CHild Support and Visitation Rights

Sep 14 19:13 UTC 1991

 Recently I watched a daytime talk show about fathers who never pay their
child support.
 One comment that came up fairly often was, "She never/hardly ever lets
me visit the kids. Why should I pay my child support?"
 Is it fair that the children of divorced parents should have to go 
without adequate food/clothing/entertainment because the mother doesn't
let the father visit often enough? Isn't that a problem between the
parents, not something the kids should have to pay for?

response 2 of 50:

Sep 14 20:03 UTC 1991

re #0:  It's a two-way street.  If mommy is violating court-ordered
        visitation rights, what gives her *any* right to complain that
        her husband is not giving her court-ordered child support?

        Don't forget -- the children pay dearly, also, when deprived of
        their right to see a parent.

response 4 of 50:

Sep 14 21:35 UTC 1991

  And even they don't like it much.  My sister practices law in a small town
and thus doesn't really have the option of taking cases in only those areas of
law that she enjoys.  She describes child custody and divorce work as being
the worst possible.  Unfortunately, they're both growing areas..

  What if the parent X were to provide food, clothing, education, etc. for
the children instead of paying cash directly to parent Y.  Would that be a 
reasonable substitute?

response 6 of 50:

Sep 14 22:44 UTC 1991

 The kids should not be punished no matter what. Aaron, do you honestly
believe that a man has the right, whether legal or moral, to withhold
funds from his children?
 It takes two incomes to raise a family these days. A man should be
responsible financially for his kids even if they're not physically
in his life most of the time.
 Fathers who don't pay their support payments can not say that they
care about the welfare of their children. If they did care, they
woul;dn't subject them to hunger and humiliation.
 I have no statistics in this area, but I'd bet money on the fact that
most non-paying fathers aren't interested in custody or visits anyway.
They use it as an excuse not to pay.

response 8 of 50:

Sep 15 00:04 UTC 1991

   The whole system is disgusting, and I wish people thought a bit more
before deciding to have children.

response 10 of 50:

Sep 15 00:57 UTC 1991

Who here has been in a child-support situation themselves? Let's see those
hands! 
Particularly, who's been the child? 
<I raise my hand>

Thrown into the mix is the amount paid, or required to pay. For me, it
was $100/month, from the time I was three until I was 18. At three, it 
wasn't much, but it helped. At 14, it was a disgrace, and it was 
humiliating to depend so much on that meager aid for food and the like.
Especially when it was late.

response 12 of 50:

Sep 15 14:58 UTC 1991

RE 8: And I also wish people would think a bit more before having 
        a divorce.

response 16 of 50:

Sep 15 21:08 UTC 1991

 re #5:  What's a "small percentage"?  Do you have any statistics to back
         that up?  I'd have thought that the majority of divorced parents
         payed, albeit grudgingly.  I'd be quite surprised to find that it
         really was a "small percentage".

 Divorce law probably needs a serious overhaul.  In particular, the 
presumptions that are made as a default are getting more and more outdated
as time goes by (for example, the presumption that a child is better off in
the custody of the mother unless demonstrated otherwise.  The fact that 
everyone here is talking about fathers withholding support and mothers 
withholding visitation rights and not ever the other way around sure seems
to indicate a significant bias to me..)

response 18 of 50:

Sep 15 22:34 UTC 1991

Re 17:  You're probably right, mothers don't often abandon their 
children, but it seems that you are generalizing about fathers way too much 
based on your bad experience.

response 20 of 50:

Sep 16 05:56 UTC 1991

  re #17:  I know as many kids whose mothers left as I know kids whose
fathers did.  Which doesn't prove anything, since it's purely anecdotal,
but I would probably argue with your statement that mothers rarely abandon
their children.  I suspect any judge or social worker would too.
 
  Whether or not more fathers abandon their families than mothers is 
beside the point in cases where both parents want custody, though.  Unless
the parties are just trying to gain custody of the children to hurt their
ex-spouse or avoid child-support payments (an all-too-common occurrence)
it seems unlikely that either parent, having cared enough to fight for
their children, would turn around and abandon them.

response 22 of 50:

Sep 16 16:20 UTC 1991

The "tender years" doctrine, stating that the kids are best off with Mom,
has been pretty well abandoned--officially.  Often, Mom is the one who's
been spending most of her time maintaining the household, even if she has
a full-time job, so she gets at least joint custody. 

I was very fortunate, in that I was 16 when my parents divorced.  That
way, it was clear that I was perfectly able to decide when and where I
would live and when I would visit.  I told them right off the bat that
if either of them pulled any attempts at anything less than joint custody
with visitation and living arrangements left totally up to me, that parent
would never see me again.
  
They were also both businesslike enough to draw up a written agreement
specifying exactly what the terms of support and providing for my education
would be.  Generally they give the money directly to me, and I let the
other parent know that the payment has been made, so they don't have to
deal with each other.

response 24 of 50:

Sep 16 21:39 UTC 1991

Re #21--"Ordered to pay"--what, exactly, does that mean?  I assume we're
taking about a large population of families that separate, a smaller
percentage that actually get an actual divorce, and in the divorces, a
certain percentage of men who push for visitation rights or even
custody, and a certain percentage who want to get off scott-free.