"Deadbeat Dads" ( or moms )

[Art Vandalay]

This is one of many reasons I agreed to waive child support from my ex (another being, as a guy, you have to do whatever it takes to get custody). Never will I have to hear, "Well, I pay for all this, so I should be entitled to..."

She doesn't pay me a dime and I like it just fine that way.

 

[C.Ann]

I beg to differ. The father should be able to stop payment until the situation is corrected. The child is already being hurt by both parents in these cases where the child is kep from seeing both parents. At least with the payments up in the air it puts the issue in both parents laps to solve rather than the father having no power.

-----------------------------

And I beg to differ as well.. A child should not have to go without food, clothing, medical care, dental care, and housing while parents are hashing out visitation issues.. Why punish the child because the parents can't agree on visitation? There are court systems in place to deal with visitation rights only and that is where the problems should be addressed..

 

[cardaway]

-----------------------------

And I beg to differ as well.. A child should not have to go without food, clothing, medical care, dental care, and housing while parents are hashing out visitation issues.. Why punish the child because the parents can't agree on visitation? There are court systems in place to deal with visitation rights only and that is where the problems should be addressed..

A divorce agreement is a single entity. People only want to start itemizing when they something to lose or gain.

If visitiation is part of that agreement, and one party is not holding up their part of deal, the whole agreement should be suspended until everything is corrected.

The law currently allowes dead beat moms to itemize agreements and that is why dads get the shaft.

 

[disneyrun]

In my case with my ex, he is mentally ill and is in jail. I waived child support from the time of the separation and through 6 months after he's released from jail. There was no point in trying to get blood from a turnip, and I'm blessed with a good job. I have sole discretion over visitation, and have stated no unsupervised visitation. He just cycles too wildly. But if he was stable, I wouldn't tie the visitation to the support. And my kids WOULDN'T know if he was behind in payments since that's NOT their problem.

I think this is wonderful. If I ever am in this situation I hope I would handle it this maturely.

I have a cousin who had a husband that cheated, etc. once they were divorced all she did was run him down as did her parents in front of the kid. As soon as they were old enough each of them went to live with him. I think they made him seem so horrible they just had to see for themselves. As it was he wasn't horrible. A womanizer yes but not a bad father.

 

[barkley]

A divorce agreement is a single entity. People only want to start itemizing when they something to lose or gain.

If visitiation is part of that agreement, and one party is not holding up their part of deal, the whole agreement should be suspended until everything is corrected.

The law currently allowes dead beat moms to itemize agreements and that is why dads get the shaft.

the divorce agreement or decree is between the mom and dad-the child never enters/agrees to a stipulation that says they will go without food, housing, clothing and necessary medical care should an issue with visitation arrise. generaly visitation is a stipulation within the agreement/decree and has no bareing on financial support of the minor child.

the family courts do not place visitation above child endangerment/abuse issues therefore it can take months for a visitation issue to be heard. would you withhold the funds a child needs for food, housing and medical care for months pending a judicial decision? if you would i would question your care/concern for the well being of your child (sure, in the end they will likely get retroactive payments-but tell that to kids who have compounded dental problems that have'nt been addressed, medical conditions that have'nt been addressed, have gone without proper nutrition because the custodial parent-mom or DAD has had to rely on minimal food bank resources).

in my time in social services i saw my share of deadbeat moms and dads-and truly the only ones that suffered were the kids. it's hard enough when your family has been torn apart and mom and dad and all the relatives have 'taken sides' while you are caught in the middle. compound that by witnessing your custodial parent trying to meet minumum basic adeqate standards of care (let alone all the extracurriculars you used to do, the stuff you were raised to take for granted...) and you have kids that are not 'poisoned' against the non custodial parent by the custodial, but rather by relating their tremendous change in lifestyle to the fact the non custodial parent is not with them and suffering the same indignaties (and YES it is an disservice to make every visitation a FUN DAY such that the kids don't see what impact divorce has had on the non custodial).

 

[TCPluto]

---------------------------------------

While I agree that it's sad that laws are written such that the mother can do anything she wants to keep a father out, it has no bearing on the matter of child support..

Again - two different issues..

Judges can suspend child support payments if the custodial parent refuses to comply with the parenting order. I've seen it happen.

 

[mom2taylorandemily]

My DH has an adult son from a previous marriage. He has always, always always made his child support payments. After we got married, I took over paying the bills. I paid that before I made the house payment. I felt like if I was in her shoes, she counts on that money to feed the boy, and we need to make sure she gets it. When he was young DH saw him a few times a year, they lived quite some way from each other. But his ex always seemed to make it difficult to get him. Then as he got older, it wasn't cool to visit dad anymore. Well, he got into some trouble about 7 years ago, and we haven't seen him since. We have tried many times to find him and keep up the relationship, but he chose to leave our lives. Its a shame too, he has 2 half-sisters who would love to have a relationship with him.

 

[cardaway]

It would really suck if kids suffered because the divorce agreement was being broken, but people could just as easily look to the mom and why she doesn't allow the father to see the child rather than defaulting to asking why dad doesn't pay the support.

But they don't, people choose to look at it as all in the fathers lap because he feels he shouldn't have to hold up his end of the bargain when nobody else is doing the same.

 

[MELSMICE]

Subscribing because I find this topic interesting.

 

[bettyann29]

Personally I think the non custodial parent should pay child support no matter what.. Its a shame that some people do keep their children away from the other parent and the other side is that some parents hold the money over the other ones head..

Luckily I am on great terms with my ex husband.. I recvd child support every week for our 3 children.. Its not alot but it does help.. I never ask him for another penny for anything.. I have put 2 of them thru braces and never asked him to pay half although I have that right.. I pay for everything including school clothes, shoes, school supplies, all sports and extra activities, dr copays, medicines, and everything in between that they ask for.. Believe me the child support doesnt even cover it.. but even when he wasnt paying any support I never held the kids over his head.. He has had all along free access to them even when its not his weekend or holiday.. as long as I dont have anything planned.. No matter what he is their father.. I have never said a bad word about him, although I have stories.. but thats not my place.. as they grow up they will form their own opinions and form their own bond with him.. The one thing I have learned is since we have children, he will always be in the picture.. even when the kids are grown there will then be grandchildren.. Life is too short to keep the children away from their other parent..

Now DF's ex wife is another story... He pays an amount that I think is pretty high but thats because he makes good money.. He is pretty much supporting her.. Her husband doesnt work.. she works 3 days a week part time.. they live in her mothers house and I dont think they pay anything for it.. They live on welfare, etc.. They basically live off the child support and dont get what the kids need.. Df's daughter is now out of school so she doesnt get support for her, only DF's son.. She buys him at the most 2 school outfits.. he gets the choice whether he wants shoes or clothes .. doesnt take him to get eyes checked, etc.. the list goes on and on.. We end up buying these things for him on top of the child support that DF pays.. its quite ridiculous.. Part of it I know she does because she knows we will end up buying these things and she probably thinks this way she doesnt have to pay for them..

 

[VioltePrincess]

I beg to differ. The father should be able to stop payment until the situation is corrected. The child is already being hurt by both parents in these cases where the child is kep from seeing both parents. At least with the payments up in the air it puts the issue in both parents laps to solve rather than the father having no power.

you know, I only got a B+ in Family Law, and that was 20 years ago, and my field of expertise is in the commercial field, but I can't think of any state in the country where the laws are written to allow a custodial parent (yes, the laws on custody are gender neutral) to do what ever she wants.

divorce agreements are generally incorporated into the judgment granting the divorce, so each and every provision is the equivalent of a court order. and most agreements, at least where I practice, contain a severability clause (common in many sorts of contracts) which provide that breach of one provision of the ocntract does not nullify the contract or excuse performance of other portiions of the contract.

when I graduated from law school, the laws were gender neutral in terms of who would get custody and what rights each parent would have with respect to custody and visitation. the reality, though...at least where I practiced...was that judges who'd been on the bench forever had a preexisting bias in favor of custodial mothers. I think that's the real issue, enforcement. and as someone else pointed out, the tide in that respect is turning. some recent decisions from Illinois: http://1888elimidebt.com/feeder/demo_categories.php?zfcategory=chicago-child-visitation-lawyer

I had a tumuluous relationship with my ex when my girls were younger. and I know several single parents who have serious issues with an ex. my ex has a halfway decent relationship with his kids because about three years ago he sopped behaving like an idiot. my friend's ex, on the other hand, is on the verge of losing his visitation rights because of the way he treats the kids -- especially by putting them dead center in the middle of his dispute with their mother (and though he pays basic child support he doesn't pay the health care costs or child care costs the court ordered him to pay, which really doesn't go over well with a court).

 

[Belle0101]

If one parent withholds (either support or visitation) due to the other parent withholding ... well, 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Here's Indiana's official wording on the subject:
"To be financially supported by each parent, regardless of how much time each parent spends with the child."

and

"Withholding Support or Parenting time - Neither parenting time nor child support shall be withheld because of either parent's failure to comply with a court order. Only the court may enter sanctions for noncompliance. A child has the right both to support and parenting time, neither of which is dependent upon the other. If there is a violation of either requirement, the remedy is to apply to the court for appropiate sanctions."

and

"Injuctive Relief - Under Indiana law, a noncustodial parent who regularly pays support and is barred from parenting time by the custodial parent may file an application for an injunction to enforce parenting time under Ind. Code 31-17-4-4."

My DH was always on time with support and yet was repeatedly denied visitation. It's our opinion that his ex was upset that he moved on. She only started withholding after we married. He filed, she was reprimanded and it never happened again.

My son's father is more than $1000 behind in support and I have never withheld visitation. I know it would hurt my son. As to why he's behind - I don't really know. I do know that when I went through the report there was a pattern. He does not pay his support when we take vacations or when we have holiday time. Vacations and holidays are clearly spelled out in the visitation agreement, I'm not taking random days that I'm not allowed to take.

I did file because of his being behind, he was ordered to catch up and he's only fallen farther behind since then. The courts aren't going to like hearing that so he's hurting himself.

 

[mamatojon]

It would really suck if kids suffered because the divorce agreement was being broken, but people could just as easily look to the mom and why she doesn't allow the father to see the child rather than defaulting to asking why dad doesn't pay the support.

But they don't, people choose to look at it as all in the fathers lap because he feels he shouldn't have to hold up his end of the bargain when nobody else is doing the same.

I just look at it differently. I think the mother is "holding up her end of the bargain" because she is providing support for the child. She is completely and totally WRONG to withold the child from the father, but it really is two separate issues for me. Coming from a household that was split by divorce, if I had found out that my dad didn't pay his support I would have felt completely abandoned by him. It wouldn't have mattered to me *why* because that was the relationship between him and my mom, not between us as father/daughter.

My mom was often really negative about my dad and made things difficult for us sometimes, all that really did was turn me against her and made me feel sorry for my dad. If my dad started witholding support in retaliation, I would have been angry with both of them, but I would have looked at my mom and said "at least she provided for me". I think kids see things very simply like that.

 

[VioltePrincess]

I just look at it differently. I think the mother is "holding up her end of the bargain" because she is providing support for the child. She is completely and totally WRONG to withold the child from the father, but it really is two separate issues for me. Coming from a household that was split by divorce, if I had found out that my dad didn't pay his support I would have felt completely abandoned by him. It wouldn't have mattered to me *why* because that was the relationship between him and my mom, not between us as father/daughter.

My mom was often really negative about my dad and made things difficult for us sometimes, all that really did was turn me against her and made me feel sorry for my dad. If my dad started witholding support in retaliation, I would have been angry with both of them, but I would have looked at my mom and said "at least she provided for me". I think kids see things very simply like that.

it's good to have your perspective on this.

what I see with my teens...

when they were little their father and I would fight about parenting issues, and when they got to be tweens and teens they told us both to shut up.

when they wer elittle their father used to complain about the child support. then they'd come and ask me about the financial arrangements. they were very interested in who pays for what. and these days, they like to get thier father tp take them shopping. i suppose all teenage girls do that, but with mine, it's a bit more of a game...how much can I make daddy spend on me? and i ly the blame on how he reated his sipport obligation.

 

[poohandwendy]

Anyway, my question is this: If the parent who has legal custody makes it incredibly difficult ( or even impossible ) for the non custodial parent to ever have contact with their children, do you think the non custodial parent should contnue making child support payments?

Yes, emphatically YES.

but I also feel like if you ARE supporting your children you MUST be ENTITLED to have reasonable contact with them, UNLESS a court deems that you are not allowed to have contact with your kids.

You are, and if the custodial parent is making it impossible...then you must go to the court and deal with the issues.

IMO, you never, ever use money or visitation as a weapon. No matter which side you are on. Period.

FWIW, I had a father who didn't pay and a mother who made it impossible for him to see us. They were both wrong and their bitter power struggle affected my sisters and I greatly. It also affected the way we saw both of them, even now. (although my father is dead...my mother still isn't over the bitterness...go figure)

 

[poohandwendy]

But if he was stable, I wouldn't tie the visitation to the support. And my kids WOULDN'T know if he was behind in payments since that's NOT their problem.

AMEN and good for you.

 

[poohandwendy]

A divorce agreement is a single entity. People only want to start itemizing when they something to lose or gain.

If visitiation is part of that agreement, and one party is not holding up their part of deal, the whole agreement should be suspended until everything is corrected.

The law currently allowes dead beat moms to itemize agreements and that is why dads get the shaft.

I think that would be a perfect world, if the welfare of children wasn't being suspended in the middle of the mess.

Visitation is not a perk for a non-custodial parent, it is for the welfare of the children. Children should not have to have their relationship with the non-custodial parent 'suspended' until money issues are worked out.

If the non-custodial parent is not supporting the children financially, the children depend on the custodial parent to go to court to take care of the issue, asap. And if the custodial parent is withholding visitation, the children depend on the non-custodial parent to go to the courts asap to recify the situation.

It is a crying shame that parents need a judge to remind them of the emotional and financial welfare of their own children...but there it is. People who use these things as weapons should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[mamatojon]

Visitation is not a perk for a non-custodial parent, it is for the welfare of the children. Children should not have to have their relationship with the non-custodial parent 'suspended' until money issues are worked out.

This is so what I mean - and I didn't really express it well before. In the reverse I would feel the same way - my cousin's ex doesn't pay a dime in support, works all under the table since she garnished his wages once, when the kids are there she has to buy the groceries, etc. etc. but I would never in a million years say to her that she should not let them see him or make it difficult for him to have visitiation. She even drives them to and from his house because he doesn't have gas money or something. I really respect her for all of that, she facilitiates the only relationship that her kids can have with their dad, and never uses them as pawns to get what really is rightfully coming to her per the divorce decree. Neither visitation nor support should ever be used as a weapon, the only ones hurt are the kids.

 

[cardaway]

The situation could be easily solved by the third parties holding BOTH parents accountable for the disputes, but since that will never happen, men will continue to get the shaft.

The term dead beat dad has no meaning as long as the public refuses to hold the ex wives EQUALLY accountable.

 

[C.Ann]

The situation could be easily solved by the third parties holding BOTH parents accountable for the disputes, but since that will never happen, men will continue to get the shaft.

The term dead beat dad has no meaning as long as the public refuses to hold the ex wives EQUALLY accountable.

--------------------------

When my late DH and his wife divorced they had 5 children.. The youngest wasn't even a year old - the oldest had just turned 12.. When his ex left, she left the children with him and he raised them on his own for 8 and a half years with not so much as a dime from his former wife.. Eventually she remarried (to a wealthy man) and went to court to gain custody of the children.. Because she and her new husband would be able to provide a "much more comfortable lifestyle for the children" she was granted custody and child support from my DH equal to half of his weekly pay.. My DH's attorney made an attempt to have the court order that the former wife reimburse my DH for all the years that he was the sole provider, but the motion was not allowed.. Once she won her custody suit, she made it extremely difficult for him to see his children - usually only once a year - and he was not allowed to take his children for the day unless he took her stepchildren as well.. It wasn't a pleasant situation, but it was what it was..

Never did my DH refuse to pay his child support and never did he refuse to take his ex wife's stepchildren so that he could see his own.. Every Friday he went right from work to the court house to pay his support.. This went on until the youngest child turned 21 (she was in college).. The notion of punishing his children for the actions of his former wife never even crossed his mind..

Refusing to pay child support based on the lack of visitation is punishing the child for the actions of the parents.. Dress it up any way you like, but it doesn't make it right and never will..

Things are much different now.. I know more divorced parents who are equally financially responsible for support than not - and many, many couples who share custody of their children - which includes shared living arrangements, the need to make joint decisions regarding education, the splitting of medical and dental expenses, and on and on.. I also know many men who have primary custody of their children and are receiving child support from their ex-wives..

The notion of men "always getting the shaft" is quickly becoming a thing of the past..