Skip to comments.
How to end the war against divorced dads
National Post ^
| March 28, 2000
| Donna Laframboise
Posted on 10/20/2002 2:50:24 PM PDT by RogerFGay
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-119 next last
To: Billy_bob_bob
Odd for a FReeper to suggest the 'Jessee Jackson way', what? Can a call for reparations be very far behind?
How 'bout just evening out the custodial parent presumption?
...and the only way to swing those scales back is to start favoring fathers over mothers with regards to child custory.
To: Z in Oregon
It was an amendment to the social security act that established the US Office of Child Support Enforcement.
What year?
I believe it went -- the bill was introduced in 1975 and was either actually passed or went into effect in 1976. It established Title IV Section D of the Social Security Act.
To: RogerFGay
Nobody aborrs taxes more than I do. But the present system doesn't work. Marriage is too easy, and divorce is way too easy.
There is unmistakaly a high cost, in real dollars to our society as the result of divorce and children being raised in signle family homes. (Crime, poverty, healthcare, etc.) Those are costs we all bear, including those of us who stay married.
The Court's have been addressing this situation post-hoc. That is, after the marriage is dead and the damage done. Perhaps we need some legislation that can effect people's behavior ex-ante.
To: Iron Eagle
The Court's have been addressing this situation post-hoc. That is, after the marriage is dead and the damage done. Perhaps we need some legislation that can effect people's behavior ex-ante.
The courts used to do their job. Divorce has been around forever. Moses had to deal with the issue. Don't get involved with encouraging politicians to manipulate society. The divorce rate was much lower before they started that, and it's climbed with every new initiative they've gotten involved in. If you want to roll back the reforms to the days when marriage legally existed, you might have something there. Reagan led the drive to abolish marriage in the United States. "no-fault" divorce meant elimination of legal recognition of the marriage "contract" -- so at this point, that problem is well beyond "easy divorce." Our new age problem, is the idea that we should pile more new reforms and experiements on top of the old ones, always adding new funding to assure that there will always be supporters.
One thing that amazes me as far as change goes; is that nobody seems to think much about the idea of keeping government within limits and letting people live their own lives -- even if it is for better or for worse. Constantly performing "social experiments" on the masses is the way of the world even so far as many of the people who call themselves "conservative" are concerned. A problem? There's a problem? It no longer matters whether it's a real problem or not, whether it's a solvable problem or fact of life, of whether proposed "social experiments" will improve things or make them worse.... it's just automatically bring on the expensive intrusive big brother government social experiments.
To: RogerFGay
No body hates governmetn intrusion more than me. (Well, maybe some libertarians do). Anyway, the problem here is that divorce necessarily implicates the state. (i.e. big brother -- who, by the way, is really "all tax-payers.")
Big brother, and all of his cousins get stuck footing the bill for the real costs of broken homes.
Perhaps you have stumbled onto the solution, however. Perhaps it is as simple as requiring a marraige contract. Government does not dictate the terms, just that there be a valid agreement. This is no different than parties rights to contract freely now. The failure to contat, however, leaves default rules in the form of law to be applied. (Which we now know can't wok effectively in every case.) No contract, no marriage. The contract would devise post marriage rights and obligations, taking the state out of the equation. (But for your normal breach of contract.)
To: Iron Eagle
Anyway, the problem here is that divorce necessarily implicates the state. (i.e. big brother -- who, by the way, is really "all tax-payers.")
Not necessarily.
Big brother, and all of his cousins get stuck footing the bill for the real costs of broken homes.
The "solution" that's emerged over the past half century is to "invest" huge amounts of taxpayer funds into breaking families up, and over the past quarter century assuring that women across the economic spectrum find it profitable enough to break up the family to keep the rate of break-up high.
Perhaps you have stumbled onto the solution, however. Perhaps it is as simple as requiring a marraige contract. Government does not dictate the terms, just that there be a valid agreement.
Back before marriage was abolished in the US, there was a legally meaningful marriage contract. It isn't necessary to invent one or have lawyers draw up papers before the marriage. Courts in the US had more than two centuries of experience dealing with divorce issues and the "implied contract" was firmly established, including many meaningful details. They didn't even start from scratch. Early divorce laws in the US were based on laws that had developed in other countries (including England).
To: Z in Oregon; Billy_bob_bob
What would you think about the idea of implementing a national policy of favoring paternal custody in divorce cases? Paternal custody is favored in a patriarchal society, which is what our system of government is based on (Christian principles). What we need is a national policy that supports families (patriarchy) rather than supporting sexual liberation (matriarchy). From no-fault divorce, to misapplication of guardianship laws, to ex-parte orders for "protection", and so forth. The new feminists have succeeded in effectively removing the traditional protections afforded american families. It is going to take men standing up for their rights to put us back on the right path. Asserting a father's absolute right to guardianship by nature is the key.
To: RogerFGay
Back before marriage was abolished in the US, there was a legally meaningful marriage contract. It isn't necessary to invent one or have lawyers draw up papers before the marriage. Courts in the US had more than two centuries of experience dealing with divorce issues and the "implied contract" was firmly established, including many meaningful details. They didn't even start from scratch. Early divorce laws in the US were based on laws that had developed in other countries (including England). I am well aware of the laws on marriage, divorce, and their common law roots. I don't think you and other fathers' rights' advocates want to go back to the old rules on divorce and the obligations stemming therefrom.
To: right2parent
Agreed. Over the last 50 years, the Left has been been instituting a degenerate, morality-free Matriarchy...with society-wrecking success. It is time to return to a Patriarchy, based upon firm morals, concrete principles, and a father's absolute right to guardianship of all of his children.
To: Iron Eagle; RogerFGay
In terms of finances, people should keep what they earned. Getting divorced should never entitle one person to the money/assets earned by the other. Joint division of property needs to be abolished. Plus there should be no alimony. And no child support either, which is needless anyway where the principle of automatic father custody is followed.
To: Iron Eagle
Taxing marriage et al is not a good idea.
Requiring that each couple write and sign their own legally binding marriage contract prenuptially, however, is a good idea.
To: Tom D.
Judges are rightfully reluctant to make additional radical changes in the life of a kid whose life is already in flux by a divorce. Ah, but they do. Routinely.
To: Z in Oregon
And no child support either, . . Where a father runs out on his family, he is obligated to pay support, and regardless of the mother's income if his wife has promised her fidelity in exchange for his support. That's what marriage is all about. These promises mean nothing, however, when the state holds only one party responsible for the marriage contract, and rewards the other for her infidelity (no-fault divorce, mother custody).
To: Iron Eagle
I don't think you and other fathers' rights' advocates want to go back to the old rules on divorce and the obligations stemming therefrom. You can't compromise with terrorists (I mean feminists). The "old rules" work. It's the only way.
To: right2parent
Where the father deserts, or is proven criminally unfit, sure.
But not otherwise.
The norm, where the father has not deserted or been proven criminally unfit, needs to be automatic father custody, which renders the child support issue moot because he can then take care of all their expenses directly, as they reside with him post-marriage.
To: right2parent
The "old rules" work.Interestingly, that is true.
The more matriarchal America has become the more moral, spiritual, and social degeneration it has experienced.
A full Patriarchy is the answer.
Fathers must be pre-eminent in their familes for those families to be the core of a healthy culture, society, and nation.
To: RogerFGay
Thanks for your thoughtful responses.
Pushing for presumptive joint-custody is an agenda item that realistically could be passed. Of course, there are fifty states to deal with, one by one.
The states already implement much of the Child Support Enforcement program, with funding and guidance from the feds. They will need to take over the funding responsibility, one by one.
I'm dubious that everything was fine in 1975, when CSE was first passed, or in 1981 when it was strengthened. I have too much respect for Reagan to think that he would have expanded an intrusive federal program without a good reason. There is also statistical evidence of the increase in Welfare for single parent households, a problem that CSE seeks to address by forcing the parents, rather than the state, to pay for child support.
Certainly a custodial parent should keep the non-custodial parent informed of the child's whereabouts. And there are real abuses of justice and due process. There is a growing ground swell of opposition to those abuses and the judiciary seems to be growing aware of the problems. Frankly, it is going to be a long time before this federal bureaucracy is dismantled, should that ever occur. In the meantime, it must be made fair and efficient.
What is the problem needing solution? You seem mostly concerned with protecting the rights of divorced dads, a noble and important goal. The larger problem is single parent households and how to fund the costs of child support. Reducing the number of single parent households cures much of the problem. Until we achieve that goal, we need to make sure that the parents, and not the taxpayers, bear the burden of child-support.
To: RogerFGay
To: Stand Watch Listen
Men's News Daily is an excellent site. It is like a reality check; all the news stories that the feminazi mainstream media proactively buries.
To: Looking for Diogenes
I haven't said that heaven existed on earth prior to 1975. What I've said, is that things have gotten worse since 1975. There has been no benefit from the child support enforcement program. It was in fact clear from the statistical record that there would be no benefit, and no credible counter-balancing evidence that gave the program any chance of providing a benefit.
If you really want to get insight, read
Divorced Dads: Shattering the Myths by Sanford Braver. Braver performed the largest study of divorced dads in history. He explains quite directly, that the folks who invented the "deadbeat dad" propaganda had nothing to base their views on. They made it up. He then uses real facts and research to provide a better understanding of what's going on in real life.
Regardless of your faith in Reagan, this is all well beyond the theoretical stage. The laws were passed and the experiment has been run. The results are in. It has always been a fact that fathers have a good record paying child support. The "compliance rate" with child support orders (the percent ordered that is paid) has not increased since the program was started. In fact, it's dropped since 1996. It isn't saving money for taxpayers, it's costing them around $4.5 billion a year. That of course makes the recipients of your $4.5 billion very happy. They're going to keep fighting to keep the money flowing until you pry it from their cold-dead fingers.
You should also be aware that it's not just eliminating the rights of others and stealing your tax money; both of which you seem perfectly willing to tolerate. This same system is not only after your money but also YOUR rights and freedom:
Too Late to Stop National ID
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-119 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson