I know for a fact that men are getting the shaft many times in family courts. I myself have gone thru it and there are far more men that are unemployed or underemployed with jail time hanging over their heads if they can't afford their child support payments.
Democrats cannot afford to overlook this matter. Its not in our best interest to turn a blind eye.

j

Hello Johann, thanks for joining the forum. We realized early on that there was a strong outcry for a new look at parental rights, especially in regards to divorce. This is the place to suggest new approaches, explain difficulties of existing policy and find pro-active ways to change the system.

I have been writing letters to legislators all day.........and will continue to write them until the laws are reformed. Both parents should have equal rights and equal responsibilities when it comes to their children. The laws are one-sided. The children suffer the most.

I am a "custodial" mother of two small boys and I'm tired of having the family laws tied in with women's rights. It is NOT a women's rights issue - it is a family's rights issue. Our lawmakers have got to wake up and realize that so many of our nation's problems and so much of our future stems from our family laws.

P.S.

There are lots of women out there that feel that the laws need changed, guys. You aren't by yourselves. I have a wonderful daddy and I my husband is a wonderful daddy (to my son, his children, and our child) and I know that daddies aren't dollars and dollars aren't daddies.

Attorney General of Michigan Mike Cox is a Republican that needs to be defeated in 2006. He is encouraging PAS for the cause of collecting child support. Never should an elected official encourage Parental Alienation.

I'll have more to contribute later.

Johann

Child support laws should be done by state propositions.

If this forum is going to be about promoting father rights over mother rights, I guess I will have to leave then.

That is not at all what this forum is about.

Johan,

Yes, by and large men are getting the shaft in family courts. But, creating a forum for "Men's Parental Rights" by its nature asks for a different standard to be set for fathers than it does for mothers. Say what you would like, but as long as those standards are kept separate, fathers and children will continue to get the shaft.

Focus needs to be put upon the results of welfare of children when they are allowed to share meaningful time with each parent as opposed to sole custody. The fact is that children of divorce fare far better in joint custody than they do other situations.


NOW allowed itself to gravitate away from equal rights between genders to doing what ever helps women the most. They only want equality when it is expedient. NOW's clear disregard for the welfare of children is an indictment upon all whom affiliate themselves with the organization. As a one-time supporter of the organization that saddens me. I would never want men to champion their rights in such a callous manner.

Election results are worth looking at:

55% of men voted Republican, while 48% of women voted Republican
44% of men voted Democrat, while 51% of women voted Democrat

That is an 11% difference as opposed to a 3% difference, in spite of the fact that issues such as abortion are likely to be dramatically changed during a 2nd Bush administration. That is a HUGE difference.

Very few voters really wanted to vote for GW. So, the obvious question is what would make so many men vote against Democrats? Radical women's groups would like to make others believe that men are just trying to keep women "in their place". But, that is a negative approach that doesn't play well over time. Curiously, men were never asked what issues are important to them. Even with such a target rich block of voters for Democrats to go after, they never even tried to reach out to men. The results of that neglect were devastating.

We lost 4 Senate seats and 3 House seats in spite of already being the minority in each chamber, a miserable economy, the rest of the world hating us, and a failed administration of the war. On top of that, we didn't pick up any governorships either. So, what are we going to do about it?

We can continue to promote the same things as a party and expect different results, or we can step back and look at things logically. The stepping back part is easy. Shoot, we hardly have any left in the game not to look. What could possibly be more offensive to men than to say that spending time with their kids is unimportant? That is exactly what our party has done. Our party needs to ask itself, how bitter of a pill would it really be to allow fathers meaningful time with their kids? In retrospect after it finally is allowed to happen, the question will seem quite silly. 10-15 years from now, people will say, "of course, fathers should be meaningful parts of their kids' lives." The only question is how much damage will accrue before we finally get it.

Republicans don't really need to address the issue, because they are not associated with NOW, and NOW is seen as the culprit for systematically separating kids from their parents, regardless of whether they did anything wrong, or not. It is guilt by association for the Democrats. If you take a man’s kid(s) away from him, he is not going to like you.

If there were more Democrats like Iowa Governor Vilsack that openly promoted both parents being able to share equal time with their kids, more men would vote Democratic. Remember, at 55% to 44% this is a target rich environment for Democrats to go after. These men aren’t asking for special rights; they just want equal rights. Asking for separate considerations is not how to go about it.

It is very expensive to raise a child. A father would realize this. Much more often in this day in age, women work and raise their children. Is it fair to expect the woman to do this alone? Don't expect the court to excuse you from your responsibility. If your child support is expensive, get an additional job.

beststillk, it is expensive to raise a child. i was a single mom until 4 years ago. i don't think anyone is expecting to be excused from their responsibility - these men are asking for EQUAL responsibility and for EQUAL rights to their children. what is unfair about that? in regard to your last statement - get a additional job? don't you think that is what is happening? noncustodial parents in some states ARE working two jobs.........and guess what?! their child support is raised and they are spending less and less time with their children. that makes no sense at all. don't you agree that the ideal situation for any child with two loving parents would be to spend equal time with them and to be supported financially by both of them?

fatherhood is just as important and just as hard as motherhood. having a penis doesn't make someone a bad parent any more than having a vagina makes someone a good parent. it takes two people to create a child and both people should have equal rights and equal responsibility when raising that child.

No, it's not fair for women to do this alone. Read the thread. That's exactly what we are saying. Both mothers and fathers should be allowed to be a meaningful part of their kid lives. The only thing preventing good fathers spending more time with their kids is a court order, not a lack of desire. No one is asking to be excused from their responsibility, except for custodial parents who do not want to share the financial responsibility of their children while spend time with the other parent.

Apparently, you would like NCP's to work even more so that they can see their children even less. Not a very good answer. It is those types of solutions that will ensure that 55% of men vote against our party next time too.

Thank you. Parental rights is the name of the sub-forum from the JK website. It too had to be changed from another name. These are the issues that face parents. Granting one gender special special considerations over the other is the primary reason for the problems in the first place. Those who choose the high road will look back in retrospect to see that their source of power was that they did not view themselves supreme over others.

Since the moderating view is that ALL parents have rights and responsibilities, do thes same moderators believe that in the absence of wrong-doing, ALL parents should be allowed to share MEANINGFUL time with their child(ren)? As a point of reference, but not precise determination, FL determines a "substantial" time for non-residential parents to be 40% or mroe over nights in a calendar year.

What rights and responsibilities should fit parents be afforded?

For all of human history, until the feminist century, women who wanted a father to support her child took the child to his or her father. That system worked. The radical feminist social experiment in "absentee child support" pays women to break up families and enslaves men. It has failed millions of famililies and hurt millions and millions of children. It needs to recognized as a massive failure and then return to protecting families and children.

Bob

While too many would like to relegate dads into being just a paycheck, one fact remains - "The most important thing a parent can be for their child is there!"

"Get an additional job"...

And what... miss out on time that could be spent with the kids? Blah! It would further increase child support... or, is that what you want... mo' money...?

Silly u.

This is actually something that happened to a friend of mine. When his wife divorced him, he was working two jobs -- one M-Fri and the other on the weekend. The court set his CS counting income from both jobs. When he went for a modification so he could actually spend his weekends with his children the judge refused him.

In the end he wasn't going to give up his time with his kids so he quit his second job. Last I knew he was living on his sister's couch.

It almost seems like a maternal chauvinism really. Once divorced he really doesn't count for much of anything. One can say, get a second job, but when is he supposed to do it? That comment really drives home the idea that many people really just don't care whether he can see his kids or not or be a meaningful part of their lives. That comment affirms that yes, he's an income first and if there's anything left over to be an actual human being well maybe we can consider it.

And there's another way to look at it too: I know depending what the income bracket is, child support may not add up to much, but with middle class incomes, it usually does. What happens then is the kids end up with two different standards of living -- good at mom's house and low at dad's house. So now if they're spending much time at dad's (most people I know shoot for at least 40%), Mom is basically guaranteeing that the kids will spend collectively 40% of their childhood under financial strain. How is that morally superior to the father who withholds child support thereby guaranteeing his kids live under financial strain?

Child support amounts should not include any percentage of income past 40/hr per week, and the percentage should not exceed 50%.

What happens is the the court orders child support and the state agency takes up to 50% out of the wages. Next, the federal gov (IRS) takes any tax returns and applies that to child support. That brings it over 50%. Next, the state agency levies the accounts of the non-custodial parent so that money is depleted. It goes well over 50% taken income.

Nope. Absentee child supprot is indentured servitude, a form of slavery. It violates the US Constitutional prohibiton against involuntary servitude. It should be abolished as a horribly failed social experiment.

If women want the father to support her children she ought to take the children to their father as women had done for millions of years before the 20th century.

Bob

Child support can only be considered indentured servitutde in the context that it has no rationale economic basis of providing for the reasonable needs of children, nor does it typically proportion the financial burden of those needs between the two parents equitably.

There are too many incentives for the women to take the children to another guy than the real father.

When child support is based proportionally on the income of one or both parents, there is no rationale economic basis of reasonable needs. We can determine reasonable needs by actual studies of how much it cost to raise a child.

If we focus only on reasonable needs, the child support amount should not be any different between someone who makes 100,000 a year and someone who makes 20,000 a year.

I remember when I made less than 20,000 a year and lived together with my first wife that I did not have to spend as much money to support my children as the child support order now demand that I pay.

Child support should not be based on some made-up ability to pay numbers. Child support should be based on need.

Why should we even go through the child support agency when we could give the other parent a cash-card for the childrens needs? The child support agency takes a huge amount of the child support out for themselves. It's like double taxation!

So true - it is expensive to raise a child. As a custodial parent myself, I have raised my child on my own and with only my income. Why? Because my child's father has bought into all this "women divorce men to get $$" BS. Consequently, he pays nothing in child support. Yes, he's paid a price for it, gone to jail several times, license suspended, etc.......still to no avail because he "whines" about the injustice and usually gtes out of it for a few more months, then the cycle starts again(threatening letters, jail). Not only have I always worked fulltime, I've also had to take on part-time jobs just to pay the bills. He had the audacity to offer to "babysit" so I could work parttime (on top of 40 hours week) just so his sorry *ss wouldn't have to pay child support.

Would you be willing to share the financial obligations for your child while he/she were at their fahter's home if he were a fit parent? Yes, I already realize that GA does not consider the needs of children while they are at the NCP home. Yes, I already realize that GA does not even consider any amount of money that you make as possibly providing a benefit to your child(ren)s needs.

I know it may not be politically correct to say, and I don't mean it to sound cold, but....

It always kind of astounds me as a man and a father -- a person who's seen my brother and so many male friends basically kicked out of their families for no reason -- that women are so concerned with receiving child support. I know how much it costs to raise children -- especially if there are certain standards one has as a parent, which most parents do.

But from the outside looking in at the world of divorced mothers -- I would trade situations with you in a heartbeat and so would every single divorced father I know. I mean, every parent is morally responsible to support their children. But to be honest, I couldn't put a price on the practically guaranteed right to remain a member of my family upon dissolution of marriage. If I had that, personally I wouldn't give a sh*t about how much money the other parent gave me. I'd see it for what it is -- I won the most important thing there was and I can't put a price on that.

Now I'm sorry your ex-husband doesn't pay his CS. But it does make me angry that someone so flippantly speaks of having him thrown in jail and licenses revoked. The way I see it, throwing someone in jail for failing to support their children AS DIRECTED AND REGULATED BY THE GOVERNMENT is morally equivalent to the failure to support one's children.

I hear a lot of these cases of men abandoning their families -- while in reality that is rare. What I don't believe for one second is that the guy who abandoned was Prince Charming before the babies came -- responsible, sober, hard working -- but after the babies came he became a deadbeat. In a way, I see many of our basic civil rights eroded and disappearing in order to compensate for the bad choices of other people -- whether it's the guy who doesn't support his children or the woman who chooses to have children with a marginal human being.

I understand your point, certainly having my child with me is worth more to me than anything. However, it comes back around to the fact that it does cost a lot to raise a child and frankly, it takes money to pay bills. I believe that the custodial parent should share in the costs, most do eventhough it may not show on a court document because it's not required. But what gets me is the father that wants to stay in his child's life but not pay one dime towards her support. I don't get it.


.

Going to jail is a last resort the courts use when they've given an NCP every chance in the world to own up to their responsibility and pay the child support. I really don't like the fact that my "ex" has been locked up before but it did produce quite a bit of child support as a result. I use the child support to pay for my child's school, clothes, medical, food, etc + extracurricular activities which can be quite high. I don't think it's too much to ask the NCP to help pay for this stuff.

I don't think it is too much to ask that the CP shares the children equally.

Are you willing to share the expense for itmes of which your child benefits from (food, shelter, clothing, transportation, educational materials, entertainment) while he/she is in the care of their father?

Curious- why is it you don't have 50/50 custody or if he has a problem finding work, why don't you give him the majority of the custody and pay him support?

A deal isn't fair unless both parties would be equally content with switching places and responsibilities.

I was raised by a widowed mother with 5 kids and our only income was her school teacher's salary. The "kids are expensive" is a really lame excuse- live within your means and maximize the time they spend with their dad and their grandparents.

Though my income is 6 figures now- I'd give it all to spend even a minute with my dad who died when I was 2. I'd eat mustard sandwiches for a year for that opportunity.

Your kids self esteem will largely be based on how well people speak of their father. The fact that you allow the state to put their father in jail is a reflection of how "it's all about you."

I second that.

I consistently see people who accuse fathers of stuff that is not even true and just out of spite of anger or peer pressure. In the end, it affects the children.