 |
--After custody has been established, the custodial parent has five years to pursue child-support. The non-custodial parent has no financial obligation thereafter those five years, starting from the moment of a judges' signature of custody. The custodial parent has been able to care for the child for these five years, why would they need support now?
Fair or not fair?
XenoSapien
Not fair a bit, just because perhaps a custodial parent makes it on WIC and welfare perhaps or mac and cheese three nights a week because they are scared and afraid of the other parent and don't want to have any contact, does not take away the other parents responsibility.
Plus the custodial parent after custody is issued , should not have to "pursue" child support, why is the non custodial parent not paying it from day one like the court order would have said, when custody was issued.
Just because they were a dead beat for 5 years, and the other party made do, it does not take away the need for the child.
But assume for a sec, Fr_Chuck, that the non-custodial parent is not a deadbeat. In fact, the custodial parent has done everything in her/his power to run away with the child, and never let the non-custodial parent know their own child. Then, lo and behold, ten years later, demands back-support in the thousands? Isn't that ridiculous?
XenoSapien
MovieGuide.org - Ted Baehr's Movieguide
What God Hath Joined Together.. .
The advent of "no-fault" divorce has given rise to a system that strips fathers of their children, accelerates the breakdown of families, and makes a mockery of the marital contract.
By Stephen Baskerville-president of the American Coalition for Fathers and Children.
Here I like the most:
The judges' contempt for both fathers and constitutional rights was openly expressed by New Jersey municipal court judge Richard Russell: "Your job is not to become concerned about the constitutional rights of the man that you're violating," he told his colleagues at a judges' training seminar in 1994. "Throw him out on the street, give him the clothes on his back and tell him, see ya around.. We don't have to worry about the rights."
How would it be then Xeno that an order for custody was established but support was not? And if custody was established then why was dad not going after his rights by way of the court to enforce the visitation?
Your amendments wouldn't really work in my opinion because you are asking for laws that would have to allow for a great many, many exceptions due to the circumstances. One major flaw in your rationale of the situation though is in your question of "The custodial parent has been able to care for the child for these five years, why would they need support now?" Because maybe the parent doesn't have the right to your money, maybe we can all agree on that depending on the specifics but we aren't talking about the parent who needs support but the child. And that child will always need and have a right to financial support from each parent until they are 18. Again, it isn't a matter of one parent paying another, it is a matter of providing financial support for your children. So, no you can't say "well you've been doing fine without my money so far you can just keep on doing it" because the money is not for them it is for the child. If someone has gotten away with not paying they should just have considered themselves lucky at the time. Maybe mom was doing fine financially without any support but has run into a loss of her job, a medical disability, divorce, whatever there are a lot of reasons and now she does need dad to pitch in financially. But the fact is they don't have to need it, they don't have to give a reason for seeking it. Your child simply has a right to it. If the father wasn't a deadbeat and was more than willing to pay that support for those five years, then the money would all be sitting in an account waiting to be given to the child right? Hence, no huge back child support debt. The only way that it would not be fair to go after back child support is if it was agreed and ordered that the custodial parent would accept no child support for some reason, and they were just trying to change their mind.
Unless a father is stripped of his rights and obligations in regards to his child/children by the state he is responsible in every sense of the word and meaning at least by law until that child reaches the legal age of becoming an adult. Morally speaking, stripped of rights or not, I think (personal opinion only) that father is responsible to be a man and a father until death. Whether someone abuses the system or our rights we made a decision to become a parent and we must be responsible to that child for its life. There is no pass go collect $200, you don't get a free pass. No matter what happens to us it is OUR CHILDREN WHO HAVE A RIGHT TO US, we do not have a right to them.
"How would it be then Xeno that an order for custody was established but support was not? And if custody was established then why was dad not going after his rights by way of the court to enforce the visitation?"
--Tawny, very perceptive. Which is why this amendment is actually designed to stop custodial parents from running off with the child, and are able to hide from the other parent and the law. With this enactment, they can't rematerialize and demand thousands in back-support. Much like the mother of my daughter is doing to me.
"Maybe mom was doing fine financially without any support but has run into a loss of her job, a medical disability, divorce, whatever there are a lot of reasons and now she does need dad to pitch in financially. "
--That is supporting the mother's misfortune--not the child's. In more cases than not, the stepparent has more interaction with the child than the biological parent. A guy I work with pays his support. He sees his son every other weekend and wednesdays. This visitation is far less interaction than the mother's new live in boyfriend has with the child.
I'm starting to think now that support money should reflect visit time. Parents are equally responsible, but the majority of cases prove the mother to have far more power.
XenoSapien
It wouldn't stop parents from running off with children at all. And it doesn't matter where the child is, that child has the right to support from you, regardless of whether you were around or not by your choice or not.
That is not supporting just the mother's misfortune. When the child is living with the mother it is the child's misfortune.
You are staring to think that support should reflect visit time... it does. Child support amounts take into account the time spent in each parent's custody.
Then what about the guy I work with? He sees his son 8 days out of each month, yet paying $400 a month!Quote:
Originally Posted by tawnynkids
You're right, it probably won't stop parents from running off with the kids. But when times get low for them, and then as an act of desperation decide to attack the other parent who they have PURPOSELY kept out of the child's life to get money, that is persecution, a low-blow, and very wrong.
If the mother cannot pay for things for her child, it is initially the mother who has the misfortune--after all, the child is not writing checks and paying the bills.
XenoSapien
Everyone's situation is different. But in my case it is completely fair!Quote:
Originally Posted by XenoSapien
I have read your entire blog. Here are the simple facts:
You claim: Babies As Weapons
Fact: it's your daughter who has the right to a relationship with you
Fact: it's your daughter who has a right to financial support from you
Mom is withholding the relationship from Dad to get back at him for whatever reason.
Dad is withholding the financial support to get back at mom for whatever she did to him.
You are both withholding the rights of your child to punish the other parent. You are both using that baby as a weapon!
As you have, I'll repeat my answer on your other answer: At this point I don't owe her a dime. She is not being punished.
XenoSapien
And according to you, you have not legally established your paternity so as you put it: "...I don't believe he has any 'legal' rights if paternity hasn't been established..." and "...Shouldn't matter. He isn't on the certificate, and paternity has not been established. Since women have great leverage in the courts, do nothing, and make him fight for his rights. It's the only option a man has with today's court. You have the power..."
So, your ex is legally denying you nothing. According to you, you have no rights. You don't even know for a fact that the little girl is yours and since it is your own advice to a "womb", as you like to put it, "make him fight for his rights" how can you complain when your ex is doing just that?
So you aren't being punished either.
You're right with what you're saying, but see, this is why I've stated that I shouldn't have put these 'amendments' up here in the first place. I have decided the best thing is to walk away, and not fight for those rights.
I am not complaining. I know what I've said, and it still remains, unless a lawyer tells me it's incorrect--women DO have all the power, and men can DO nothing if paternity has not been established.
In my particular situation, yes, I haven't been able to prove paternity. But, I have been worn to the point to where I no longer wish to fight for it. See, too much to explain.
XenoSapien
Quote:
Originally Posted by XenoSapien
Xeno-fight now!! I will not be surprised if your ex will cross her mind after 15 year... and you will have to pay court ordered retroactive child support:eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:
GV, mi amigo, as I said before, momma is the kind that will create wild stories and false allegations. Before I prove my innocence, she will have the court thinking I'm an abusive father or pedophile or something crazy like that, I will lose jobs and labeled before they believe that I didn't do things she claims. Remember, momma is a sociopath. She doesn't give a d***.
XenoSapien
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 09:50 PM. |