ForumGarden

do you feel child custody and visitation laws are reasonable and fair where you live? are the courts working? are child protective agencies working? do you have a horror story? men's and women's perspectives on this issue would be most interesting. for example, should visitation be contingent on paying support? or whether a parent has committed crimes?

Okay now. Everyone remember that LC is the one who got me started here.:wah:

A parent should support their child no matter what but let's face it, it doesn't happen. Many people want to punish the ex spouse for not paying that support, but in the long run, the child is the one who is punished. The person who withholds the right for the other parent to see the child, is just as wrong. They are using the child. I know some may not agree with me, but this is how I see it.

If a parent commits crimes? As long as the crimes weren't against the child or while the child was with the parent, I see no reason for the parent not to see their child.

Children's Protective Services? I wonder how many lives they have saved, how many lives they could have saved, etc. I've read too many stories where they were called in, more than once, and never went back. A child here locally died when the parents did not seek medical treatment. CPS had been there a few times before. The children remained in the home until after it was too late for the one child. I realize they have to have a darn good reason to remove a child, but I think too many times things are overlooked due to the fact some case worker doesn't want to do all the paperwork or fails to check up on them at a later date.

I find it hard to believe noone else has an opinion on this subject.

In NM - it is always joint custody unless a parent is defined as unfit. In my mind THAT IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. If a parent moves out of state they have to leave the kids with the parent that stays in NM. Visitation for an out-of-state parent is determined by the age of the child.

Peg wrote: I find it hard to believe noone else has an opinion on this subject.it was a buried thread, i am sure there are a lot of people with strong feelings on this subject.

Well, I always allowed my ex to see the kids, even though he never paid me a dime. I had full custody and the decision was mine to make. I thought it was more important for the kids to have their father in their lives then out of it. I still pay for the plane tickets to send them home, even though they are over 18. He never has paid for a ticket yet either.

But since my children are adults now, and know the situation, it is different for me.

There's a child custody case going on right now here locally. It makes me crazy. The parents have joint custody. When dad's g/f's son shot the child with a bb gun, she went in and took him. Her lawyer advised her to take him back so he can't get her for contempt of court. She took him back, now dad won't give him back. He is now going to court for contempt charges. These two so called adult parents, are busy racking up lawyer fees, going back and forth trying to top each other. Who wins? Noone. The one that loses is the child.:-5

The parent who doesn't financially support their child shouldn't be permitted to have the benefit of interacting with that child. It takes money to raise kids and if the shirking parent doesn't want to pay his or her share of raising that kid then he should have no right to see him or her. I understand the argument about it being punishment for the child but my opinion is firm.

RedGlitter wrote: The parent who doesn't financially support their child shouldn't be permitted to have the benefit of interacting with that child. It takes money to raise kids and if the shirking parent doesn't want to pay his or her share of raising that kid then he should have no right to see him or her. I understand the argument about it being punishment for the child but my opinion is firm.


In Gerat Britian (nor sure about Scotland, N. Ireland) there are mechanisms to

ensure, in the absence of a (court approved) agreement that the "absent parent"

contributes toward the upkeep of any children (unless, of course, they cannot).

If contributions are not forthcoming, legal mechanisms exist to force payments.

If the parent who "normally looks after the child" cannot afford to go to court

themselves, they are legally aided.

In practice, this works to a degree, and there are lots of things that can rightly

be regarded as unfair.

Hamster wrote: I believe that the children should always be allowed to see their other parent...Money or not.

The financial issue is between the parents not the children-and who are we to play god with our childrens lives?


AOL.



Hamster wrote: The only reason to deny access would be if the father/mother is deemed to be a physical threat towards the children in my opinion. I know it will not be a popular opinion but we cannot hurt the children.


Even in that case, supervised visits are an option.

We have legal means in the states too but they don't work.

I know it will not be a popular opinion but we cannot hurt the children.

You've presumably already hurt them by breaking up the family. How does that child feel knowing his mother or father doesn't feel he's worthy enough to have that parent pay for his care? And even if you didn't tell the child, kids know. They're not dumb. And life is full of hurt and things that aren't fair and kids can't be protected from everything nor should they always be. I don't feel a deadbeat who leaves his wife or her husband to pay for everything a child requires deserves to see that child. And often that (and not necessarily the child) is all the ex-spouse has to bargain with. It isn't right.

An older thread, but an interesting discussion. I cannot speak from experience, not being a parent and all, but I am bugged about so many courts automatically awarding primary custody to the mother. Does this still happen? What if the father is more able, for whatever reason, to be the primary caregiver?

It bugs me too, to see the parents using the kids as a tool in thier war with each other. Or they bad mouth the other parent in front of the kids. Unfortunatly I have seen that first hand, in the cse of Ricks daughter in law. She and her ex did not split amicably. If what I hear is right, the father is not exactly a gem. But the thing is, Rick and Brenda (the daughter in law) will talk negative about the ex in front of Brenda's daughter, to the point where the girl is also thinking negatively about her dad, and repeating the stuff.

Marie, even though you and I missed the joys that children can bring

We also missed the heartaches :-6

RedGlitter wrote: We have legal means in the states too but they don't work.

I know it will not be a popular opinion but we cannot hurt the children.

You've presumably already hurt them by breaking up the family. How does that child feel knowing his mother or father doesn't feel he's worthy enough to have that parent pay for his care? And even if you didn't tell the child, kids know. They're not dumb. And life is full of hurt and things that aren't fair and kids can't be protected from everything nor should they always be. I don't feel a deadbeat who leaves his wife or her husband to pay for everything a child requires deserves to see that child. And often that (and not necessarily the child) is all the ex-spouse has to bargain with. It isn't right.
What about the parent who can't afford to pay what the court ordered? When I hear what some of these judges order, it's unbelievable. What about the parent who all they have to offer is love? I definately believe a parent should financially support their child, but I also believe the custodial parent should not be sitting back, not working, living off the child support too. I agree life is not fair and children learn that soon enough without some bitter parent reminding them of that.

Peg wrote: What about the parent who can't afford to pay what the court ordered? When I hear what some of these judges order, it's unbelievable. What about the parent who all they have to offer is love? I definately believe a parent should financially support their child, but I also believe the custodial parent should not be sitting back, not working, living off the child support too.


I agree that the receiving parent shouldn't be living off the child support and that sometimes court orders can be ridiculous. But if you're a parent you'd better have more to offer than just love. Love doesn't feed a child or clothe it or pay its medical bills. That's not to say love isn't crucial to raising a child but money is just as crucial. And if one parent can't afford to pay child support, that suggests to me that if they stayed married, the other parent would be paying for all or most of the child's needs anyway. Is that fair?

Well, how in the world did I miss this!?!

When I got divorced, my girls were 8 and 10. My ex didn't bother to hire a lawyer, didn't bother to show up in court but complained plenty about having to pay child support and such.

While I was in court, he moved out of the house. He rented a room about 2 miles from the house. I got full custody of the children, he got every other weekend, two weeks in summer and every other major holiday. Pretty standard.

It took me over a year to get a child support check. And that was with the help of Friends of the Court. During this time, he never asked to see the children or called them on the phone. He was notified of school functions but chose not to attend. (He didn't attend when we were married, so this was no surprise.)

Shortly after I finally started getting support checks, he changed jobs - the new one payed almost $2 less an hour - and started attending college. This meant that he couldn't afford to pay child support. Again.

Still, the girls got no visits and no phone calls. Hell, the second Christmas after the divorce he got them READER'S DIGEST for a present. He worked at Best Buy and could have got them great presents with his employee discount but instead he got them a suscription of Reader's Digest to share! This was their only gift. It was their last gift. Sometimes they get birthday and Christmas cards, sometimes they don't.

In the 11 years since the divorce, he has seen the girls about a half a dozen times. He has never, ever taken them for a weekend or a major holiday. He hasn't had a job in 3 years, lives with his mom and owes me between $8,000 and $9,000 in back child support. He has not contributed anything towards the girls' activities, medical expenses or anything else.

IMHO - he needs to spend a few days in a jail cell. For almost a year now, he has had the child support garnished from his military retirement. I got the last payment two months ago. I am sure that it will take me a good six months to see another one. If I am lucky, I'll get that back support before my 8 year old graduates high school!

Thank you for letting me vent.

RedGlitter wrote: I agree that the receiving parent shouldn't be living off the child support and that sometimes court orders can be ridiculous. But if you're a parent you'd better have more to offer than just love. Love doesn't feed a child or clothe it or pay its medical bills. That's not to say love isn't crucial to raising a child but money is just as crucial. And if one parent can't afford to pay child support, that suggests to me that if they stayed married, the other parent would be paying for all or most of the child's needs anyway. Is that fair?
If they had stayed married, the person would be paying for most of the child's needs plus the spouse's needs too.

In your case LD, it sounds as if he could still see the kids, it was his choice not to.

That is his loss.

I'm not saying the non-custodial parent shouldn't get child support. What I'm trying to say is, there are many case where the person is trying and the kids are used as pawns to get more and more. There's also many cases where the non-custodial parent will quit their job to avoid child support. They DO deserve jail time. What I hate most is the people who waltz into their kids' lives after not being a part of their lives for years, then waltz right back out.

RedGlitter wrote: The parent who doesn't financially support their child shouldn't be permitted to have the benefit of interacting with that child. It takes money to raise kids and if the shirking parent doesn't want to pay his or her share of raising that kid then he should have no right to see him or her. I understand the argument about it being punishment for the child but my opinion is firm.


And what does this teach the child?? You can't just say to a child sorry kiddo you can't see mom/dad because they aren't paying for you... sorry children are not pawns.

I fight monthly for my child support and it's a long ugly story how my daughters' dad managed to convince doctors, lawyers and employers that he could go onto disability and reduce his CS payments by 60%. But he did it.

We here have the law behind us to collect the support in a timely matter however I forever have to toss a coin as to weather I want to have him put into this program then deal with him as the freaking angry lion forever, or just suck it up that my itty bitty bit of CS will eventually show up some time during the month.

Some days the fight isn't worth the grief.

I am so split on this debate, and of coures, I have no children, so I don't even know if my horse is in the running, but here goes.

You should support your children, I believe that also means doing everything within you power to be civil to the ex. You don't have to be best friends, but there is no room for pettiness. i am in no way putting down single mothers here, not at all. Just in the one case that I know of VERY up close and personal (my ex and the mother of his daughter)

We lived in the same city as this woman, only got to see the child 4 days out of the month, got off work at 3:30 and wouldn't have the little to our house til 8PM, demanded her back early on Sundays for Sunday School and was just very nasty indeed. I don't understand this. It's a situation that you MUST deal with, so why not deal with it like an adult?



Makes me a little worried about ever having a child of my own. there is no relationship that is garunteed, what happens when you split up?

CheshireCat wrote: I am so split on this debate, and of coures, I have no children, so I don't even know if my horse is in the running, but here goes.

You should support your children, I believe that also means doing everything within you power to be civil to the ex. You don't have to be best friends, but there is no room for pettiness. i am in no way putting down single mothers here, not at all. Just in the one case that I know of VERY up close and personal (my ex and the mother of his daughter)

We lived in the same city as this woman, only got to see the child 4 days out of the month, got off work at 3:30 and wouldn't have the little to our house til 8PM, demanded her back early on Sundays for Sunday School and was just very nasty indeed. I don't understand this. It's a situation that you MUST deal with, so why not deal with it like an adult?



Makes me a little worried about ever having a child of my own. there is no relationship that is garunteed, what happens when you split up?


Interesting you mention the efforts to be civil to ex's... here in this province when a couple decide to split up and they have children, it is Mandatory by Provincial law, that you take a 2 day seminar on learning how to be civil to each other and put the interest's of the children first.... if you do not take and compete this, you can't be granted your divorce. Basically it stated 2 things, kids are not pawns, and do not fight in front of the kids.

minks wrote: Interesting you mention the efforts to be civil to ex's... here in this province when a couple decide to split up and they have children, it is Mandatory by Provincial law, that you take a 2 day seminar on learning how to be civil to each other and put the interest's of the children first.... if you do not take and compete this, you can't be granted your divorce. Basically it stated 2 things, kids are not pawns, and do not fight in front of the kids.


They had some kind of mediation, it didn't take. Now, granted, he's MY ex as well, so he is a little heard headed to say the least. But he loves his kids, would do anything for them. He is a wonderful father.:-6

minks wrote: And what does this teach the child?? You can't just say to a child sorry kiddo you can't see mom/dad because they aren't paying for you... sorry children are not pawns.


Oh yes you can. This doesn't make the kid a "pawn." Sure there will always be parents who do this but I am not speaking of them. Why shouldn't the kid know the truth about his parent? And why should the nonpaying parent get that privilege of seeing the kid when he can't be bothered to pay and why should the paying parent be forced to pick up the other one's load ?!

What doe sit do to the kid to associate with a parent who doesn't love you enough to pay for you? And I am not talking about ones who "can't" afford to pay I am talking about the Jerry Springer trash who just doesn't WANT to.

minks wrote: Interesting you mention the efforts to be civil to ex's... here in this province when a couple decide to split up and they have children, it is Mandatory by Provincial law, that you take a 2 day seminar on learning how to be civil to each other and put the interest's of the children first.... if you do not take and compete this, you can't be granted your divorce. Basically it stated 2 things, kids are not pawns, and do not fight in front of the kids.
What a fantastic idea!