Men’s Rights Myth: Typical Child Support Payments Are Insanely High
| January 18th, 2006I frequently read and hear anecdotes about non-custodial parents (usually fathers) being ordered to pay outrageously high child support - amounts that are impossible for anyone with an ordinary income to afford. No doubt some of these anecdotes are exaggerated, but I’m convinced that some are not. Unaffordable child support payments don’t benefit anyone - not even the children - and should not be imposed. Furthermore, some measures to help non-custodial parents pay child support - such as a tax deduction of some sort - would be reasonable.
However, some men’s rights activists (MRAs) use rhetoric which suggests that child support payments are often or typically outrageously high, or that child support has made single motherhood a profitable situation for women. Neither claim is true.
According to a recent U.S. Census Bureau report (pdf link), the median child support payment in the U.S. is $280 a month. The average child support payment is a little higher - $350 a month. That’s a noticeable amount - similar in scope to payments on a new car - but it’s hardly the crushing, slavery-like burden some MRAs seem to describe child support as.
Although the Census Bureau report doesn’t provide detailed income breakdowns, what information it has indicates that child support amounts are sensitive to income. For instance, among fathers who are below the poverty line, the median child support payment is $125 a month, compared to a median of $300 a month for those above the poverty line.
So despite the terrible anecdotes that we hear (and if you think about it, it’s those who are mistreated by the system who are going to talk about their experiences the most often), the evidence shows that typical child support payments are not ridiculously high. I’m not saying that we shouldn’t be concerned about those outliers who are being ordered to pay unaffordable amounts of child support; however, I think the weight of the evidence suggests that while the system may need some tweaking, on the whole it’s not broken.
* * *
So the typical child support payment is $280 a month - put another way, half of custodial parents who receive child support get $280 a month or less. How does that compare to the costs of raising a child?
Again, the federal government compiles some good statistics on this (pdf link). For a single parent with an income of about $17,500, raising a single child for 17 years will cost about $10,125 a year, or $840 a month.
Of course, a single parent who earns $17,500 a year is pretty poor. What about single parents who aren’t poor? For better-off single parents - those earning an average of $65,000 a year - raising a single child for 17 years will cost almost $21,600 a year, or a little over $1,800 a month.
All told, the typical child support payment in the USA covers much less than half the expense of raising a child. Custodial parents - usually mothers - are taking on not only the majority of the work involved in childrearing, and the majority of the opportunity costs - they’re taking on the majority of the cash expenses, as well.
Therefore, I’d support a two-tiered reform to child support. Child support payments should be made more sensitive to individual situations, so that noncustodial parents are not saddled with irrational and impossible-to-pay child support orders, as has happened in some outlier cases. At the same time, typical child support payments are simply too low, compared to the cost of raising a child; therefore, most non-custodial parents should have their child support obligations increased. (This will also have the side benefit of reducing unwed motherhood.)
NOTE FOR COMMENTS: Please don’t post about how you have an income of $500 a month and the judge ordered you to pay $2000 a month in child support to your ungrateful lazy ex-spouse who spends all the child support money on dresses she can wear to the track and she earns more than you do anyway and the judge won’t even reply to your motions. Unless I know both you and your ex-spouse, and can verify for myself that she’d tell me the same version of events that you’re telling me, I don’t think anecdotal evidence of that sort is more useful than the federal data.
January 18th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
All told, the typical child support payment in the USA covers much less than half the expense of raising a child. Custodial parents - usually mothers - are taking on not only the majority of the work involved in childrearing, and the majority of the opportunity costs - they’re taking on the majority of the cash expenses, as well.
Indiana courts figure that if mothers want to retain primary custody of their children over the fathers, they are also agreeing to hold up the majority of expenses as well. There is no standard for a 50/50 financial agreement that I’m aware of, and frankly, I’m not sure I want one.
This comment was written by Lauren.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
BTW, comment above assumes there was a custody suit.
This comment was written by Lauren.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 1:23 pm
$280 a month…gee, I dunno. Here in New York City, I am paying $881.25 per month, and I’ve been doing so for seven years. This is for two children, and it was calculated on the basis of a $48,000/year salary. This level of child support is equivalent to rent; it’s expensive. Still, there doesn’t seem to be much of an alternative.
This comment was written by Alan.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 1:49 pm
That’s $440.63 per child, based on a salary that’s well above the poverty line. You’re only paying $90.63 above average, or $110.63 above median. Are your kids also living in one of the most expensive areas on the planet?
This comment was written by piny.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 1:53 pm
$280 a month sounds awfully low to me. But I only know the actual numbers for two child support arrangements, where both of the noncustodial parents were small business owners. In one case, the original child support settlement was something like $6000/month for three children, based on the value of the business (it has been since reduced to $2400/month - something about liquidity). In the other case, the business failed due to extensive malicious property damage by an employee, so the child support payment is $2000/month for four kids, based on some kind of insurance payout. Maybe the math is different when the noncustodial parent works for somebody else?
This comment was written by Lee.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 2:27 pm
I was single-father to my four children for twelve years - no girlfriend, live-in, housemouse or ‘companion’, and never recieved a dime of support. I have about as much use for ‘Men’s Rights Groups (MRGs)’ as I do for those who bitch about them. I know first hand the answer a single-father recieves should he ask the state for help (you’re a white boy, get a job), know how it feels to be rejected by a student cooperative day-care (eewww, you’re a man) sponsored by the college ‘Changing Directions’ program (there’s no bigger directional change than from logger to single-father college student), know the anger and disgust of being rejected participation in said ‘women only’ program. I’m not a big proponant of change here on my campus, I’ve been here a while, but I smiled broadly when that one went rightfully-so down the toilet. I know that the adject poverty of single-parenthood is blind to gender.
As a caveat, this is an equal opportunity rant - I’m as chapped with the MRGs as I am with those hold that this is a problem that somehow only impacts women.
Tao
This comment was written by Thomas Ware.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 2:33 pm
That was a very good post. I think for the most part the amount of child support is fair. My partner pays $600 dollars a month for his son, which would not be affordable for him is he was single, but the bigger issue for him was what happened when he lost his job. He had no idea that he could go in and adjust this and ended up owing thousands of dollars and had no job to pay for any of it.
I think the bigger problem is trying to navigate the court system on the part of the custodial and noncustodial parents. In his case the courts have been useless…his child’s mother has moved twice in the last year without providing a phone number or an address, and the court keeps telling her attorney to give us the number and of course he hasn’t. Unfortunately, we don’t have the $20,000 dollars we would need to fight this. Last year alone we spent $5-10,000 and have nothing to show for it. That also made paying child support more difficult. Not knowing where your child is is and having a custodial parent who makes a strong effort to block the relationship is crushing for any non-custodial parent, and having to pay child support seems to just add insult to injury. There is no custody enforcement unit. I also feel like the child support system is a twisted form a patriachy, reinforcing the notion that men (who are the majority of noncustodial parents) can make thier best contributions monetarily. The court could really care less about a child having an emotional connection with the noncustodial parent.
On the other hand, the custodial parent is burdened with providing all of the care and doing so without much financial assistance, and often there are no child support orders in place. I think there are also a significant number of noncustodial parents who could care less if they ever have a relationship with the children, which is something that the custodial parent then has to try to explain to the child.
Summary: most payments are reasonable, the system doesn’t work for either custodial or noncustodial parents.
This comment was written by Rachel S.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 3:01 pm
$300 per month seems awfully low–my mother was getting that much per kid in the 1970s! And we were not well off by any standard, sometimes the power was turned off or there was no food in the house, even though she was working full time in addition to getting the child support.
This comment was written by Kai Jones.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 3:13 pm
The system doesn’t work, I will agree to that whole heartedly. When you talk about median and mean child support, did it include those who waived support? The numbers just seem unreasonably low to me. I was told by a close friend that Texas, for instance, has a 1000 dollar per month on the first child flat minimum.
I personally pay 750$ a month (one child) which would seem reasonable at my salary except that I have been sued several times to get there. None of the suits raised the support by the way, but I was still stuck with legal fees. Not because I failed to pay or because I am unwilling, but because I live outside of the continental US and my x’s attorney saw the disadvantage for me. My child is living in a trailor in one of the lowest cost of living areas I know (when we lived there together we had a 3 bedroom house for 350 a month).
I am not handicapped by the payment and am not complaining that it is too high. I am concerned with the way support money is handled by the custodial parent. Reading the post it gives the cost of raising a child per year. Does that include medical/dental coverage which in many cases the non-custodial parent is responsible for but doesn’t count against support? If i am not mistaken it figures in things like rent (1/2 in a 2 person family), utility increases, percentage of car or transportion costs, so on and so forth. We are not talking about a kid eating and wearing 10k dollars a year. I am not saying this to minimalize it, just bringing it into perspective.
I am also responsible for the costs of seeing my daughter. As I mentioned I live outside of CONUS right now and my x has decided my daughter should not fly. The little time I get to see her becomes quite expensive. Before this is thrown at me, yes I chose to move with my job to keep it and for the financial boost, but it is that same boost that the child support is set on. Unfortunately I am still answerable to a state I do not live in and she chose to move to after the seperation.
As for unreasonably high support costs, it is much to cookie cutter right now. Support is often awarded based on the non custodial parents earning ability, not the actual income. Unemployed, injured or incarcerated individuals are still responsible for full payment in a lot of situations. Unemployment should not result in incarceration. There is no accountablity for custodial parents, meaning they can contribute financially, or not, to the childs needs with no fear of retribution and no recourse for the non custodial parent outside of a second custody battle. I know child raising is not strictly financial but many non custodial parents would be just as willing as their partners to take the children A lot of those would do it without asking for support.
I think there has to be a closer case by case analysis. If a parent can not pay then there should be a reasonable way to work it out. Once you criminalize them, what is their incentive to pay at all?
This comment was written by Ed.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 3:38 pm
Child support is generally done by *guideline* not by a hard and fast rule. When I was divorces in 1992, in MA the guidelines allowed this:
The custodial parent got a set aside of IIRC 10,000, and a small portion of child care expenses. Whichever parent paid the medical insurance got a set aside. When my ex provided it, he was allowed the entire cost. When I paid it, I was allowed 1/3. The family services officer said the difference is that as a man, my ex wouldnt have paid for any medical insurance for himself, but as a woman I would have to pay anyway for myself (cause we’re so much unhealthier due to our “bits”, apparently”. After the set asides, the formula, with some bogus numbers tossed in to make the math simple, was as follows
For one child, they figured 25% of my ex’s income. They added his gross income after set asides to mine after set asides. His 25% was reduced by whatever percentage of the total of our two incomes mine represented.
So let’s say his income was 100,000 after set asides, and mine was 50,000. My income represented one third of the total, so his child care assessment of 25,000 was reduced by one third, bringing it to $16750.
For the record, my ex never paid child support. My son is now 18, and in 14 years, I received less than $4,000 in total. He saw his son ever other weekend until we moved this past October, but never contributed either financially or emotionally or in any other way to my son’s raising. I spent several years chasing him in and out of court, until I finally realized that the amount of time and energy, not to mention legal fees (though he was in contempt I was only able to recover half my legal fees, which were added to the end of his child support arrears and so was also never recovered) that I was expended in chasing this deadbeat would be better spent on my own career. So that’s what I did, and managed to support my son by myself.
For the guy on this thread or the other one who moaned that as a single guy he got stuck living in a one bedroom apt for several years, I spent four years living in a one bedroom basement apt. My son had the bedroom. I slept on the couch, not on weekends, but every single night.
This comment was written by Broce.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 7:43 pm
Furthermore, some measures to help non-custodial parents pay child support - such as a tax deduction of some sort - would be reasonable.
No.
There are already tax deductions for children - the dependency exemption and the child tax credit. (Well, in technical tax lingo those aren’t actually deductions, but…) Currently, the dependency exemption can be taken by whichever parent the couple agrees to, and this is usually done in the support agreement. If they have a half decent attorney, they will give it to the person who makes the most - usually the father - since that person is in a higher tax bracket and gets more for the deduction, and then they split the value by giving part of the value of the exemption to the lower income parent in cash. Providing an extra child support deduction only for non-custodial parents who pay child support is unfair to couples who raise there child together and still have to pay to support the child.
This comment was written by Decnavda.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2006 at 7:49 pm
This is the California Statue, which I believe is based on a Uniform act.
Applying the formula to a hypothetical situation, where the High Earner has a monthly disposible income (ordinary minus taxes, union dues, healthcare costs, other support payments) of $4000 and the other one earns $2000, and the High Earner is responsible for the child one day per week (15% of the time), the calculation would be,
CS= (1.15 x .25) (4000 - 15% 6000) = $891.
Two children: 891×1.6= $1,425.60
Also, maybe some of these horrible stories are based upon spousal support in addition to child support?
This comment was written by c&d.Report this comment to the moderators
January 19th, 2006 at 12:48 am
All told, the typical child support payment in the USA covers much less than half the expense of raising a child. Custodial parents - usually mothers - are taking on not only the majority of the work involved in childrearing, and the majority of the opportunity costs - they’re taking on the majority of the cash expenses, as well.
Nicely done sir. You’ve just empirically dismantled one of the key underlying assumptions MRA’s rely on.
This comment was written by Lorenzo.Report this comment to the moderators
January 19th, 2006 at 1:54 am
I can’t be certain because I don’t know the laws in all 50 states, but my understanding and experience is that the horror stories come from states which typically don’t have spousal support. I paid $0.00 in spousal support once the divorce was over.
I live in a so-called “guideline state”, meaning the support I pay is fixed at 20% of my net-after-taxes income, plus my child’s medical insurance, plus life insurance to cover child support should (G-d forbid) I die, plus some other odds and ends. I’m not going to say how much I pay each month in support because someone could then figure out how much I make. But I will say that I pay significantly more — over twice — than what California would require I pay given my circumstances.
In my case, and the case of many involved, non-custodial parents in these “guidelines” states, what makes it a “horror story” is that I have 40/60 custody. Meaning, 40% of the time the child is with me, 60% of the time the child is with my X. So, on top of paying 20% of my net-after-taxes income as support and all that other stuff, I have almost the exact same household expenses (because “food” is a small part of the total, per the articles Amp cited) as my X and I’m not getting any support to do that.
Fortunately, “guidelines” states are in the minority, and non-custodial parents in all states who have close to 50/50 custody are rare as well.
(Look here)
So, the “horror stories” FRAs talk about really are rare events. The majority of support orders aren’t these fixed guidelines and the majority of the orders that are fixed guidelines aren’t joint legal and physical custody (what I have) with the non-custodial parent actually exercising custody.
The far more common scenario occurs in a state where support awards are woefully inadequate and the custodial parent has sole legal and physical custody. In those cases it’s a “horror story” for the custodial parent. The Father’s Rights crowd doesn’t want to talk about the typical case. They also don’t want to talk about how almost half of all fathers cease having contact with their children after divorce.
Based on my conversations with involved (those of us who have “standard” custody orders and who take advantage of them), non-custodial parents,most of us seem to think the amount of support we pay is more or less fair, but it would be “fairer” if the ratio of time was taken into consideration, as is the case with the California laws. One common suggestion is to calculate the amount of support each parent would owe the other, assuming the other had custody, then multiple by the percentage of time the child is with each parent, then subtract. So, to work my situation as an example, the amount of support I’d pay would go down by about $600 a month. Interestingly enough, even that amount would be way more than what I’d owe under California’s guidelines!
So, to sum it up –
1). The arguments made by FRAs are based on “horror stories” that are extremely rare.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.2). The only unfairness I can see is that the amount of time spent with each parent isn’t taken into consideration in awarding support in states such as mine (but are in many, many others), and my state is one of the highest percentage states out there.
3). Most states don’t award enough in support for the custodial parent to have any kind of reasonable standard of living and the rate of abandonment and non-compliance only makes it worse.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 19th, 2006 at 3:00 am
The current system for determining cs payments is broken. I’ve personally seen cases where the mother sued the father into ever increasing cs payments, and it eventually caused him to file bankruptcy just so he could make those payments. I’ve also seen women trying to raise kids with only $200 (for 2 children) per month in support.
This, of course, doesn’t include those women that use cs as a means to “punish” their ex-husbands (this is admittedly rare, but does happen). Or for the custodial parent that intentionally misappropriates the support given to the minor child. My friend saved all her child support for a year and used those proceeds to fund her breast augmentation surgery.
This of course, does not speak to the many men that abandon their children with little or no support. My ex husband doesn’t pay child support, but at this point I don’t really want it either. It has been my experience that with support comes greater involvment in the rearing of the children. This man wasn’t responsible enough to be a good spouse, and even his parent’s have their doubts about is ability to properly rear children. So, I’m just as happy that he isn’t involved to a great extent. He sees the kids at his parent’s house every other weekend or so, and that is just fine with me.
Many of my friends have pushed me to sue for child support, but being the realist that I am, I know that if he wouldn’t support his spouse while married why would he support his children after divorce? He won’t work, and I’m not willing to suffer the expense and drag my kids through the court system just to be awarded payments that I will never receive.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
January 19th, 2006 at 3:01 am
[Duplicate comment deleted by moderator.]
This comment was written by Duplicate comment deleted.Report this comment to the moderators
January 19th, 2006 at 7:26 am
Mendy writes:
Because if you can get the award on the books there might be a day when you can collect it, with interest. But if you don’t, or if you leave the award at some pathetically low amount, you can’t.
Child support arrearages don’t magically disappear when the last kid turns 18 or 21 years old. And those men who “won’t” work quite often are working and there are ways to prove not only that they are working, but also to estimate how much they are earning. Admittedly that takes money to prove, but without an arrearage to collect you can’t do anything to collect it.
So, go sue for support, the judge will impute some amount of income, and the arrearages will start to accumulate. Then, when the child needs money for college, a first house, or a baby, see if you can’t go after the bastard.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 19th, 2006 at 8:53 am
Just my anecdotal 2 cents - I pay 1,320 a month for two kids in Michigan, with an annual gross income of 41,000. I think it’s a little high - I have to work a second job to get by in a small two bedroom apartment, but them’s the breaks. I see my kids regularly and they have a bedroom when they’re with me, so it feels more like a second home. However, I feel the system seems almost arbitrary. I work in the payroll field and there are people who make three times as much as I and pay less. I know the formula takes many things into account but at the end of the day it doesn’t work for a lot of people.
This comment was written by mmm...lemonheads.Report this comment to the moderators
January 19th, 2006 at 11:13 am
FCH,
When I said he didn’t work, I meant that in the seven years we were married he worked six, and he’s only worked six months in the six years that we’ve been divorced. He’s lived off his parents, then he lived off me, and now he lives off whatever woman is dumb enough to do it until she wises up.
My husband has pushed me to do what you advocate, and to be honest it isn’t worth it. The thousands I’d have to spend in attorney’s fees and court costs is much better spent in the kid’s college investment accounts. I’m lucky that I’m in a better financial position now than I was during my first marriage, but that is due mostly to my clawing my way up the economic ladder.
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
January 19th, 2006 at 1:57 pm
I’ll concur with the commenters above who point to the problems in the way the system is administered being a far greater problem than the level of the awards being excessive.
For instance, there is the right of the court to impute income. If a couple was still together and one partner wanted to shift gears career-wise, go back to school, work half-time so that they could write a book, or go independent and start a business, then the family, including the children, would have suffered a fall in the standard of living.
With a support order based on imputed income, the court won’t recognize the decrease in income and the expectation is that the children shouldn’t have to sacrifice as they would have if they were still together in a family. Now of course, I understand that imputation arose to combat those who purposely hid their income or, in spite, choose not to work simply to avoid payment, but mission creep has set in and courts often extend the concept beyond original intent.
Then of course, there is the contentious issue of paternal fraud and a man being forced to pay support for a child he didn’t father. In some states, a simple declaration, under oath but without penalty for perjury, from a mother is sufficient to entrap a man in the child support enforcement regime. That however, is a whole other topic.
This comment was written by TangoMan.Report this comment to the moderators
January 19th, 2006 at 2:06 pm
errr…that should read “In the seven years we were married he only worked six months.”
I hate when my brain moves faster than my fingers. ;)
This comment was written by Mendy.Report this comment to the moderators
January 19th, 2006 at 2:22 pm
high child support - amounts that are impossible for anyone with an ordinary income to afford. No doubt some of these anecdotes are exaggerated, but I’m convinced that some are not. Unaffordable child support payments don’t benefit anyone - [...]Continue reading at Alas, a blog … posted 2:33 pm at Alas, a blog
This comment was written by feminist blogs.Report this comment to the moderators
January 19th, 2006 at 4:37 pm
[...] On the subject of MRA myths, Ampersand is confronting two of the biggies–that child support is a huge amount of money, and that when faced with this prospect of getting on the child support payroll, devious women can’t help but trick men into knocking us up to get at it. Using old-fashioned, hard-nosed liberal reasoning through the lens of self-interest, Amp demonstrates that not only would it be irrational for women to use this method of self-enrichment since it doesn’t work at all, but also that the stats don’t support the notion that women are, on the whole, even close to this irrational. [...]
This comment was written by The rickety trap of fatherhood at Pandagon.Report this comment to the moderators
January 19th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
I was astounded to read a news story last year that revealed that 70 per cent of non-custodial parents in Australia (where I live) pay only the minimum child support payment of $5 a fortnight. Seems to me there are many more men (usually) avoiding their responsibilities than women trying to take them to the cleaners.
This comment was written by Beche-la-mer.Report this comment to the moderators
January 21st, 2006 at 9:24 am
This thread has not had a lot of responses, but I would be curious to know if anyone found my circumstances in my post a few above to be out of the ordinary, or unfair, or completely just. I just decided to find out what percentage of my gross goes to child support, and it’s 38.7 percent. Is this common? I would really appreciate some honest responses.
This comment was written by mmm...lemonheads.Report this comment to the moderators
January 21st, 2006 at 4:10 pm
and the court keeps telling her attorney to give us the number and of course he hasn’t
File a complaint with your state bar association. Your lawyer should also be asking the court to hold her attorney in contempt.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 21st, 2006 at 11:06 pm
Those are some pretty high numbers the Feds are coming up with in their calculations. A little closer look and you’ll see that the cost of raising a child includes, paying all the rent, utilities, medical expenses; and much more.
Don’t call it “The Cost of Raising a Child.” Call it ” Cost of Raising Your Ex.”
I don’t mind sharing the cost and obligations of raising our child, but I don’t feel obligated to support my ex. She can get a job. Many of the complaints I hear from Dads revolves around feeling used in this respect. The child support isn’t used for what it is supposed to be.
I’m sure a more realistic analysis of the actual costs incurred, which doesn’t include the lion’s share of the living expenses, could be calculated and current support guidelines start looking a little better.
Either that, or call it what it is.. Spousal Support, or Alimony..
This comment was written by Uzzah.Report this comment to the moderators
January 22nd, 2006 at 1:44 am
So you’re saying that your ex lives in an apartment, but makes your children sleep on the street? Geez, I guess it is unfair that rent counts as part of the expense of raising children.
Especially since everyone knows that you can raise two kids in the same size apartment that one adult alone can live it; it’s not like children take up any space.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 22nd, 2006 at 12:38 pm
Hahaha, Amp, my kids have more clothes than my husband and I put together, plus they’ve got more space in their room than we do.
–
My mother had to pay alimony to my father for a year because she was making more than he - nevermind that she had put him through college. She paid it, until the case was brought back to court when he started working at his new job.
My mother was awarded $250 a month in child support. It was four years or so before he actually paid anything, and he was threatened with garnished wages before he’d actually DO it.
My exhusband and I have one child together. Before we came to a compromise, he was trying to get 100% custody and sue me for child support. If we had fought it, I would have wound up paying child support to him, nevermind that he’s both military (and has his expenses covered) and makes more than my husband and I do.
We worked it out eventually, because we’re adults, and we love our daughter, so the fact that he and I don’t love each other doesn’t matter. In the two years since then, we’ve gotten along better than we did when we were married.
MRAs can kiss my big white fanny. Child support cases fuck EVERYONE over - children the worst. Where’s the MRAs’ concern for them?
Sorry, I didn’t mean to rant.
This comment was written by RowanCrisp.Report this comment to the moderators
January 22nd, 2006 at 2:57 pm
Ed, I really doubt Texas has a $1000 per month minimum. Massachusetts, where I practice family law, has an $80 per month minimum, for example. And it now has a $20,000 per year set-aside for the custodial parent before that parent’s income begins to offset child support.
In all of my cases my clients are extremely low-income or indigent, and while the opposing parties are invariably better off, the full support obligation has never, in any of my cases, been more than $200 per week–and usually it’s far less. MA, like most states, bases child support on the income of the noncustodial parent and has an extremely strong presumption in favor of the use of its child support guidelines, up until the point where the noncustodial parent is making some large amount of money, after which the guidelines don’t apply but a judge isn’t supposed to set child support for anything less than the max guidelines amount. The only way to get out of the guidelines as a typical matter is to impute income to the noncustodial parent (so, if he has a demonstratedly high earning capacity, you could set child support based on what he *could* be making–this is a necessary provision since, though I found it hard to believe when I started in this practice area, a surprising number of men actually quit their jobs when the other parent starts enforcing child support obligations). Anyway, the imputed income provisions apply neutrally–that is, you can impute income to the custodial parent if he/she is demonstrably deliberately underemployed.
This comment was written by thistle.Report this comment to the moderators
January 22nd, 2006 at 3:40 pm
Hey I’m cool with paying half the additional expense incurred from having custody of the child(ren). My ex is an equal who can pay her own way. She can pay her rent just like I can and do. If she has to change her living arrangements, I think it would be fair to pay half of whatever additional expenses are required adjusted for standard of living.
That Government report calculated the cost by using total living expenses not just the cost of raising the kids as you described. That to me puts in question whether child support levels are where they should be.
Are you saying that paying all her living expenses because she has your children is fair? Or that it is somehow deserved or justified? How so?
Of course there are ways to do this honestly. In addition to community property laws, Texas has temporary spousal support. So women have a buffer. But again it is temporary.
About Texas though: 25% of gross income for one child is law with a sliding scale for more children. But judges have descretion to raise it (but not lower it). Most of the minimums I have heard about, because of unemployment issues, was $125.
This comment was written by Uzzah.Report this comment to the moderators
January 22nd, 2006 at 4:15 pm
Thistle, the 1000$ amount is second hand knowledge, though I have no idea why he would lie about it or perhaps his x did to get that settlement?? As for men quitting there jobs, of course they do. I never claimed men were immune to being corrupt and hateful. After divorce/breakups people try to hurt each other with whatever weapons they have. That is why we have to try and make the system less of a wieldable weapon. Men who get layed off or are unemployed for legitimate reasons should not suffer because there are hateful idots out there. Just as all women/custodial parents, should not be denied support because there are parents out there who dropped off the kids on grandma and are smoking and drinking their support checks.
This comment was written by Ed.Report this comment to the moderators
January 22nd, 2006 at 4:25 pm
First of all, it’s not true that the entire cost of housing is included in the cost of raising children. The report I linked to assumed that each resident pays an equal share of the rent; so if rent is $800 in a one-child household, then the child’s housing is assumed to cost $400. This is called the “per capita” method.
What you’re suggesting, instead, is the “marginal cost method.” The government folks decided not to use this method because they thought it was too difficult to come up with a meaningful control group, plus there were other statistical difficulties (there’s a two-page appendix discussing why they didn’t use the marginal cost method); they decided that the per capita method was probably more accurate.
Housing children is 28%-44% cheaper calculated using the marginal cost method instead of the per capita method. Using the 44% number, what kind of difference is made?
For a single parent with an income of about $17,500, raising a single child for 17 years will cost about $8,400 a year, or $700 a month. For better-off single parents - those earning an average of $65,000 a year - raising a single child for 17 years will cost about $19,020 a year, or a little over $1,585 a month.
That makes a difference, sure, but not a big enough difference to change my conclusions.
(Miscellanious expenses are lower, and transportation expenses are higher, calculated according to the marginal cost method; I didn’t adjust for this, because there’s only so much time I’m willing to spend on this, and the net effect would be pretty minor whichever direction it went in).
You should also consider that the higher mortgages that come with buying a house suitable for kids are not counted at all in the government calculations; the government considers mortgages to be savings, not expenses. I can see the logic in that, but that doesn’t change the fact that my mortgage is in effect my single largest monthly expense.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
January 26th, 2006 at 4:01 pm
Also not mentioned is the likelihood that many NCP’s that gripe about the level of their payments are in arrears.
This comment was written by Kathleen.My son’s father has been quitting jobs and avoiding paying at all costs, so that his arrears have accumulated to 48,000. If he were to pay me back per standard court order (24 months) and keep current, he would be paying me 2,750 monthly for the next two years. I hardly expect that. I would be satisfied with a longer payback period.
However, if I were to compile those payments and get ‘breast augmentation surgery’ that would be my choice. For years I have borrowed, accumulated debt and interest in order to maintain my son. I have forsaken many professional opportunities. I have not been able to save for my future as have my colleagues. In short, I have been financially crippled for the remainder of my life.
Add the fact that nonpaying NCP’s are not charged late fees for non or late payment and that CP’s or taxpayers are burdened with payment of legal and collection fees, you can see where the gripe loses weight. If I pay late my garbage,utility, mortgage, phone,TV, credit card, etc, etc etc I am pummeled with late fees and interest.
I , too, spent years of anxiety and my own money trying to pursue support enforcement. I decided to turn it over to the state. Even if we don’t see it now when we need it, I have the resolve I have done the right thing. Someday, my son’s father will receive something of value that will automatically have a lien. I have protected the interests of my childs’ future, even if mine aren’t.
By the way, lots of people lose jobs and get laid off. It even happens to single parents who receive no child support! Guess what we do? We get another job! Anything! As a parent it is our (BOTH) responsibility to feed, clothe and provide for the child.
MRA’s complain about CP’s expecting child support as if we were grabbing for some form of entitlement for ourselves. They think we should have more PERSONAL RESPONSIBILTY. Paying child support IS personal responsibility. It is neither the job of the government nor of the other parent to take care of your child.
Imputing income has it’s place. As a professional with a graduate degree, I expect my child to live a life commeasurate with the expectations I set for our lives when I embarked upon that hard earned task. My NCP is equally educated, but underemployed. I hardly think it equitable that my son should suffer his father’s sloth because he feels he should pay less.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 5:54 am
Ed writes:
The Texas guidelines are 20% of net after taxes and mandatory work related expenses. No adjustment is in the code for time share and the assets of a remarried-to spouse cannot be considered in computing support.
(Just so people don’t think that someone is actually getting 25% of anyone elses gross income for a single child.)
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 27th, 2006 at 6:24 am
(Because we’re getting a few “No, it really IS insanely high!” responses …)
Lemonheads writes:
I went to a website which provides “support” calculators. I entered all your information, and the minimum required “net” income for you X. The number the calculator (which seems to be fairly accurate, except for how my home state handles people making more than a certain gross income …) gave was $52 per week, or about $223 per month ($52 * 4.3 weeks per month).
Assuming you aren’t lying to us (hey, I’ve known men who accepted all kinds of whacked support orders because they were dumb …) request a reduction back to guidelines. It’s not in your children’s best interests for you to be impoverished.
Now, it’s also possible that you’re paying alimony in with that child support, in which case there’s a difference. When I say I pay $1,300 / month for one child (it’s been voluntarily increased because I love the munchkin and kids be expensive to raise …), I mean I pay $1,300 per month for child support. I pay a mess more for insurance, etc., but that $1,300 is just child support.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 31st, 2006 at 9:24 am
Try this on for size:
This comment was written by DarkByte88.In 1991, my girlfriend magically became pregnant when our 5-year relationship was threatened (due to her cheating habits). When our son was born in 1992, the Catholic-run hospital would not list me as his father, since we had never married. This later proved to be a disaster…
Tha same year our son was born, my girlfriend secretly filed a fraudulent claim for child support, having the payments sent to her mother’s address, even though we lived together. The Welfare division did not check her story about my “absence”, and just gave her money. This happened in Alaska, where the governing department (Dept. of Revenue) had my contact information on file for the Permanent Fund Dividend payments until 1996. The Welfare division never made any attempt to contact me, or garnish these oil revenue checks which are issued to every Alaska resident. I had no idea my girlfriend was getting checks from the state, and I later found out it was to support her new secret cocaine habit.
In late 1995, she took our child and disappeared without a trace. Since I was not the legal father, I had no choice but try to locate her to have her served with a paternity petition, to prove I am the father, and get some kind of visitation. I tried to find out from the Welfare division if she was getting any state assistance, but they would not give me that information. However, they still did not bother to inform me of any payments being made to her in my “absence”.
In 1998, I took a job offer in Ohio, while continuing to pay private detectives in Alaska to find my son.
Then, in January of 2000, I was contacted by the Children’s Services division in Alaska. They informed me that my son’s mother was in custody for giving birth to a child while under the influence of cocaine. My son was being temporarily placed in the custody of his grandmother (her mom, and just as much of a scam artist), and I hopped on a flight to Alaska to see him that very day. But had to return while hearings proceeded, leaving my son with his grandma.
After some minor legal formalities, I was awarded full custody of our son on Father’s Day of 2000, and he came to live with me in Ohio. His mother was ordered to undergo treatment and drug screening, which she failed for 3 years - Alaska gave up and dropped the case.
But during the ensuing mess, in 2003, the Alaska Child Support division sent me a bill for over $9k for back child support from the early 90’s. Even though I have full custody of the child it was meant for in the first place! I wrote letters to every possible government agency and official, which only prompted threats of full payment from the CS division. This was/is in the amount of $700 a month, but they were not able to garnish my wages for some reason. I was a contractor at the time. Then in 2005 when I became officially employed, the garnishments began, and still continue.
Alaska sent my paperwork to Ohio to gain the assistance of local government in the case. The very same paperwork I requested since the 2003 harrassment began, and Alaska would never supply. This is how I read about the initial claim in 1992 - 11 years later! I tried to report this as fraud, since I have proof that we did live together during the times she claimed I was absent. But since I didn’t file a fraud claim within their 2-year window, I have no leg to stand on; even with concrete proof!
To top it off, Ohio assumed I was some deadbeat, and sent me a bill for over $26k! Claiming that I owe child support for 2003 to the present. When I talked to the ‘genius’ case worker in Ohio, and proved my son has been in my full custody since 2000, they said they would fix it. I jokingly said “I guess you can just send that bill to his mom, if you can find her” - I was then told that she would only be responsible for the minimum $50 per month! This from a woman that has not sent her own son so much as a birthday card since he moved here!
It terrifies me to know this kind of backward thinking and lack of attention is the governing power over the welfare of children!
Report this comment to the moderators
March 14th, 2006 at 12:39 am
For the person who stated that rent was 800USD and therefore, for her and one child, the child’s cost is 400USD, I believe you actually need to take into account that you cannot rent an apartment for yourself for 1/2 the cost of renting an apartment for two people. Normally a one bedroom would be 600USD and a two bedroom possibly 800USD, not double the cost.
For those who complain that ex husband only worked for 6mos out of a 7 year relationship, why did you have children when you knew this is how he was? If you were still married to him, the children would not be entitled to anything more than what they received while you were married. Isn’t that the purpose of child support? So that the children’s standard of living is maintained even after a divorce?
For those who claim that 20pct of Net Resources is not a high amount, I would love to know how many of your parents actually spent that amount on each of you growing up. In intact families, parents normally save money for retirement, etc. first and whatever is left over is the household budget, not the budget for a single child. In an intact family when a couple decides to have a second child, the costs of raising the first child do not go down, but the standard of living does, as the available monies are now split raising two children, yet in divorced families, the standard of living of the first child cannot ever be lowered.
For the person who gave the advise to contact a lawyer when the ex was hiding the child from NCP I ask…why is it that the NCP has to hire a lawyer for this, but the CP gets a free service locating a missing parent?
Is it truly in the best interest of the child of the CP to hide the child from the NCP?
For the professional that does not believe her son should suffer because father is underemployed, why do you feel that your child is ONLY entitled to the “good” of the NCP, but children in intact marriages are entitled to both the ups and downs of parents, including changes in income?
About the 20pct of Texas child support, that is only the BASIC child support. There are some out there that pay much more because the courts can and many times do deviate from the standard 20pct to pay CP for extras, as long as it is for the benefit of the child…which means, more money for child and CP. And of course, only to the benefit of the child of divorced parents, never worrying about children of intact families.
Why is it that intact families are not required by law to provide health care for their children, but children of divorce are entitled by law to receive health care?
Why is it that intact families are never required to pay college tuition for their children, but children of divorce are entitled in many states to receive monies for college tuition from NCP?
Why is it that it is assumed that if a parent makes a higher income a child is automatically entitled to more? For years my father laughed about those same government figures you discuss about the cost of raising a child. He made very decent money and I do remember his co-worker’s kids having the nice clothes, the private schools, etc…and us having the no brand clothes, and going to public schools so that my dad could have a bigger share of money to save for his retirement. I was not entitled to anything in an intact family.
Why is it that a child of divorced parents has the OPTION to see a parent, but in intact families if you don’t get along with your parents, you just have to deal with it?
I am not for deadbeat dads. I am for EQUALITY of children. An equality of children is not what most CP and the CSE are about. They are about preferential treatment for children of divorced parents.
This comment was written by segundaesposa.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2006 at 9:16 am
The USDA figures are flawed. Figure it out yourself. That single mother spends only $614.58 per month on herself. This is for her clothes, housing, groceries, automobile, health etc while spending 843.75 on the child. This may be reasonable when childcare is paid for by a single parent not often otherwise I’d think. This brings up another flaw. Taxes. The amount for child support is not taxed to the custodial parent. Even if there is childcare there is a childcare tax credit as well as subsidies. The custodial parent is head of household and gets the child exemptions. Then there is Earned Income Tax credit the custodial parent in this example qualifies for. Non-custodial parents, usally fathers also usually pay the costs of health insurance for the children, above and beyond the amount of childsupport. I could go on and on, but the point is this blog is anti-men rather then being pro-women. Myself I tend to be pro both men, women, and children too. I don’t see the benefits to being anti any.
My solution on childsupport would be a tax at birth of child that goes towards their future children. The parents would pay it for the joy of having a child.
As far as child support having an effect on unwed motherhood, perhaps enforcement does lower it. I did not read the pdf, howerver I’d expect that sexual education and access to birth control to have more effect. I would also expect that welfare reform itself has an effect upon the births of unwed children. Without taking in to consideration a number of other factors I do not see how any change in the number of unwed births can be attributed to childsupport alone. Interesting to note that the trend is number of single parent households has increased while the number of children born to unwed parents has decreased.
This comment was written by wb57.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2006 at 10:52 am
Since single parents are extremely likely to need to pay for childcare, I don’t see the numbers as all that unlikely.
As a man myself, I disagree.
The study did take into account many factors other than child support laws. For example, they found that access to abortion was negatively related to the rate of unwed motherhood. Perhaps surprisingly, there was no statistical relationship between welfare and the rate of single motherhood.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
March 19th, 2006 at 7:33 pm
While one would think that to be true the amount and therefore the cost of childcare would be expected to relate to the hours they worked per week, if the children were attending public school or preschool. If father time could be and is substitued for childcare, or if an alternate care provider is available (friend, family etc). The only figure I have seen says 66% of custodial mothers work less then 40 hours per week. I am not sure how good this statistic so I hesitate to endorse it. There is also still the tax credits and subsidies to consider.
I’m not going to press this much as there are other things I prefer to spend my time doing. Suffice it to say that as a close to fifty year old woman who has been through a divorce, two marriages, raised a twenty eight year old daughter (first marriage), and currently raising a seven year old son, I see it differently. There is a place for men’s rights groups and a place for women’s rights groups, but ultimatley the thing both should be working for is rights for all people, children included. Although a mother gives birth to a child, she does not own the child, nor does the father.
I mispoke above. The 2003 CDC report says birth rates for teens continued their steady decline. The birth rate for unmarried women (15-44) increased. The Trends in Characteristics of Births by State: United States, 1990, 1995, and 2000-2002 mentions that the highest proportion of unmarried births is in the Southeast. So even with increased childsupport collections, unwed births increase.
Just as I find it difficult to believe that tougher childsupport collection lowers unwed child births, I find it difficult to believe women have a child on purpose to collect child support. The CDC Trends reports also mentions that nationwide and in all States birth rates are down for women under 30 and increased for women 30 years and over between 1990 and 2002. I’d suggest that isn’t because they want income from child support but because they want a baby, maybe they don’t feel their mate is husband material, or just don’t want to get married.
This comment was written by wb57.Report this comment to the moderators
May 22nd, 2006 at 11:19 am
Well, reading these posting has helped me feel a little better about paying $1,600 a month in child support. It seems that many people that earn a good living are paying quite a bit of money each month. I sometimes find myself emotionally conflicted about this subject. On one hand, I deeply desire to support my children (that I travel 1,300 miles a month to see). On the other hand, the fact that I have to pay $1,600 a month, places me in a position where I can not buy a house again. This is hard to swallow given that I make $80k a year gross.
Any words of encouragement?
This comment was written by Michael.Report this comment to the moderators
May 22nd, 2006 at 1:08 pm
Michael, it’s commendable that you deeply desire to support your children, and even more commendable that you pay child support and travel to visit them. I really think it’s great that you do that. So cheers to you.
If you think the amount of child support you pay is unreasonable, then we’ll have to disagree about that. But it speaks well of you that you pay it, nonetheless.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
May 22nd, 2006 at 4:14 pm
Michael, children are a financial burden no matter what the parents’ living situation is–I’m sure I spend more than $1600 on the support of mine, and I’m not divorced. Try to think of the financial hit as the extra cost of living apart from them, and not as their support.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
May 26th, 2006 at 6:25 am
I believe the current system is broken. I agree with the poster that child support should go to child support only. If a mother believes she must have the custody of the children, why should the man pay the expenses for her own expenses? If this becomes necessary, then alimony should the way to do it, not through child support.
Also, the government is more than willing to put in jail if you miss child support payments, but very little help if the custodial parents violates your visitation rights. I believe this is inherently unfair.
My ex-wife had a much higher level of education when we got married. However, she refused (yes, refused) to find work. I called some friends, and she could have joined Yahoo! around 1997… But she didn’t even bother to go to an interview. Anyway, I needed to study at night and work during the day, so we would not live in poverty (considering the high living costs in San Francisco bay…). I barely had time to see my child, but I would do everything I could to be with him every possible second I could.
When we divorced, I wanted to have full custody, but I felt the system was extremely unfair to the man. Why should the care offered by the care of a mother be less than my care trying to work as hard as possible to support my family? I recognize she loves our child. I am not questioning that. However, how fair is a system that award custody to an irresponsible parent who decides she should not look for a job or take her fair share of responsibility in supporting a household?
If both parents are both decent people, then I think the child support would be only fair if awarded to the parent who is able to make a living (of course, alimony allowed for a period of time to even things out). I am pretty sure if this happened, my ex-wife would work as hard as she could to earn more and keep custody for our child.
It seemed absurd the only way for me to have child custody would be to quit my job and let my family in poverty hoping my wife would find a job and I would be staying at home. I am responsible person and I cannot risk the welfare of my child playing such games. Actually, I would not even risk the welfare of my ex-wife, since I stupidly thought she needed to be protected because she acted so irresponsible helping our finances.
Now, I probably could have full custody after she fails because of her irresponsible attitude towards life. However, the system will “even out” her failure by providing her with my money. I am not saying the money is not providing my child with shelter, heating, etc… However, why should be the one with less ability to pay the bills the one to have custody? (Of course, I am considering the case both parents are decent, loving ones).
This comment was written by cbtao.Report this comment to the moderators
May 26th, 2006 at 10:35 am
Funny you should mention it, because that’s exactly the strategy my ex employed while we were still married. He “lost” his job and refused to get another one. In desperation, I ended up going back to work after my maternity leave figuring somebody had to keep a roof over our heads. In his case, however, it was part and parcel of his whole belief system in abuse and control. He didn’t want to do housework either, and was more intent on keeping the baby away from me than anything else, mostly as a form of emotional battering. I did divorce him, but he got custody. But the abuse still continues. Not surprising, as he has learned that there are no consequences for his behavior.
And yes, I pay child support.
This comment was written by silverside.Report this comment to the moderators
May 28th, 2006 at 11:01 am
Well, the system doesn’t look at “decent, loving ones”, it looks at who has the track record of caring for and about the child. Yes, of course, mistakes and abuses occur, but a court is (rightly, I think) going to look at which parent fed, bathed, dressed, disciplined, educated and entertained the child when granting custody. The goal of custody awards is not figuring out who has the money, and I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
Sadly, yes, there are abuses and couples who had plans to share parenting responsibilities do get trapped in a “winner take all” situation some times when state laws get applied. On the subject of “per capita” versus “incremental”, I think that most child-support-paying parents know that “per capita” is just the absolute wrong way to calculate support, and I think that’s why there’s so much resistance to paying support — because if the NCP is paying for the child’s “share” at the CP’s residence, there’s not any money left (no, really) to pay for the child’s “share” at the NCP’s residence unless then NCP has money enough for three times as many children as they have. The math is pretty simple — CP pays self + 1/2 children’s “share” and recieves the other half of children’s “share” from NCP, or (self + .5 * n-children * self) and NCP pays (self + 1.5 * n-children * self). Some parts are, of course, fully realized, like “housing”. There’s no such thing as a house that one pays “one bedroom apartment” rent on when the children aren’t present and “3 or 4 bedroom house mortgage” on when they are. But the CP isn’t paying for all the food, or all the education or all the entertainment or all the clothes or all the anything else, for the most part. And the NCP has children-related expenses as well, and there’s no wealth transfer going back — the bigger car needed to carry the kids, the groceries, clothing, education, entertainment, etc.
All that said, focusing on MONEY MONEY MONEY, which is the primary bone of contention amongst certain people, misses the point. Unless the change in MONEY MONEY MONEY is going to result in an improvement in the case of the CHILD(REN), I don’t think the change is in the best interests of anyone save the person who’s going to be paying less money. Basing support payments, as some states are starting to do, on time-share AND income difference (meaning, calculate what both would owe each other with no custody, then multiple by time-share and subtract) would take into account both ability to pay as well as actual expenses.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2006 at 7:46 am
I respect your opinion. However, I should say that I feel such criteria is extremely biased towards women. I mean, did I care less for my child because I was working very hard to provide him with roof and education? Actually, the reason I wanted to divorce is that if I did not need to support an ex-wife who was not willing to do her share to support our home, I would have enough time to be with my child and provide him with much more love and care!….
Anyway, from another biased perspective, in some Asian countries the custody is automatically given to the father, since he is the one who has the earning power. I read one study showing children in such countries are much less likely to be below poverty lines.
I pretty sure most mothers love their children and would be willing to do a lot of sacrifice to care of them. I recognize this fact, I admire such love. However, saying that a father is less caring because he needs to work outside to sustain a household is absurdly biased. If I could not bathe my child because I was in Europe in a business trip, would make me less caring? I definitively don’t think so.
My child has ADHD and he needs a lot of structure and care — which is not being provided by ex-wife, even though she bathes and feeds him. However, such aspects are extremely expensive to prove! I would need to hire experts, etc…. And in the end, judges would probably just give a slap in my ex-wife’s hands. This system is extremely extremely biased….
What I think is that if a spouse has no earning power and the other one is a loving parent, I cannot understand why the system would provide the children just to the spouse without earning power. The custody should be provided to the loving parent with earning power, and the court should allow for adjustments after the other parent is able to stand on his/her feet.
This comment was written by cbtao.Report this comment to the moderators
July 2nd, 2006 at 11:54 am
My soon-to-be ex is making over $95,000.00 salary a year and until recently, paid me nothing for the first two years of my son’s life. When my son was born, he took off, disappeared. Kaput.
Recently, he began to pay me $1,300 a month and did so for three months. He does not provide medical coverage or cover half the cost of daycare which is $606 a month in *my* state but which is much higher in other states. He feels that his payments should be lowered and that the costs of medical and daycare should be *My* problem to figure out; not his.
This past month, and without warning, he usurped the agreement we made for $1,300 and dropped it to $800. He feels that we are profiting unfairly from child support and that he is only responsible for half of my son’s very basic needs. *I* feel that my son should not have to live a spartan life if one of his parents makes an almost six-figure salary.
Also of note: I’ve run the calculations for both the state in which my ex resides and the one where I reside with my son. BOTH calculations result in his being responsible to pay me over $1,600 a month when both salaries, medical and daycare costs are factored in.
What’s fair here? I have a tendancy to allow myself to be steamrolled by this man and am as a result, very wary and suspicious and…well, defensive. I don’t want to be “taken” again by him. On the other hand, what’s reasonable? $1,600 a month really *is* a good amount of money for the area in which I live but right off the bat $600 of that goes to daycare, and a good portion of it is paying off debts that were incurred during the period of time when my Ex was paying NOTHING. I don’t have many luxuries- can’t even afford a car payment or Cable TV so the money is definately going to immediate and reasonable use.
Someone please help me out here.
This comment was written by jenn.Report this comment to the moderators
July 4th, 2006 at 11:56 am
My boyfriend is undergoing some legal issues with an individual that claims that this kid is his, she hasn’t given birth yet. So no biological tests have been taken.
There is a 50% chance it is his, she had sex with two men within a month; both times unprotected. She is 18 and lives with her parents who are a middle-class family. Yeah, it’s hopefully only one child she is carrying, as far as I know it is just one child. Anyway, I’m really scared for him. He only makes $18,000-ish a year and he lives on his own and has medical bills and some school loans to pay off; he barely has enough money to pay his bills.
How much do you think child support would be?
This comment was written by Scared....Report this comment to the moderators
August 5th, 2006 at 7:42 pm
Every state in the United States has a program to help families process, pay, and collect child support payments. And each state’s child support agency can work across state the lines to ensure that payments are collected and distributed to the non-custodial parents.
http://www.child-support-laws-state-by-state.com
This comment was written by Holcy Thompson.Report this comment to the moderators
August 7th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
Well we just got socked with more to be taken out for the NCP, my SO, he is now having 1188.62 a month taken out. That leaves him with $150 weekly in his paycheck. They make about the exact same amount. So now her income has doubled and the mortgage is only $700 which gives her all of her money and $400 left over from CS……all CP’s should move to NY that seems to be where the money is at!!! Sickening, I have kids and I am supporting them and him, I love him to bits but now they have lowered the income for us to support our home, which doesn’t seem to matter much to anyone.
This comment was written by Gabrielle.Report this comment to the moderators
August 12th, 2006 at 9:48 pm
I feel that many men feel as if child support is helping get the mother things but it is not. If a child lives with their mother she does not calculate how much she spends on the child nor does she say this is my money. The truth of the matter all money that the mother earns is first and foremost for her child.
This comment was written by princess.My child’s father was paying child support while he was in Iraq but once he returned he became bitter and stopped paying. He informed me that he was no longer active so it was nothing his commanding officer could do. He took me to court to file for sole custody in order to avoid paying child support however that did not work. Thank God for that. He was ordered to pay the child support that he owed and the judge even cut his child support for three months to one hundred dollars to help him to catch up. That all happened in January it is now august and soon to be the end of august and I have only received three hundred dollars total from him. I did file a case on him for non support after months of trying to get him to help. Now he will not see the child since he has been served his papers. Child support has nothing to do with visitation. He has not been restricted from seeing his child after all this time I would not have denied him now. It expensive to raise a child especially with daycare costs which is three twenty at the least. His child support order is only three hundred dollars so it doesn’t even cover the daycare. In a sense child support will never be fair. However, I don’t like to hear the noncustodial parent talk about childsupport as if it some previlage. No one person made a child it took two so two should support the child. I personally work hard to support my child however I feel that the father does have some obligations to the child financially.
Report this comment to the moderators
August 21st, 2006 at 6:33 pm
What I find interesting is that CS is supposed to be the sole financial “well” if you will, for the child. What about how much the custodial parent (usually the mother) should contribute? My husband pays genrous child support however, the mother complains that it is not enough. Well, how much does she contribute, or is she simply supposed to give only her time? In other words, in addition to the CS, we provide for the child too in the form of clothes, food, activities, medical (if the need arises or for example when we had to take him to the pediatrician becuase the mother “gee, I didn’t see it” didn’t notice a lesion under his diaper), etc. I feel that many of these custodial parents (again, usually the mothers) feel that CS is their “salary” for being the mother! When CS was arranged (amicably back then), my husband was single (the child was not planned) but now that he’s/we’re married we hope to change the custody so that we can establish the domicile. We’d gladly have the child here full time! What frustrates us is that the CS legally does not have to be accounted for. And when CS money is spent on anything but the child, it is essentially stealing from that child.
This comment was written by Anne.Report this comment to the moderators
August 21st, 2006 at 11:46 pm
Anne
Generally the custodial parent end up carrying the heavier economic burden anyway. For all child-support cost, actually raising the child usually costs more.
This comment was written by B.Report this comment to the moderators
August 22nd, 2006 at 6:42 am
I think the original premise is wrong. It’s not a general belief among the men’s rights movement that CS is insanely high.
The understanding is that it is first and foremost insanely rigid, in that it doesn’t account for reasonable economic occurrences, and second, that it objectifies the fathers into walking sources of income far and above any parenting he may be doing.
This comment was written by craichead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 22nd, 2006 at 7:46 am
yeah my DH pays 1188.64 a month and only brings home 150 a week. I support him financially while she rakes in the dough. We cannot do anything outside of the hosue as we can’t afford it. But she can join weight watchers, kids in gymnastics and karate. So please tell me how he isn’t the sole money bank? I don’t see how its fair for one parent to struggle and the other to be wiped out, thats insane………..
This comment was written by Gabrielle.Report this comment to the moderators
August 22nd, 2006 at 10:35 am
Everyone, please read the “note for comments” that’s at the bottom of the original post.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
August 23rd, 2006 at 9:18 am
First, given that “Federal Data” is what was used to get us into the Iraq war, I’m not so sure that it DOES have more value than anecdotes.
Second, use of nothing but statistics to determine judgements in a question like this one seem, to me, to be especially effective at making the heartache and desperation of actual people more easily dismissed once they’ve been made into mere abstractions.
Third, I find it somewhat telling that you let anecdote after anecdote, probably on the order of 60-70% of the posts, go by until Gabrielle began posting her situation.
This comment was written by craichead.Report this comment to the moderators
August 23rd, 2006 at 2:07 pm
My current court order has me paying > 50% of my income prior to taxes, supplying the medical insurance, and paying half of the medical bills/co-pays. I am also required to pay any court costs and fees.
This comment was written by Dave.In the past, my ex didn’t hold a steady job and there were times that she lived off the child support alone. There were several circumstances where I was taken to court just to see if I was making enough to raise the monthly child support even though she was unemployed.
In the state the support was filed, they calculated the income of both parents added together, then figured out what percentage of that income each parent makes, and then used a chart to figure out EACH parents financial responsibilty for supporting the child. In my case it is not a financial gripe, I just added that in to support my case.
I feel that a couple deciding to have a child and viewing a proposed future for that child at that time shouldn’t be something that is only shared when the couple is together, but also shared well after their separation. They should both strive to make the best decisions for their child!
What happened to the “child” in child support? It seems like in the instances with major issues with child support that one or both parents are still bitter about the divorce and will stop at nothing to get the other parent to pay for it. I am not saying this is a one way fight at all.
I can’t tell you how many of my friends, that I have had the opportunity to know both parents, went through a grueling divorce where there were children involved. They spent thousands in court fees disputing little things. Wouldn’t it be in your child’s best interest to settle these disputes like adults, find a halfway medium that is suitable to both parties, and opening up a college fund for the child with that money you would lose by fighting about nothing?
Yes, there are numerous cases of dead beat mom’s/dad’s out there which is completely unexcusable. Yes, there are cases of money hungry custodial parents that hold the child at ransom. But the norm should be two adults that might have reconsidered their relationship and went their separate ways, BUT still communicate and decide together what is best for their child. I certainly don’t want the court system to decide what is best for mine! And how does my child benefit from the court fees?
My ex and I have been down a LONG and winding road. She moved my child to another state while I was at work. I was told that if I went to that state and brought my child back that it would be considered kidnapping.
I held a grudge for many years because I had limited visitation with my child due to my ex’s decision, however, I finally woke up one day. I realized that all the fighting wasn’t in my daughter’s best interest and that I was losing not only the lost time, but the present time that I could use to make a difference in my child’s life.
Recently, my ex and I have both moved into different living arrangements and finances have changed. We sat down and discussed what would be the most beneficial arrangement for our child. We are now filing for child support in the state that our child currently resides. We aren’t doing this because of a dispute. We are doing it for the convenience of the child support coming directly out of my pay instead of having to write checks bi-weekly. We have already agreed upon a fair monthly support award since the cost of living is so much less in the areas that we both moved and the decrease in support reflects this change.
I am hopeful that we have settled our differences and can communicate regarding the best interest of our child even if that means one of us has to bend a little more than the other at certain times.
We have to realize that we all made an adult decision when we decided to lay down with our partner and whether it be intentional or accidental we now have a child that is depending on our decisions. We need to make the right ones!
Although I don’t agree with every decision my ex makes regarding the upbringing of my daughter, we still manage to find a baseline that is tolerable to both of us, visitation that is fair, and a financial agreement that is in our childs best interest. To me, that is the most important issue here!
Just food for thought.
Report this comment to the moderators
August 24th, 2006 at 2:59 am
Starting post: Comment on Men’s Rights Myth: Typical Child Support Payments Are … by at Google Blog Search: child and divorce
This comment was written by Child and divorce.Report this comment to the moderators
August 25th, 2006 at 1:01 am
i think the best bet is for the state to stay out of it period.
This comment was written by aj.Report this comment to the moderators
September 11th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
well all i have to say is that i recive $160 a month and my childs father refuses to see her. nice
This comment was written by bobbie lynn.Report this comment to the moderators
November 24th, 2006 at 7:59 pm
All I can say is I pay $1800 per month in support, plus medical insurance costs, plus 1/2 of uninsured medical expenses.
I would not object to this except (A) my ex makes a salary of over $115,000 plus stock bonus (compared to my $95,000) which is not effectively included in the support guideline calculation, (B) I have legal custodial responsibility for my 2 children ~40% of the time (NOT “visitation” — that concept no longer exists in my state), so I must maintain a similar homestead to the mother’s, but the support is not adjusted to reflect that, and (C) the laws effectively discourage me from growing my income (say by taking side consulting jobs), because any temporary income I receive from them could result in a permanent increase in my support payments, even after the temporary income is no longer available.
I agree however that the system does not need to be “overhauled”, just adjusted to allow more discretion for individual circumstances, and to encorage fathers like myself to continue to improve our financial circumstances (and hence the circumstances for our children) without risk of an unfair economic penalty.
This comment was written by jch.Report this comment to the moderators
December 5th, 2006 at 10:10 pm
I have been raising our daughter for 11 years, in that 11 years her father has only been around approx 2.5 years. He tried to come back at one point to get me to drop all his back child support (which I never did) He states he isn’t my welfare. I replied to him, I have had a good job for many years, I’m not asking for much but help with bills. I cover all medical needs and dental needs. I cover all educational costs, along with extra activities. Asking a father to pay $327 a month is not unreasonable considering how much I put out for not counting clothes and such. Don’t get me wrong I will keep putting out for our daughter to make sure she has everything she needs, I will keep working to support her. Her father now has gone over seas to work contractor work and states since he isn’t on US soil he doesn’t have to pay. I wrote him and told him I needed some money to help cover dental work and he said he couldn’t because he had to buy a computer. Now please tell me if I’m wrong seems like prioties are totally out of whack. I’m done ranting, but just wanted to put out, not all of us mothers are looking for a hand-out or someone to support us. Some of us do anything in our power to take care of business because we cannot count on the other party.
This comment was written by ajp.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
I am sorry but my ex moans and groans about paying $80 a week and honestly that does not even cover child care expenses. I think that if situations were reversed all these non-custodial parents who compain about child support would have a different view. Who takes off work when the child is sick (loss of income) we feed, dress and shelter our babies year round and all I hear is how money hungry I am, especially from his wife. The funny thing is that he makes about $80,000 a year and his child support amount is from 5 years ago and I have not changed it. Still bitching and complaining.
This comment was written by Stacie.Report this comment to the moderators
December 15th, 2006 at 10:04 pm
I understand payments vary state by state, but no one here is pointing out the fact that when mothers are the obligor, they are generally in default at much higher rates than fathers in the same position. Generally mothers fail to pay any support due about 47% of the time, and fathers, when the obligor about 27% of the time.
This comment was written by Mjaybee.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2006 at 1:31 am
Mjaybee, do you have sources for those statistics?
I’m particularly curious to see if those figures are adjusted for income differences.
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2006 at 1:48 am
What does income differences have to do with it, Amp? Are you suggesting that courts might assign a level of child support that is unrealistic for a non-custodial parent to pay?
I’ve seen that stat around before; no idea if it’s accurate or not, but it’s sourced at the various men’s rights sites as coming from Garansky and Meyer, DHHS Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, 1991. Haven’t found it online, though, but if you can prove it wrong it’d be a major blow against the MRAs, because that stat appears on every. freaking. site. out. there. But it’s not on the DHHS site.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
Here is a brief from the Census Bureau that says that in 1991, men failed to make any payments 24% of the time, compared to 37% for women.
Here is a brief on the 1995 numbers: 70% of mothers due payments actually got them, averaging $3767. For men, it was 57% and $3370 (though the difference in amounts received was not statistically significant).
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2006 at 3:46 pm
Robert wrote:
Clearly some non-custodial parents (fathers and mothers) are assigned unrealisticly high child support. It also happens that realistic child support awards become unrealistic due to unemployment or other drops in income.
I think you’re implying that this is a new position for me to take. It’s not. As I said in the original post: “Child support payments should be made more sensitive to individual situations, so that noncustodial parents are not saddled with irrational and impossible-to-pay child support orders, as has happened in some outlier cases.”
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
December 16th, 2006 at 4:00 pm
Curse your vile reasonableness.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
January 9th, 2007 at 11:25 pm
[...] Best Series: Fattiepatties: “The Top Ten Things I Am Tired Of Discussing.” Alas/Rachel’s Tavern: “The Sky Is Falling On Black Men?” Part 1 and Part 2. Pinko Feminist Hellcat: “The OC Rape Case Series.” Alas a Blog: Refuting Men’s Right Activist Myths About Child Support: 1 and 2. [...]
This comment was written by Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » It’s Time To Nominate Blogs for The 2006 Koufax Awards!.Report this comment to the moderators
January 10th, 2007 at 6:27 pm This comment was written by undecided.
Report this comment to the moderators
January 12th, 2007 at 8:42 am
(Not sure if the original poster had intended that block quote to be formatted differently or what ….)
First, cars don’t last 18 years, so one is going to have to purchase another car with yet another car note :)
More to the point, child support payments cover the child(ren)’s expenses. Which means that the obligor isn’t paying for … food, clothing, shelter, etc. except when the child is with them. This would be like not having to pay car payments for days you don’t drive. Children, on the other hand, require food, clothing and shelter every day of the month.
I didn’t see much other discussion about possession share. I’d like to see more comments by others about child rearing expenses and possession time share.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 15th, 2007 at 6:31 am
Good stuff, Amp. I only just found this post because of your “Top 10″ link.
When I was divorced, I had no problems with my child support payments (I paid a bit more than 1,250/mo for 3 children). I thought the system (for people in our income bracket — about that $65k figure you quoted) was pretty fair. It considered both spouse’s incomes and then calculated the child support based upon those and a statutory level of need.
What I *did* have a problem with was the alimony award. Your post doesn’t address that and I’d be interested in your thoughts on alimony at some point.
You can find an article I wrote on these subjects here:
This comment was written by Denise.http://musingsonlifelawandgender.typepad.com/life_law_gender/2006/11/sex_equality_an.html
Report this comment to the moderators
January 16th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
The problem i have with child support issues on both sides is that more often than not, one parent has the responsibility of essentially paying for most things if not everything when both parents should be contributing equally, especially when both parties can be gainfully employed.
I have a friend who makes a good living as a deigner, and his son’s mother is a nurse, which in NYC she can make well into 6 figures ( there is a shortage of nurses in NYC so depending on how much you want to work, you can pretty much write your own check).
But instead of contributing to her son’s life, she’d rather only work 2 days a week. Live with her mother so she doesn’t have to pay rent and collect her $1600 a month in child support. I think that’s really crummy, and I don’t understand why the courts would not tell her to get off her lazy butt and work like any other responsible person. this woman has the potential to make at minimum $150,000 a year. The child support payments would be like crumbs to her.
To tell you the truth, I am a woman, and things like this makes me angry because it makes us look like lazy, greedy people. When in fact there are plenty of women out here busting their butts to provide for their families… Things need to be more equal where employment is concerned and the sharing in responsibilities of raising a child.
This comment was written by Kim.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 5:30 am
To Kim I would ask if the father in your story would be willing and is able to take on some of the child rearing responsibilities so that the mother could work the hours necessary to earn that kind of money? The burden of properly raising children is much more than merely financial.
This comment was written by Denise.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 8:06 am
and things like this makes me angry because it makes us look like lazy, greedy people. When in fact there are plenty of women out here busting their butts to provide for their families
So why is the public image of women supposedly shaped by the lazy and greedy, rather than the hard workers? Did it occur to you that the people who assume custodial mothers are all slackers may not, in fact, be basing their opinion on an objective review?
I’m also not following how refusing to work at a job full-time while rearing a child, when you are able to provide for the child (hello? free rent) is “lazy” and “greedy”. Wouldn’t the truly greedy person want that $150K?
I’m sorry, Kim, but your post reads more like “I really like this guy and his baby-momma is a bitch because he has to give her money”.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
January 17th, 2007 at 10:42 am
I wondered if anyone else would see the hole in Kim’s argument.
I didn’t work full time while my children were growing up. I could have, and if I had we’d have a lot more money, but frankly, raising children isn’t a sort of leisure activity which you can take up and then put down like a hobby. It’s a lot of work. And that work has to get done by someone, a parent, or if not a parent, some hired person. I preferred to do it myself, and fortunately we were able to afford that.
When it is necessary, good parents work, and arrange for whatever child care is best and/or possible. That is a legitimate choice. But it is also legitimate, if possible, for a mother to choose not to maximize her income, but rather to spend that time taking care of the child herself. Anyone who thinks this makes her “lazy and greedy” has probably not done a lot of child rearing.
Like mythago, I’m wondering why Kim is taking the father’s part in this one.
This comment was written by Susan.Report this comment to the moderators
January 18th, 2007 at 8:30 pm
My son’s father was ordered to pay 20% of his income. Mind you his reported income is $500 per month, but before I went after him he made nearly $100k per year. And btw, he did not have to pay anything for 4 years because I didn’t file due to his abusiveness while I was pregnant and of course, he never tried to see his child.
Anyway, since I filed for CS he claimed to change and seemed to, and started talking about being a good father, wanting us to be a family, etc. I bought it. Now all of a sudden when he is about to get a new job paying over $100k, is telling me that if I continue to collect through the court he will feel emasculated and seek to feel masculine elsewhere, will not want to make a family with me and it will be my fault because our child will have not family. He wants us to live with him, he keep the money in his pocket, but not get married of course. He says he will keep the cs money for “rent” (actually the mortgage on his condo) and utilities. However, there will be no legal papers drawn up because he doesn’t want the courts to dictate what he does with his money.
He also does not want me to have it because he says I’ll “waste it on frivolous things like rent.”
I need some feedback here. I feel guilty about “denying my son” but I feel that this guy is using emotional blackmail to manipulate me. I think this is unreasonable. I feel that he has gotten close to me only to manipulate me. Also, before I had our son, he was trying to get me to either have an abotion, give the baby up for adoption, give the baby to him “So you’ll have to pay me cs” or make an agreement of cs money based on what he wanted to pay.
Please advise.
This comment was written by inanna.Report this comment to the moderators
January 19th, 2007 at 12:12 am
Your son is better off without that father.
This comment was written by mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
January 19th, 2007 at 8:47 am
Ianna,
I can’t speak for Mandolin, but I think that what she meant is
“Your son is better off without that cheap immitation of a father.”
He doesn’t give a flip about you or your son. He only cares about the money that you and your son are potentially going to cost him. Children don’t need parents that only see them in terms of dollars and cents.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 19th, 2007 at 8:56 am
I’ve had a hard time processing what Kim wrote as well. Child support and child custody are unrelated in every state that I know of. I can’t think of a single state where a non-custodial parent paying child support isn’t able to have possession time with their child.
What Kim didn’t mention, that would be a good thing to know before passing judgement, is what this guy has done to have his child with him more of the time. I’m just days a year shy of 50/50 custody. It’s taken years of work to get there, but that’s where I’m at today, eleven years later. Yes, I’d love to pay less money, but the kid has two loving parents, clean clothes, splits time between two nice houses in two nice neighborhoods, is fed and watered on a regular basis, and is all-around a pretty good kid. That’s a lot more important than however many hundreds of dollars I realistically think support should be reduced.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
January 19th, 2007 at 10:58 am
inanna: You are not “denying your son” anything. His father is doing all the denying because he can’t have everything just how he wants it, and he’s manipulating you into thinking it’s somehow your fault.
My daughter’s father refused to be involved apart from threatening to apply for custody (you guessed it, to avoid child support). There are days when I feel really bitter that I’m doing all the work while his life isn’t affected at all, but it’s probably better this way than having him involved and pulling pathetic emotional blackmail tricks to get his own way the whole time.
No-one can make these men into decent fathers against their wills, so the only thing to do is walk away and hope we can give our children enough love to make up the deficit.
This comment was written by Nick Kiddle.Report this comment to the moderators
February 6th, 2007 at 3:56 pm
It is suppose to be 1/3 of the non custodial parents wages. It isn’t always that fact. I just wanted to add Heaven help the parent that has an ex spouse that has children with others. If one goes on welfare to help raise his/her kids then the government takes all support checks from every child. Welfare repayment is first debtor. I wish people would remember, the support, no matter the amount is for the CHILDREN.
This comment was written by maggie.Report this comment to the moderators
February 6th, 2007 at 10:52 pm
In a small minority of cases, child support payments - as a well as alimony, which in an MRA’s context would be appropriate here - are proscribed as a punishment, borne of the belief that men who divorce must be bad. But that owes more to social conservatism than to radical feminism.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
February 7th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Inanna,
This comment was written by kathleen.Seems like he using a little bit more than emotional blackmail to manipulate you. What else do you need?
Judge a man on his behavior, not the smoke he blows up your ass. He has used your insecurities to lead you into a situation where he has total control of everything and you have no choices. If you are with him out of something besides love (your son’s wellbeing for example) then don’t treat it as if it were a ‘loving’ relationship. It is an arrangement that needs clear specifications and boundries. Get EVERYTHING in writing. Sorry for you, but you aren’t even fooling yourself …it’s not about ‘love’
Been there, done that. I saw through the smoke and have the resolve soI can sleep at night. Good luck,
kathleen
Report this comment to the moderators
March 22nd, 2007 at 3:46 pm
[...] Ampersand debunks a mens rights myth. Pam at Pandagon reports that Laurel Hesters plea for partner benefits has once again been denied. The Countess on Fathers 4 Justice and their foiled plan to kidnap British Prime Minister Tony Blair’s youngest son. (!) [...]
This comment was written by Feministing.Report this comment to the moderators
June 1st, 2007 at 5:41 pm
This is a great article. My ex drives a BMW and lives in a nice house. I get $370 a month for child support. This amount covers little to nothing of raising my daughter. This month I had to pay $200 for her school trip, $100 at the dentist, and $100 a week for before/after school child care. So before I have even started paying for her food and shelter the $370 is long spent. The cost of rasing a child is HUGE! HUGE! HUGE! HUGE! The bills are never ending. AND THE TRUTH IS I PAY WAY MORE THAN 50% of raising her. It’s more like 75-80%.
I am so tired of men who whine about having to pay child support. My brother and his wife divorced and he got behind 2 years in child support. My parents went on and on about how unfair the judge was to make him pay a few hundred a month to his ex. I just about wanted to clout my brother over the head. People have such a warped perception of reality. Even my parents who should know better after watching me as a single mom put myself through university and get a good career. And yet I still have to do work on the side just to get by.
$370 a month. Pffftt. It’s an embarassment to men. If thats the best you can do what use is there for you.
This comment was written by Cindy Shuttleworth.Report this comment to the moderators
June 2nd, 2007 at 6:27 pm
Regardless of male or female, I take issue with the concept of child support as we know it, which is a government, mandated dictate. My liberal credentials are solid, but taking away the right of parents to make economic decisions with respect to their child and tie support strictly to income is intrusive micromanagement. The Federal Bureau of Labor Statistics show that the difference in monthly expenditures between a single person and a single parent with one minor child is approximately $225, not incding medical or child care costs.
Even adding as much as 25% to 50% to that figure to account for a disproportionate number of people in poverty, you still wind up at less than $350 per month for one child. I grew up in extreme poverty and in 1960 in rural Pennsylvania, as a small child, five of us were living on $100 a month. No car, no telephone, no indoor plumbing, wood stove for cooking and heating. Even allowing for inflation, that figure would be around 9K annually, today.
While my obligation for support was suspended to my ex, who makes 150K plus annually, for my daughter, an arrearage consisting of non-existent child care remains which I’m battling the state on, here in Florida. My overtures toward settlement with the state have been refused and hearings continue 15 years after our divorce. I’ve paid plenty and have put more on the table, though I earn about 1/4 of what my ex does.
Bottom line - when a couple separate, everybody has to tighten their belt and priorities need to be set. Frugality and reality may need to supersede perceived “needs”. Simple living is healthier for the planet and though simple by western standards, is lavish relative to most of the world.
Finally, the state’s role should be very limited and as long as a noncustodial parent pays or offers to pay a proportional share of necessary expenses as outlined above plus a proportional amount for child care, medical or other special expenses, it should be adopted by the courts and we could cut the cost of support enforcement (nearly $300 million yearly in FL) drastically. Enforce support against those who will pay little or nothing. For the rest of us, when these awards are not justifiable by a common economic measurement, I advocate and will practice civil disobedience.
This comment was written by Chris Kenney.Report this comment to the moderators
June 3rd, 2007 at 6:46 am
Chris wrote:
Could you provide a link to where this statistic comes from, please? (Just saying it’s from the BLS isn’t specific enough).
And do you really think not including the costs of medical and child care is justifiable?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 4th, 2007 at 10:28 am
I spend more than that for school crap. Uniforms, lunch money, stupid Lets Do A Project assigments, class trips, track meets, choir concerts, extra school supplies, class pictures, art class etc. It adds up.
And now, since she’s 13, she eats a hell of a lot more. If you ever want to see your grocery money exceed your budget, watch a teen in front of the fridge.
And then there’s the cost of gas, because I have to transport her to and from school activities. At over 3 bucks a gallon, that adds up.
School uniforms are expensive, even at the cheap stores and she’s growing and requires clothes being bought more often (there is a size cap for uniforms, you cant buy them too big..so buying clothes with room to grow into is out) and a pair of pants and 1 shirt is easily 50 bucks.
She has to have 3 belts. At 12.99 a pop for each because of the material required and the buckle.
This comment was written by pheeno.Report this comment to the moderators
June 4th, 2007 at 11:23 am
Childcare is the second largest expense in my current budget (mortgage being the highest). If I had to pay for full time child care (at the moment we have an arrangement for part time that is working) it would be $1000/month. Even part time care is $600/month that’s a HUGE expense.
And as far as medical is concerned, well, in addition to the insurance premiums I have a $30 co-pay for every dr. visit. She’s at the doctor on average every other month. That adds up pretty fast.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
June 4th, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Chris, you don’t say what you’re currently making. Care to divulge?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 4th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
Chris said that he makes 1/4 what his ex makes (150k). So around 37.5k.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 4th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
ahh, missed that. Damn headache.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 5th, 2007 at 5:29 pm
I think you mean to say that he could TRY to go in and change this and end up owing attorney and court fees in addition to the thousands of dollars.
Child support laws allow income to be IMPUTED to a person based on prior demonstrated income. A lot of the courts, but not all, refuse to lower child support orders for a job loss. Their approach is to tell you to get a job or go to jail.
The problem gets compounded when the child support arrears get reported to the credit bureaus. Many companies refuse to hire people for trustworthy positions if they have bad credit and particularly if the bad credit is from failure to support their own children.
Louisiana in its infinite wisdom in 2004 made it a felony to fall behind by $5,000. So the 60 day jail term for ‘contempt of court’ for failure to pay can then morph into a multi-year felony jail term.
and since the Louisiana courts refuse to lower child support for a person sent to jail because ‘going to jail is a voluntary act’ the child support meter continues to run for the jail term.
So then another multi-year felony jail term can be brought for the arrears that accrued during the first term.
and so on and so on.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 5th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
Nick, that’s appalling. But it’s so spectacularly awful that I want to see some evidence for it. (Nothing personal).
Can you please give a link to a legitimate news source (not a men’s rights website) reporting on that Louisiana law, and the actions of the Louisiana courts?
This comment was written by Ampersand.Report this comment to the moderators
June 5th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
Yes there are but the non-custodial parent does not get them. The NCP can not claim ‘head-of-household’ status, they are stuck on the ’single’ table which results in a huge increase in their tax liability.
The dependency deduction is assumed by law to go to the custodial parent. Sometimes the NCP can get it, but this is rare and assumes the endangered species, the ‘competent attorney’ is present.
A review of the federal tax laws to treat the child support paying NCP better than the deadbeat non-child support paying NCP would be a big help.
The money should stay in the family and not go to the feds.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 5th, 2007 at 6:32 pm
Horror stories? Check this one out. Fortunately he had enough money to appeal the judges decision. How can a person who makes $9,000/month be a pauper. Easy:
Martello v. Martello
On $9,000/month in gross income {by definition that is before taxes} he was ordered to pay $5,741 in spousal support and $2,372 in child support leaving him with $887/month to live on. {they failed to deduct his Federal, State, FICA, and self employed FICA taxes - approximately $2,500}.
Even if the court hadn’t been excessive, self-employed businesspeople can either make out like bandits if their business takes off or get into deep trouble very quickly if business slacks off.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 5th, 2007 at 6:41 pm
At least that case was overturned. The same appeals court, on the same day, upheld this decision:
Lambert v Lambert
Case facts:
There are 4 children involved in this case. Three from a prior marrage (ages 14, 8 and 6) and one from the marriage aged 1.5.
The courts ruled that the man’s income was $3,363/month.
This amount was imputed using the $19.4/hour * 40 hours/week * 52 weeks/year / 12 months/year. {and that is ok}
The court is silent as to his tax burden. The Louisiana hired child support economists gross to net conversion for 2004 estimates taxes for this income as $756.16. (FICA $389.14; La $110.74; and FICA $256.28)
Estimated net income: $2,606.84
The court ordered the man to pay $505.56/month in child support; $611.00/month in spousal support; maintain health insurance on the family ($420.04 medical and $62.12 dental) ; and pay the monthly note on the automobile that the woman is driving ($347).
Net income less medical and dental: $2,124.68
Court ordered payments to mother:
Spousal support: $958 ($611 $347)
Child support: $505.56
Total $1,463.56
That is 56% of net income ($1,463.56/$2,606.84). The maximum garnishable amount for spousal support and child support combined is 50%. ($1,303.42)
Remainder for a family of four to live on: $661.12
None of the income/expenses listed account for the court costs nor for the attorney fees. Not many atty’s work pro-bono.
Any extended work period where weekly work hours are reduced to about 30/week would leave this family ZERO dollars to live on.
Note: The incremental amount for the father to raise this child, had the court awarded the child to the obviously fit father, per the child support tables is only $94/month. {Calculate the child support for four children and subtract the child support for three children}.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 5th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
I found those two cases when I went to their site to look up the appeals court decision in this young mans case:
Pounds v. Spears
The judge had awarded the young man primary custody in large part because the mother had just married a scoundrel {drug record; DWI; pending drug case; and a failed drug test}.
The mother filed a new motion about three months later on other issues. At that hearing, the judge essentially swapped the custody back. The father appealed and won a reversal.
They just went back to court and redid the visitation per the appeals court ruling. The ink is not even dry on that judgment and the mom is suing for custody again.
No child support award horror story here as no child support has been set yet.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 5th, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Louisiana has a lock on the best scandals. Now this is a case you have to read to believe.
La Supreme Court Opinion to remove judge miller
The evil judge has an affair with his friends wife; knocks her up; presides over the divorce; and makes the man pay child support for a child that was probably his.
The plan ultimately backfires on the judge.
The girlfriend leaves him {after five years} after getting tired of waiting for him to leave his wife. She sues him in federal court for harassment and wins $50,000. The judge is held in contempt for ‘paying child support’ for three months {because he was trying to establish paternity. the amount paid was only 1/2 of what an order should have been}.
The La legal system finally gets involved, and three years later the judge is finally removed from office.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 5th, 2007 at 8:14 pm
Check out the rate that the child support arrearages are mounting up. It doesn’t matter what state. Take Louisiana. over a billion owed in arrears with the amount increasing rapidly each year.
Now, stop and think. How could that be possible?
Remember, the state is supposed to automatically garnish all new child support orders. So the payment is automatic for any person with a steady job.
According to the state, 70% of the arrears is owed by parents who make less than $10,000/year.
Louisiana child support tables are fairly typical. For an average income payor, they are designed to take 23% of the persons net {after tax} income for one child; 34% for 2; 40% for 3; 44% for 4; 48% for 5; or 51% for 6.
At the poverty level end; the minimum child support order is $100/month.
There is a self support reserve (SSR) built into the table to ensure the paying parent has sufficient money to live on at the federal poverty level for one person… from ten years ago… the amount is set at $551/month gross.
To smoothly transition between the SSR and the percentage amounts, they fit a straight line between the two points. The slope was set to ensure that the payors income always increases. They call this the ‘work incentive’ (WI). The WI is set so that 90% of the net income increase is paid as child support for one child; 91% for 2; 92% for 3 and so on up to 6.
Note: I have been saying ‘net income’ yet the La tables show ‘gross income’. This is correct. The state makes some assumptions about the income tax and converts the ‘net income’ back to ‘gross income’ for the tables.
Now the tables are the MINIMUM amount that the child support order should be set for. EXTRA’s are supposed to be added on by the judge for each specific case. These extras are DAY CARE and MEDICAL.
The ‘typical’ day care and medical amounts were deducted from the child support tables so that they could be added in on a case by case basis. The child care amount deducted was about 2% per child; the medical about 0.9%. In real dollars that works out to a $32/month reduction or $390/month for the year.
Unfortunately, day care costs $80/week for one child or about $320/month. So when these numbers are added back in based on actual costs, the child support orders balloon well above the percentages I listed above.
Garnishment for child support is limited by Louisiana to 50% of the persons net income. Unfortunately, awards can be higher than that amount. The protection is only minimal. The payor can be squeeze to cough up the rest of his money by license siezure; by tax refund siezure; by bank account seizure; by bad credit ratings; etc. I suspect, but cannot yet prove, that such persons are the main reason that people stop paying and become fugitives.
Going to jail is not an excuse - the courts consider that a voluntary act and they do not lower child support orders for a voluntary act.
Neither is losing your job. The courts can rule that you are voluntarily underemployed.
The static awards of the child support system do not fit certain industries - i.e. specifically the construction industry. The people in those jobs work a lot of overtime when they are employed and collect unemployment the rest of the time. The child support order based on an average income is undersized when the person is employed and oversized when they are unemployed.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 2:19 am
Surely Child Support and Alimony should be taken as a % of your wage to a maximum required to support a child, and garnish your actual wage by this % rather than working on imputed or real world numbers that may be horridly unfair to a payer?
I am thinking this because if the payer was a cp then the family would be affected by wage ups and downs similarly, where as as an ncp this wage fluctuation is being forced onto the ncp rather than the family unit.
This comment was written by Chris.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 3:28 am
Chris, the imputed rule is designed to prevent high income earners from becoming low income earners out of spite.
It also applies to women who are asking for child support payments. If the mother has a degree in marketing and was making 40k / year several years previously then the father can ask the court to impute that she can make 40k / year when it calculates the payments.
I know of one case (a friend of mine) where this is exactly what happened. (fwiw shortly after the judge said that she could find a job making 40k she was hired by a company at 42. At least according to my friend. )
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 8:01 am
Well, I’ll actually back Nick up a little bit.
While I think most child support orders a relatively fair, I very much think the system is broken, having seen it first hand.
Here are a few reasons why…
It is very hard to modify a current support order. My husband left a job last year, and tried to get his support lowered to match his home business income–which was about $1500 a month gross. Minus expenses it was more like $500, but we figured he could afford the higher payment.
His ex is a chronic mover, which poses huge problems for courts, and as many people know. People often move around to avoid paying child support or to avoid custody orders. Long story short he filed some time in April in one (Syracuse) jurisdiction. That case was thrown out in July because according to the judge it was the wrong jurisdiction. That was 4 months and two court dates later. The judge could have said this on the first court date, and saved everybody time and money.
Then he tried to refile in the court where we live (NYC suburbs), and they said no you have to file in the place where the child lives (Georgia). So he called Georgia, which doesn’t even have online forms that a person can download, to get the forms. But the people in Georgia would get him the forms because they said you have to file where you live. So for about 1.5 weeks he had to go back and forth trying to get one of these courts to take the case. Eventually, the court in metro NYC took the case, they went to court several times (I think 3), and in January the judge ruled that the current amount of $530 should stand.
At that point I took my personal savings to pay down the several thousand dollars of arrears that had accumulated over the 9 months he were in court.
The point I’m making is that it is very hard to modify an order, and there are cases when a person’s income is lower or the person is unemployed and they still will not modify. Moreover, in many places it takes months revise an order, during those months arrears accumulate.
There is also no fact checking system….people can make arguments and bring forged documents, lie about their income, lie about paying for child care, lie about where they live, lie about any number of things, and the court doesn’t have the time or the personnel to check any of this.
I think lower income non-custodial parents do get unfair deals in many cases, while some really rich people get off with paying fairly low % of their income. There was a huge debate over P-Diddy’s child support. He was paying one ex who was paid something like $30,000 a month, and he had another ex who he paid $10,000 a month. Both had one child. That same year on his taxes he said he made $16 million dollars. The law in NY is 17% for one children and eith 24-25% for two. 24% of 16 million is 3,840,000, which translates into a $160,000 a month for each kid. People thought the amount was outrageously high, but in reality he was getting a steal.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 8:08 am
I’m starting to think that, as a dyke, I want my tax-payer contribution to the offspring of heterosexuals to be a fuckin’ box of condoms. Damn but ya’ll eat up a lot of money when you breed.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 9:15 am
Rachel:
To play Devil’s Advocate, the problem is that that a variable child support order (like high tax rates) reduces the incentive to work in a high-paying job, especially when your wife brings home a decent paycheck. A fixed payment has the advantage of not penalizing higher earnings or rewarding lower ones. I’m not saying that your husband would quit his job just to reduce his child support payment, but his actions are not easily distinguishable (to a judge) from the actions of a man who would.
The problem, of course, is that men do sometimes experience drops in income that are beyond their control or in everyone’s long-term best interests (e.g., starting a business which will eventually make a lot of money). But designing a system that doesn’t pervert incentives while still allowing flexibility for legitimate hardship seems like a really hard problem to me.
I can’t see any reasonable justification for forcing someone to pay $30,000 per month, or even $10,000, no matter how much he earns. Child support should be about making sure the custodial parent has enough money to take care of the child, not about rewarding the custodial parent or punishing the noncustodial parent. $2000/month strikes me as a reasonable hard upper limit for one child. Maybe $3,000 if the custodial parent is incapable of working.
Edited to add: I think that a person making millions of dollars a year should contribute more than $2000/month towards the cause of raising his child. But I don’t think it’s something the government should enforce, particularly not in a way that leaves the use of the money up to the custodial parent’s discretion.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 9:34 am
In my husband’s case, he’s fortunate that he was married and didn’t lose a job.
He quit voluntarily, but I also think he has slowly come to the realization that he will not be able to take time off to start a business as long as he has a child support obligation.
But he’s realy in good shape because he had me, but for a single person, a lower income person, or a person who loses a job, this is a much different story. Plus, navigating the court system really requires money, time, and a pretty good educational background, which is quite difficult for lower income people.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 9:38 am
QGrrl said, “I’m starting to think that, as a dyke, I want my tax-payer contribution to the offspring of heterosexuals to be a fuckin’ box of condoms. Damn but ya’ll eat up a lot of money when you breed.”
LOL!!
But wait until gay marriage is legalized. Well, actually you dont have to wait because with the increasing number of lesbians and gay men adopting and getting in vitro, surrogates, and other assisted reproductive technologies, y’all are going to get as complicated as we are. :)
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
Those numbers look suspiciously low.
For one child, the income levels for those orders are $1,600/month and $2,100/month. If the typical additions of daycare/school and health insurance are added on, then the income levels required to generate these orders would be even lower.
For two children, the required income for those order levels falls to $900/month and $1,200/month. Again, if the ordinary adders are included, the income levels are even lower.
For three children. its $900/month* and $1,050/month. Lower still if there are any adders. Yes, the reason the number is close to the same is the self support reserve amount has been reached. This means that the payor is being left with $551/month gross to live on. The SSR protection can and is be breached with the adders.
For four children five and six children it remains close to $900/month and $1,060/month.
The median income in Louisiana is close to $2,000/month. This means that the medium minimum child support orders are $337/month for one; $522/month for two; $655/month for three; $737/month for for; $805/month for five; and $861/month for six or more.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 6:23 pm
The census report you cite does show the overwhelming bias against men as parents.
Mothers have primary custody at rates ten times higher than men.
Mothers with legal and physical custody were 28.1% vs. 2.4% for the men.
Mothers with joint and physical custody were 20.1% vs. 2.7% for the men.
At least shared custody is up to 12.8%
NOW demands ‘equality for women’ in all things EXCEPT in child custody. For that, they claim that the courts are biased against women and women should get custody at even higher rates than they currently do. They are now suing the U.S. in the O.A.S. human rights court for human rights violation on that very premise. They are claiming that there is domestic violence in up to 80% of all divorce cases.
This census article refutes that claim and shows that the courts are still heavily biased against men. We have a ‘Title IX’ program in the colleges to fix the gender bias in the court system. Where is the ‘Title IX’ program for men to have equal access to their children?
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 7:01 pm
Ah, I think I see what they are doing. The numbers must be on a ‘per child’ basis.
See page 8, they list the median support paid by men for 1, 2 and 3 children respectively. The amounts are $3,000; $5,232; and $6,000 respectively per year or $250; $436; and $500 per month.
The median amount works out about 76% of the minimum orders by Louisiana law. This is essentially the same difference as you reported between the ‘median’ amount and the average amount - 250 vs 350 respectively.
There must be a serious reporting error in the type of custody arrangements further down on page 8. The child support orders for the ‘joint legal and physical custody’ were paying the same amount of child support as for those with out joint physical custody. The child support orders for shared parenting cases should be much lower and close to zero.
For the average child support order to be that much higher than the median child support order, it indicates that there some very high child support orders skewing the data. They should have excluded the ultra-rich from the analysis or analyzed them seperately.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Rachel, here is Louisiana’s history on ‘voluntary’ unemployment.
See page 53 of 310 of the DSS/DA Child Support Review 2000 document on our site.
The history section of that report was written by Vincent J. Lobello.
So based on Louisiana law, and we are typical of most of the states, your husband would not be entitled to a reduction in his child support order. They would consider him underemployed and base his support level on his prior demonstrated income. They would also consider your income to the extent that it offsets his expenses.
A person ‘going to jail’, for any reason, is considered fault or neglect and thus the court will not order a reduction for that act.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
Now for my favorite quote. For the source for this one, see page 25 of 50 of the scanned report titled 2001 Report of the Task Force. See bullet number 3.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
The problem with these statistics is that they don’t distinguish between contested and unconstested custody cases. If, as I suspect (although I can’t point to any statistics to support my suspicions), in the majority of uncontested custody cases, the parents agree that the children will live primarily with the mother, we would need to see the statistics on contested custody cases to determine the extent, if any, of any gender-based bias on the part of the courts.
This comment was written by Paul.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Q Grrl writes:
Yup.
I have gay and lesbian friends who are childless who go off on all kinds of trips and cruises and fancy vacations. And they wonder why I can’t afford to go off on all kinds of trips and cruises and fancy vacations, and I’ve only got the one child.
I’m friends with a single gay man who makes prolly 20% less than me (I know what he makes because I used to be in the same pay grade as him :) and he lives in a house that’s about 2 1/2 times as expensive as mine, he vacations all the time, flies around the country, buys fancy cell phones, computers, toys, blah, blah, blah.
I could do the same things he does if I didn’t have the kid. On the other hand, when I’m a gray haired old dyke sitting in a rocking chair, I’ll prolly have grandkids playing at my feet.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 8:02 pm
Yeah, I’m going to have to agree with Paul here. Many men don’t even apply for custody. So a large proportion of the imbalance is not because of any kind of outright discrimination against men; it is because men don’t contest or disagree that (edited to fix typo) their children should go with the mother.
For the record, I don’t think there is some overwhelming bias against men in family courts, but I do think the courts are overburdened, inefficient, and unfair to both custodial and non-custodial parents.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Ah, here we go, See the 2004 DSS/DA Child Support Review. Caution: this is a cut and paste of a scanned document. I did not catch all the scanner errors. Sorry about those errors.
Note: Not all states are as anal as Louisiana in regards to their prisoners. Louisiana doesn’t usually jail them, just keeps the huge burden over their heads and occasionally rounds a few of them up for show.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
I will answer these together.
The vast majority of fathers with custody occur because the mother did not want custody and gave the child to the father without a fight.
It is difficult to separate ‘contested’ cases from ‘uncontested’ cases. The classic line in Louisiana courts is your own attorney comes out of a private meeting with the judge with your ‘deal’. They tell you that ‘this is the most the judge will give you, if you take it to court you will get less’.
You don’t get very far in court when your sword (your attorney) bends like a wet noodle and will not represent your interests. Oh most of the attorney’s talk a great game when they are persuading you to part with that huge retainer. But after that, many of them just roll over and play dead.
Men tend to stay in bad marriages because they know they will lose the kids if they divorce. This is why 80+% of all divorces are initiated by women.
A good read on this is
Cynthia McNeely’s report
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 9:27 pm
Let’s concede for argument’s sake that the line between uncontested and contested custody suits can be pretty blurry. I would still be interested in knowing whether anybody has any statistics on the percentage of fully contested custody cases where there’s an actual hearing before the judge (or judge and jury) in which the ruling favors the mother vs. those where the ruling favors the father.
This comment was written by Paul.Report this comment to the moderators
June 6th, 2007 at 10:56 pm
If the law honest to donuts does not allow exemptions for the unemployed, then that is just plain wrong. I do think that there is a systemic bias in custody cases against fathers. I do think fathers too often are given too little respect, be it in a court of law or on weekday afternoon boob tube.
But I’d think, Nick, that the reason that this bias exists is that the courts automatically assume the mother to be the better ‘natural’ caregiver - even to sometimes ridiculous extents such as giving working wives custody over househusbands. Do you agree that women are more naturally inclined toward a caregiving capacity, or don’t you? If you do, then why don’t you expect the courts to rule accordingly? This is the whole premise behind opposition to Affirmative Action, isn’t it? “I don’t care if you’re white, black, orange, or purple, so long as you’re the best man for the job” - and that this trumps the need for any sort of numerical balance or equality. Aren’t mothers the best - well, not men, but people - for the job?
I can easily picture an MRA going, “well, I believe men make better ____ but the law forbids the law, employers, institutions, etc. from acknowledging it… the law should at least be consistent”. I’m sorry, but this has all the moral weight of a happy stain on a priest’s robes. The “law” is not the only thing that should be consistent, so if the MRA himself violates the spirit of the equality that he wants the law to uphold - let’s say by voting against those same equality measures, writing angry letters to the editor about Title IX, mocking women’s rights in casual conversation, etc. - then the law doesn’t owe him anything in this regard. Not to mention that there’s something problematic about requiring a disempowered group to play war of attrition for privileges with the privileged group, and something vindictive and unsavoury about the privileged group requiring the disempowered group to relinquish the one institutional privilege they have in order for any ‘dialogue’ to go forward.
This is all hypothetical, of course. In real life, MRA’s do not hold the keys to dialogue and exchange in this manner, and are mostly just yammering on the sidelines, for which I and rest of the non-misogynist-loser population is very thankful.
Note that I made a number of assumptions about your general political identity, Nick, that may or may not hold true. If they don’t, then consider this all a general reply to your ‘NOW’ comment.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2007 at 4:00 am
Paul,
There’s more to “contested” and “uncontested” than “the parents chose what to do or not”.
There are costs associated with contesting or not contesting custody. I don’t know the average cost of a custody suit these days, but my guess is that the decision to contest or not contest is primarily made as a short term economic decision. The last attorney I spoke to, for a fairly simple custody and support modification, wanted a $7,500 retainer. The economic decision was pretty easy — there was no guarantee of any particular outcome, and spending $7,500 was an immediate bar to filing suit.
If you assume a 50/50 probability for receiving custody, the person with the SMALLER income has the greater incentive to contest (because the potential payout if they lose custody is smaller than the potential award if they receive custody) custody, and the person with the LARGER income has less incentive to contest. In simple risk/reward terms, income differential creates a strong bias against the higher wage earner contesting custody because the reward is lower. Which is the better financial decision — pay $X,XXX in legal fees to receive $YYY per month or pay 0.80 x $YYY (where 0.80 is the ratio between men’s and women’s wages from the US DoL), or pay $X,XXX in legal fees to receive 0.80 x $YYY or pay $YYY. The lower wage earner, in a 50/50 award situation, would receive 0.20 x $YYY on average, while the higher wage earner would pay 0.20 x $YYY on average (where $YYY is the average award based on state guidelines and income). In simple economic terms, one is a better decision than the other.
If you look at the language that’s used to justify mother’s receiving child support, it’s clear to me that much of the justification for support orders isn’t “best interest of the children”, it’s “economic status of the mother”. In particular the assertion, “Father’s contest custody to reduce child support payments”. If child support orders are based on the child(ren)’s living expenses, there should be a direct relationship between periods of possesion and amount of support paid, and the logical outcome should be that if father’s contest custody, and an increase in the period of possession is ordered, the amount of child support that’s ordered should be decreased.
Yet, few to no states include the number of hours or days a child spends with either parent in the computation of a child support order. In Texas, for example, the guidelines (and the Texas Family Code should have been linked earlier in this thread by me) make no mention of parental share of time of possession in the calculation of a child support ordered to the custodial parent. This creates an additional disincentive for the non-custodial parent to have increased possession. Any additional expenses — the need for additional food, clothing, larger or better living spaces, increased transportation and entertainment expenses — do not result in a proportionate reduction in the amount of support ordered to offset the increase in expenses with the non-custodial parent. The result is a decrease in the child’s standard of living (as well as the non-custodial parent’s standard of living) when the length of possession by the non-custodial parent increases.
Mind you — none of what I wrote above requires that there be any bias against fathers, it only requires that men earn, on average, more than women. Indeed, until there is a bias for fathers, rational men will continue to make the decision that contesting overall custody, and filing a petition for an increase in time of possession, is not in their (or the child(ren)’s) best interests.
This comment was written by FurryCatHerder.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2007 at 4:59 am
Joe, my point was that in a normal family the families standard of living would alter with these changes thus making an imputed income rather unfair.
Also what if you want a less stressfull job, better working conditions etc, you trade down from being a doctor (£100K+) to a grocery store clerk (£6/hr) because of the stress and life changes. You are technically underemployed but you are making a choice in your life, and there are lots of people who support kids on a grocery store clerks wages.
Also a % is a lot more fair because it does alter dynamically, and with a cap there is an incentive to earn more money. Even a millionaire should not need to pay more than is required to keep a child in relative comfort, while $30,000 a month may be a tiny percentage of his income it is not reflective in the cost of actually raising a child (if it was many normal people could not raise children).
This comment was written by Chris-AV.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2007 at 7:49 am
FCH said, “If child support orders are based on the child(ren)’s living expenses, there should be a direct relationship between periods of possesion and amount of support paid, and the logical outcome should be that if father’s contest custody, and an increase in the period of possession is ordered, the amount of child support that’s ordered should be decreased.
Yet, few to no states include the number of hours or days a child spends with either parent in the computation of a child support order. ”
I agree with. This is a big problem. As it stand right now the courts are set up with an eye toward full custody for one parent with very limited visitation (i.e.–every other weekend/one day a week/one weekend a month.
If a couple truly had a joint custody type arrangement (i.e. every weekend and the week days during the summare with one parent, and weekdays with the other parent during school, and weekends with that parent in the summer), the support should be lower and based more on who earns more.
But the bias right now still seems to be toward a big imbalance in visitation with one parent getting full legal custody.
And I can’t even begin to tell y’all the tremendous legal and financial barriers to modifying an arrangement once it is made. This is why it is incumbent upon divorced people to try their best to get along. I don’t think they realize how much money in legal fees and emotional distress they could save themselves if they did not dig in their heals. If you can get along with each other, the arrangement will work much better.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
The family court system is indeed broken because it focuses on serving the greedy and not the needy. The system was originally put into place to recover the expense of the nation’s welfare system. Now the system is largely focused on a revenue generation tool for the states.
The Federal Government needs to bring Title IV-D back into compliance with its original intent (recuperate money expended through TANF/AFDC) and improve the program for needy families not streamline it for state revenue generation by including affluent middle and upper-class families at the expense of taxpayers.
Supporting budget cuts will improve the availability of services for child support enforcement to low-income families, since the current focus of the programs is on revenue generation for the state not on collections for lower-income needy families.
Currently the state-run child support enforcement services have little to no focus on lower-income families due to difficulty in actually collecting from under- or unemployed program participants.
State provided child support enforcement services focus on higher-income families, which gives the appearance of program success through the use of use of income withholding orders to facilitate collections.
Because there is a significant level of overparticipation from wealthier families that should not be receiving benefits the lack of collections for lower-income family are going unnoticed while the program is being labeled a success.
Taxpayers should not be required to foot the bill for collection services for individuals that would not otherwise qualify for welfare services when those participants can afford to provide services for their own domestic relations disputes.
There are an ample number of private collection and law firms that provide services to both lower-income and higher-income families to make up for any alleged reduction in state collections as a result of reduced funding. The private collection and law firms are notably more successful in their outcomes as they focus on their clients, not on maintaining caseloads for state budgeting purposes.
Why should taxpayers be footing the bill for a broken system? The answer is: THEY SHOULDN’T!
This comment was written by Lary Holland.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
I completely agree with FurryCatHerder that not everyone who decides not to contest custody does so because she/he really believes the children are better off with the other parent. Custody battles can be extremely expensive (both financially and emotionally) for both parents, and it would be irresponsible to themselves and to the children not to consider that in deciding whether to contest custody.
That being said, my point was that since in the majority of cases, custody is uncontested, the fact that the mother gets custody more often than the father does not necessarily indicate a pro-mother bias on the part of judges. And even in those instances that Nick referred to where the judge basically strong-armed the parties into an agreement, I would need to see some evidence that the judges are more likely to do so in favor of the mother than the father (and that this apparent favoritism isn’t based on which parent has been the children’s primary caretaker).
And Rachel is absolutely correct: it is very difficult to modify custody unless both parents are agreed. Judges tend to be extremely reluctant to modify a custody order that is already in effect because of concern that the change will traumatize the children. So, they have to be convinced that the change will be a positive improvement that will outweigh this traumatic effect. However, my impression is that this reluctance applies just as much when it’s the mother who seeks the modification as when it’s the father.
As for child support, my biggest problem with the Texas child support guidelines to which FCH refers is that they are based almost entirely on the income of the non-custodial parent. There are other states (like Hawaii, if I’m not mistaken) where both parent’s income is considered in calculating guideline support.
The Texas Family Code does provide however that the custodial parent’s resources, as well as the amount of time the child actually spends with the NCP (which addresses FCH’s objection to a limited extent), are factors the court is to consider in deciding whether to deviate from the child support guidelines.
However, any unfairness in the Texas guidelines affects NCP mothers as much as NCP fathers.
This comment was written by Paul.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2007 at 8:48 pm
It doesn’t.
The reason, well put the shoe on the other foot. Unless we enter another great depression, the unemployed person is hopefully going to get another job real soon. So how does the support get reimplemented when this happens.
The current process is the custodial parent must find out about it; initiate a suit; go to court; etc. etc. etc. That is a cumbersome, expensive and slow process.
If the system granted the reprieve for the duration that a person is on unemployment. Automatic qualification when starting. Automatic reinstatement when kicked off. That might work.
Or if we went back to a system where a percentage of income is taken. So that when income goes up - the support increases. When it drops, it decreases. Just like your federal taxes. That would also work.
Just how did men and women let lawyers and politicians talk them into this horrible system? I mean, you don’t sue someone to get married. The government doesn’t sue you to pay your taxes. You don’t sue someone to walk your dog.
Yet families that get caught in the ‘divorce system’ have to sue for everything. They have lost their authority on many aspects of their life.
Just this year I had to go back to court and get a QMCSO. My company, after covering me and my daughter for ten years, decided that she was not a qualified dependent for the years that I could not claim her on my federal taxes. Therefore, I had to get a ‘Qualified Medical Child Support Order’ for the years that she was not a dependent. Strangely enough, both the ex and the court cooperated for a change; the company did not. First, they failed to provide any information on what they wanted in the plan; Second, when I used a standard plan for the state, they pitched a hissy fit; Third, as we worked through their objections, most of them we were able to dismiss because THEY WERE REQUIRED BY LAW.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2007 at 8:56 pm
No, they are not.
This is a TWO person job. Each gender has their strengths and their weaknesses. A child needs both of their parents to grow up to be complete.
When one parent, either the father or the mother, is missing the child grows up unbalanced and has problems forming stable relationships; etc. etc. etc.
The best solution is for the parents to remain together in a committed relationship. That way as the child’s needs change, they naturally move from the mother to the father and back to the mother as they need to.
There really is no good solution for a child of divorced parents. The best solution of a bad lot is ’shared parenting’. But as it is implemented, even that is fairly rigid and overly legalistic. The natural movements of the child between parents is interrupted and replaced with a fixed schedule.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
No reliable numbers exist. Most cases, even the heavily litigated ones, usually end up with a ’stipulated’ judgment that is coerced upon them by the judges and the attorneys. The studies that have done that have ended up with less than 4% of cases to consider from.
Furthermore, judges are given ‘wide discretion’ to decide a custody case ‘in the child’s best interest’. This basically means the judge can do whatever they want to the couple before them. Sometimes the man gets screwed. Sometimes the woman gets screwed. Often they both do. The only parties that make out are the lawyers children - they get an excellent child support settlement.
If you are charged with a crime, your attorney gets to voire dire the jury to ensure that the jury is not biased against you.
NO SUCH PROCESS EXISTS for divorcing couples. They are stuck with the judge that is assigned to them.
An excellent reform would be to require that the courts maintain and publish the statistics regarding each and every judge who presides over divorce cases. If that particular judge is identified to be biased against men or women, then the parent should be able to get that judge recused.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Why two? There are cultures where it’s a job for many more people.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2007 at 9:36 pm
Why two? There are cultures where it’s a job for many more people.
Barring a relative handful of immigrants, Westerners don’t belong to those cultures, and so don’t have access to their social capital. For better or for worse, and certainly for the time being, we’re stuck with a model of raising our own get, or at most raising the children of our chosen partners. I’m not gonna raise your kid, in other words, so making social plans that rely on me doing that are doomed in advance.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2007 at 9:54 pm
Very few parents in the U.S. raise their children without any assistance. They rely on other’s labors to produce the food their children eat and the clothes they wear. While home schooling is becoming more popular, most parents still rely on schoolteachers to educate their children. If their children become ill, they rely on doctors, nurses and other health care providers to heal them. Hillary was right, it really does take a village.
This comment was written by Paul.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2007 at 10:03 pm
Yes, Paul, we have an interdependent society. I depend on a hundred different people to do my job, but that doesn’t mean I’m not an independent contractor responsible for my own living; I am. Similarly, I depend on a lot of other people to raise my daughter, but it isn’t their job. It’s mine and my wife’s.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
Even assuming that your assessment is completely accurate, all that shows is that judges and lawyers handle family law cases poorly. It doesn’t show that judges are inheritantly biased against one sex or the other.
Actually, in some states (including Texas), you can ask for a jury in a divorce case. However, for many people the extra expenses involved make it cost prohibitive
This comment was written by Paul.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
My point is that two is an arbitrary number. If you’re going to say “2 is the right number!!!!” then you should be prepared to back up the argument that two is the only functional number.
Unfortunately, it can’t be backed up, on account of being bullshit.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
June 7th, 2007 at 10:33 pm
“No, they are not.
This is a TWO person job. Each gender has their strengths and their weaknesses. A child needs both of their parents to grow up to be complete.”
There are many things that are far more damaging to a child than growing up with one parent. Growing up watching his parents fighting. Growing up with parents who are distant. Growing up in the same house as an alcoholic deadbeat (of either sex) because of laws that punish people for trying to obtain a quick, no-fault divorce.
But in any case, it’s a foregone conclusion in our hypothetical that the parents are getting divorced, so the parents staying together in a committed relationship is not an option - unless you are prepared to advocate a return to forced marriages, which you have not yet done and I presume you are unwilling to do.
You do not strike me as a run-of-the-mill Right winger, not least because you sympathize with something a pre-Senate Hillary Clinton has said. (Har har.) But most on your side of this debate are, so I think I’ll just throw it out there one last time for the hell of it. You can believe that all else being equal, women are better suited than men to be nurturers and domestic types. You can believe that it is not the business of the government to enforce ‘equality of outcome’. And you can believe that fathers should get a better hand in divorce and custody battles. But you cannot believe all three simultaneously; something’s got to give.
“Even assuming that your assessment is completely accurate, all that shows is that judges and lawyers handle family law cases poorly. It doesn’t show that judges are inheritantly biased against one sex or the other.”
But doesn’t this lower us to the level of assuming we must have mind-reading capabilities to prove that someone is *truly* prejudiced, biased, bigoted, or whatnot? We’ve seen those sort of apologetics used before elsewhere. If the numbers are slanted, isn’t that evidence - though not proof - that those responsible for them are slanted as well?
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 12:31 am
My point is that two is an arbitrary number.
Right. Because our reproductive biology is based on “N” partners. We never know how many people created a child. It’s a totally arbitrary mystery.
If you’re going to say “2 is the right number!!!!” then you should be prepared to back up the argument that two is the only functional number.
Why? Those are two separate propositions.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 7:14 am
“Barring a relative handful of immigrants, Westerners don’t belong to those cultures, and so don’t have access to their social capital. For better or for worse, and certainly for the time being, we’re stuck with a model of raising our own get, or at most raising the children of our chosen partners. I’m not gonna raise your kid, in other words, so making social plans that rely on me doing that are doomed in advance.”
That is an incredibly white centric view of our “culture.” MANY African American families rely on an extended family base to support raising their children - from uncles who play a very active role in a child’s life to grandma’s who babysit etc. Same with Latino families, etc. Oh, and all those European immigrants - Italians, Poles, Russians, etc. And even a generation or two removed from the immigration that kind of family focus for child rearing remains.
Not to mention, plenty of white, middle class families I know (yes annecdotal) are relying on the help of their parents for babysitting/daycare while the parents work. We may have an ideal of the nuclear family being independent from extended family, but I don’t think most people really meet that ideal, and I think in a lot of ways that ideal is counterproductive.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 7:49 am
I think there’s a difference between getting help from my parents and the general expectation that my parents are responsible for how I raise my children. No one does it all alone. But they’re not considered responsible for helping.
US society generally expects the parents to do the work. We hold them responsible and look down on people that don’t live up to those responsibilities. We don’t have the same expectation of siblings, aunts, uncles, and grand parents. When my folks watch my daughters on Friday it’s babysitting they’re doing us a favor. When I (or my wife) take care of our daughters it’s parenting and we’re doing our jobs. If my folks don’t help raise their grandkids they’re not judged. If I don’t help raise my kids I am.
I think that’s what Roberts was getting at.
I’m not claiming that this is optimal, just that it’s what we’ve got today. Are there large segments of the US where an aunt or grandma would be expected to care for nieces and grandkids? To the extent that they’d be judged badly if they did not?
This comment was written by joe.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 8:00 am
“Are there large segments of the US where an aunt or grandma would be expected to care for nieces and grandkids? To the extent that they’d be judged badly if they did not?”
In many minority (for lack of a better word) communities, yes. Which is why I called the assumption white centric.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 8:31 am
Kate’s point is right on the money. Which is why I find it disturbing when individuals make sweeping generalizations about what “Americans” think, or how “Americans” behave. What they usually mean is how they and people like them think and behave. This is a failure of imagination widespread in the “white” community.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 8:49 am
OK, the point is valid - there are lots of people for whom blood kin also play a substantial role in raising a child.
Is that the form of extended community childraising envisioned by the proponents of it-takes-a-village thinking speaking here? If so, I yield the point. If not, then what’s the relevance?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 10:22 am
The point is that we are living in the end product of one the most stupendous social engineering projects in human history. One which has effectively destroyed the extended family as it existed for the greater part of that history in favor of the nuclear family. Our entire economic and social structure is now predicated on this model. This massive transformation has occurred within living memory and has produced some very negative effects.
Our current options are limited. We can continue to drift wherever this innovation may take us, attempt a return to the older, extended model or develope new structures. In the first case, we will simply have to accept the negative consequences such a choice entails. In the second we would have to completely restructure our current economics, which depend upon a degree of mobility and flexibility incompatible with the stability that the extended family requires. The last option would require an activist policy agenda which would be anathema to conservative and reactionary impulses.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 10:36 am
Look. Someone said that 2 is the right number of people to raise children. That’s an arbitrary (yup, arbitrary! Because the dominant American culture’s way of looking at things isn’t the only way) number, because it is not the only number that functions well across the world. So if you’re going to say “CHILDREN DESERVE 2 PARENTS” what’s to stop someone else saying “CHILDREN DESERVE 10 PARENTS?”
This is another exsample of someone trying to shoehorn all families into their concept of what a family should look like — ALL FAMILIES SHOULD HAVE TWO PARENTS. This is being leveraged against newer* kinds of family formations, such as single parents.
However, the argument is assailable because there are plenty of places and times in which two parents would have been considered unsuitably few. It’s susceptible to other people arguing, with the weight of tradition on their side, that families should be shaped differently.
It’s a bad argument.
-
*Sort of newer. Of course, there have always been single parents. But the American political debate frames the construction as newer.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 10:42 am
Exactly right, Mandolin.
I think that there are arguments to be made that ‘X’ is the right number of people to raise children . . . but then these arguments need to be actually made, rather than relying on the weight of tradition.
Hey, maybe I’m wrong, you know? Maybe 2 is exactly the optimal number of people, and more or fewer is bad for children. I doubt it, though. Convince me.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 12:09 pm
Yes it is a bad argument. Unfortunately, it’s one that has the weight of current economics and social policy behind it. It’s difficult to argue that single parenting is not a less than optimum choice in the US, considering the withering of the single income family and the absence of effective public services for single parents. The whole debate about child support is symptomatic of this.
Other developed countries don’t penalize single parenthood in the fashion of the US, choosing to treat it as an emergent practical reality requiring a policy response. Such countries recognize that leaving large numbers of children at the mercy of the vagaries of social and economic tides isn’t a sound approach. Consequently, single parenthood is a supportable mode of family life.
The US, in contrast, behaves like an ostrich, having no real family policy whatever, outside of rhetorical nostalgia for a model whose social and economic supports have all but vanished.
As a society, we do not value children as some other nations do.
The problems confronting families in the US are bound up with the structural realities of US society far more than they are a matter perception or definition.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 2:13 pm
So if you’re going to say “CHILDREN DESERVE 2 PARENTS” what’s to stop someone else saying “CHILDREN DESERVE 10 PARENTS?
Because a child is the result of the actions of two people, not one, three or ten. It’s not so much that every child must absolutely have two parents or perish, it’s that being responsible for the children we bring into the world is expected. It doesn’t matter if our children can survive without us.
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 2:23 pm
Yet, in other cultures, the two pepole who helped create the child may or may not be the ones responsible for is well-being. Which is to say, the mother usually is. The father ain’t necessarily.
Children DESERVE matrilineal descent patterns! It’s traditional!
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
“Because a child is the result of the actions of two people, not one, three or ten. It’s not so much that every child must absolutely have two parents or perish, it’s that being responsible for the children we bring into the world is expected. It doesn’t matter if our children can survive without us.”
So, you’re not in favor of adoption? That seems counterintuitive to what I believe your stance on abortion is. Cause those parents had nothing whatsoever with bringing that child into the world - it’s not just about biology! The point is that children are raised by people who are NOT their biological parents all the time - sometimes MORE than just their biological parents, sometime not by their biological parents at all - BIOLOGY is less important in child rearing than a sense of responsibility, common sense and various other resources.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 2:31 pm
Yet, in other cultures, the two pepole who helped create the child may or may not be the ones responsible for is well-being. Which is to say, the mother usually is. The father ain’t necessarily.
Are you speaking of these other cultures as examples of a better way? Do you mean to say that we should explore the social acceptability of not requiring fathers to be responsible for their children, while requiring mothers to be?
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 2:33 pm
No, I’m saying that arguing “this is the way we’ve always done it, therefore it’s the right way” is assailable, and a bad argument.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
So, you’re not in favor of adoption? That seems counterintuitive to what I believe your stance on abortion is.
People who wish to adopt should do so. I believe it’s dangerous to weaken the basic assumption that we are responsible for the children we create. Millions of people are engaging in procreative and potentially procreative acts. The extent to which they believe they are or are not the responsible party in dealing with the consequences will affect their tendency toward either rashness or caution.
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 3:04 pm
No, I’m saying that arguing “this is the way we’ve always done it, therefore it’s the right way” is assailable, and a bad argument.
You’re right. Defending tradition because ‘it’s tradition’ indicates a serious lack of critical thought and can close your mind to better ways. That said, I tend to think traditions that last a long time have earned some credibility. Bear in mind that these traditions are directly linked to the human life cycle and touch upon vital areas of our social fabric; the assumption that in childhood, sickness, poverty or age, our families will take care of us.
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 3:16 pm
… I tend to think traditions that last a long time have earned some credibility.
I tend to think that traditions that last a long time deserve to be examined to see why they have lasted a long time. I don’t think that being a decades or centuries or millenia long tradition means that it is a good thing (see corporal punishment, for one example). However a long existence is certainly worth examination to see if there are good and valid reasons for its continued existence.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
children are raised by people who are NOT their biological parents all the time - sometimes MORE than just their biological parents, sometime not by their biological parents at all
These other contributors, while their influence is a welcome addition to the child’s development, are not the ones changing diapers, cleaning up vomit, shaking them down for drugs or weapons or sitting up late in emergency. Their role is secondary. None of them are expected or required to take upon themselves the complete tapestry of a parent’s duties.
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
But there are many conflicting traditions. If the argument is “X should be the way we do things because it’s tradition” then the response can easily be “Y and Z are also traditions, so we should do things THOSE ways instead.”
Also, I begin to wonder whether Christian actually knows any families.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 3:25 pm
This is untrue, especially in the context of Kate’s post that you’re responding to.
This is untrue, especially in the context of Kate’s post that you’re responding to.
This is untrue, especially in the context of Kate’s post that you’re responding to.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 3:31 pm
Not to mention that slavery, torture, and mass murder are able to claim a much longer and more widespread tradition than democracy, emancipation, the ideal of an egalitarian society, and respect for human life.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 3:36 pm
Myca, I *heart* you :)
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 3:41 pm
;-)
Thanks!
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 4:21 pm
Mandolin, Myca, as I said, I don’t accept the argument that simply being a tradition justifies it.
Myca: This is untrue ad infinitum
While all of these things happen, none of them can be assumed in our culture. Even if they can, they do not excuse the parents from primary responsibility. If it does, the father or mother you permit absentia to today will not be available as a non-parental contributor to make up for absent parents tomorrow. It is an unsustainable pattern.
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 4:41 pm
Not to mention that slavery, torture, and mass murder are able to claim a much longer and more widespread tradition than democracy, emancipation, the ideal of an egalitarian society, and respect for human life.
And I disagreed with you where?
When I offer the idea that it’s a good idea for parents to take care of their kids, crimes against humanity enters the picture, while if you argue parental responsibility shouldn’t really be an obligation per se, I get Norman Rockwell.
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 5:21 pm
This is pretty shabby. What was being addressed was your defense of “tradition” based soley on longevity. Behaving as though the comment was aimed at your general argument only emphasizes your failure to respond to the point actually raised: that the longevity of a tradition is no reliable indication of its virtue.
What remains to be explained is why you ignored the point.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
June 8th, 2007 at 6:40 pm
“What remains to be explained is why you ignored the point.”
I’m noticing a pattern. I also find it amusing that he/she has yet to respond to my comment on the abortion thread, but instead, jumped into this debate. Interesting.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2007 at 12:10 am
Christian, higher order social mammals, particularly primates, raise their young in harems. Your ideal would have us closer to blue jays than Homo sapiens. Yes, the nuclear family is ingrained in our culture. So what? Can culture never be changed? I bet you think our current culture, which last I checked 5 minutes ago contains a show called “G Spot” on Bravo!, can voluntarily shift to one of abstinence until marriage. In light of this, do you think that a shift to broader based child care is that far fetched a proposition?
That being said, I’m not too gummy about the prospect of extended families myself. I thought the whole point of adulthood is to be able to avoid your relatives. I agree people could benefit from closer knit communities and social networks, but extended families aren’t the only route we can get there. Having existing nuclear families intermingle to a greater extent would be a simpler and perhaps even a more pleasant solution.
This comment was written by sylphhead.Report this comment to the moderators
June 9th, 2007 at 7:46 am
FTR, I don’t think anyone is arguing for a mandatory return to the traditional European mode of extended family care. But the new-fangled nuclear family is not necessarily better than what people want to craft themselves.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2007 at 9:23 am
WB: This is pretty shabby. What was being addressed was your defense of “tradition” based soley on longevity. Behaving as though the comment was aimed at your general argument only emphasizes your failure to respond to the point actually raised: that the longevity of a tradition is no reliable indication of its virtue.
What remains to be explained is why you ignored the point.
Sorry for the delay in responding, I can only pay attention to this between projects! That last response came late in the day and I apologize for it’s tone.
WB, and others, I didn’t ignore the point. I said clearly that I don’t regard longevity as a reason to assume the validity of any tradition without applying continuing critical thought to it. I said longevity lends credibility, particularly in the absence, the UTTER absense of ever being supplanted by a working alternative. So I would not dismiss a tradition just because what appears to be an alternative presents itself. The tradition I am defending is that family is expected to take care of family, beginning in particular with one’s children. The alternative that is often mentioned is the cloud of community supporters that contribute, but this has been true for many thousands of years yet no culture (to my knowledge, correct me if I’m wrong) has managed to make parental obligation optional and survive.
Please, if you’re going to remind me again that throughout history, lots of people have failed to take care of their children, I know, I know. Show me a culture where this has been considered ‘normal behavior’ that was not also suffering from significant social chaos.
Kate: I’m noticing a pattern. I also find it amusing that he/she has yet to respond to my comment on the abortion thread, but instead, jumped into this debate. Interesting.
Apologies again, but I can’t be in regular attendance. You mean your link to Guttmacher? I read it. I don’t disagree with it. There’s nothing in it that appears to differ from my perception of married couple’s situation. I think we are arguing more than we have to. The only thing I have been trying to argue is something your post mentions clearly:
“Despite the problems that married people encounter in trying to avoid contraceptive failure, unintended pregnancy and abortion, there is no question that married people are more successful than single people on all of these fronts.”
As far as abortion goes, I think it should be safe, legal and rare. Marriages contribute to the rarity of abortion (and decrease the cost of providing it, which contributes to both quality and availability of treatment) and because of this and other benefits that are not the subject of this post, I support marriage, support monogamy, and encourage it as the way to raise a family (and FOR raising a family).
Mandolin: I wonder how many families Christian has seen?
Many, Mandolin. I’ve watch parents turn into great-grandparents and childhood friend’s children having children. Some fight but never think of abandoning each other. Others are great while the sun shines and fold at the first dark cloud. Some have vital personal connections with one another through five generations, others scarcely know the names of their children. Which ones go on to become a culture? Which set of actions become ‘traditions’?
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2007 at 9:36 am
Slyphead, and others, if I”m correct you seem to regard my position as being one of ‘only parents can take care of their children’. It’s not. I don’t want to be divided into tidy four-or-five person units that never cross-care. A true family is a huge and changing thing, and a community is something else. Community and culture comes from taking care of your family and helping other people take care of theirs. I don’t believe you can generate community and culture and allow parents to opt out of primary responsibility for their own children at the same time.
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2007 at 9:48 am
Mandolin: the new-fangled nuclear family is not necessarily better than what people want to craft themselves.
What concerns me is that the nuclear family, for all of its problems, at least assures two parental guardians for each child. What people want to craft themselves could be anything. I don’t have a clear idea of what you consider the minimum acceptable contribution.
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2007 at 12:38 pm
This question is hopelessly self limiting. Our present culture, in terms of current mores, can hardly be described as being more than 100 years old, if that. Other cultures survived as singular, identifiable entities for far longer periods before passing away, yet the structure of your question excludes them from consideration. This without even stipulating a causal relation between their eclipse and their differing family structures.
The fact is that cultures of far greater longevity than our own simply didn’t conceive of parental obligation as you describe it. To take a conspicuous, if negative example, Roman culture didn’t base the family on your notion of parental obligation. On the contrary, since the children in a Roman family were considered the property of the father to dispose of as he saw fit, family obligations ran in the opposite direction. The entire household was obliged to serve the absolute authority of the Domus or father.
The practice of infanticide, widespread throughout human history and culture, underlines the parochial character of your assumptions as well.
Now I don’t think anyone would want to return to such practices, despite their far longer track record as compared to our current standards. I cite them only to give a stark rebuttle to the complacent presumption that your preferred notions of proper family structure are reflective of timeless standards.
Frankly, that you would entertain such an assumption leads me to believe that you don’t possess the requisite knowlege of the actual developement and diversity of family structures in human history and anthropogy necessary to make this discussion fruitful.
Then it becomes a question of why you distorted the meaning of the orginial post by responding to it as though it were addressing your general argument.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2007 at 1:17 pm
To take a conspicuous, if negative example, Roman culture didn’t base the family on your notion of parental obligation.
I am aware of the Roman example. They didn’t last, did they?
Frankly, that you would entertain such an assumption leads me to believe that you don’t possess the requisite knowlege of the actual developement and diversity of family structures in human history and anthropogy necessary to make this discussion fruitful.
My only education on the matter are the observations of my lifetime WB. I have a lay knowledge of human history from it’s beginning, and I am aware that many diverse formats exist. I’m not arguing that the nuclear family is the only workable model. I speak to the general theme apparently common to all of them, that parents are expected to see their children to adulthood, who, upon adulthood, contribute then to the welfare of their parents. Of particular note, I am ignorant of any example of of a culture that permitted parents to fail to contribute to the welfare of their children and simultaneously developed a stable and healthy civilization. I’ve relied upon those with more explicit knowledge to enlighten me about them if they exist or had existed, but though I have been probing this issue for some time, no one has yet brought any to my attention. Considering what I’ve observed and the lack of historical examples to the contrary, I consider it unproven that this tradition is invalid.
Then it becomes a question of why you distorted the meaning of the orginial post by responding to it as though it were addressing your general argument.
Because it wasn’t the first time my general argument had been ignored in favor of returning to accusations that I am mindlessly embracing anything traditional, then linking my alleged mindset to the worst examples of human behavior in history. I was getting tired of it, but it was uncalled for.
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2007 at 1:53 pm
sylphhead: I bet you think our current culture, which last I checked 5 minutes ago contains a show called “G Spot” on Bravo!, can voluntarily shift to one of abstinence until marriage. In light of this, do you think that a shift to broader based child care is that far fetched a proposition?
I think staying closer to that theoretical ideal is preferable to moving further away from it. I support a shift to a broader base of child care, but the argument that single parent families are a valid alternative reduces that base, doesn’t it?
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2007 at 4:35 pm
How long do you think we will last?
This is a good example arguing for the pointlessness of attempting a dialogue with you. I’ve already pointed out that your question was designed precisely to give you an opportunity for this rejoinder. Evidently, you aren’t able to see that plowing ahead in this fashion simply makes you look sophmoric. You’re the one who insisted that longevity was a legtimate marker for the value of an institution. Certainly the roughly 900 years run of Roman cultural mores dwarfs the record of our own culture. You simply want to include the past when suits your bias and exclude it when it does not.
With all due respect, I would suggest that something more than subjective impressions and a “lay knowlege” of human history are required when making sweeping generalizations about the “theme common” to all family structures. A basic working knowlege of comparative anthropology on the subject would seem to be the minimum expertise required.
If you possessed such knowlege you would know that in patrilineal, matrilineal and clan based societies much of what you describe as the role of the parents is often superceded by other relatives. I find it ridiculous, since you are the one making the positive assertions, that you’d expect others to supply examples disproving your bias. Particularly when you try to dictate the criteria for such examples in a manner intended to render proof impossible.
You’ve asserted that a common theme runs through all human family structures which places primary responsibility for offspring on the biological parents. The onus is on you to prove this contention. The very least you’re obliged to do is to demonstrate a rudimentary grasp of how many different types of family structure your thesis would have to account for. If you can’t do this much, you’re in no position to demand anyone provide a refutation of what amounts to an ungrounded prejudice on your part.
The most that I can see anyone feeling obliged to provide you with, is a referral to a solid text on the comparative anthropology of family structures.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
I am adoring W.B. Reeves more and more as time goes by. That is all.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2007 at 5:35 pm
A) W. B. Reeves, you rock.
B) Some of those examples you mention have already been brought up, in this thread. (which apparently makes no difference to Christian…)
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
June 11th, 2007 at 9:24 pm
They have. Only 10 - How about the entire state?
Remember Nicolae Ceausescu, the communist? He imposed a massive population increase program; Abortion was banned; Contraception was banned; Each ‘family’ or was it woman had to have FIVE children.
Many of the kids ended up abandoned to ‘orphanages’ where they were horribly mistreated. More than 1/2 of all the children in Europe with AIDS come from that one country.
So color me extremely cautious about any approach put forward by corrupt power hungry politicians and bureaucrats of any political persuasion. You end up like the New Orleans teachers union, having to go mass on the capitol steps to beg for crumbs. Every year they promise them, but they rarely deliver.
I happen to like active grandparents and also support grandparents rights. Troxille v. Granville, however, was correctly decided because that law was so expansive it allowed any person to sue for parental rights. We were able to keep them from taking Louisiana’s laws more tightly written laws backwards as a knee jerk reaction to that ruling.
But TWO is the right number of parents for a child - one dad and one mom.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 1:44 am
Argh. Nick, you’re employing the word “right.” Once again, you leave yourself open for attack by anyone who understands the breadth of human variation throughout time and history. Children have been raised by many diverse groups, which may or may not include the original two gene donors, and they’ve done just fine.
So if your argument consists of nothing more than a fallacious appeal to “rightness,” then it’s time for you to acknowledge you’re standing on quicksand and find something else to argue.
This comment was written by Mandolin.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 8:54 am
WB Reeves, you are truly articulate. I echo Jake’s sentiment. Although you bitchslap me with almost everything you say, I consider it a chance to improve myself.
I’m not trying to trap anyone with impossible conundrums, or tunnel your responses to serve my agendas. Not deliberately! And I never tried to claim that contributors other than parents don’t exist. I am not making a claim and demanding proof from others, I’m responding to claims by others that because family structures other than the nuclear exist, single parent families are therefore acceptable. In other words, that only one parent’s contribution is acceptable, even when it is perfectly possible to harness the resources of two parents. It is their positive claim that I am asking for proof of, not mine.
Although you have illustrated many examples of differing family formats, you cite no examples of formats that have allowed one of the parents to voluntarily make no contribution. Or have you? You referred to cultures where the “traditional” parental roles have been done by people other than the parents. Does this mean the parent did nothing for them, and that was okay? Or were they obliged to contribute, but in a non-standard way? I would be open to that idea.
My understanding of both history and contemporary culture, primitive as it is, makes seem clear that parental absence has been linked more with hardship and suffering than good health and stability. Is that impression the result of bias, subjective observations and incomplete historical knowledge?
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 8:57 am
*splurt*
What year is it Christian? Oh, nevermind.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 9:13 am
Children have been raised by many diverse groups, which may or may not include the original two gene donors, and they’ve done just fine.
I do not dispute that at all, Mandolin, but the assumption is that these children will be raised by someone. That in general, a family or community will care for them. My problem is that if single parenting is okay, the blood father or mother is not obligated to be part of that care package, even if they are perfectly able to. Does not everyone, uncles, grandparents, in-laws, have the same option to bow out? How do you assure this network of caregivers will exist if the expectation is that their attention to this matter is not required?
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 9:15 am
I’m sorry Q Grrl. I meant it jokingly. I’ll refrain from more colorful language.
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 9:19 am
Phrasing the question this way assumes that the only reason any adult would assume any parental responsibility for any child is because of either social or legal responsibility, not out of love for the child or a desire to parent. That seems silly to me.
Furthermore, we actually do require a certain level of financial responsibility from the 2 genetic parents right now, unless they both choose to give the child up for adoption.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 9:29 am
“This thread has not had a lot of responses, but I would be curious to know if anyone found my circumstances in my post a few above to be out of the ordinary, or unfair, or completely just. I just decided to find out what percentage of my gross goes to child support, and it’s 38.7 percent. Is this common? I would really appreciate some honest responses.”
Texas (which I will brag on in this respect) uses a formula based upon a percentage of net monthly income (which is gross less payroll taxes, medical insurance for the kids, SS, and union dues). One kid is 20%, two kids is 25% and so forth. There is a further adjustment if the NCP (non-custodial parent) has other children, so you aren’t robbing Peter to pay Paul. As for unemployment, in my experience child support for those periods is typically calculated as for a minimum wage earner, unless there is fairly blatant evidence of voluntary un- or under-employment (i.e., someone quits a $25/hour job to flip burgers the day after being served with a suit). I have represented both NCP’s and CP’s over the last 15 years or so and it is far more often the case that an NCP is simply refusing to pay than the CP is being unreasonable in the amount requested for child support, which again almost always follows the formula. Ironically, at least in my experience, it is far more likely that female NCP’s will simply refuse to pay anything than male CP’s, though again that is purely anecdotal on my part.
This comment was written by The Local Crank.The men’s right’s groups do have a few valid points; for example, custody fights are nearly always stacked against the father due to the (decidedly un-feminist) prejudices of most judges and lawyers. Unfortunately, their good points get buried under twelve tons of crazy (like allow men to “opt out” of child support if they offer the woman money for an abortion and she refuses to take it).
Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 9:45 am
Phrasing the question this way assumes that the only reason any adult would assume any parental responsibility for any child is because of either social or legal responsibility, not out of love for the child or a desire to parent. That seems silly to me.
I don’t believe everyone who assumes responsibility for a child does so because ‘they have to’, of course, but nevertheless, ’someone has to’ and not everyone who creates a child ‘wants to’. If no one wants to, who does the buck finally stop at if not at those whose actions created the need?
we actually do require a certain level of financial responsibility from the 2 genetic parents right now, unless they both choose to give the child up for adoption.
But if being a single parent family via sperm donation is valid, there aren’t two parents to get support from. If only one parent’s support is considered good enough, how can you justify demanding support from an equally-unmotivated direct donor when the only difference is that he didn’t go through a sperm bank?
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 10:29 am
“If only one parent’s support is considered good enough, how can you justify demanding support from an equally-unmotivated direct donor when the only difference is that he didn’t go through a sperm bank?”
Isn’t the answer here obvious? If a woman gets pregnant through a donation from a sperm bank and CHOOSES to be a single mother, then she is making a conscious and deliberate choice. She could have avoided having a child by not going to the sperm bank.
If a woman gets pregnant because of failed contraception or lack of contraception, then the end result (a child) is the responsibility of both parties who contributed, since they both presumably had a choice or chance to eliminate the possibility of pregnancy (or at the very least both agreed to take the risks associated with the possibility of failed contraception - assuming of course the sex is consensual). Even if a man claims that “I thought she was on the pill.” he has a choice to use a back up/barrier method.
Now, that being said, I don’t disagree with you that more men should take more responsibility for the children they father. I think that’s a good thing. BUT, I don’t think that making room for single parent families necessarily negates the idea that men should take responsibility for fathering children.
In other words, I agree with the basic concept - people who bring a child into this world - unless they give that child up for adoption - have a responsibility to care for that child in the best way they can. Morally, it’s the right thing to do. HOWEVER, taking care of that child doesn’t HAVE to mean marrying one another. It doesn’t mean that a single parent isn’t CAPABLE of taking very good care of a child on his/her own - not that it’s EASY, but it is POSSIBLE, nor does it negate the idea that families of same sex couples, extended families, communal families etc are also perfectly fine groups to raise a child. We don’t HAVE to have one standard by which to measure everything against. Children can thrive in multiple family forms - as has been discussed at length.
I don’t especially think anyone disagrees with your basic premise - that people who create a child have a certain moral obligation to caring for that child - be it through arranging for other caregivers (adoption) or doing it themselves, or getting help from extended family members. I think people are objecting to the idea that there is only ONE way to promote responsibility to children and only ONE family form that is GOOD for children. The whole of human history tells us that there are multiple ways to raise children that work.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 10:31 am
I think that, to be honest, this is sort of a silly concern, along the lines of John Howard’s fears of the coming Gattaca-style genetic fascism.
When you say:
The difference is that in a case of artificial insemination, the plan from the very beginning is for one parent to take full responsibility. There’s a huge difference, not a minor one, between that and one parent unilaterally abandoning their responsibilities.
—Myca
PS. Or, in other words, everything Kate L. says.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Also . . . if we want to expand this concept out, to where more people than just the two genetic donors have some sort of legal/financial responsibility to the child, well, isn’t that what public education, AFDC, CPS, etc., is about?
We collectively support that stuff through our taxes. As a culture, we have legal responsibilities to children that aren’t ours.
Now, since these responsibilities are shared across many adults and many children, there’s not nearly as much individual responsibility from a specific adult to a specific genetically unrelated child, but the basic principle is sound. The responsibility for a child’s welfare does not lie solely on the shoulders of the genetic donors.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 12:26 pm
Local Crank said, “Ironically, at least in my experience, it is far more likely that female NCP’s will simply refuse to pay anything than male CP’s, though again that is purely anecdotal on my part.”
I would really like to see a study that compares child support payments and orders for non-cusotdial parents that accounts for gender differences. Since women are generally paid less than men, I would not be surprised if child support is more of a financial burden on non-custodial mothers. However, I also suspect that non-custodial mothers have a strong overrepresentation among the unemployed.
Ironically, the only person I know who was jailed for not paying child support is a female cousin (by marriage) of mine. She is a drug addict and an alcoholic, and has no real viable employment. She got picked up on drunking driving charges, and then there was apparently a warrant out for her because she owed around $6000 dollars (I don’t have a clue how many moths that is.) in child support. I do have a little sympathy for her because until she gets clean. she won’t pay able to pay the support or keep a job. But I’m also really ticked that she is choosing drugs over her kids.
The Local Crank said, “The men’s right’s groups do have a few valid points; for example, custody fights are nearly always stacked against the father due to the (decidedly un-feminist) prejudices of most judges and lawyers.”
I think that’s what people forget. The ideology that men are breadwinners and women are caregivers is a patriarchal ideology that permeates the court system. So when they act like this is some anti-men conspiracy, it not. It’s an ironic (and I think negative) effect of an ideology that has generally been anti-woman.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
Right, which is part of what drives me up the goddamn wall about MRAs. I feel like it’s so much a failure of anger and pain over communication and rationality, because . . . dude, Feminism Didn’t Cause This.
I do think that men get a raw deal some of the time, but not only did feminism NOT cause it, 99.9% of the time, feminism is the solution!
Grrrr. We don’t have the be on different sides. Grrrrrrrrrrrrr.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 1:50 pm
Kate: nor does it negate the idea that families of same sex couples, extended families, communal families etc are also perfectly fine groups to raise a child. We don’t HAVE to have one standard by which to measure everything against.
Kate, if I conveyed the idea that because I desire both parents to contribute (in some dependable, reliable way) that I am trying to force every peg into a uniform hole, it was not my intention. The only standard I desire is that everyone who cobbles together a child will support it. Given the diverse habits, intentions, desires, and sympathies of men and women, how can we ensure this will be true for all children unless we adopt a common framework reflecting our most minimum standards, and then require that they be met? (I envision a framework which is compatible with all of the alternative structures you mention, Kate. I am only unconvinced of single parenting, since it is the only one that suggests reducing the responsible adult base below two is okay).
Myca: The difference is that in a case of artificial insemination, the plan from the very beginning is for one parent to take full responsibility. There’s a huge difference, not a minor one, between that and one parent unilaterally abandoning their responsibilities.
Agreed, the former assures that there was at planning done, and it at least has the dignity of reflecting the desires of both parties. But there is also a huge difference, not a minor difference, between the resources of one parent and the resources of two. You and Kate are both saying that the (father, usually) is free from burden if the (mother, usually) expressly waives their rights to their support. I can accept that this could be legal, but surely she has less of a safety buffer. If the frequency of one parent families rises, how can you not expect the incidence of childrearing-related tragedies to also rise? Is her and his freedom in this respect worth the risk? I read stories of single parent families that keep me awake at night.
[edited to add]
Kate: Isn’t the answer here obvious? If a woman gets pregnant through a donation from a sperm bank and CHOOSES to be a single mother, then she is making a conscious and deliberate choice. She could have avoided having a child by not going to the sperm bank.
With respect, I think there are problems here though. Assuming a man who wants a sexual relationship but doesn’t want to enter into a child support situation brings himself to ask his partner if she would be okay with him staying out of it in the case of an accidental pregnancy that she chooses to carry to term, would that private agreement have the strength of law and free him from obligation even if she changes her mind, or will it be declared invalid by the courts and thereby risk resentment, dispute, evasions and hostility from a man who feels entrapped, or lied to. I don’t ever want a child’s life to begin in a battle over support.
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 2:05 pm
Myca said, “feminism is the solution!”
Yep, but most MRA’s will never admit it.
This comment was written by Rachel S..Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
Christian,
There are FEWER single parent families today than there were at the turn of the century. And yet, single parent families have the opportunity to do MUCH better now more than ever, because woman are gaining in employment and pay, because alternative care arrangements exist so a woman CAN work(daycare), because we are a much more interdependent society and don’t have to produce every item of clothing, every vegetable we eat, etc.
Generally speaking, will two people be easier than one? Two incomes better than one? etc? Yes, of course, but that doesn’t mean that the single parent is doomed to a fate worse than death! Single parents have help and support from friends and family members, they are able to work and spend time with their children and raise them to be intelligent and capable people. Is it BETTER if the non custodial parent plays a role in that child’s life - by providing some financial assistance, love and interaction? Usually, presuming the non custodial parent is not an abuser or a loser or … you get my point, right? In cases where the non custodial parent is a less than stellar person, I should think it preferable for him or her to not have anything to do with the child, KWIM?
I don’t know, it’s HARD, and to tell you the truth I personally wouldn’t CHOOSE that life, but it’s not impossible, nor is it something to look down upon necessarily. I can think of 100 reasons it might be better for a child to grow up in a single parent family than a two parent family.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 2:38 pm
Generally speaking, will five people be easier than two? Five incomes better than two? etc? Yes, of course, but that doesn’t mean that the two-parent family is doomed to a fate worse than death! Nuclear families have help and support from friends and family members, they are able to work and spend time with their children and raise them to be intelligent and capable people. Is it BETTER if the community plays a role in that child’s life - by providing some financial assistance, love and interaction? Usually, presuming the community is not abusive or full of losers or … you get my point, right? In cases where the community is less than stellar, I should think it preferable for them to not have anything to do with the child, KWIM?
:->
Polyamory for the win!
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Yeah, but I have to wonder why.
I mean, look, I’ve been just as frustrated and angry as they have, about a lot of the same stuff. I’ve felt the pressure to conform to what’s acceptable and expected for my gender, and it’s hurt.
Why is it that I see patriarchy as the cause, and they seem to see feminism/women/hairy legs/pantsuits/whatever as the cause?
Honestly, I see a strong parallel to the way that the Republican Right exploits the poor-but-white by blaming their economic situation on immigrants/communists/godless atheists/taxes/gay people/brown people/etc. It’s a good way to keep them from examining the real reasons they can’t pay rent this month, and it’s a great way to keep them from questioning the capitalist system.
—Myca
ps. This is a total off-topic digression, and sorry about that. I figured after ~200 posts, it would be cool, but if you want to move this back towards child support, Amp, just say so.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Perhaps I can be content with the increased interdependency of society and the hope that single parent families remain few in number, Kate. But I’d like to address the last point: If women can choose to be single and absolve the father, it opens the option for men to stipulate in advance that they don’t want to be childcare providers for children that occur as a result of having sex. They can ask that if a pregnancy occurs accidentally and she intends to keep it, whether she intends to demand that support before they begin the relationship. If they then procede and a pregnancy occurs which she does decide to keep, is their agreement effective?
If it is true that women can absolve the father, it risks leaving her without support if she made a hasty decision or her condition changes. If the courts can overturn it, it invalidates the idea that women can choose to absolve the father, and in addition can result in a very angry man. Either result worries me.
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
IANAL, but that has never mattered before, sooo:
I think the deal is that a woman cannot absolve the father of a child from any obligation, because his obligation isn’t to her, but to the child itself (I can’t clear you from a debt you owe Ampersand, in other words) and failure to pay child support is a criminal matter (and I can’t give you permission to break the law).
However, if before the pregnancy there’s some sort of legal agreement made that the woman will bear 100% of the financial obligation resultant from any pregnancy, then I think that there’s a good case for a civil suit by the man for child support expenses.
What’s the lesson here? Don’t sign legal papers declaring dumb stuff.
This is a pretty darn hypothetical hypothetical, also. I’d be surprised if we’ve seen a case like this even once.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 3:30 pm
This is a pretty darn hypothetical hypothetical, also. I’d be surprised if we’ve seen a case like this even once
I don’t think so Myca. I doubt very many men will bother to ask that question, but I think many women have been harmed by men because of a myth that sex is consequence free, that it presumes no commitment, who make assumptions about the reliability of contraception, and the expectation that women have the power of decision about whether or not to require the father’s support.
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Well, I meant that we likely haven’t seen any situations where beforehand the woman specifically legally absolves the husband of any legal or financial responsibility, and I stand by that, but yes, I’d agree that “women have been harmed by men because of a myth that sex is consequence free” & etc.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Christian, whether or not your indulgence in unexamined assumptions and questions that dictate their own answers is conscious or unconscious isn’t really germane to the discussion. The fact that you do so is sufficient criticism in and of itself.
I’m fully prepared to accept that you do not comprehend your own arguments if, in fact, you wish to make that claim. However, this doesn’t alter the reality that you made particular sorts of arguments and you are obligated to either defend, amend or retract them.
Let’s take a fresh example, shall we?
” I am not making a claim and demanding proof from others, I’m responding to claims by others that because family structures other than the nuclear exist, single parent families are therefore acceptable.
I’m sorry to have to say it Christian but this is demonstrably false. You did indeed make a positive assertion of fact when you claimed that there was a “general theme” common to all family models that supported your own view. That you made the assertion in the context of an argument doesn’t change this.
Further, it’s interesting that you argue that single parent families are “unacceptable”. When has this stricture been a part of our culture? I am aware of no law forcing widowed, divorced or abandoned parents to remarry, so it’s clearly a departure to claim that “single parent” families are “unacceptable”. Again, it appears that it is you who are in need of support for your assertion rather than those who recognize single parent families as a fact of life.
In matrilineal societies children are seen as belonging to the mother’s family. Often, the primary male authority in the child’s life is a near relative of the mother. Mother’s brother for example. In instances where the father may leave the mother and return to his own family, there is indeed no expectation that the father will remain the main support of the child since such an expectation never existed in the first place. In such societies, the father’s obligation is to the mother’s family rather than to the child. Having given you this as a starting point, I urge you to do some reading on your own.
Well based on the broad sweep of your statement, I’d say the answer to your question is yes. To start with your historical claim, it’s doubtful that you could come up with a reliable number for how many children had an absent parent or parents. Aside from inadequate record keeping the further back in history you go, it’s a given that such records as do exist would be heavily weighted towards instances where the problems you cite were present. That ’s to say, criminal records, court preceedings for debt or insolvency, records of charitable institutions, etc. Children raised successfully by a single mother or father or by friends or relatives would be highly unlikely to appear in such records. If you can’t know how many single parent children existed at a given point in time, you can’t credibly claim knowlege of the general effect of such parenting.
In short, for the greater part of history, you would only be able to cite anecdotal evidence. For every anecdote in support of your position I might cite an Alexander Hamilton or a William Tecumseh Sherman in refutation. In the end, the only thing we could “prove” is that the question remains open.
The fundamental problem though, is your assumption that a causal relation exists between single parenting and such problems. To be sure, there is a correlation between poverty and single parenting in contemporary times but that doesn’t prove that single parenting creates poverty anymore than a high incidence of tooth decay amongst the poor would prove that poverty is caused by bad dental hygene. This is pertinent because the problems cited also share a correlative relationship with poverty. To give an analagous illustration, it can safely be said that between 1800 and 1864 the levels of illiteracy amongst African Americans were astronomic. There was a correlative relationship between being black and being illiterate. Would you say that this implied a causal relationship between blackness and illiteracy? Or was the cause located elsewhere?
This goes to the nub of things. Your approach treats parenting as though it were a fixed quantity, unaffected by social or institutional realities. As though the effects of single parenting were immune to ameliorating or aggravating external factors.
Here’s a suggestion. Take the data on single parenting in the US. Compare it with similar data from equally developed countries (Canada, Britain, Western Europe, Australia, etc.) Determine whether the data is uniform across the comparisons or whether it differs from country to country. If the former, that would be good evidence for your view. If the latter, you would obviously need to revisit your assumptions.
This brings us right back to what most people who have been arguing with you here have been about right along. Whether or not our current institutions are effective, given the evolving nature of the family and what sort of changes/reforms/adjustments may be required to insure their continued or renewed effectiveness.
Your position seems to imply that we should stop the evolution of family structures rather than adjust our institutions to such changes. How would that be accomplished?
A final note. I have to register my personal objection to having anything I’ve said here characterized as a ” bitch slap.” However problematic my tone might be at times, words remain words and violent acts are… violent acts. Besides,. I’m a dog lover and of the view that anyone who would slap a bitch deserves to have their hand gnawed off.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 4:38 pm
You did indeed make a positive assertion of fact when you claimed that there was a “general theme” common to all family models that supported your own view. That you made the assertion in the context of an argument doesn’t change this.
It’s true to the best of my knowledge. Is it untrue to yours? Tell me about them. Where is it a theme in any culture’s standards of marriage and family practice that parents were not required to take any action toward the benefit if their family?
Further, it’s interesting that you argue that single parent families are “unacceptable”. When has this stricture been a part of our culture? I am aware of no law forcing widowed, divorced or abandoned parents to remarry, so it’s clearly a departure to claim that “single parent” families are “unacceptable”. Again, it appears that it is you who are in need of support for your assertion rather than those who recognize single parent families as a fact of life.
I make a distinction between being single because of tragic circumstance and single from the beginning, by choice. It helps if children are already somewhere on the road to being independent, and life insurance, some savings, perhaps a better schools because of early shared income, it makes a difference, and the former makes parental responsibility in some fashion implicit, the latter does not.
In such societies, the father’s obligation is to the mother’s family rather than to the child.
Accepted, but in your example HE IS obligated to contribute. Instead of one role, he has another. Not ‘no role at all’ as with modern single parenting models being explored.
I must get back to work. I’ll consider the rest of your thoughts tonight.
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 12th, 2007 at 10:54 pm
Christian, you are attempting to re-write history in defiance of the facts. This not what you said earlier. What you actually said was:
“I speak to the general theme apparently common to all of them, that parents are expected to see their children to adulthood, who, upon adulthood, contribute then to the welfare of their parents.”
You are misrepresenting what you actually contended. Presumably because I pointed out how matrilineal families do not, in fact, have the expectation that fathers will be the material providers or primary care givers for their children. I am not going to accept your re-write. Either stand by your actual assertion or retract it.
In other words, you are opposed to single parent families on moral rather than practical grounds. You should have said so in the first place.
Again Christian, you’re simply changing your position without admitting to doing so. You explicitly stated that “parents are expected to see their children to adulthood”, not that the father was obligated to contribute to his wife’s family.
Since you are obviously not a stupid person, it is becoming increasingly difficult to believe that you really don’t recognize what you are doing.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2007 at 8:06 am
Kate:
Really? You’re talking about the US circa 1900, right? (Technically, “the turn of the century” could also be 2000, but that would be a fairly unremarkable claim.) Currently, 12,247,000 out of the 39,394,000 US families with children under 18 are headed by single parents. That’s 31%. What was the rate back then?
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2007 at 8:27 am
Where are you getting your numbers? According to Fields, J. 2004 America’s Family and Living arrangements : 2003 Current Population reports. P20-553. U.S. Cennsus Bureau. washington D.C.: US gov’t printing office, 8.4% of households are to single parents with children under the age of 18 (7.3% female headed, 1.7% male headed)ETA - I swear I can do math - really I can. That should read 9.0% total. My apologies.
19th century, sorry. And Here’s the source of the info - Kain, E. 1990. The Myth of the family Decline. Lexington, MA: Lexington books. See also Stephanie Coontz - I don’t have her stuff in front of me either, but I know it’s in there.
I suppose it’s possible that the rates have changed from 1990 to now. And I don’t have the original source of the data in front of me, but that’s the original citation from the book I got the info from.
The REASON for single parent households was different - it was largely due to widowhood or abandonment rather than divorce or out of wedlock births, but it remains true that in tact families were not as common as the myth or ideal would have us believe.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2007 at 8:57 am
Also, I apologize for a grave error in my statement - it should read, fewer single parent HOUSEHOLDS today than in the 19th century. That is certainly a different claim than single parent FAMILIES, but the comparison is there nonetheless.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2007 at 9:18 am
Again, WB I have no time to respond in full, but
You explicitly stated that “parents are expected to see their children to adulthood”, not that the father was obligated to contribute to his wife’s family.
I don’t understand why you consider the second statement a contradiction of the first, or how you consider your example to contradict the first. Does not contributing to his wife’s family help see his children to adulthood?
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2007 at 9:34 am
This is becoming tediously transparent Christian. If you had intended the same meaning, there would have been no need for you to change the wording.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2007 at 9:39 am
Kate, thanks for the hard data. It would be interesting to compare the contemporary poverty rates of the respective periods as well.
This comment was written by W.B. Reeves.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2007 at 11:18 am
Coontz, S. 1992 The Way We Never Were has a good deal of data comparisons including DV abuse rates, alcohol/drug abuse rates, etc. It’s hard to compare poverty rates of children because so many children in the 19th century were orphaned, not just because their parents had died, but often because their parents couldn’t afford them…
At any rate, a close inspection of US social/family history shows a much grimmer picture of family life then and now. The myths are just that - myths.
This comment was written by Kate L..Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2007 at 2:45 pm
Childcare is complicated. You have to remember a custody determination prevents Person A from looking after their child and gives Person B that responsibility. If you include childcare in child support, you’re saying Person A cannot look after their child, Person B has that responsibility, but Person A must may person B money in order that they can pay Person C (a 3rd party) to provide childcare.
I can see why that’s an issue. You’re stopping someone from providing childcare themselves, and then saying that - because they’ve a responsibility to see their children are cared for - they should pay so a complete stranger can be employed to look after their child. It seems wrong to say they’ve a responsibility to provide childcare for their children AND prevent them from doing it personally.
Regarding the Great Single Mother Debate…
I can’t help but think feminists have a real problem with this. On the one hand feminists want gender equality and situations where mum and dad have an egalitarian relationship and share childcare responsibilities equally. On the other hand feminists don’t like people like Christian who take a ‘family values’ approach and support the nuclear family.
Correct me if I’m wrong. But isn’t the nuclear family the *only* family model in which you can have real gender equality? And isn’t it slowly being replaced by other family forms?
The 1/3 of single parent families are not situations where there’s any hope for an egalitarian relationship and equal division of childcare. The feminist dream of equality between men and women - both working and looking after kids - is totally dependent on the nuclear family. All other forms are much less equal. I think there’s a strange situation where feminism is at the moment of success destroying it’s only hope. At the same time as (1) nuclear families are becoming more egalitarian and men are taking a greater role in childcare, other event are happening which means (2) they are becoming rarer and being replaced with much less egalitarian family forms.
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Correct me if I’m wrong. But isn’t the nuclear family the *only* family model in which you can have real gender equality?
You’re wrong.
As an example, you can have real gender equality in an extended family - multi-generations sharing the same household.
Can you honestly not imagine a family model other than Mum, Dad & n kiddies in which gender equality can exist? Can you not imagine gender equality existing in an intentional community or collective? Can you not imagine gender equality in a same-sex household?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
First, everything Jake Squid said is right (as is his custom).
Additionally, I’ve heard this same sort of ‘reasoning’ used to claim that gay and lesbian relationships are somehow sexist for not including members of the opposite gender, which ought to get some sort of prize for missing the point.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2007 at 4:03 pm
I don’t think that’s exactly what feminists mean by equality. Ideally, both sexes would be respected for whatever work they did. There’s no inherent contradiction in a feminist’s being a stay-at-home mom; indeed I have several friends who are both. Nor can I think of any reason why two women, or two men, or two parents, one uncle, and three grandparents, or twelve nuns running a llama ranch, couldn’t live together, work and raise children in a gender-equitable way.
This comment was written by Lu.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2007 at 8:54 pm
“I would really like to see a study that compares child support payments and orders for non-cusotdial parents that accounts for gender differences”
Yeah, me too, actually. And again, I emphasize that all I have is anecdotal data, but I didn’t notice any correlation between income and failure to pay rates for either men or women. Yes, some NCP’s have told me “I couldn’t pay b/c I got sick, got laid off, etc.,” but then inevitably when they got back up on their feet, they never made any effort to catch up. In fact, they usually just continued to ignore their obligations. And yes, it is true that I have seen some child support cases brought for clearly vindictive reasons (including one recently where a CP was bound and determined to have the NCP jailed for contempt, even though he had been certified totally and permanently disabled, and was receiving SSI, a portion of which was already being diverted for the children) but they tend to be the exception, since most courts around here treat the amount of child support ordered purely as a math problem.
This comment was written by The Local Crank.Report this comment to the moderators
June 13th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Kate:
I got the numbers from the Census; click on the link in my previous comment to see the source table. Also, I just found some historical data on the percent of children living in single-parent families. See Table 2 here. From the late 19th century through the 1960s, about 85% of children lived with both parents and 10% lived with one parent. Since then, the percentage of children living with both parents has fallen to 70%, and the percentage living with one parent has risen to 25%.
It’s hard to reconcile this with the claim that were more single-parent families 100 years ago than now, even in relative terms.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 12:34 am
I don’t really want to get distracted from my main point that the nuclear family is the most egalitarian mainstream family form and it is being replaced by less egalitarian family forms. But I think I owe Jake a response.
I’m not really interested in *imagining* family forms in child equality *can* exist. I’m concerned with family forms which might be practically widespread which don’t tend systematically toward inequality. I can’t see any better than the nuclear family.
I’m sure you can have in some instances where there’s equality. But, in general, they tend towards inequality. These household run by exploiting elderly female labour. Women do most the caring work in them because live longer and are healthier longer than men.
I can imagine men voluntering for childwork and these communities being equal. I’m practice, men don’t choose to join these in childrearing roles as much as women do.
I’m not slagging off gay people, but while these family forms may be internally equal but they do not promote external equality between genders. Women do the overwhelming amount of childcare in these households for obvious reasons. If we all woke up gay, childcare would be even more women’s work than it is now.
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 6:09 am
I’m sorry, but did you just claim that in a household consisting of two men, ‘the woman’ does most of the childcare?
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 7:07 am
Yes, he did suggest that in a household consisting of two men, ‘the woman’ does most of the childcare, thus confirming what I had suspected about his argumentation.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 7:44 am
I assume he was suggesting that male homosexual couples are less likely to have children than lesbian couples.
This comment was written by Brandon Berg.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 7:49 am
I believe that what he is suggesting is that relatively few households consisting of two men would find the opportunity to reproduce. Two lesbians (for example) are likely to find it much easier to get a man to contribute some sperm, than two gay men (for example) are to get a woman to contribute nine months of her life, the chance of death, and a bad day at the hospital.
So most of the children who are born in such a world will be heading towards life with a family consisting of two women, rather than two men. There might be complete fairness of roles within relationships, but externally we would end up with a world where women were doing most of the childrearing. If every parent does their fair share, and 90% of parents are women, then women will be doing 90% of the labor.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 8:13 am
I don’t really want to get distracted from my main point that the nuclear family is the most egalitarian mainstream family form and it is being replaced by less egalitarian family forms.
Please support this assertion. So far, you have just claimed this to be true without providing any evidence or supporting documentation.
The nuclear family (in the mainstream) is not at all egalitarian now, nor has it been throughout its history. Father Knows Best, the Promise Keepers, woman expected to forgo career to take care of the home/family, etc., ad infinitum - all of which proclaim the man as Head of Family and the woman as subordinate to him. How this is currently or holds more promise for an egalitarian family structure than any other (excepting, perhaps, single man/multiple women family structures) hasn’t been explained or supported.
To use your own words…
I’m sure you can have in some instances where there’s equality. But, in general, they tend towards inequality.
This is equally applicable to the nuclear family structure. In fact, the history of the nuclear family supports this assessment.
Please tell us why & how, wrt gender equality, the nuclear family structure is superior to other models.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 8:41 am
So James, between this:
and this:
your understanding of “egalitarian” is when women pull most of the weight? Very interesting.
It really blows my mind that you can say this:
with any sense of seriousness. Equality? You mean the kind of equality where men are dominant, women are submissive, where men “work” all day and women “stay” at home taking “care” of the family, where the man becomes, in most forms, yet another child under his wife’s “care”?
Again, I say, I wish het folks would just freakin’ stop breeding so that women can get on with their lives. That, my friend James, would be gender equality.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 8:42 am
Please tell us why & how, wrt gender equality, the nuclear family structure is superior to other models.
The other mainstream models are:
Single mother, raising child alone
Single mother, raising child with some assistance from child’s father
Birth couple shacked up, raising child together
Birth mother shacked up / married to non-father, raising child together
Adoptive/nonbiological parent(s), using one of the above forms
Variants of above with single father replacing mother
In which of these models do you see more potential for gender equality/fairness in childrearing?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 8:53 am
Any of the above Robert, as long as men are contributing half the effort and finances (not just sharing his earnings, but paying his wife for the work she does to support the nuclear). The nuclear family is the surest form for creating a gendered differential in effort and finances, typically and normatively favoring the male.
In fact, the nuclear family, from the POV of women is not just nuclear; it is isolating.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 8:56 am
Q, I’ve been meaning to ask you: Why don’t you have a blog? You write well; you should have a blog.
This comment was written by Sailorman.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 8:59 am
Any of the above Robert, as long as men are contributing half the effort and finances (not just sharing his earnings, but paying his wife for the work she does to support the nuclear).
There’s nothing stopping that contribution being made in the nuclear family, that wouldn’t also stop it in the alternatives. What gives these models more potential for equality than the nuclear family?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 8:59 am
W.B., I’ve been considering how to continue this discussion, and whether it would be profitable.
As to my general assertion, I never claimed it to be a law of physics. I expect methodologies to differ from culture to culture. This seems to be nothing more than a reasonable variation where Uncles in this culture assume duties that are required by Fathers in other cultures. Why is this such a point of argument?
But, I’ll withdraw my assertion that “generally, parents are expected to see their children to adulthood”. Perhaps it would be a more accurate assertion if I replace “parents” and “children” with “adults” and “whatever dependents society deems are their personal responsibility” and then perhaps further distinguish it by gender role, but it’s not a graduate thesis. Clearly, you have established that all parents are not required to see their direct offspring to adulthood. I don’t think I ever said that I thought all men have always been direct caregivers, but if I ever suggested that, I concede that this idea is incorrect too.
I’m interested in exploring whether a support base of one parent (or caregiver) is sufficiently reliable to be an acceptable family form. Your example seems to argue that it isn’t sufficient. These women, while lacking what we think of as a husband, clearly expect quite a lot of support from men.
I’ve not directly responded to a few things you have said since I last had time to read this thread. Conceding your arguments on the “general theme” theory seems to be sufficient for most of it. Please point out anything I’ve skipped that you would like a more detailed reply to.
This comment was written by Christian.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 9:07 am
Robert:
What gives these models more potential for equality than the nuclear family?
You’re twisting words again in order to shift the discussion to an angle advantageous to you.
Here is what I wrote:
Please tell us why & how, wrt gender equality, the nuclear family structure is superior to other models.
in response to James who wrote:
I don’t really want to get distracted from my main point that the nuclear family is the most egalitarian mainstream family form and it is being replaced by less egalitarian family forms.
So what happened was that James claimed that the nuclear family model is the most egalitarian family model. I asked him to support that statement. In response, Robert asked me to identify a family model from a list (that he considers the total of all current mainstream family models) that is superior to the nuclear family model. I ain’t going for it. What family structure I believe is superior, if necessary, is a different discussion.
It is up to you, Robert, if you agree with James, to support the statement that the nuclear family is superior. Especially since I didn’t claim that there is a form that is superior (although I did claim that there are other family models that are as good as the NFM).
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 9:09 am
Those models in particular? Mostly the de-emphasis on male = head-of-household. The best model would be one in which the woman moves from a position of isolation into one of shared resources. The nuclear family is built upon and still fashioned upon the bedrock assumption that a woman’s/wife’s effort is for her family and her family alone, with the husband gaining the net profit of her labor.
It’s not so much the model that needs changing, but that the paradigm itself is entrenched in inequality based on gender.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 9:10 am
/drift
thanks Sailorman. I do have a blog of sorts. When I post it’s about birding and gardening.
Yes, I have a life outside of politics. :)
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 9:13 am
What family structure I believe is superior, if necessary, is a different discussion.
Gah! Even my editing sucks. That should read:
What family structure I believe is superior, if I do believe there is a superior form, is a different discussion.
I wonder where my mind was during that sentence.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 9:20 am
James, I think that you’re operating under the misconception that in order for male/female family relationships to be egalitarian, an exact 50/50 gender split of work, money, childcare, etc., in each family is the goal.
I disagree.
I believe that the goal is for it to be 100% acceptable and encouraged for members of any gender to take on different parenting and household roles, and I believe that as a consequence of this, we will have a more sexually egalitarian society.
Single-male-parent families aid this goal, because they explode the myth that childcare and housekeeping is ‘women’s work’.
Single-female-parent families aid this goal, because they explode the myth that earning and providing is ‘men’s work’.
Extended families aid this goal, because they explode the myth that childcare, housework, and providing for the household expenses are responsibilities that ought to fall on one or two people alone.
Large polyamorous families aid this goal, because they explode the myth that children are best raised by two (stressed-out, overworked) people.
Gay and lesbian families aid this goal, because they explode the myth that homosexuality is somehow dangerous to children.
Tell me, James, how does a nuclear family expand gender roles? How does it explode the myths?
I ask because from where I’m sitting it looks like more of the same crap we’ve been fed since 1940.
—Myca
ps. Also, read Q Grrl’s post #231 until you understand it.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 9:20 am
It is up to you, Robert, if you agree with James, to support the statement that the nuclear family is superior.
Surely. I’m supporting that case by demonstrating conceptually that the other models aren’t any better. That’s not sufficient to make James’ point, but it’s a necessary prelude.
The nuclear family is built upon and still fashioned upon the bedrock assumption that a woman’s/wife’s effort is for her family and her family alone, with the husband gaining the net profit of her labor.
This is absurd, and tendentious. The nuclear family is fashioned upon the bedrock assumption that reproductive dimorphism produces a division of labor that can be extended into other areas of life, with efficiency gains that end up benefiting the next generation. You’re conflating contingent outcomes with structural features.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 9:23 am
I believe that the goal is for it to be 100% acceptable and encouraged for members of any gender to take on different parenting and household roles, and I believe that as a consequence of this, we will have a more sexually egalitarian society.
What if, having achieved this goal, 90% of women choose to devote most of their time and energy to children, and 90% of men choose to devote most of their time and energy to non-familial pursuits?
Will that society be sexually egalitarian?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 9:41 am
Surely. I’m supporting that case by demonstrating conceptually that the other models aren’t any better. That’s not sufficient to make James’ point, but it’s a necessary prelude.
I haven’t made the claim that any model is better, thus it is not a necessary prelude. Nor is it a necessary prelude for me to identify a superior model - its merely a distraction from the merits (or lack of) of the position that the NFM is the clearly superior one. Which, after all, is what we were debating.
But if we take as given that the necessary prelude has been covered, do go on to actually support your POV.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 9:49 am
No, Robert. Read some history. The nuclear family is indeed for the benefit of males, so that they may know with a certain minimal degree of error that the children they are raising are their own biological product. Humans have sustained reproduction (and division of labor) for millenia without the nuclear family. In fact, the nuclear family does not make for more stability; what it does is codify stability along lines that are gendered. Women and children gain more stability from shared resources and a common division of labor based on ability. The nuclear family coagulates resources on a diminished and impoverished scale, substituting what is best for women and children for the bolstering of male hegemony within the family.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 9:53 am
Will that society be sexually egalitarian?
Not in the way that you see it Robert. But women would be having far fewer children - because I’m assuming that by saying 90% of men “choose to devote most of their time and energy to non-familial pursuits” you mean that men will use more consistent birth control/or abstain from intercourse, and that women, given men’s honesty about not wishing to put energy into familial pursuits, will forgo marriage and entrapped reproduction.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 9:57 am
The nuclear family produces the most egalitarian outcomes between the sexes, in my view, because it requires commitment of resources and personal involvement in the childrearing process by both parents. Other models do not require that commitment; even the power of the state can only compel a non-resident parent to provide some financial support, it does nothing (and can do nothing) to compel the contribution of the voluntary effort that we find at the core of good parenting.
It is possible to argue (and Q Grrl will certainly argue) that the variation in traditional gender roles causes this joint contribution to be unfairly distributed. Stipulating this for the sake of argument, it remains true that it is the distribution of kinds of labor which is considered unfair; if mom wants to do more paid work and less family work but dad won’t agree or society won’t permit it, then that is indeed unfair - but both partners are still doing work.
As opposed to - say - a single mother doing things alone, where one parent is doing all the work and the other parent is doing nothing. Great, that single mom is smashing the myths - but that doesn’t mean that the kids’ dad is doing his share of the labor.
To be part of a nuclear family, an adult is expected to do lots of work, whether paid or unpaid, whether outside or inside the home. That expectation of contribution is less enforced in the other models, or completely absent - ergo, they are less egalitarian.
(Reminder: we’re talking about mainstream models. Ten parents and two kids may well be more egalitarian than two parents and two kids, but ten parents isn’t mainstream, or likely to be. I like line marriage myself, if we’re talking outre forms, but let’s recognize that they’re outre.)
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 10:13 am
So you define egalitarian as equal work? That is a much more narrow definition than I think is commonly accepted.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 10:13 am
Well, sure. All that is contingently true. And as long as that particular paradigm (of male hegemony) remains intact in the form of the nuclear family, then it will appear to be the best formulation. IOW: it is the best means towards the end, which is women ensuring that their children are raised with better resources and options. Which has *nothing* to do with gender equality or an egalitarian relationship.
I would argue that the majority of women in a nuclear family, heterosexual marriage are indeed single moms - with the added benefit of having a live-in adult child who spends most of his time outside the nuclear family.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 10:14 am
Why do so many men need to be forced to care for their offspring?
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 10:18 am
No, Robert. Read some history. The nuclear family is indeed for the benefit of males, so that they may know with a certain minimal degree of error that the children they are raising are their own biological product.
Wait, I thought it was about the woman’s labor being absorbed into the family for the benefit of the man. Now it’s about ensuring that men know their kids are their own?
Humans have sustained reproduction (and division of labor) for millenia without the nuclear family.
Surely. And we survived for millenia without dentistry, too. That the species can make do without an innovation does not mean the innovation has no value.
In fact, the nuclear family does not make for more stability; what it does is codify stability along lines that are gendered.
So it doesn’t increase stability, it just codifies it. Similarly, laws against murder don’t increase safety, they just codify the expectation that people ought to be safe. You’re not really making a compelling case, here.
Women and children gain more stability from shared resources and a common division of labor based on ability.
I think you mean “mothers” rather than “women”, unless you are positing a gender-based differentiation in ability to thrive under an individualistic model.
The nuclear family coagulates resources on a diminished and impoverished scale, substituting what is best for women and children for the bolstering of male hegemony within the family.
This doesn’t even parse, let alone make sense as an argument. If the resources available are diminished and impoverished by nuclear families, then how come the cultures which embrace nuclear families are so much more gorram resource-rich than the ones that do it commie-style?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 10:21 am
This is the thing Robert: if the labor is “divided” so that men leave the house five days a week for 10+ hours to “work” and the women stay home to clean, cook, and care for the children, where, oh where!, is the incentive for those men to come home other than to eat, shit, sleep and fuck? It certainly doesn’t lie within the framework of the nuclear family! That sort of responsibility has to come from inside a person, and with no incentive to add to what is already a perfect system (i.e, live in maid and sexbot), why would men *add* to the resources of the nuclear family? Men are the consumers of the nuclear family resources, which does indeed include the ability to leave the home for 10+ hours per day, five days a week and not have to worry about whether the kids are clean and well fed. The wife’s taken care of that!
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 10:23 am
So you define egalitarian as equal work? That is a much more narrow definition than I think is commonly accepted.
Equal work would seem to be a necessary component of an egalitarian arrangement. (Or “fair” work, if not strictly equal.)
I would argue that the majority of women in a nuclear family, heterosexual marriage are indeed single moms - with the added benefit of having a live-in adult child who spends most of his time outside the nuclear family.
I reject this infantilization of men. It does not reflect my experience, nor those of my peers. I regret that the men in your life have (apparently) failed to achieve adulthood, but that failure is not and should not be normative.
Why do so many men need to be forced to care for their offspring?
Because evolution imposes relatively few penalties on men who don’t. So we have to do it through cultural choices; the biology won’t take care of it for us.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 10:24 am
No, I’m a feminist. I meant women. Women don’t thrive as much as men do in this society because women are segragated into nuclear sets and the only ability to “share” resourses is with their husbands who consume those resources rather than build upon them. All women will benefit from a greater pool of shared resources.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 10:26 am
Oh, wait Robert! I’m the one infantalizing men? And yet you ballyhoo about “biology” in your very next paragraph. I’d rather admit to men being imperfect adults than imply that they are animals.
Are you really implying that women are evolutionarily superior to men?!?
Wow.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 10:28 am
This is the thing Robert: if the labor is “divided” so that men leave the house five days a week for 10+ hours to “work” and the women stay home to clean, cook, and care for the children, where, oh where!, is the incentive for those men to come home other than to eat, shit, sleep and fuck? It certainly doesn’t lie within the framework of the nuclear family!
The incentive is the pair-bond and intimacy with the women, the enjoyment of which is predicated on performing the duties associated with the male role (whatever that may be in the particular culture or relationship). And that is entirely within the framework of the family - the family is formed by a pair that jointly agrees to those terms.
That sort of responsibility has to come from inside a person, and with no incentive to add to what is already a perfect system (i.e, live in maid and sexbot), why would men *add* to the resources of the nuclear family?
They wouldn’t, if that were an accurate description of the roles and the attitudes towards them that people held. Since we observe that men do add to the resources of the nuclear family, we can conclude that your description is inaccurate.
Men are the consumers of the nuclear family resources, which does indeed include the ability to leave the home for 10+ hours per day, five days a week and not have to worry about whether the kids are clean and well fed. The wife’s taken care of that!
If I define all the things that women typically do under our gendered system as fun and enjoyment, while defining all the things that men do as work and toil, I can similarly castigate the system as unfair. That isn’t data, however; it’s just a description of my emotional biases concerning what kinds of work are valued.
Alternatively, I can describe all of these forms of work as valuable and contributive towards a family. Admittedly, that deprives me of the opportunity to shit on one gender and pretend that it’s theory, but hey. We all have to make compromises.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 10:33 am
Shrug. How would you know? You aren’t exactly open to women’s opinions and expressions of their own experiences. It’s not likely that any of your female friends would open up to you about the degree of inequality in their relationships with men. So, if not your peers, I suggest you listen to women you don’t know and see what they have to say.
This comment was written by Q Grrl.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 10:34 am
Women don’t thrive as much as men do in this society because women are segragated into nuclear sets and the only ability to “share” resourses is with their husbands who consume those resources rather than build upon them.
This is frankly sexist. It assumes women have no ability to modify the circumstances of their own lives. This is blatantly contradicted by the observations of anyone living in the west, where we see women sharing resources in both individualist and collective ways with equal facility to men.
I’d rather admit to men being imperfect adults than imply that they are animals.
Both are true. What does your emotional preference for one truth over another say about anything?
Are you really implying that women are evolutionarily superior to men?!?
No. I’m implying that the genders are treated differently by evolutionary pressure, which is, again, staggeringly obvious to any competent observer.
I think we’re done here; the assumptions and judgments you have pre-made seem to make it impossible for you to hear another point of view.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 10:58 am
Equal work would seem to be a necessary component of an egalitarian arrangement. (Or “fair” work, if not strictly equal.)
Yes, but you stated it in a way that posited equal work as the only necessary component of an egalitarian arrangement. You mentioned no other components.
Is it your belief that the one parent as outside worker(income provider) within the NFM creates an egalitarian environment for things other than work? For example, does the NFM create an egalitarian environment for deciding how that income is spent? Does the NFM create an egalitarian environment with respect to ending the relationship? I would say not. People (whether male or female) who are the stay-at-home partner tend to feel that, since they aren’t the one earning the money, that they have less say in budget & discretionary spending decisions, they worry about how they would survive financially should the relationship end. This is hardly egalitarian. And since current cultural norms strongly encourage that the woman be the non-income earner, I would have to say that the NFM expressly supports a non-egalitarian environment which overwhelmingly leaves women with less power than men.
Also, what Q Grrl said about the nuclear family functioning as an isolating mechanism would seem to decrease the options of the less powerful person (the non-income earner).
In essence, the NFM creates a clear power imbalance in modern American society. The one earning dollars has power over the one not earning dollars. This power imbalance is clearly greater than that in an extended family model or even a single-parent household.
All family models have flaws, characteristics that ease or facilitate power imbalances. The NFM is no exception and, in some clearly defined ways, worse.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 11:12 am
Jake, nuclear family != SAHM plus WOHD. I have a nuclear family, and neither of us works outside the home. Let’s not conflate those two concepts and blame the nuclear family for the inequalities caused by one parent who works for money and one who doesn’t; you can have that arrangement in any family structure.
Yes, but you stated it in a way that posited equal work as the only necessary component of an egalitarian arrangement. You mentioned no other components.
So you want me to write longer posts? ;)
For example, does the NFM create an egalitarian environment for deciding how that income is spent? Does the NFM create an egalitarian environment with respect to ending the relationship?
More egalitarian than other structures? Absolutely. In my family, I have a lot more say about how we spend her income, and she has a lot more say about how we spend mine, than if we were (say) living separately but jointly parenting our daughter.
Ending the relationship seems outside the scope of the discussion.
In essence, the NFM creates a clear power imbalance in modern American society. The one earning dollars has power over the one not earning dollars. This power imbalance is clearly greater than that in an extended family model or even a single-parent household.
But again, it is the discrepancy in earning that creates the power imbalance, not the framework in which the discrepancy happens to take place. You’re blaming the frame for the ugliness of a particular painting.
All family models have flaws, characteristics that ease or facilitate power imbalances. The NFM is no exception and, in some clearly defined ways, worse.
On the first part, at least, we agree, although I’m less concerned about power imbalances than you are. On the second part, I haven’t seen anybody demonstrate it yet. Everything that’s been listed as being a horrible outcome of the nuclear family can happen just as easily in other arrangements, or is an opinion rather than a fact.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 11:20 am
Q Grrl:
I would argue that the majority of women in a nuclear family, heterosexual marriage are indeed single moms - with the added benefit of having a live-in adult child who spends most of his time outside the nuclear family.
I actually have seen women who while married are close to the situation of single moms in that the father is physically absent most of the time because his employment caused him to travel a great deal or is otherwise highly demanding of his time. One example was a man who did disaster cleanups of hazardous materials who could be gone 3 or 6 months at a time. Then there are a couple of physicians who simply had very demanding careers.
They weren’t home much. The mother had to deal with the kids, etc., most of the time. But what they did have that a true single mom doesn’t have was an income that they did not have to earn themselves. The first mom did in fact work, and had help from the older children during the time that I knew her. The other moms didn’t work at all (”work” = “outside paid employment”, not “effort” in this context).
Now, those families are the exceptions. Generally, most of the families I see are two-parent families with both parents in the area and both employed. Because of the nature of what I do, I get to know their families very well, a lot better than you’re going to get to know a family structure and dynamic by talking to them at work or whatever. I know their medical histories, who divorced, who separated, how their grades are, who’s on what drugs, who’s got a drinking problem, who neglects their kids, what the inside of their homes look like, who does the cooking and whether or not they’re any good at it, how the kids interact with each other, etc., etc. So I’m interested in exploring this viewpoint. I have some families where the dads put on uniforms or otherwise get greatly involved in Scouting and their sons and daughters. I have some families where the Scout has been in the Troop for 4 years and I have maybe seen the dad twice. In some of the latter cases he’s a non-entity; in others he does stuff with his kid but Scouting simply isn’t one of them. So, as far as “live-in adult child” - what do you mean by this? Children don’t pay the mortgage, food/heating/gas bills, etc., etc. Tell me again what you mean by “live-in adult child”, please.
Jake:
People (whether male or female) who are the stay-at-home partner tend to feel that, since they aren’t the one earning the money, that they have less say in budget & discretionary spending decisions,
Hah - you obviously haven’t met my wife! Of course, she does work outside the home and has our entire 34 year marriage, although she has never made more than about 1/2 what I do. In any case, I’m curious as to what data you have to back up this statement? Or is this an assumption you’re making?
This comment was written by RonF.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 11:39 am
Thanks for the comments.
This is from Lu (#215), Q Grrl (#231) and Myca (#234) make the same point. That’s fair enough, all ‘feminists’ don’t think X. If you don’t think it’s desirable that mothers and fathers share childcare equally, just that they can choose equally respected options, then my thoughts on the contradictions between this and the decline of the nuclear family aren’t a problem for you.
More on feminism and the nuclear family next:
That is the standard feminist attack on the Patriarchal nuclear family as an oppressive insitution with a gendered division of labour governed by the husband. But it is the only possible type of nuclear family, because since Wollstonecraft there’s been a competing feminist model. This is the idea of the egalitarian nuclear family where both parents share childcare, are in the workforce, and relate to each other as equals. I would say this view is a widespread and dominant ideal in modern feminism and is being actively promoted through public policy in order to improve the status of women.
It’s well established that: (1) The proportion of step-families and single parent families are increasing and the proportion of nuclear families is falling. (2) The role of women in the workforce and the role of men in the household is becoming more equal in nuclear families.
The basic reason the nuclear family structure is superior to other models is that it’s much easier for the child’s father and mother to both contribute in the household sphere and the workplace if they reside together. Single parent families are disasters in terms of paternal involvement and enabling mothers to balance work and childcare. I admire step parents, but there are huge problems balancing responsibilies with one parent being a more recent addition to the child’s life than the other and another parent interacting from outside the household.
This comment was written by james.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 11:40 am
Hmm.
Robert, you said:
and later you said
To me, those seem somewhat in conflict. And also similar. If you define all the negative aspects of the NFM as “externalities” and all the positive aspects as “NFM Results” then NFM looks great. But that doesn’t mean it IS great; it just reflects your classifications.
Also, although any of the various possible family structures CAN produce inequalities through their interaction with the currently existing societal standards and prejudices, that’s a straw man.
Because after all, the issue isn’t whether they can, it’s whether they are as likely to do so. (and if you’re arguing the “best” position, you need to address this.)
(drift)
This comment was written by Sailorman.Q, is your blog secret? gardening & birding = fun stuff. (/drift)
Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Yes, longer comments please. At least comments that complete the thought…
When we talk about the nuclear family, I believe that we are talking about it in the context of the culture within which it exists. If we’re not, then we can certainly talk about how superior the single parent model is if we imagine a society in which there is much more community support/safetynetting. Say western Europe, for example.
Given that the NFM is almost wholly a creation of modern American society, I believe that modern American society has a large role to play in the aims and efficacy of the model. So, no, I don’t believe that SAHM WOHD is a conflation. It is the standard of the NFM and always has been. Other configurations within the NFM (WOHM WOHD or SAHM SAHD or WOHM SAHD) are far from mainstream. Well, WOHM WOHD, may well be mainstream although WOHM will still be pressured to become SAHM. In fact, those other 3 configs are actively discouraged. To attempt to remove the NFM from the society which created it and which it thrives is to imagine the NFM as something other than what it is in reality. (more acronyms ma! please!)
But, hell, if we want to remove context from all the family models that can exist, we can make a fantastic case for any of them as the superior model.
But again, it is the discrepancy in earning that creates the power imbalance, not the framework in which the discrepancy happens to take place.
But the framework certainly encourages that discrepancy, does it not? The traditional (if you can call such a short-lived experiment “traditional”) form of the model is SAHM WOHD, is it not? And that “traditional” form is still the standard today. I believe that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that the purpose of the NFM is to create an environment within which that discrepancy must exist. The whole point was so that one could go out and earn while the other took care of the offspring and the household under the theory that this was the most efficient division of labor that delivered the most independence (for the small family unit from the community).
Ending the relationship seems outside the scope of the discussion.
Absolutely not. Not if equality & egalitarianism are the issues under discussion. If the freedom to dissolve the partnership is not equally available to both partners, then it can’t be said to be egalitarian. You may find ending the relationship to be distasteful and immoral, but that isn’t relevant to whether or not the NFM is egalitarian.
Everything that’s been listed as being a horrible outcome of the nuclear family can happen just as easily in other arrangements, or is an opinion rather than a fact.
Likewise, everything that’s been listed as being a wonderful outcome of the NFM can happen just as easily in other arrangements, or is an opinion rather than a fact. Very little in the way of facts has been introduced into the discussion. Thus far, it has been a discussion of theory.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 11:48 am
nd also similar. If you define all the negative aspects of the NFM as “externalities” and all the positive aspects as “NFM Results” then NFM looks great.
Sure. So you have to look at each piece of it and determine whether it’s a structural feature of the model, or just something that the people involved brought in to play. Frank and Jane like to spank each other during lovemaking; this is not a structural feature of them being unmarried cohabitators or nuclear-family married. Frank and Jane live in the same house and have equal formal legal responsibility for their kids and their financial resources are pooled; these are structural features. (Not necessarily unique to nuclear families, but structural features nonetheless.)
The things that have been brought up as negatives for the nuclear family have seemed to be in the enjoys-spanking category, not the structural category. SAHMs get screwed over; not structural to a nuclear family. Lazy people exploit hard-working people; not structural. And so on. The features which have been defined as structural (by Q Grrl mostly) are also features which are arguably opinion.
Because after all, the issue isn’t whether they can, it’s whether they are as likely to do so. (and if you’re arguing the “best” position, you need to address this.)
I agree, broadly. So: what structural features of nuclear families make them less likely to produce egalitarian outcomes than other mainstream options?
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 11:49 am
The basic reason the nuclear family structure is superior to other models is that it’s much easier for the child’s father and mother to both contribute in the household sphere and the workplace if they reside together.
But there are lots of other models in which the child’s father and mother reside together. Why is the Nuclear Family Model superior to those?
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 11:54 am
There’s only one mainstream model where that’s true, the model of unmarried cohabitation. The nuclear family is better than that model because there is a formal articulation of legal obligations between the parties.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
There’s only one mainstream model where that’s true, the model of unmarried cohabitation.
I think that you are mistaken. The child’s mother and father certainly reside together in the extended family model (EFM). I can think of several other models off the top of my head in which the child’s parents reside together.
This comment was written by Jake Squid.Report this comment to the moderators
June 14th, 2007 at 12:08 pm
Does a model have to be “mainstream” before we can consider its merits?
SAHMs get screwed over; not structural to a nuclear family.
Your definition of ‘nuclear family’ slides around a bit there. The legal obligations on, and between, the parties in a marriage are a function of both family law and of reality. For example, if I run off with the pool boy, my financial obligations to my husband are defined by law–he is entitled to half the assets of the marriage. But they are also defined by practical considerations; having been a SAH parent hurts his ability to earn income in the future, and he might have a little trouble paying for groceries until a court orders me to pay spousal support.
The official, legal inequalities that have long defined “traditional marriage”* have largely been abolished; the unofficial ones less so.
*Funnily, people who use this term to argue against same-sex marriage don’t often, or at least openly, argue that we should stick to other millenia-long traditions, such as the wife’s civil subsumation into her husband.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2007 at 7:37 pm
That doesn’t work. Look up the case of the man who donated sperm to the lesbian couple. They were ‘mom’ and ‘mom’ until they broke up. Then the mom who would have been the child support payor insisted that the court order the ’sperm donor’ to foot the bill instead. The court agreed.
As was said earlier. The obligation is to the child. The parents cannot give up the right of their parents (and there are only two parents) to support him/her.
There is also a third party involved, one with a big stick, and that is the government. The government doesn’t like being stuck with the child rearing bill, so when the primary parent goes on welfare, the government is intent on seeking out the other parent to get their money back.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 23rd, 2007 at 8:46 pm
No, I won’t do your homework for you. If you have a link, post it.
Sure, but two adults can enter into a legal contract, which is why I said: “if before the pregnancy there’s some sort of legal agreement made that the woman will bear 100% of the financial obligation resultant from any pregnancy, then I think that there’s a good case for a civil suit by the man for child support expenses.”
In other words, even under this civil arrangement, the father would bear a legal responsibility to the child . . . but the mother would have signed a contract agreeing to bear any costs that might accrue unto him.
One responsibility (his) would be legal, and that can’t change.
One responsibility (hers) would be civil.
If you have a case of the courts invalidating a civil contract like this, and not just enforcing the child’s legal rights, please post it.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 4:33 am
Myca, Wouldn’t the contract be invalid UNLESS the needs of the child were fully met by the single parent?
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 7:06 am
No, I don’t believe so, because they’re separate agreements.
The father’s responsibility to the child is a matter for the family law courts and may result in criminal penalties.
The (theoretical) mother’s responsibility to the father in this utterly hypothetical scenario is a civil matter.
Two people cannot make an agreement which invalidates the rights of a third. “Me & him” can’t agree that “you don’t deserve to eat,” no matter how many things we sign.
I think “Me & him” can agree that between us, “he’ll agree ahead of time to give me any of the food I may need to feed you” though.
Legally, the responsibility would still be mine, and if the food I owed you didn’t come from somewhere, I’d be on the hook for criminal liability. . . but if ‘he’ didn’t give me all of the food I needed in order to feed you, he’d be on the hook in a civil court.
—Myca
ps. Oh, and I looked up the case (I think) Nick referenced, and it had absolutely zilch to do with what we’re discussing. Quel surprise.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Oh, and there are agreements that can’t be made enforcible like that of course. We can’t sign a contract in which you agree to serve my jail time, because the state specifically wants to punish me when I do something wrong. I’m pretty sure the state doesn’t care where child support comes from, though, since their interest is in the child.
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 7:14 am
The difficulty with your approach, Myca, is that while you may well have the contract in place and the civil court may well enforce it, if you fail to meet your responsibility per the family court, you’ll still go to jail.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 7:58 am
Robert:
Well, yeah. God knows, it’s not a perfect solution. I’m just trying to see what could be done under our current system.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 8:11 am
God knows, it’s not a perfect solution.
It’s not a solution at all. (”I have solved the problem of hunger in Africa. The people can just steal food! Sure, there are flaws, but we’re working on it…”) ;)
Goodness knows that I’m all for using contracts in place of state action, but where the state action isn’t optional or controlled by the individual players, it won’t work.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 8:43 am
They were ‘mom’ and ‘mom’ until they broke up. Then the mom who would have been the child support payor insisted that the court order the ’sperm donor’ to foot the bill instead. The court agreed.
Without looking at the specific case, I’d bet money that this happened in a state that didn’t recognize sperm donors, or the people involved did not follow the state’s laws as to who is or isn’t a sperm donor.
This comment was written by mythago.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
How about we make people financially responsible for raising all of their decedents? That would spread the burden around so it’s not just the father and mother. MRA’s wouldn’t feel like guys are being picked on (not that that matters) because grandmothers would also be liable. It might also put more incentive to raising responsible adults. It would create one more step before the public at large had to step in.
This comment was written by Joe.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 6:27 pm
No, that’s untrue.
It does take a little bit more work to not have to pay child support under this system, but it bears exactly as much weight as any other legal contract. Granted, if the person you’ve made a contract with is a crook, you’ll have to pay up in the meantime, but that’s just extra damages to go after them for in court.
Whether or not the person you’re renting your house to pays their rent or not, you still must pay your property taxes to the government.
That does not mean that ‘renting your house out’ isn’t a solution to, “I can’t afford my property taxes.” It’s a fine solution, it’s just that you might have to put some actual effort into it.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Actually, it’s even better than that. The court ruled as they did because the fellow had previously assumed parental authority, had acted as a parent, and had been contributing to the child’s upkeep all along.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 7:26 pm
That is already a law in Louisiana. I can’t speak for the other states.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
But Myca, the point is that the state will ignore the private contract and put you in jail. To use your rental analogy, say the government requires homeowners to to personally mow their lawns. You move to Alaska and rent out your house to someone else, and your tenant mows the lawn under a contractual agreement with you - but the government finds out that it isn’t you doing it, they extradite you, and throw you in jail.
This comment was written by Robert.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Inventive thinking, but the courts have and would continue to rule such contracts to be unenforceable. No consideration.
I think you found the link lesbian couple and the sperm donor already, there should be lots out there. Here is one such link:
http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnews/2007/05/superior_court_rules_that_male.html
The original topic was high child support orders. This one is $1,000/month for two children {assuming the other two brothers children were not included} Unfortunately, we can’t assess the reasonableness of the order because the payors income was not provided.
That pesky contract thing again. So some of the courts are thinking like you are.
Unfortunately, the top court rules in favor of biology.
Hopefully not in response to the ruling. So now the fight will probably end their and the dangerous Supreme Court ruling will remain law for that state.
Hmmm, now the worm comes out. They want the taxpayers to pay. If he wasn’t ruled the dad, then there would be no ’survivor benefits’.
A two-fer. They don’t say what sort of ‘promise’ was made - oral versus written contract.
Ouch, another very high support order. $1,520 for one child. Again, without the payor’s income level, we can not access if the order was reasonable or unreasonable. However, it is far above the low level for orders that were cited in this original article and much closer in line to the order levels I am hearing about for many ordinary income parents.
That is slim pickings to overide the contract the two women made with the man. There is many a kindly uncle, aunt, grandad and grandmom in trouble if that is the case.
Here is another case. From Seattle.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2001922232_spermdonor07.html
Wow, is this one a tangled web. The man was a sperm donor for his mistress. He was unofficially paying her $650/month. She got herself preggers with a second using his sperm. The original court then ordered $900/month in support and attorney’s fees. The appeals court overturned. Its from 2004, so I wonder what the Supreme Court ruled on this one? Lots of hurt feelings and a marriage destroyed from the affair.
http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Boston_Globe_Partner_child_support_lesbians_sperm_donor_01MAR04.htm
Here is another similar case from Sweden. The man donated sperm to a lesbian couple. They had three children. They agreed he would not pay support; He agreed not to be in the children’s lives in any way. The courts ruled that he must pay maintenance.
Now why did he sign a document saying he was their biological father. That doesn’t make any sense, unless it was a requirement of the clinic doing the fertilization.
http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_1571037.html
Or perhaps you prefer Ferguson v. McKiernan case from Pennsylvania from 2005.
The mom denies their was an agreement and asks for support FIVE years later. The dad has moved on, remarried and is raising two kids from the current marriage. They courts ruled that the dad had to pay $1,500/month in support plus arrearages {they don’t say how much}
The contract was voided because:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,157553,00.html
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Cool, here is the Superior courts ruling in the case of Ferguson versus McKiernan.
A15043_04
They give two references to Penn. law regarding bargaining away a child’s rights.
A strange part of this ruling was that the ladies current husband was not ‘presumed’ the father as state law typically requires. So in this case, the ‘presumed’ father managed to skate.
The Superior Courts reasoning is summed up here:
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
A large part of the ‘child support arrearages’ are being generated by this group of people. Here is a good presentation addressing the issue of incarcerated parents by Vickki Turestsky from the Center for Law and Social Policy.
Realistic Child Support Rentry Policies
Their recommendations are:
Work with community-based fatherhood and reentry programs.
This comment was written by Nick.The Council of State Governments and ten other organizations formed the Re-Entry Policy Council, a partnership funded by the U.S. Departments of Justice, Labor, and HHS. See Policy Statements 8, 13, 18, 23,and 34.
Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Robert:
In other words . . . you’re legally liable to see that your property taxes are paid, and although you can enter into private contract in which someone else agrees to pay them, the government will come after you if they’re left unpaid?
Yeah, that’s pretty much exactly how that works, thanks.
Nick:
No, it’s pretty much what I’ve said since post #199, 2 weeks ago.
Bullshit. Give me some evidence of a contract of this nature ever being invalidated.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 9:35 pm
Okay, reject the compliment. I like the concept, it just doesn’t hold up in our courts of law.
Another flaw with such a contract should parties consider them is that the child support obligation is not dischargeable through bankruptcy and the other legal obligation is.
Um, I just did. See the Ferguson posts above. This is the courts responses to such agreements.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 10:11 pm
No, you didn’t. The point of Ferguson is that two people (who are not the child in question) cannot agree to abrogate a child’s rights.
I made this point in posts #199, 234, 264, 266, 267, and 273, so we’re not really on new ground here.
I’ve further said that the contract I’m discussing doesn’t ‘let someone off the hook’ for child support, but instead is an agreement in which one parent agrees to pay (or provide the other parent with 100% compensation for, or whatever) the other parent’s financial obligations.
It’s an agreement between adults, with no reference to the rights of a third party.
As I said back in post #234 on the 14th:
Emphasis at the end added, of course.
Ferguson was a verbal contract in which the mother and father attempted to dismiss the child’s rights. Of course that didn’t work. Nor should it.
—Myca
This comment was written by Myca.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 10:37 pm
You are simply proposing an alternative way to dismiss the child’s rights. It is not going to fly. There is no essential difference between your proposal and the Ferguson agreement.
This comment was written by Nick.Report this comment to the moderators
June 24th, 2007 at 10:49 pm
No, I’m not, because this doesn’t involve dismissing the child’s rights.
Legally, there’s a huge difference.
Let’s say that