A Knight Defending Fatherhood

Fathering Magazine ^ | May 26, 2002 | Roger F. Gay

[discostu]

NIck, I have to thank you. You're the first one to actually comment on my idea. As near as I can tell you're the first one to even read it.

I'm not saying to turn it over to collection agencies across the board, that's excessive. When it comes to the dads that actually pay their child support I think we should go back to the old way. Let dad send the check to mom and there's no reason to involve any third parties. That part wasn't broke.

What I'm saying is just for those cases where dad refuses to pay, that's it. The initial problem 20+ years ago (the problem that people tried to fix with a psychotic federal agency, which is never a good idea) was that mom had no ability to get money out of a dad that refused to pay. And that's really bad. In the 70s if a guy stopped paying his electric bill and his child support the electric company could hound him to the ends of the earth with collection agencies and civil suits and all kinds of other stuff (in 1990 I had a bad stretch and didn't pay my electric bill, they made my mother provide proof that I didn't live with her or they were gonna cut her off, I didn't even live in the state when that happened so it wasn't too hard... and I paid as soon as I had the money) and the mother of his children had to learn to live without that money. No matter how you slice it that's not an acceptable system.

So all I'm putting forth is a system almost identical to the one that existed before (ie, no federal agency, no federal control) except for one point: we treat the debt between former spouses JUST LIKE debt between citizens and corporations. All the burden of enforcement is on the ex-wife (just like it is with the electric company) but she actually has the ability to do something (much like the electric company). Nothing "like a collection agency" in this, the wife would hire an actual collection agency (we'll need some tweaking in the law to figure out how collection agencies handle continually incurring debt but that shouldn't be tough).

See I think you guys would like that system. Other than the changes to the current debt law there is no government involvement over and above the level government currently gets involved in bad debt situations (which is at the invitation of the creditor and the government has some serious limits on what they can do), no third party involvement when the father is paying (or can work out the situation with his ex).

I think it gives everybody what they want. You guys get to lose a federal agency you hate, I get the enforcement of payment that shows we're not a totally screwed up society.

[Lorianne]

Why don't "father's rights" activist actively support and lobby for joint physical custody both in divorce and never married situations?

Under joint custody there is considerably less and often none at all child support payments. Of course, it does require money to support the child in your direct custody but that is to be expected.

Again, why don't activists concerned with paying less in CS enthusiastically support JPC?

[Harrison Bergeron]

Couples don't resolve addictions. Individuals resolve addictions. Either the addicted spouse gets clean, or the non-addicted spouse leaves. Any other scenario indicates that you're probably dealing with two addicts of one type or another.

[RogerFGay]

I can't speak for fathers rights groups or anyone else. In Sweden, where I've been living for the past eight years, joint custody is presumed and preserved even against the objection of one parent. All of Scandinavia is a presumptive joint custody zone. Contrary to what representatives of the divorce industry in the United States say it really works quite well.

In my work on child support decision science, I've come to the definite and absolute conclusion that the labels a court puts on parents -- "custodial" and "noncustodial" have no rational relationship to deciding the appropriate amount of child support to be awarded. The ability of parents to pay, the amount of time children spend with each parent, and other aspects of the financial arrangements are important.

Come to think of it, I have read articles by reformers taking a position. "Custody," I've heard it said is that you take a prisoner into. And, now that I think about it, some reformers got the law changed in West Virginia to eliminate the labels. In one or two states people were disappointed when they simply got "custodial" replaced by "primary care" but I think some places did better than others.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"I can't speak for fathers rights groups or anyone else."

Common sense so obvious that it escaped me. "Child support" has spawned a tangible government infrastructure of waste and abuse that literally begs for dismantling. There is no corollary infrastructure to attack w/r/t the custody issue... it's almost entirely an ideological system held together by feminists and their sympathizers in the judicial system - smoke and mirrors if you will. The most frustrating thing about speaking out against the child-support status quo is that it will be neo-conservatives who first come to the chivalrous rescue of the poor wyminnz and their starving orfinks. With that kind of sympathy, the liberals can rest assured that nobody will mess with the best laid booby trap in their war against the traditional family.

[Lorianne]

Couples don't resolve addictions. Individuals resolve addictions. Either the addicted spouse gets clean, or the non-addicted spouse leaves. Any other scenario indicates that you're probably dealing with two addicts of one type or another.

And your point is? You made a claim that shopping addiction breaks up more marriages than infidelity .... which you didn't support with any facts. Plus you ommitted the many other types of addiction which can and DO break up marriages.

Now your tossing in arcane statements about how individuals deal with addition. Some spouses stay and try to work it out with the addicted spouse, and some don't.

The fact is divorce has many causes. In your (unsupported)assertion about shopping addiction breaking up more marriages than infidelity you seemed to condone a husband dumping the marriage. Do you condone the wife doing the same if the husband has an addiction?

What about in cases is infidelity, is this valid grounds for divorce?

[Lorianne]

Semantics. Call it what you will if you don't like the word "custody" then fine. That wasn't the point.

I'm just curious why father's rights activists in the US aren't actively lobbying for JPC. Still haven't gotten a good answer from you or anyone else.

Since you're living in Sweden and claim JPC works so well there and you're a writer concentrating on family issues, why wouldn't you write about JPC and get the word out to more people?

Also, I understand Sweden has a very different (some say socialist) system of child care, health care and more women work outside the home, and there is a higher standard of living overall, compared to the USA. Care to speculate how these things play into the prevalence of JPC there?

[Hostage]

Because it is a loaded statement. Whether fathers abandon children or whether fathers are driven off and criminalized is the issue. The deadbeat hysteria has overplayed itself to the detriment of innocent fathers. The point was made, that fathers are criminalized, convicted and sentenced without trial. These misguided harsh social movements have mirror images in history, and there are always consequences.

[Lorianne]

I have no idea what you are talking about. Would you post a reference to what statement of mine or others you are referring to?

[Harrison Bergeron]

"Now your tossing in arcane statements about how individuals deal with addition."

Arcane my @ss. That comment was in direct response to your assertion that "couples" have to deal with addiction problems or face divorce. But then anybody who bothers to reply to you can usually expect a faceful of snide for their trouble.

[wordsofearnest]

This whole thread has been a bunch of touchy feely B/S. Men should be men and support their families. A little more discretion and common sense on the front end would would prevent most of this. As Paul Harvey said " Don't breed them if you can't feed them".

[Lorianne]

That wasn't the issue. The issue I was addressing was whether or not you can defend your statment that shopping addiction causes more divorces than infidelity. Care to back that up?

When I asked you to provide some backup to your statement you decided to divert attention by making a pat statment that only individuals can resolve their own addiction. Well fine, ultimately yes they do. But they often do so with the help and support of a spouse or family member. Either way, it was a secondary issue, which was the point of your diversionary tactic.

Once again, what evidence do you have that shopping addiction, running up credit cards, etc., breaks up more marriages than infidelity? PS I don't mind if you're right, you might well be. I'd just like to see some data on this. If true it would be an interesting fact.

[Harrison Bergeron]

Sorry can't agree with you. Unemployed and incapacitated men are being incarcerated or prohibited from driving when Family Courts apply zero tolerance policies to child support enforcement. Out come the feminist zealots and neo-cons to say that complaining is "unmanly," and "besides, they probably deserved it because men are pigs anyway." Debtor's prison was declared unconstitutional a long time ago. Why isn't the Constitution being followed here? The answer? Bigoty is tolerated, as long as its against men.

[wordsofearnest]

Be a Man and don't become unemployed or incapacitated. Women who can't carry their end of the load don't deserve custody either. There are plenty of deserving adoptive parents out there.

[Harrison Bergeron]

"Be a Man and don't become unemployed or incapacitated."

Yeah... that's the mindset I'm talking about. A guy gets cancer or is injured on the job and - according to mental freaking giants like you - he's no longer a man. Lock him up, he's no good to anyone anyway, right?

[Nick Danger]

Why don't "father's rights" activist actively support and lobby for joint physical custody both in divorce and never married situations?

This will be the umpteenth time that you have attempted to insert into this thread the false notion that fathers' rights groups do not lobby in favor of joint custody.

Last time I sent you a link to a prominent father's rights group that is doing exactly that. This time I will quote from the Dallas Observer:

The National Organization for Women (NOW) issued an "Action Alert on Fathers' Rights" to its state and local chapters in 1996. "These fathers' groups are fulfilling their objectives forming political alliances with conservative Republicans by working for the adoption of legislation such as the presumption of joint custody," NOW warned. "The success of these groups will be harmful to all women but especially harmful to battered women and children."

The next time you say it, I will call you a deliberate, repetitive liar. Fair enough?

[Lorianne]

So you're saying NOW says that father's rights groups are lobbying for JPC yet I can't find anything on "fathers rights" organizations websites stating JPC aas part of their platform. Now, it is conceivable that there is an father's rights organization that does actively support/lobby for JPC and I just haven't found it. That's why I asked if anyone else has information on such groups and a link to them. Does your NOW article state which father's rights group is lobbying for JPC?

[Lorianne]

Last time I sent you a link to a prominent father's rights group that is doing exactly that.

I've looked through the thread and can't find this link. Can you post it again or tell me which post# you put it in? Thanks.

[Lorianne]

Nevermind I found it.

http://www.acfc.org/missn.htm

Here is what I found on the subject at that website:

"We believe equal, shared parenting time or joint custody is the optimal custody situation."

[Lorianne]

http://www.abanet.org/media/factbooks/cht4.html

Legal status of JPC in the USA by State. It seems that JPC is already either "authorized" (don't know what that means) or is the presumptive in the majority states.