How to end the war against divorced dads

National Post ^ | March 28, 2000 | Donna Laframboise

[RogerFGay]

How to end the war against divorced dads

Donna Laframboise
National Post

Over the past three days, the National Post has examined the myth of the "deadbeat dad." We've shown how divorced fathers doing everything in their power to live up to their financial obligations are treated disgracefully by the authorities.

How can a system so badly flawed be fixed? How can we stop the misconceived war against divorced dads that is driving good men toward bankruptcy, despair and suicide?

[RogerFGay]

bump

[Radix]

Thanks for the post.

It comes home to me.
I am from a broken home and I swore to God I would never let that happen to my children. Unfortunately, I was only a part of the equation.
In the end we worked out our own special deal. It was difficult for a long time. Now however it is but a memory. We are all older and wiser.
The kids are grown, and nobody hates anybody.

[Reactionary]

Bump for parenthood.

[Tom D.]

I prosecute child support cases for the State of North Carolina freelance. I have posted on this subject before and have gotten rants and praises in return. When I read this article something that should have been obvious, but was not to me, clicked. The article discusses divorced and divorcing parents. After reading this it occurs to me that the major premise is wrong. It implies that the term "deadbeat dad" is used in relation to divorced fathers. In general, that has not been my experience. There are exceptions, but for the most part, the deadbeats are the parents of illegitimate kids. It has been my experience that kids who have the good fortune to be born to parents who at one time thought enough of each other to get married do a tolerably good job of financially supporting their kids.

Where the problem comes is with people who think enough of each other (or more probably their own eroginous (sp?) zones) to copulate, but not enough of each other or of their offspring to get married. It is these bastard parents who create almost all of the financial problems. I get damned sick of women who have 5 kids by 4 men in 7 years complaining that this guy (who also has 4 other kids by 2 or 3 other women) will not pay child support regularly.

All the while, these kids are learning what a true and loving relationship means from morons who refuse to take any responsibility for where they put their genitals or to take responsibility for what they let in their genitals.

Divorcing couples rarely are problems. When there is a problem with divorced couples my rough estimate that about 25% of the time it is the father; about 25% of the time it is the mother; and, about 50% of the time there is some blame to go around.

[I_Love_My_Husband]

So true.

[Billy_bob_bob]

Well said. I have a question. What would you think about the idea of implementing a national policy of favoring paternal custody in divorce cases? It seems to me that the scales have been way, way out of balance for a very long time now, and the only way to swing those scales back is to start favoring fathers over mothers with regards to child custory.

Of course, in cases where the father is unfit to have the children then you would give the mother custody, but in most cases the father would end up with custody. The reasons that I propose this are as follows:

First, mothers have been more or less automatically awarded custody for something like fourty or fifty years now, and it is long past time to swing the scales of justice back towards paternal rights. Since things have been so very much out of balance for so very long it is necessary to tilt the balance the other way for a generation or two.

Second, most divorces are initiated by women, who (quite reasonably) expect to have the cards stacked in their favor in court. If women did not have this expectation they would be much less likely to initiate a divorce.

Third, as I understand it the evidence is that children raised by single fathers do better than children raised by single mothers. I do believe there are studies that support this conclusion, although I don't have any links handy.

I know from my own experiences that I would have been much, much better off if my father had been awarded custody of me when I was a little kid going through a very nasty divorce.

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

[There should be] a national policy of favoring paternal custody in divorce cases . . . [because] most divorces are initiated by women, who (quite reasonably) expect to have the cards stacked in their favor in court.

Maybe just a presumption that the one who initiates the divorce does not get custody? A rebuttable presumption, but a presumption nonetheless . . .

[Tom D.]

The fewer national policies there are the better. We already have the federal government messing with local speed limits. Where the justification for that in the Constitution is escapes me. I realize that the Feds have largely preempted many of the child support issues, but illegitimately (pun intended) expanding the Federal government's authority is not justified.

The reason that the mother gets custody in the typical case is that in the typical case the mother has been the primary care taker of the kids before the custody issues arises. There are several logical reasons why a judge should continue this arrangement.

First, it is what the kid is used to. Whether the divorce is the fault of the mother, or whether it is the fault of the father, or whether it there is fault on both sides, one thing is for certain: It ain't the fault of the kid. Judges are rightfully reluctant to make additional radical changes in the life of a kid whose life is already in flux by a divorce.

Second, if the mother is the primary care taker of a child before a divorce, a judge might reasonably conclude that to a large extent the parents have decided between themselves before it goes to trial, where the relative advantages lie.

Obviously, often things do not work out well, but remember, that to a very large exent Courts are trying to decide which of two houses built upon the sand is the more stable.

The concept of joint custody sounds better than it is. Suppose that there the parents disagree on which course of medical treatment is better of a kid or which courses the kids take in school or which birthday party the kids attend when there are two mutually exclusive choices. Courts are ill structured to make those decisions. Added to that are the complications that arise when one parent is transferred though his or her job, or some other such problem. No ship can sail with two captains.

Everyone who thinks is prepared to acknowledge that courts often get it wrong, but what everyone is not prepared to admit is that often divorce is toughest on those with the least fault.

Until society realizes that it is not men's advocacy groups or women's advocacy groups, but commitment, particulary in adversity, good sense, a strong gut, and the ability to laugh at yourself that produce good, well adjusted kids, there are going to be a lot of screwed up kids.

No federal policy is going to prevent or stop problems in raising kids who have no base and no experience in what a good foundation is. Congress can pass a law tomorrow that mandates happiness, health, and well-being, but it will be useless.

[An American In Dairyland]

Hi Roger. Thanks for posting this. I didn't know you were a freeper, too.

"Jill" from soc.men

[churchillbuff]

How can a system so badly flawed be fixed?

How bout NOT GETTING DIVORCED - at least not until the kids are grown up?

[ChicagahAl]

It's time to put a stop to so-called "child support". It is the biggest welfare scam on the face of the earth. Let the custodial parent support his or her children.

[Mr. K]

Many here have heard my story: I divorced a DIAGNOSED psychopath woman with a history of mental illness and child abuse.

The COURTS OWN DOCTOR recommended I be given SOLE custody and that their mother not even be allowed overnight visitation until she received mental health care.

Then she filed FALSE CHARGES of assault, at a time when I proved I was not even at home. She was arrested for filing false charges. amd the prosecutor refused to pursue her.

The kids were temporarily placed with me during a TWO YEAR trial during which one of my girls was HOSPITALIZED FOR NEGLECT after a visitation at their mothers' house...

She stole over $100,000 of household income, which forced me to attempt to file Chapter 13 bankruptcy, to save almost a million bucks in real estate properties. (also during the divorce and trial)

4 of her attorneys asked the court to be allowed to withdraw from the case because of her lying and failure to comply with court orders (also during the custody trial)

End result: New York State Supreme Court Judge John O'Donnell took them away from me and granted sole custody back to their mother and took them out of my home.

He also ordered me to pay $1800 a month child support, which wiped out the million in property..

The children's financial future is gone, they are abused in her home, and CPS and the new york state courst did ALLOWED it to happen.

New York State is a $hithole for fathers... move out of the state before you file for divorce, no matter how unfit their mother is.

Oh, and every time I talk about this I get some stupid feminists say "oh yeah but what did YOU do?"
Answer: NOTHING- There was not ONE SUBSTANTIALTED ALLEGATION against me. Period. And in fact many of her allegations were proven to be fabrications against me INCLUDING child abuse (also during the trial)

[RogerFGay]

Hi "Jill" from soc.men

[RogerFGay]

How can a system so badly flawed be fixed?

How bout NOT GETTING DIVORCED - at least not until the kids are grown up?

Many women think the system is great, and they're the ones who are filing for divorce and expecting an uninterrupted pot of gold every morning delivered to their door step as a reward.

[RogerFGay]

You really have to wonder whether brain damage is one of the qualifications required to become a judge.

[Looking for Diogenes]

Maybe we need a 'Defense of Marriage' act to repeal easy divorce.

[Cultural Jihad]

How bout NOT GETTING DIVORCED - at least not until the kids are grown up?

But then the johnny-one-note ideologues wouldn't be able to whine.

[RogerFGay]

Maybe we need a 'Defense of Marriage' act to repeal easy divorce.

It seems to be a rule in politics to never reverse policies that have funding attached no matter what problems they cause. Instead, they'll produce new policies with more funding attached that create a load of new problems that will later be addressed with more policies with funding attached that ....

[binger]