It’s a racket because during the Clinton years, Title IV was passed of the Social Security Act which basically funnels cash from the feds to local Child Support Collection Agencies for the most ‘child’ support dollars collected.
How does this translate into custody? Almost 90% of the time the mother gets custody. Which means that the father has to pay ‘child’ support to the mother (wealth redistribution instead of 50/50 custody with no CS changing hands)
This is the preferred set up in “family” court so that the most money can flow into local coffers. This is why it’s very hard for the father to get custody.
So many times I hear of a father mortgaging his house and spending tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees to get custody away from a druggy mom. No CS is usually ordered from non-custodial MOTHERS no matter how high their earnings are.
maybe 30 yrs ago custody was given to the mom more often, but I doubt that’s true now...my friend spent $25,000 to get even joint custody from her ex...her ex who was not even a natural citizen, who drank too much, and ran over the child’s foot while on his riding lawnmower completely cutting off the heel of her one foot....but even THAT did not sway the stinking court “commissioner”.
That is interesting. The cases I know where the father got custody, the mother was a high earner and they socked it to her.
Statistics in some states show that if the kids are over 5 years old and the father sues for custody, he wins in the majority of cases (Virginia? 90%? I don’t remember the exact figures), so there is corruption in both directions.
At any rate, “the best interests of the child” are the least of the courts concern.
Also it reminds me of the cases in Pennsylvania where a judge was sending kids to juvie on very minor offenses. Turned out he was getting a kickback from the company that profited from running the juvenile detention centers.