Does Child Support Need an Update?

While these reforms appear nice, it seems to me it is more about ensuring the men are properly tethered to the grindstone so they can pay than ensuring fathers are part of their children's lives. The number one best way to ensure a man will pay is to enforce his custody rights. But heaven forbid Obama actually support fathers being fathers, that would take away the unilateral power mothers now hold, and we can't have that, equality doesn't include men. Instead he'll just focus on making sure men have paychecks that can then be garnished.

how would you suggest enforcing a father's custody rights?

Better than building bigger jails but hardly the reform truly needed: giving fathers rights to match their responsibilities.

Virginia just unanimously passed (still waiting for governor signature, but not a single senate or house member voted against it)a mandate to enforce custody orders, producing a number of consequences for custodial parents who ignore a court order. Specifically, that includes reimbursing a custodial parent for the time denied to him/her. Doing this nation wide would be a very promising start.

I also support shared 50/50 parenting. There are ample examples out there.

I'm surprised you'd even ask that question. given your involvement here, I'd think you'd be familiar with these ideas already, unless you misunderstood my meaning

I was thinking of it from a different perspective: Fathers that move away on a whim, don't hardly make time for their kids, and don't participate in parenting. I was wondering how you would enforce parenting/custody on a father who has decided he likes the freedom of being away from his kids and likes showing up every now and then or not at all, even though the parenting plan he agreed to gives him much more.

I now realize you were thinking of it from a perspective of fathers not receiving rights from the legal system or mothers denying them access to their children.

I generally agree with your line of thought. I assume by shared parenting you mean 50/50 physical custody. However, I do stand by concerns of 50/50 physical custody that I have expressed in the past. It would be interesting to know how many fathers want or request 50/50 physical custody; and if they don't want it, then what?

I have never been able to come up with perfect answers when it comes to breaking up an intact family and establishing two households. I am in complete agreement about fathers needing more respect and consideration than they currently have, and I often think many fathers are the better parent and deserving of full custody. However it does get complicated when you consider which partner has lied, cheated or broke promises, which partner initiated the break up, and which partner is the better parent and which parent has the means and desire to provide a steady houshold. As often these factors do not line up in a way that is fair to father, mother and child(ren).

The best way to ensure a father's rights to see his children are respected is to write into law that a violation of court-ordered visitation on the part of the custodial parent be regarded as a willing forfeiture of support payments for a period equal to the period between visits for the noncustodial parent.

Unfortunately, since each state gets money from the federal government for the amount of child support they receive, they wouldn't go for this type of system.

What you are describing is enforcing custodial responsibility, not rights. I believe doing that already exists in the form of child support enforcement. There are times when people (men and women) are going to choose to travel for the benefit of their careers. Unfortunately, regardless of the parent who chooses to move, the child usually stays with the mother. This seems odd to me, in that the parent choosing to move away should be the one making sacrifices, not the one left behind.

Now, if you are talking about enforcing responsibility on fathers who never wanted to be fathers, then we're going to have an issue, because I feel forcing a man into fatherhood is about as ethical as forcing a woman to keep a baby she didn't want, and there are several options to ensure that doesn't happen, none of which are available to men.

Now if you're talking about men who just give up on their children after years of being involved, of choosing to be a father... well, we can't really be sure how many of those there are until we are assured those that do want to be involved and are just cut out are no longer cut out.

"and if they don't want it, then what?"

Nobody has ever argued the 50/50 should be a mandatory allotment. It has always been argued, if parents choose to take the issue to court (IE, the parents can't come to an agreement themselves), then 50/50 should be the default, the starting point before the judge takes into account any other variables. If one parent didn't want 50% time, then the other parent getting more time is unlikely to be contested and go to court. If nether parent wants that much time with the child, there is an entirely different problem than custody. Given we have never had equality in custody, and that we all know the mother will get the child, baring some serious issues on her part, it is not surprising many men choose not to pay boatloads of money to fight an agreement the mother puts on the table which grants "some" time. Until men are assured 50/50, we can't know how many will want it, given the deterrent currently found in the high cost and low success rate of getting it under current law.

Thanks for the response.

not sure if anyone will see this post, as this is an old thread (I have been away from my computer)....

about Xtrnl's quote:

"Unfortunately, since each state gets money from the federal government for the amount of child support they receive, they wouldn't go for this type of system."

I am not sure what this means and I have seen reference to this many times. Can someone please explain?

Also, I did not have time to make any response to Kratch, other than to thank him for his reply. I hope I did not come across as disagreeing with him. I had original asked the question about enforcing fathers rights from the perspective of forcing a father to take his custodial time in circumstances when the father is not showing up to take the kids.

I do still have questions/concerns about tying child support to visitation and how this will play out (I will ask when they come up on a more current thread), but I agree with the general concept of fathers getting more control and mothers getting less control in the legal system. However, it is my understanding that is is already illegal for a mother to disregard parenting plans so I am not sure how helpful a duplicate law will change things.

The wording next to the judge's signature on parenting plans is very specific that it is court ordered and any deviation not approved by the court in writing will be punishable by the courts.