Father's Rights
Since today is fathers day I thought it would be the perfect time to talk about a father's rights. I would like to talk about custody, child support, and a few other things that gets on my nerves. To anyone that might have a problem with what I'm saying keep in mind I'm talking about good fathers that just want to be part of their kids lives. I'm not talking about the deadbeat guys that take off and are never heard from again. Guys like that do not deserve any rights to their children.
When there is a custody dispute in most states in the US the law generally favors the mother. While I can understand this to some degree, I don't think it's fair. In the state that I live in, the father basically has to prove the mother is unfit to raise a child before custody is awarded to the father. This is the case even for joint custody if the mother doesn't agree. Basically the only way to get joint custody in this state is to have both parents agree. Does that really seem fair? Don't get me wrong here. I think the best thing for the children is to have the parents work out an arrangement. When the parents can at least get along long enough to discuss the kids it's the best outcome for the children. However, it has been proven many times over the optimal outcome is not the norm.
The mother has the responsibility of carrying the children through pregnancy. This is an outcome of nature and out of any one's control. Therefore, I think it is reasonable for mothers to get a slightly heavier scale in the onset of a custody dispute. However, I think the default position should be joint custody with evenly split time. Then if either party wishes to get full custody or the majority of time with the children and there is no agreement between the parents. Then only logical arguments and evidence can tilt the scales. One example of this type of argument would be if the parents live in different school districts. The parent at the better school district would logically be responsible for the children during the school year. Granted this means that parent would get the majority of the time, but at least that would be logical. Perhaps if one of the parents has a recent history of drug abuse then the other parent should get majority time, if not full custody. Logical arguments, and evidence based on what is best for the child should be the only concerns when it comes to custody. Does that sound unreasonable? What tends to be the normal way these cases go today (at least in this state) one parent is pissed off at the other and they use custody of the children as punishment. That is just not right.
Once custody is figured out, the next thing that needs to be figured out is child support. I would like to look at the meaning of this term for a moment. Child support is meant to support the child or children. Doesn't seem all that complicated. For all the shitty moms out there, did you read that? Child support is not for you to spend however you want. It is not an extra source of income for you. If all of it is not needed to support the children then use it to buy something for the children. I have heard this come out of a young mothers mouth, "Hey, you want to go to the bar later? My support check just came in." Needless to say, I do not talk to this woman anymore.
When it comes to deciding child support, I think it's best if the parents can agree on an amount. I also think it's best to be flexible with payments as well. Sometimes unexpected things come up and more money needs to be spent or less income coming in than normal. Things like this need to be taken into consideration, and support payments should be adjustable as needed. This is assuming the parent willingly agreed to pay in the first place. In these cases when there is an agreement reached by the parents, the government should stay completely out of it. Only when an agreement cannot be reached should the government intervene. For instance, I willing pay child support directly to the mother of my children. Yet, I have to pay the government $40 every year for this arrangement. Why? The court did not set the amount, when, or how I would pay for child support. This agreement was between their mother and myself. If I don't pay this $40 a year, I go to jail. Which in turn would cause me to loose my job and prevent me from being able to make any child support payments. Does this make any sense? I really don't think so. Would this make sense of the government was taking the child support from my checks and then paying the mother? Sure, then the government is using its resources. Therefore, I could understand a small fee being charged.
There has also been this thing where if the support is not paid joint custody or visitation can be taken away. Not only can the parent go to jail, their kids can also be taken away from them. How does this make sense when it can also apply to a parent that has no income. An example would be, a parent with joint custody gets laid off. They are living off of unemployment and savings until they find another job. A month later this parent gets a new job and is going to be starting another two weeks. This new job that would mean more income and therefore more child support paid then what was originally being set in the first place. Sounds like everything worked out for the better right? More support for the children and a better standard of living for the parent. One week before this parent starts this new fantastic job. The cops show up at the door to serve a warrant for the parents arrest due to not paying court ordered child support. The next the judge day sets a fine (that is paid to the court, not the children) and releases the parent with orders to pay all the child support that has not been paid. This parent now has to use all the money they had for gas until their first paycheck to pay this fine and back child support. Leaving nothing left to have gas to get back and forth to this new job. Meaning they can no longer take the job. Which of course lease to more child support not being paid. More fines, and possibly time in jail. The arrest in general could lead to a harder time finding suitable employment they no longer have the money needed for transportation in the first place. Does this sounds like an unlikely scenario? It's not. My evidence for this is anecdotal, I'll admit. However, I have known this to happen at least three times to three different people. One of which, due to the arrest, lost their security clearance needed for the field they are most qualified for. The worst part about all of it. These were good parents that can no longer see their kids because they can not pay child support.
What I'm trying to say is mothers and fathers need to work together. Figure out what is best for the kids. Stick to agreements made. Changing circumstances can make for hard times all around. There is always a better outcome when people work together then fight one another. Be understanding, compassionate, and flexible. Why would you listen to me? I'm just an average guy named rug doing the best I can to take care of the two most important people in my world, but that is what I think.
When there is a custody dispute in most states in the US the law generally favors the mother. While I can understand this to some degree, I don't think it's fair. In the state that I live in, the father basically has to prove the mother is unfit to raise a child before custody is awarded to the father. This is the case even for joint custody if the mother doesn't agree. Basically the only way to get joint custody in this state is to have both parents agree. Does that really seem fair? Don't get me wrong here. I think the best thing for the children is to have the parents work out an arrangement. When the parents can at least get along long enough to discuss the kids it's the best outcome for the children. However, it has been proven many times over the optimal outcome is not the norm.
The mother has the responsibility of carrying the children through pregnancy. This is an outcome of nature and out of any one's control. Therefore, I think it is reasonable for mothers to get a slightly heavier scale in the onset of a custody dispute. However, I think the default position should be joint custody with evenly split time. Then if either party wishes to get full custody or the majority of time with the children and there is no agreement between the parents. Then only logical arguments and evidence can tilt the scales. One example of this type of argument would be if the parents live in different school districts. The parent at the better school district would logically be responsible for the children during the school year. Granted this means that parent would get the majority of the time, but at least that would be logical. Perhaps if one of the parents has a recent history of drug abuse then the other parent should get majority time, if not full custody. Logical arguments, and evidence based on what is best for the child should be the only concerns when it comes to custody. Does that sound unreasonable? What tends to be the normal way these cases go today (at least in this state) one parent is pissed off at the other and they use custody of the children as punishment. That is just not right.
Once custody is figured out, the next thing that needs to be figured out is child support. I would like to look at the meaning of this term for a moment. Child support is meant to support the child or children. Doesn't seem all that complicated. For all the shitty moms out there, did you read that? Child support is not for you to spend however you want. It is not an extra source of income for you. If all of it is not needed to support the children then use it to buy something for the children. I have heard this come out of a young mothers mouth, "Hey, you want to go to the bar later? My support check just came in." Needless to say, I do not talk to this woman anymore.
When it comes to deciding child support, I think it's best if the parents can agree on an amount. I also think it's best to be flexible with payments as well. Sometimes unexpected things come up and more money needs to be spent or less income coming in than normal. Things like this need to be taken into consideration, and support payments should be adjustable as needed. This is assuming the parent willingly agreed to pay in the first place. In these cases when there is an agreement reached by the parents, the government should stay completely out of it. Only when an agreement cannot be reached should the government intervene. For instance, I willing pay child support directly to the mother of my children. Yet, I have to pay the government $40 every year for this arrangement. Why? The court did not set the amount, when, or how I would pay for child support. This agreement was between their mother and myself. If I don't pay this $40 a year, I go to jail. Which in turn would cause me to loose my job and prevent me from being able to make any child support payments. Does this make any sense? I really don't think so. Would this make sense of the government was taking the child support from my checks and then paying the mother? Sure, then the government is using its resources. Therefore, I could understand a small fee being charged.
There has also been this thing where if the support is not paid joint custody or visitation can be taken away. Not only can the parent go to jail, their kids can also be taken away from them. How does this make sense when it can also apply to a parent that has no income. An example would be, a parent with joint custody gets laid off. They are living off of unemployment and savings until they find another job. A month later this parent gets a new job and is going to be starting another two weeks. This new job that would mean more income and therefore more child support paid then what was originally being set in the first place. Sounds like everything worked out for the better right? More support for the children and a better standard of living for the parent. One week before this parent starts this new fantastic job. The cops show up at the door to serve a warrant for the parents arrest due to not paying court ordered child support. The next the judge day sets a fine (that is paid to the court, not the children) and releases the parent with orders to pay all the child support that has not been paid. This parent now has to use all the money they had for gas until their first paycheck to pay this fine and back child support. Leaving nothing left to have gas to get back and forth to this new job. Meaning they can no longer take the job. Which of course lease to more child support not being paid. More fines, and possibly time in jail. The arrest in general could lead to a harder time finding suitable employment they no longer have the money needed for transportation in the first place. Does this sounds like an unlikely scenario? It's not. My evidence for this is anecdotal, I'll admit. However, I have known this to happen at least three times to three different people. One of which, due to the arrest, lost their security clearance needed for the field they are most qualified for. The worst part about all of it. These were good parents that can no longer see their kids because they can not pay child support.
What I'm trying to say is mothers and fathers need to work together. Figure out what is best for the kids. Stick to agreements made. Changing circumstances can make for hard times all around. There is always a better outcome when people work together then fight one another. Be understanding, compassionate, and flexible. Why would you listen to me? I'm just an average guy named rug doing the best I can to take care of the two most important people in my world, but that is what I think.
Comments
Post a Comment