" the state for what they've already spent to collect CS, but when you repay at a 2 to 1 ratio that's not "reimbursing" at all. They can make money enforcing child support orders (California got over $10 million in Federal funds one year for CS collections) and they can't enforcing visitation orders even though there was a Federal program to funnel money into the states that helped enforce those orders. I'm not positive if it's still around or not... but the maximum grant a state could get for parenting time/visitation enforcement was $100,000 per state.

Be honest... if you, as a state, could get millions (with no max cap on that amount) enforcing CS or only $100,000 max enforcing visitation orders, which one do you think you'd do?