Topic: Parental Rights Questions: why does the mom seemingly always win.

[Moraline]

I have to agree with the original poster on this.  It's the same in Canada as well.

Two examples from my friends.

1) The father and mother split and most of the time the child was with him. He cared for the child and took him to school. The child even went to his parents house every day afterschool until one or the other parent got off work.  There was no legal agreements in this case the two parents shared equal custody (everything was split.)

Later the mother moved to a new city.  They went to court over custody now because of the move.  It was clear in court that the father had spent the majority of time taking care of the child (about a 70/30 ratio in his favor.)  Neither are bad people but the Father was the only one with a stable job and life and his family were the child's main support system. 

They awarded her custody and she moved away with the child.  Thankfully she still lives close enough that he gets to see his child frequently on weekends and stuff but the relationship between them is now forever altered.


2) Father and mother have a messy divorce and custody battle over the children.  While in court it comes to light that she has been convicted on drug possession charges in the recent past (nothing major but still convicted and spent a brief time in jail as well as forced treatement.)

The judge awards the mother the child despite the father having no criminal record and the only one of the two with a full time steady job. It actually seemed to go against him in this case as they determined that he wouldn't be home to look after the child (this was actually stated in the court on reading the decision.)

The mother ends up being put in jail again on drug possession charges and the father is given temporary custody.  She gets out and they go to court again and the mother wins again.


I went to the lawyers office with both of them for moral support and in both cases the lawyers told us outright that the decision would depend heavily on the judge.  Some judges take a more equal stance while others refer back to older case law from times when the mothers were always awarded the custody and it was a given to the mother.

My heart absolutely breaks for each of these men and in the second example I fear for the child's safety.  I've known a few men that have won custody but only after the judges determined the mother's to be unfit.  In a world full of equality, who they determine for custody for the sake of the child's best interests seems to still be heavily favored for the mother in North America.

In my opinion, 100% of the time, all child custody should be 50/50 shared custody automatically for the sake of the children unless one parent is proven unfit or gives up a part/or all of the custody. 

There should be no child support unless that 50/50 shared custody is changed.  And no change in that 50/50 split unless one parent decides for any reason to move away from a location where 50/50 shared custody is possible and then that should mean that they default and give up custody unless the other parent relinquishes custody or is proven unfit.

Acceptations to the general should only be made in extreme cases where the child has special needs or another outstanding circumstance case can be made.

In my opinion, having the love and support of both of your parents as much as is possible is far more important to a growing/developing child.  Just because someone dislikes their previous partner should not prevent either one of them from being able to raise their children or cause the child to be denied the love and support of that other parent.  You might not like the other parent but your child loves them.

[Serephino]

My boyfriend works with a guy who is getting royally screwed.  He was with this girl, and everything seemed fine.  She gets pregnant and has the baby.  Sometime after the baby is born she bolts on him.  She asks for child support, and gets it.  And still, she felt the need to go to this agency that goes after deadbeat dads.  He ended up getting 75% of his paycheck garnished!  If he loses his job he has a week to find another, and then a warrant gets issued to toss him in jail.  He even tried signing away his parental rights.  All that did was make it so he can't have visitation.

Apparently a year or so later she did the same thing to another man.  She's living like a queen while these men are barely surviving in the projects, and actually working their asses off instead of getting child support checks in the mail.  How the court doesn't see a pattern here I'll never understand. 

[Torch]

He even tried signing away his parental rights.  All that did was make it so he can't have visitation.

In the state of PA, a parent can only voluntarily terminate parental rights if another adult is willing to adopt the child in question.

Apparently a year or so later she did the same thing to another man.  She's living like a queen while these men are barely surviving in the projects, and actually working their asses off instead of getting child support checks in the mail.  How the court doesn't see a pattern here I'll never understand. 
[/color]

"Living like a queen" is unlikely. I highly doubt anyone trying to provide for two children on what amounts to a percentage of a minimum wage support amount every month is "living like a queen".

A poverty-level standard of living would be a better description.

[Callie Del Noire]

In the state of PA, a parent can only voluntarily terminate parental rights if another adult is willing to adopt the child in question.

"Living like a queen" is unlikely. I highly doubt anyone trying to provide for two children on what amounts to a percentage of a minimum wage support amount every month is "living like a queen".

A poverty-level standard of living would be a better description.

I dunno.. my friend's ex was milking him for half his wage.. and he was making a fair amount of cash, and working the disability/unemployment gig. He was making something better than 100 grand though.

[Torch]

In my opinion, 100% of the time, all child custody should be 50/50 shared custody automatically for the sake of the children unless one parent is proven unfit or gives up a part/or all of the custody. 

A good thought, but completely and wholly impractical in real life, and in most cases almost impossible to implement. Exactly which 50% of the time would you require? 12 hours out of every day? 3 days and 12 hours out of every week? Six months out of every year?

Parenting, like every other relationship, is never exactly and equally 50/50. Sometimes it's 70/30, sometimes it's 90/70, sometimes it's 100/100, sometimes it's 20/55, etc, etc, you get the general idea.

Children thrive best on continuity and stability, and the courts realize this. Splitting a child's time with each parent exactly in half like a biblical edict without any concern for the child's educational welfare, extra-curricular activities, other familial relationships, and all the other things that go along with raising a child is hardly what I would call best interest for anyone.

[Torch]

I dunno.. my friend's ex was milking him for half his wage.. and he was making a fair amount of cash, and working the disability/unemployment gig. He was making something better than 100 grand though.

Can we please not refer to child support as being "milked"?

Yes, I realize you have a biased point of view, but child support is exactly that - money that goes to the health and welfare of a child, not a parent.

And if the wage being garnished is a percentage of a minimum wage salary, no one is living high on the hog on that, especially the child.

[Chris Brady]

"Living like a queen" is unlikely. I highly doubt anyone trying to provide for two children on what amounts to a percentage of a minimum wage support amount every month is "living like a queen".

A poverty-level standard of living would be a better description.

Not likely.  If this woman has done it to two men, and they are losing 75% of their paychecks each?  She's loving well above the poverty line.  She might not be rich, but definitely upper middle.  Especially if she's 'smart' enough to target the right type of men for her tricks.

[Callie Del Noire]

Can we please not refer to child support as being "milked"?

Yes, I realize you have a biased point of view, but child support is exactly that - money that goes to the health and welfare of a child, not a parent.

And if the wage being garnished is a percentage of a minimum wage salary, no one is living high on the hog on that, especially the child.

of course.. Sorry Torch..

I meant was that he was paying (quite happily) for everything for his daughter, and very little of it went to her. If he hadn't paid for her medical coverage so fully I'm sure she'd be would have been very very sick by the time she was six. (that and the fact that she had access to a navy hospital that mommy dearest didn't have to pay for anything in).

I know when she came out to visit him in the backside of beyond (my buddies words..) she was sent out in shorts and tshirt with a book bag of clothing totally unsuited for Idaho in October. When he picked her up from her mom's home, he was able to put ALL her clothing and belongings in 2 duffle bags.. a LOT of her presents from him and his family were mysteriously missing.

[Torch]

Not likely.  If this woman has done it to two men, and they are losing 75% of their paychecks each?  She's loving well above the poverty line.  She might not be rich, but definitely upper middle.  Especially if she's 'smart' enough to target the right type of men for her tricks.

*sighs*

Again, if the wage being garnished is a percentage of a minimum wage salary, no one is living high on the hog on that, especially the child.

Do you have any idea what constitutes "upper middle class"? Sociologists usually classify upper middle class as 15% of the total population, with a personal income in excess of $62,500, and a household income in excess of $100,000.

[Torch]

of course.. Sorry Torch..

I meant was that he was paying (quite happily) for everything for his daughter, and very little of it went to her. If he hadn't paid for her medical coverage so fully I'm sure she'd be would have been very very sick by the time she was six. (that and the fact that she had access to a navy hospital that mommy dearest didn't have to pay for anything in).

I know when she came out to visit him in the backside of beyond (my buddies words..) she was sent out in shorts and tshirt with a book bag of clothing totally unsuited for Idaho in October. When he picked her up from her mom's home, he was able to put ALL her clothing and belongings in 2 duffle bags.. a LOT of her presents from him and his family were mysteriously missing.

I'm sure that in some individual cases, a parent may take advantage of what is allowed within the law. But in general, child support is calculated based on income using a standard formula. For example, this is the formula for New York State:

The gross income of each parent is determined and the incomes are combined. The combined parental income is multiplied by the appropriate child support percentage—17 percent for one child, 25 percent for two children, 29 percent for three children, 31 percent for four children, and not less than 35 percent for five or more children.

This figure represents the basic child support obligation, which is then divided between the parents on a pro-rata basis, according to the amount of their respective incomes. Additional amounts to be paid for childcare, medical care not covered by health insurance, and educational expenses are determined by the court and added to the basic child support obligation; and the noncustodial parent is ordered to pay his/her share to the custodial parent—sometimes called the 'parent of primary residence.'

Every state uses some variant of the above formula. And when you read it and do the calculations, you see why I'm skeptical of claims that one parent is being fleeced for every penny in their bank account. Using the above calculation, it would be impossible for a parent to pay more than 20 percent of his/her income for just one child, even if that figure included health insurance and childcare.

[Oniya]

Looking at it from a ratio standpoint, for every dollar that Sere's acquaintance brings home, the ex is getting three.  Ergo, she is 'making' three times as much as he is, to cover herself and one of the children.  Doing the same thing with the other man, (I'm assuming a similar proportion of garnishment) and again, she's 'making' three times as much as he is to cover herself, and the other child.  Assuming that she divides the funds evenly between herself and each man's child, Child A is getting 1.5 times as much as what Daddy A brings home, Child B is getting 1.5 times as much as what Daddy B brings home, and she's getting 1.5(Daddy A) + 1.5(Daddy B).

Compared to the men, even with children, she's probably doing OK.

[Torch]

Looking at it from a ratio standpoint, for every dollar that Sere's acquaintance brings home, the ex is getting three.  Ergo, she is 'making' three times as much as he is, to cover herself and one of the children.  Doing the same thing with the other man, (I'm assuming a similar proportion of garnishment) and again, she's 'making' three times as much as he is to cover herself, and the other child.  Assuming that she divides the funds evenly between herself and each man's child, Child A is getting 1.5 times as much as what Daddy A brings home, Child B is getting 1.5 times as much as what Daddy B brings home, and she's getting 1.5(Daddy A) + 1.5(Daddy B).

Compared to the men, even with children, she's probably doing OK.

Your ratios are correct.

But a percentage of a minimum wage income is still poverty level for a family of three. That's not really OK, in my opinion.

It's possible "Daddy B" has a higher gross income, and therefore the child support award will be adjusted upwards accordingly. All of this is speculation, of course.

[Shjade]

I don't recall seeing anything that says the mother lacks a job herself. If she does, that's her wage + 150% of minimum wage (Where did that get started, anyway? I don't see Serephino saying anything about how much the men in question are getting paid.). Far from "living like a queen," but substantial compared to the two sources providing that 150%.

[Serephino]

*sighs*

Again, if the wage being garnished is a percentage of a minimum wage salary, no one is living high on the hog on that, especially the child.

Do you have any idea what constitutes "upper middle class"? Sociologists usually classify upper middle class as 15% of the total population, with a personal income in excess of $62,500, and a household income in excess of $100,000.

He doesn't make minimum wage though; well above.  He earns about $900 every 2 weeks.  He gets to take home about $200.  That's $1400 a month she's getting just from him.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Something else is at play in that situation Serephino. 

http://www.amptoons.com/blog/2006/01/18/mens-rights-myth-typical-child-support-payments-are-insanely-high/

"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."

According to your source the monthly payment is 1400 dollars a month. 

[Torch]

He doesn't make minimum wage though; well above.  He earns about $900 every 2 weeks.  He gets to take home about $200.  That's $1400 a month she's getting just from him.

Then someone's math is wrong, and I'm betting it isn't the state.

This is the PA Code for Child Support Guidelines, the formula the state uses when garnishing wages. If this man is grossing 1800 a month, then his support payment should be $436 a month. He's lying about what he gets to take home, unless he went into arrears.

If he was in arrears, then he wasn't paying anything at all and the state can garnish his wages to make up for it.

Either way, NO ONE pays 75% of their gross salary in child support. It's impossible.

[Serephino]

That's just it....  My boyfriend didn't believe it either at first.  The guy brought in the court papers to show him, and showed his pay stub.  This didn't go through with normal lawyers and such.  The woman went to some advocate program.  They're supposed to go go after deadbeat fathers.  I still can't remember the name, but they started advertising when I was in high school.  One of my friends' mothers had to use them.  But their add says when the family court system fails you and you can't get the father to pay they will make him pay.

We don't understand it either.  Just because something is suppose to be x doesn't mean sometimes it doesn't end up y.     

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Which means he wasn't paying court ordered child support then.  So essentially he wasn't paying for the child he had with her and now they are recouping the lost payments most likely. 

[Serephino]

There wasn't a court order.  They had a verbal agreement and he was giving her cash.  Of course, we don't know what she claimed....  That's the point, and the trouble...  Everyone always believes the mother, is on her side, no matter what.  I'm not saying there aren't deadbeat dads and every woman is just being greedy, but there are always some exceptions to every rule. 

It seems to be very common around here.  For whatever the hell reason I've met women who found it easier to get knocked up and live on child support and welfare.  This particular woman, I've been informed actually has 3 kids by 3 different men.  She always only stays long enough to have a baby.  Then they go to work and come home and she's gone.  That seems fishy to me, and it always upsets me to think a child is being used as a meal ticket.  Child support isn't always spent on the child either.   

[Oniya]

Verbal agreements are rarely worth the paper they're written on.  Something like that (with the potential of blowing up into a court order), I'd be damned sure to get a receipt, even if it's hand-written.

[Pumpkin Seeds]

Well, he says that he was making cash payments to her.  He also attempted to sign away his parental rights so that he wouldn’t have to pay or pay as much, essentially selling off his rights as a father.  This does not sound like someone that was taking his role as a parent seriously.  Willing to give up his child so he wouldn’t have to make payments and leave the child in the sole custody of someone that you are describing as a horrible person.  Not a loving parent by my measure.  The man is not going to admit to being a “dead beat dad.”  No man is going to say, “yeah I don’t give her shit for my kid.”  As you sated, she had to ask for the child support from him even though he knew she was pregnant with his child.  Meaning she had to seek him out for help with his child.

I am not saying the woman is a saint or an angel, but more than likely the larger amount is due to him not making payments or not making adequate payments.  Also, birth control goes both ways.  Nothing is preventing men from putting a condom on before sex to prevent this from happening.  Believing her or not, I am looking at the census data and court laws.  Far easier to believe that he wasn’t making the payments required of him and she took him to the cleaners, rather than he has a court order against him that violates the data provided by the census bureau and legal firms. 

If x is supposed to equal y, then when it doesn’t there more than likely another variable.

[Oniya]

The absence of any paper trail makes it impossible to prove either party's story.  He could have been making payments, and she could be a schemer who decided to take advantage of him - or, he could have been dodging payments and is now trying to make himself out as a victim.  A simple $5 receipt pad would have gone a long way to keep both of them on the level.

[Torch]

There wasn't a court order.  They had a verbal agreement and he was giving her cash. 

Then in the eyes of the court, it is as if he paid her nothing. If he can't prove payments, the court has no choice but to garnish his wages. Remember, this money is for the benefit of the child, not the parent.

He should have known better, to be honest. It was a stupid mistake on his part, and now he's paying for it.

Of course, we don't know what she claimed....  That's the point, and the trouble...  Everyone always believes the mother, is on her side, no matter what.

No, everyone believes what can be proven.

Cash payments under the table can't be proven in a court of law. If he retained an attorney and went through the court in the first place, none of this would be happening. 

[Chris Brady]

No, everyone believes what can be proven.

No, no. no, no.  This is totally and completely false.  Dear God, how I WISH it was true.  No one wants facts, or proof.  If they did, we wouldn't have half the idiocy we see today.  Seriously, people will believe anything if a close source tells them.  Like a friend, a family member, or someone that 'seems' important.  Like someone dressed in a police uniform, looking VAGUELY like a Wal-Mart employee in a Wal-Mart.

Or a reporter, like this guy:  http://thefw.com/fake-news-reporter/

No, the COURTS want proof, but there's a reason why we weed out certain types of people in juries.  Often because they're biased and prejudiced AGAINST the case in hand.

Sounds to me like Sereph's friend got suckered because this 'agency' has enough clout and pull to make it seem believable.  And that's the issue, it seems believable.  It might even be actually legal.

[Serephino]

Admittedly, no, he isn't a loving parent.  He didn't want kids.  He did use condoms.  Nothing is fool proof.  While she was pregnant they lived together.  Then one day he went to work, and when he came home she was gone.  She did the same thing 2 other times.  Gets pregnant, stays with the man while pregnant, then bolts after the kid is born. 

He probably should've gotten receipts, but he was foolish enough to trust her.  Kids should be taken care of, I don't argue that, but isn't the woman who decided to have them responsible too?  And shouldn't this guy be left with enough to live off himself?  He has to live with 2 roommates in a crappy apartment.