What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? N/A
The question I am about to bring up is based on legal theory about child custody and support, therefore a particular state is not applicable. I posted this in another thread and I wanted to hear all of your thoughts, opinions and legal reasoning behind my questions. Please reply with relevant and factual information...straying from complaints of things such as semantics. If you’re not interested in legal theory, then simply do not reply.
As stated previously, I am writing in regards to child custody and support, how it is determined…moreover, the reasons why it is determined. Before delving into the questions I have regarding child support and how I feel that the system is broken, I would like to point out that I feel that supporting one’s children is a necessity and any parent that attempts to avoid caring for their children should be required, by law, to care for their children in some manner…even if that means strictly financially.
I have no factual basis behind my theory of how mandated child support came to be, but I assume it went something like this. Many males and females, whether married or not, became pregnant and gave birth to their children. One of the two parents decided at a later date that he or she wanted nothing to do with the child and/or other parent, in which case he or she leaves. It’s entirely possible that this parent never wanted a child in the first place; rather, he or she may have simply wanted sexual contact and wasn’t thinking about what could come to be from such an encounter. One might call this a “dead beat Dad.” The statement itself assumes that the individual is typically a male, which may very well be the case statistically. In such a circumstance I fully understand and support a court ordered payment to the other parent. It is not right or just for one parent to stick the other parent with 100% of the financial and time obligation involved in raising a child, and do little to support the child other than visit when he or she decides to.
Where the child custody/support system completely loses me is when both parents would love nothing more than to be with their children as much as possible, which I would be willing to bet is the case more frequent than not. It is important to note that the desire to be with the child and the ability can be two different things. Where I question the child support system is in cases where both the desire and ability can realistically be met. Examples where the ability cannot realistically be met are when one parent works such a schedule that sharing 50% of the time and financial obligation with the child would be impossible, or the parent is mentally incapable to meet the physical and emotional needs of their child.
In this next statement I am likely to lose many readers. If both parents are completely willing and able to care for their child, then why is a child support payment necessary? If a parent is caring for their child 50% of the time and paying 50% of what I would call “common costs” of raising the child (ie: medical expenses, school enrollment fees, transportation, time commitment, etc.), isn’t that fair? How is it fair that a non-custodial parent is required to pay for their own house, food, and clothing when the child is in his or her custody, in addition to paying upwards of 20% of their income to the other parent? I say this because I have known circumstances where both parents would love nothing more than to spend as much or more time with their child as the other parent, but the primary custodian simply won’t allow it, making threats of increasing child support, all as a means of controlling the other parent. This brings me to another question- what is the purpose of child support? In the name itself, it is inherent that it is intended to support the child. In my opinion, it is not intended as a means to threaten the other parent. It is not intended to equal the incomes of the separate households. It is not intended to purchase a new or more luxurious vehicle.
Furthermore, if both parents are willing and able to care for their child 50% of the time, shouldn’t this be the typical physical custody arrangement awarded? I think it goes without saying that that the best interest of the child is to spend maximum time with both parents- not to favor one over the other. I understand that a child needs to have a legal residence to determine which school he or she will attend, as well as many other instances requiring legal documentation. But as long as both parents live in close enough proximity to the child’s determined school and are able to equally share the logistics of rendering child care (ie: transporting the child to and from school when he or she is not at the “legal residence”), then why would any court decide to minimize the time spent with the non-custodial parent unless it were deemed absolutely necessary?
Ultimately I don’t understand the purpose of or agree with a court giving leverage to one parent over the other, essentially using the children as a means to do so. Custody arrangements that limit parent-child contact below 50% and require a parent to pay up to 20% of their income to the other parent do exactly that. This form of leverage does not encourage a working relationship between the divorced parents. Parents end up in legal battles over custody, not because they care about what is in the best interest of child, but because they want to have leverage over the other parent. These legal battles themselves impose an even further financial burden between the two households. Or the parents don’t want to “lose.” And what is “losing?” If both parents see their child just as often as the other and pays no additional cost, then what “loss” or leverage would exist between the parents and the child?
Children should not be used as pawns. Parents should seek custody for the right reasons; including factors such as living environment, school district, access to healthcare, minimized need for daycare- generally who is able to provide the best quality of life and opportunities for the child. Unfortunately we live in a society where physical custody arrangements like this are not the norm. Too often children love both their Mother and Father equally, yet they find themselves torn between the two because the parents cannot get along and continually try to “show” the other who is right. It is not a surprise that the parents can’t get along (because that is likely the reason for divorce in the first place), but it is completely unethical for the children to be put in the middle. And some states have the audacity to require classes such as “Children in the Middle” that may teach proper coping methods, yet the laws in those states don’t support a custody arrangement where it would be feasible to enforce such an arrangement.
I understand the basics of law, in regards to precedent. This system and set of laws have been in place for such a time that from a legal standpoint, judges are incapable of ruling differently; but how about from a realistic standpoint? The law in many states reads that “maximum visitation by both parties” is desired, yet one parent is left with only a legally enforceable 30% of the year? On top of receiving only 30% of the year, the parent is required to pay a sum of money to the other parent?
I am certain that complaints about child custody and support are brought up frequently. Growing up in a split family myself and now having a step-child, I not only see how this affects children, but I know what it feels like to be that child. All too often parents get caught up in emotion of divorce and this idea of “winning versus losing,” rather than the best interest of the child. To make matters worse, the law seems to only exacerbate this problem. I feel like the law could do a better job helping the children in these situations, encouraging relationships with both parents and attempting to minimize arguments and hostility between parents. It’s entirely possible that I am missing factors involved, which may play an important role in the reasoning behind the system that decides child custody and support. If so, I would like to know the reasoning so I can better understand. For the record, I am not court ordered to pay child support of any kind; I simply have lived and seen what comes of the current system in place.
Thoughts?
The question I am about to bring up is based on legal theory about child custody and support, therefore a particular state is not applicable. I posted this in another thread and I wanted to hear all of your thoughts, opinions and legal reasoning behind my questions. Please reply with relevant and factual information...straying from complaints of things such as semantics. If you’re not interested in legal theory, then simply do not reply.
As stated previously, I am writing in regards to child custody and support, how it is determined…moreover, the reasons why it is determined. Before delving into the questions I have regarding child support and how I feel that the system is broken, I would like to point out that I feel that supporting one’s children is a necessity and any parent that attempts to avoid caring for their children should be required, by law, to care for their children in some manner…even if that means strictly financially.
I have no factual basis behind my theory of how mandated child support came to be, but I assume it went something like this. Many males and females, whether married or not, became pregnant and gave birth to their children. One of the two parents decided at a later date that he or she wanted nothing to do with the child and/or other parent, in which case he or she leaves. It’s entirely possible that this parent never wanted a child in the first place; rather, he or she may have simply wanted sexual contact and wasn’t thinking about what could come to be from such an encounter. One might call this a “dead beat Dad.” The statement itself assumes that the individual is typically a male, which may very well be the case statistically. In such a circumstance I fully understand and support a court ordered payment to the other parent. It is not right or just for one parent to stick the other parent with 100% of the financial and time obligation involved in raising a child, and do little to support the child other than visit when he or she decides to.
Where the child custody/support system completely loses me is when both parents would love nothing more than to be with their children as much as possible, which I would be willing to bet is the case more frequent than not. It is important to note that the desire to be with the child and the ability can be two different things. Where I question the child support system is in cases where both the desire and ability can realistically be met. Examples where the ability cannot realistically be met are when one parent works such a schedule that sharing 50% of the time and financial obligation with the child would be impossible, or the parent is mentally incapable to meet the physical and emotional needs of their child.
In this next statement I am likely to lose many readers. If both parents are completely willing and able to care for their child, then why is a child support payment necessary? If a parent is caring for their child 50% of the time and paying 50% of what I would call “common costs” of raising the child (ie: medical expenses, school enrollment fees, transportation, time commitment, etc.), isn’t that fair? How is it fair that a non-custodial parent is required to pay for their own house, food, and clothing when the child is in his or her custody, in addition to paying upwards of 20% of their income to the other parent? I say this because I have known circumstances where both parents would love nothing more than to spend as much or more time with their child as the other parent, but the primary custodian simply won’t allow it, making threats of increasing child support, all as a means of controlling the other parent. This brings me to another question- what is the purpose of child support? In the name itself, it is inherent that it is intended to support the child. In my opinion, it is not intended as a means to threaten the other parent. It is not intended to equal the incomes of the separate households. It is not intended to purchase a new or more luxurious vehicle.
Furthermore, if both parents are willing and able to care for their child 50% of the time, shouldn’t this be the typical physical custody arrangement awarded? I think it goes without saying that that the best interest of the child is to spend maximum time with both parents- not to favor one over the other. I understand that a child needs to have a legal residence to determine which school he or she will attend, as well as many other instances requiring legal documentation. But as long as both parents live in close enough proximity to the child’s determined school and are able to equally share the logistics of rendering child care (ie: transporting the child to and from school when he or she is not at the “legal residence”), then why would any court decide to minimize the time spent with the non-custodial parent unless it were deemed absolutely necessary?
Ultimately I don’t understand the purpose of or agree with a court giving leverage to one parent over the other, essentially using the children as a means to do so. Custody arrangements that limit parent-child contact below 50% and require a parent to pay up to 20% of their income to the other parent do exactly that. This form of leverage does not encourage a working relationship between the divorced parents. Parents end up in legal battles over custody, not because they care about what is in the best interest of child, but because they want to have leverage over the other parent. These legal battles themselves impose an even further financial burden between the two households. Or the parents don’t want to “lose.” And what is “losing?” If both parents see their child just as often as the other and pays no additional cost, then what “loss” or leverage would exist between the parents and the child?
Children should not be used as pawns. Parents should seek custody for the right reasons; including factors such as living environment, school district, access to healthcare, minimized need for daycare- generally who is able to provide the best quality of life and opportunities for the child. Unfortunately we live in a society where physical custody arrangements like this are not the norm. Too often children love both their Mother and Father equally, yet they find themselves torn between the two because the parents cannot get along and continually try to “show” the other who is right. It is not a surprise that the parents can’t get along (because that is likely the reason for divorce in the first place), but it is completely unethical for the children to be put in the middle. And some states have the audacity to require classes such as “Children in the Middle” that may teach proper coping methods, yet the laws in those states don’t support a custody arrangement where it would be feasible to enforce such an arrangement.
I understand the basics of law, in regards to precedent. This system and set of laws have been in place for such a time that from a legal standpoint, judges are incapable of ruling differently; but how about from a realistic standpoint? The law in many states reads that “maximum visitation by both parties” is desired, yet one parent is left with only a legally enforceable 30% of the year? On top of receiving only 30% of the year, the parent is required to pay a sum of money to the other parent?
I am certain that complaints about child custody and support are brought up frequently. Growing up in a split family myself and now having a step-child, I not only see how this affects children, but I know what it feels like to be that child. All too often parents get caught up in emotion of divorce and this idea of “winning versus losing,” rather than the best interest of the child. To make matters worse, the law seems to only exacerbate this problem. I feel like the law could do a better job helping the children in these situations, encouraging relationships with both parents and attempting to minimize arguments and hostility between parents. It’s entirely possible that I am missing factors involved, which may play an important role in the reasoning behind the system that decides child custody and support. If so, I would like to know the reasoning so I can better understand. For the record, I am not court ordered to pay child support of any kind; I simply have lived and seen what comes of the current system in place.
Thoughts?
