Posted on 04/07/2002 1:42:11 PM PDT by The Giant Apricots
The wife gets pissed and decides to leave. The now crowd says "leave him", you're an independent modern women, capable of having it ALL ( career, kids, independence, money ). The social service groups chime in. So the wife kicks him out of the house, lies to get a restraining order, picks his bones clean in the divorce.
The demise of america will follow the demise of the american family. It's well on its way.
The point of FreeRepublic is to open conversations up, not to shut them down.
Little me shut down the conversations? Instead of fussing about how the courts and or wives/husbands are to blame let's think about it this way.
Courts are naturally going to give the children to the mother, because in most cases the women is the nurturer. That leaves the money, what would you do about that? Put it in a fund where the mother must account for every penny she spends on the kids? That's sounds far fetched, since we know that spending money on children includes buying a piece of candy or an impulsive game or toy occasionally. A single mom has much to take care of without having to account for every stick of gum she buys for the kids. If you have children I'm sure you know "things" come up out of nowhere.
What else? Change the judges in your area, vote them out, vote out the people who appoint them. Too difficult? Change the your approach to finding a mate. Make sure they are the person that you want in a spouse. Make sure they agree they want the same things you do. Don't marry people who have drug problems, who don't respect your religion, don't have the same moral values as yourself.
Now, let's discuss the author's problems. I only have my situation for experience so you'll know where I'm coming from.
A father is not allowed to claim his children on his income tax, nor is he allowed to deduct the support he pays, regardless of how much more than 50 percent he pays. This also applies to day-care fees. The privilege automatically goes to the mother.
Why would the ex-hub get the deduction? Even if he's paying the center the tax deduction is for the person who pays more than half of the child's up keep. (call the IRS) The privilege of taking care of the child 24/7 goes to the mother as well, try paying a live-in sitter and see what a deal that would be, especially for your child. Would you rather have the child's mother or a sitter raise them?
A mother can claim that she pays someone less than the actual cost of day care, with only a hand-written note as proof, and the father can be obligated for at least 50 percent of the cost. This is acceptable to the court.
I'm sorry, I have no concept of this activity and it sounds rather contrived. Nevertheless, the father's attorney should be given a poke to wake him up from time to time.
A father is obligated to provide health and dental benefits for his children, but the mother is not always obligated to use them wherever and whenever possible.
OooKay, then fathers should make the appointments and get the children to them. What because you're a divorced father you're unable to make sure your children get what they need? If the mother isn't doing it, do it yourself.
If a doctor stops accepting the insurance coverage, the mother should be obligated to find a participating doctor immediately.
Whoever is in charge of the insurance should perform this duty. duh.
If a father remarries and has more children, and should need to get a part-time job to cover all of his expenses, because of the exorbitant amount of support placed on him each month, the mother can file for an increase in support. Shouldn't the father be able to provide for all of his children equally? The courts feel only the first of his children count.
No, the father has made a choice to make the first family, if you want more work harder, otherwise keep your pants zipped.
A mother can use her children as an excuse to minimize her work schedule and earnings capacity, which in turn increases the amount of support the father must pay each month. But if the father needed to minimize his work schedule due to an issue on his part, the court would tell him to adjust his schedule and/or lifestyle to maintain his earnings capacity. Why won't the court tell the mother the same?
I'm sorry the only thing I can say to this paragraph is BWAHAHAHHAHAHA!!!
When is it enough? Where is the limit to how much can be taken from a father? Where is the limit to how much abuse he must accept? Where does the court-sanctioned extortion end, and the father's rights begin?
I'll tell you when it will end, when the "man" starts acting like a man and keeps his family together, values his wife and children and quits treating them like they're an impediment to want he wants to do. Men who choose marriage should be prepared to take on quite a task, such as marriage is. Work harder at it and you won't have to worry about Family Court.
I appreciate our time together, but I must depart and prepare the NY Strip steaks for my loving husband and son. I'll be glad to stop back by and discuss some of my never to be humble opinion. :-) Thanks for asking!
Let's make that present progressive: "The demise of America is following the demise of the family."
Heck. I thought that was art work.
I respect the length and multi-facetedness of your reply. However, I would note that only one line, somewhat dismissively, was given to custody:
Courts are naturally going to give the children to the mother, because in most cases the women is the nurturer.
Were you a non-custodial father, as many of my friends are, you would not relegate custody to one line and then move on to finances.
Custody matters an infinite amount more times thatn finances do or could.
Divorce is not natural. Putting children in a one-parent-only situation is grossly UNnatural. Consistency of both-parent involvement is more important than consistency of having only one house.
Therefor, joint residential custody should be the norm, with parenting plans based upon how much time each parent actually has to spend. Under that scenario, neither parent would be a "visitor".
As to money, parents should pay the daily expenses of their children, when they're with them, as they occur. Neither should expect to be paid by the other for raising children.
Raising children is a privilege and an honor. Not a burden, not a "job" for which to be paid.
Custody issues are far more intricate than money issues and often receive the same treatment in court as they received here by Betty. I suspect she treated them that way because that was her experience in court on those issues.
You're right, I thought that it went without saying that mothers are given primary physical custody, both are given joint parental rights. Sorry I should have made that more clear. I agree splitting up the family does horrible harm to the kids, as my daughter knows well. You're idea of joint residential custody should be the norm, with parenting plans based upon how much time each parent actually has to spend, is a good idea, but how realistic is it? Children need stability, moving them every other week or month or day isn't so great either. But you're correct that the absent parent MUST be very active in the childs life. There's just nothing good about divorce!
As to money, parents should pay the daily expenses of their children, when they're with them, as they occur. Neither should expect to be paid by the other for raising children.
I'm not talking about paying your ex-spouse for raising the kids, but let's be honest how many women do you personally know that make more money than you? The mother must provide a home to live in when the child stays there, which in this day and age is most of the time. When I first divorced I was lucky my dad took us in. Otherwise it would have been a cardboard box and PB&J for dinner every night. I didn't even have a car. When she became ill, guess who took the time off work and eventually lost my job because of so many absences. Ex wouldn't take time off, HIS job was much too important. There is no just way to divide things equally.
I speak from experience when I say know who you are about to marry. My only excuse is that I was only 19 and had no clue what was in store for me regarding his behavior. I had no choice but to leave because he was an adulterer and abusive.
Men do hold the power, they can make the choice when they want to become parents, every time.
Yet, the mother does not have to account for how that support money is spent.
What happens to the mother if she spends the money on lottery tickets, cigarettes, booze, her boyfriend, etc??
Answer: not a d*mn thing!
I think the parent receiving child support money should account for every penny.
But that's OK. There's LOTS of people from the Third World who will be more than happy to take up the slack in the population. Hasta Luego, America.
One the greatest madnesses out there is the concept of jailing divorced dads for being in arrears. Setting aside custody issues and the various financial aspects of a divorce, etc for just a moment, jailing fathers is not only unconstitutional, it is impractical. In the worse case scenario, I could understand attaching the assets/income of a father who could but would not contribute sufficiently to his children's financial well-being. Putting him in jail or taking his professional licenses DETRACTS from his ability to contribute financially. So, basically, the feminist and/or Oedipal family court judges are sacrificing the needs of the child to their own personal needs to crucify fathers.
Yet, the mother does not have to account for how that support money is spent. What happens to the mother if she spends the money on lottery tickets, cigarettes, booze, her boyfriend, etc??
That's true. Not only are, statistically, the boyfriends of single mothers a HUGE danger to the kids, especially with no protective fathe around, but the single mother can spend child support money on crack if she wants to. Keeping receipts, and photocopying them at the end of each month, is not a huge problem. Or even easier, have each parent pay for all child-related expenses by check, with a notation in the subject line of the nature of the expense, with photocopies of those checks sent by the bank to the other parent each month.
Good advice for MANY Family Court judges!!!
Just as a funny aside, at one point while the state was making him pay his weekly $50 plus arrears, he actually wrote me a letter and threaten to take me to court and have the judge make me pay half of the support. Mind you at that point my new husband and I had agreed that me being a full time mom was the best thing for her so I wasn't working. Ex threaten to make me go back to work to pay this "half"! He would rather have a stranger raise his daughter and make me work so he wouldn't have to pay as much? LOL I told him to bring it on, funny, he never did. He threaten to take custody of her when she turned 13, he never tried. Sounds to me like we all make the lousy beds we end up in and the children have to pay the price. I'm grateful that I finally took a good look at how real men were supposed to behave and the next one I picked measured up beyond my hopes.
All I'm saying is there are many nasty people in the world, some men, some women and when it's before a judge, hold on, it's going to be a bumpy ride.
You prove his point, if you decided cases with that attitude
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.