I attended a couple of father’s rights meetings once, just to see. The ones I attended consisted mainly of men complaining – with, I should add, amazing bitterness – that they ought to be able to, you know, get a to-the-penny accounting of how child support money was spent. And maybe a line-item veto option. Not that they were interested in trying to control their ex’s lives or anything.
I was reminded of that reading Trish Wilson’s blog; Trish has been doing a lot of top-notch blogging on father’s rights misogyny lately (just go to her September 2004 archives and scroll). My favorite was this Guardian article on “Father4Justice,” a sort of support group for British divorced dads who like dressing up as Batman and hanging out on ledges. Here’s a sample:
Since children are not, as Lord Falconer has pointed out, to be divided up like CD collections, it is not terribly surprising that when these cases go to court many more parents profess themselves unhappy with the outcome. They must have been pretty unhappy before they got there. Those of us who have never been through one of these ghastly battles like to point out, the more piously the better, that such parents really ought to put personal animosity aside. But if they can’t, the courts will have to do it for them; occasionally deciding that shared parenting, in this battleground, may no longer be the best outcome. Even so, where parents go to court for contact, only 0.8% are refused. But this sort of objection is unlikely to make much difference to the F4J men’s approval ratings, at least while mothers seem so reluctant to dress up as cartoon figures and throw purple condoms at people.
Just as impressive is an American group, Equal Rights for Divorced Fathers. Are they misogynistic? Well, their t-shirt (sold to raise funds) bears the motto “Trust No Bitch.” Their founder likes to tell jokes like “What do you tell a wife who has two black eyes? Nothing, you told her twice already.” And that’s just for starters. What’s frightening is, at least until recently courts routinely referred fathers to this group. Trish has more.
Gosh, line-by-line accounting of how a woman they’re not married to any longer is spending money she is owed by him? What next–our employers get a breakdown of how we spend our salaries?
And of course, it does give one pause to realize that if these men had learned a long time ago that this kind of controlling behavior is wrong, they might not have had their wives finally throw in the towel and leave.
What next–our employers get a breakdown of how we spend our salaries?
Don’t give them any ideas, Amanda. :/
finding misogyny in the father’s rights movement?
is that a step up, or step down, from finding one’s ass with both hands?
I think one down from “waldo, if waldo were alone in an emply, well lit room, and he were 30 feet tall and holding a neon sign that said ‘waldo'”
I don’t think it should be a surprise to find bitterness and anger in organized groups resulting from polarizing political processes. If there’s an implicit assertion that there’s a lack of bitterness among women’s groups or that it is in any way lesser in women’s groups than it is in men’s groups, perhaps the assertion should be stated explicitly, or even transformed into an argument backed by facts.
As to the contention of “controlling lives,” I believe the child support is intended for the support of children. This is what differentiates the term “child support” from “spousal maintenance.” If someone were demanding for an itemization of spousal maintenance, the claim of “controlling lives” would hold some water.
More troubling here is the implicit assumption that the mother should have virtually complete control of the parenting process while the “father” has virtually no rights or control as a parent.
The only analogue I can think of with an equivalent loss of rights is the case in which people put their children up for adoption. In such cases, parents forfeit their legal rights as parents and with that forfeiture of rights also goes the attendent financial responsibilities.
In the case of divorced fathers, however, what seems to be the case is loss of parental rights similar to what you see with adoption; yet at the same time, the father is left with greatly increased and often nearly full financial responsibility. His only options are compliance or imprisonment. Here I find a rather stark contrast with the adoptive case.
A good way to test the reasonableness of a position is to look at the extent to which the position relies on demonization. Both here and on Trish Wilson’s blog, we’ve seen the worst examples in the opposition they’ve found so far with very little mention of the other more mainstream groups working to reform the family law system.
I’ve seen a spectrum of situations. I’ve seen fathers who are truly atrocious examples of human beings, and I’ve seen mothers who are truly atrocious examples of human beings. I’ve also seen parents of both sexes worthy of a would-be Nobel Prize for parenting.
The problem with demonizing one’s opposition is that it requires a broad brush, a brush so broad in fact, that it invariably paints over demons and angels and everything in between all the same. Over time, the injustices accumulate. When enough injustice has accumulated, change will come.
My husband was married to his ex-wife for seven years. She chose to stay home with their two sons before she had an affair and divorced him. Because she had been a stay at home mom, she received full custody of the boys. She also convinced the courts to let her move the children 250 miles away so she could be closer to her parents.
The amount she receives in child support from my husband is unbelievable. In addition to paying 30% of each paycheck for child support, my husband also has to pay all of their medical and dental bills and half of the day care expenses. She has no mortgage payments (her very wealthy parents bought her a very nice house), and no car payments. I cannot fathom how she is spending all of this child support money “on the kids”.
Meanwhile, my husband is forced to drive a ridiculous distance in order to see his kids every other weekend. He feels very uninvolved in their lives as he cannot attend school plays or conferences during the week. He gets no say in what school they go to, what activities they are involved in, or how many hours they should be in daycare. He had to live in a small apartment before we married because with his child support payments, he could not qualify for a mortgage on his own.
I am also divorced with two children. I knew the courts in my county would award me sole custody if I pushed it, but I chose to avoid court and use a mediator. I also chose to share custody with my ex, who is a great dad. We live a mile away from each other and split everything–from money to time–fairly in half. It’s so painful to be without my children half the time, and difficult to parent with my ex sometimes, but I feel good about my decision to do the right thing, to be a fair human being.
Are there abusive men who should not be awarded custody? Of course. Are there men who leave their families and shirk their financial responsibilities? Yes. But, not all men are those men. A lot of good dads are getting screwed by this completely biased system that creates the sort of animosity we’re seeing in some of these father’s rights groups.
My husband is a great dad. He misses his kids. He has no say in anything and is forced to give his ex-wife a ridiculous amount of money which she spends on vacations for herself. He is incredibly angry at a system that allows women to take children away from their fathers, and I don’t blame him.
Sabrina:
With all due respect, if I could hear your husband’s ex-wife’s version of the story, do you think it would be exactly like the story you just told, or would their be differences?
I don’t understand why it is custodial parents are bad people if they move. Why can’t the non-custodial parent move to be closer to the kids’ new home? And if she or he is unwilling to be flexible about where they live – or if their life circumstances means that it makes vastly more sense for them to live in a particular place – then how can they blame the custodial parent for a similar lack of flexibility?
Regarding high child support payments: Your husband may have overly high child support payments, but if so, he’s not average. To paraphrase an older post of mine:
Ideally, the noncustodial parent should be paying half or more of the costs of raising a child in a reasonable middle-class lifestyle. (After all, the noncustodial parent, not having to raise the kid(s), has more time to devote to a career). There’s certainly no reason for him or her (but let’s face it, usually him) to pay less than half; the custodial parent is already doing nearly all of the work, so it’s unfair to have her (or him, etc) pick up most of the costs as well.
But that’s exactly what typically happens. According to the U.S. Census (pdf file), the average child support award due a custodial parent in 1997 was $4200, or $350 per month. However, even the most optimistic estimates suggest that only 80% of that actually gets paid – so the real average figure may be $3360 a year or lower. In comparison, an average middle-income family spends $8,500 a year taking care of an infant – and the expense goes up as the child grows older. (See “Expenditures on Children by Families” in Family Economics and Nutrition Review vol 12 1999 p. 56-74).
So in the best-case scenario – full payment, only one infant – slightly under half of what it costs to raise a child in a middle-class lifestyle will be covered by child support.
Of course, in real life, it’s not always the best-case scenario. What if a middle-income couple had three children? In that case, child support payments – if paid in full – will only cover one-quarter of expenses. (see “Do child support awards cover the cost of raising children?,” in Family Economics & Nutrition Review, v11 1998 p29-40).
Finally, of course I’ve never claimed that all noncustodial parents are bad fathers, or anything even close to that. I do think the father’s rights movement is hopelessly distorted by misogyny, but of course most divorced dads aren’t members of father’s rights groups.
Finally, I think you’re very wrong to imagine that there wouldn’t be animosity and bitter divorces if only we had a better divorce system.
Finally, I think you’re very wrong to imagine that there wouldn’t be animosity and bitter divorces if only we had a better divorce system.
Amen.
I’m a little puzzled at the idea that Sabrina’s husband’s ex wife spends “all” the money on vacations. Are the children not fed? Are they running around naked? I understand the childern’s granparents seem to have bought their daughter a home (which, I suspect would be a factor in persuading their daughter to live near them)… but why should their dispense the father of an obligation to support his kids. Doesn’t the home get heated? Is there a phone bill? Internet? Cable TV? Do the kids use this? Is that being paid by someone?
The grandparents are generous, but why not look at the expenditures this way: Your husband provides money for his childrens’ expenses– that is, he supports them. Their grandparents give gifts to their daughter (and likely grandchildern) which make it possible for her to take vacations. She’s not spending HIS money on vacations. She’s spending her parents’ gift money on vacations.
I have no particular problem with moveaways in most cases, but I do think for the sake of fairness the moving parent should have to pay at least half the transportation costs incident to visitation–one might even reasonably argue that the CP should pay all of the transportation costs.
I’m not sure how I feel about this whole issue. It does seem somehow unfair that one partner gets custody of the children, money for support from the other partner, and the freedom to move wherever he or she pleases. It seems like one partner gets all the control and the other none.
On the other hand, I also know that laws that give a non-custodial parent the right to veto (or challenge) a move by the custodial parent often end up getting used to punish the custodial parent or to prevent the custodial parent from moving away from the non-custodial parent’s sphere of control, control backed up often by intimidation, threats of violence, and actual violence.
And that for every abuse of child support laws by the custodial parent there are ten abuses of child support laws by the non-custodial parent, and a hundred cases of non-payment or by the non-custodial parent. Since the system already fails the custodial parent much more often than the non-custodial parent, how do you fix the system to prevent unfairness to the non-custodial parent without making the system even worse for the non-custodial parent?
I dunno.
However, in response to just a guy, I think that wanting to a line-by-line accounting of how child support money is spent is definitely about control.
It is the court’s job to impartially set the amount one should pay in child support, because we, as a society, recognize that angry people will likely want to hurt the other person and not make reasonable choices. As in many other cases, one of the parties in the court case is likely to be angry with the court’s judgment or disagree with it, reasonably or unreasonably. It is also frustrating, I am sure, that the court exercises the control over what happens instead of the non-custodial parent. No one likes to lose control of their life and money, even if it is a consequence of their own actions.
But, ff the non-custodial parent feels the amount of support is truly unfair, he or she can go to court to try to have it changed. Going to court is the method of redress for grievances. If the problem is simply unfairness in the settlement, we, as a society, trust the court to remedy the unfairness. But it still doesn’t give the non-custodial parent control. The fact that Fathers4Justice wants a line-by-line accounting and veto power over child support instead of reform of (what they perceive to be) an unfair court system, demonstrates that what they really want is control. It is a very human thing to want to control things in your life, including other people. But that doesn’t make it right.
Look at it this way: What these men are proposing is that the custodial parent make his or her best judgments about what the children need. And provide for those needs. And then meekly ask the non-custodial parent to pay for those needs, with the danger that the non-custodial parent will come in later, make a different judgment about what the kids need, and stick the custodial parent with the bill. The non-custodial parent can now control the custodial parent. “If you do X, I won’t pay for those shoes you bought for Timmy.” The non-custodial parent can refuse to pay for things out of hurt or anger, forcing the custodial parent to try to avoid hurting or angering the non-custodial parent. That’s a form of control.
This also gives the non-custodial parent complete control over what the kids do and do not need, even though the custodial parent is the one who is responsible for the kids day in and day out. So, the custodial parent gets to do all the work raising the kids, while the non-custodial parent gets to sit back and make all the decisions about what the kids do and do not need? That’s not about control?
There is also an implicit assumption in this logic that it is still the non-custodial parent’s money after it is given over in child-support. It’s not. The custodial parent is supposed to spend the money on the child, but that is for the court to enforce, not for the non-custodial parent. As soon as the money leaves the non-custodial parent’s account it is no longer his or her money any more than the money you pay for your car payment is yours after you pay it. You no longer have any rights over that money. The court does.
“Fathers4Justice” should really be “Fathers for controlling and punishing their ex-wives.” While I do not doubt that some fathers get screwed in custody and child support decrees, I think that number is much, much lower than the number of fathers who want to control and stick it to their ex-wives.
I am unimpressed by the sorts of people who run and make up the mainstay of father’s rights groups. Whiners, each and every one. My divorced brother took one look at those folks and walked quickly in the other direction. Second wive’s groups are similar, with the interesting feature that they can’t imagine themselves as ex-wives getting trashed by their husbands.
Why is it that hundreds of couples split up without high-priced lawyers, continue to support their children, continue to see their children? Are these folks freaks, or merely responsible adults? Don’t look to litigants to find the most healthy examples of humanity.
Pretty much just grown-ups, Nancy–people who suck it up and get along for the sake of their children. My parents pulled it off. Granted, their marriage fell apart due to growing apart and not infidelity or abuse or anything like that.
Amp, is there a link to that article about the costs of raising a child? That sounds like an interesting read. We spend less than $3000 a year on our infant and toddler combined–but we’re fortunate that we don’t live in a terribly expensive area and don’t have to rely on daycare.
And Sabrina, kudos to you and your ex for the way you’ve worked together for the best interests of your kids. If there were more parents like you, millions of dollars could be going into college savings funds and not into the lawyers’ pockets.
The difference between child support and a car payment is that you are not arrested and put in jail if you don’t make your car payment. Since the awarding of child support is based on a non-negotiable court judgement based solely on salary and does not take into consideration other expenses, I can understand why the payer of the support questions why he must pay an arbitrary amount with no accountability by the custodial parent on how it is spent. Married parents can decide how much or how little they can spend on their children (to a minimum standard of sustenance of course) and have flexibility to take into account unexpected expenses, etc. What is an obvious indictment of the child support system is when wealthy men are made to give tens of thousands a month in child support. There is no circumstance where that much is necessary to provide the required food, shelter and clothing to raise a child. It is a figure mandated by the court based solely on income, not need. It has been argued that the child is to be raised in the style to which he is accustomed, but how does that justify huge increases if the ex-husband makes a large fortune after the divorce? On the other side, there is a mandatory minimum that is awarded even if the non-custodial spouse is jobless, which in this economy is devastating.
Regarding Amperand’s note: If the child support award was typically $350 a month, I don’t think you’d hear much yelling about it. It’s more like $800 or $1000 a month. That’s a big bite to pay without any accountability on how (or if) it’s used to support your child.
SillyMe, I have a choice between taking the word of the U.S. Census, or taking your word, for how much an average child support payment is. Now, it’s definitely possible that the US Census is wrong, but I’ll need more than your word to convince me of that.
You seem to think it’s unjust that a rich man pays a lot of money to support his family’s lifestyle, rather than letting his children live without all the advantages he has. I don’t agree. Parents – including noncustodial parents – are obligated to take care of their children to the best of their ability. So if someone gets rich after the marriage has ended, what is defined as “to the best of their ability” changes – now they have to pay 10,000 a month, rather than 400 – but the obligation does not.
It’s sad that noncustodial parents sometimes feel conflicted between the (often genuinely hard) task of meeting their family obligations, and the also-hard task of paying for all their other bills, unexpected expenses, etc. However, that conflict – hard as it is – is not unique to noncustodial parents. Parents with custody – and, for that matter, parents who have never divorced at all – face that exact same conflict commonly. It’s hard, but since all other parents have to face up to it, I don’t see why we should make an exception for noncustodial parents.
Finally, if you think the typical child-support ower gets thrown in jail immediately if he (or she) ever misses a payment, then you’re being unrealistic.
The University of Minnesota has a cost calculator to determine the cost of raising a child. I did a quick tally, and got $440/month for the monthly cost of a child between the age of 0-2 year olds living with a lower income single parent. That’s $5280/year. (I have no idea how a low income single parent of a 2 year old would get away with only $42/ month in child care costs. $18/month for health costs also sounds like the worksheet assumes the family has health insurance to pick up the rest of the costs. I’m under the impression $18/month wouldn’t cover infants doctor visits.)
That’s pretty much the lowest number the worksheet comes up with.
Amanda>>Gosh, line-by-line accounting of how a woman they’re not married to any longer is spending money she is owed by him?>>
“She” is owed as a “trustee” for the best interests of the child. Trust accounting is distinguished from commercial accounting in as much as commercial accounting is meant to reveal profitability, whereas trust accounting is “responsibility” accounting; that is, the trustee has a responsibility to disclose how the funds are spent. The obligation goes to the beneficiary, not the “grantor.” However, since the beneficiary is a minor in this case, the obligation would go to the beneficiary’s parents.
In theory then, it makes sense that the NCP (and the CP) would be due an accounting. However, what is revealing about the advocates of this position is that they only consider the possibility that their money isn’t being used for the child; that is, that they’re paying too much. There’s another possibility: they’re paying too little. I haven’t heard them say that they’d obligate themselves to paying more if the accounting reveals that it’s called for. In other words, the only legitimate reason to do an accounting is to use it to determine the amount of the payment.
They also haven’t discussed such issues as what are allowable expenses, what are proper allocation methods, and who’s going to pay for this accounting (presumably there will have to be some kind of independent verification).
Let’s say that I’m the CP and I spend $5,000 on a plasma TV and let’s say the standard for allowable expenses is “ordinary and necessary.” Now, I can argue that under the standards of our society a TV is necessary to stay connected with the world. So I’ve met the necessary standard. But, is a $5,000 TV ordinary? $1,000? $500?
Once we’ve established the standard for ordinary, we’d then have to consider the very likely possibility that the useful life of the TV might exceed the remaining period of my obligation as an NCP. Let’s say my kid is 14 and there are 4 years left on my obligation on the date the TV is purchased. Now, let’s say the TV has an expected useful life of 10 years. As such, there will 4 years of countable use by the kid out of 10, so only 40% is subject to allocation.
Now, how do we allocate use when both me and my kid use the TV? If the kid watches 9 hours per day and I only one, shall be conclude that 90% of the cost is allocable to the kid or shall we conclude that I’m being derelict in my duties as a parent by letting her watch too much TV? What’s the proper standard here?
This is ugly and these are issues these advocates haven’t even considered. While a true trust accounting method is undoubtedly the best method in the theoretical sense, it’s beyond impractical. If we tried to enforce this, it would make our tax laws look simple.
Lucia>>I did a quick tally, and got $440/month for the monthly cost of a child between the age of 0-2 year olds living with a lower income single parent. >>
I did my own tally for two kids 8 and 11, upper income, and got $2,273 per month. That comes to $27,276 per year. While yours seems ridiculously low, mine seems high. Why does it cost 5 times as much for 2 kids as 1?
8 and 11 is how old the kids were at the time of separation. I kept track for 1 year of the costs and it came to $17,000. I paid careful attention to my allocation methods. For example, we paid $1,300 for rent. I checked out ads for rents on places suitable for 1 person in the same area and of the same quality and determined that I could rent a place on my own for $1,000. So I allocated the difference, $300, to the cost of having the kids.
I only allocated about 10% of the utility bills to the kids because utilities really don’t cost much more for 3 people than 1. I allocated 2/3s of the grocery bill to the kids because they eat at least as much as I do (there’s an understatement).
The $17,000 is after taxes. Before taxes, I figured I had to make about $22,000 to clear $17,000, even with the tax benefits that inure to taxpayers with kids. For a lower income taxpayer there would be more tax benefits and that would certainly account for some of the difference but not enough to account for their 5/1 ratio.
But the cost doesn’t stop there. As Amp noted, the CP has to devote time to the kids that the NCP doesn’t and this time takes away from money-making time. I have some measure of that, too.
When I became a single parent I decided that the kids would not go to child care – they would come home from school and be taken care of by one who loves them. This means I couldn’t go to work until about 8:30 and I had to leave work about 2. This meant no full-time job. My earnings consisted of part-time jobs and projects. A couple of years ago I decided they were old enough (14 and 17) to come home and tend to themselves for a couple of hours so I could get a full-time job. My income is now 75% higher than it was two years ago.
Make no mistake. Kids are really expensive.
A lot of good dads are getting screwed by this completely biased system that creates the sort of animosity we’re seeing in some of these father’s rights groups.
Somehow, I don’t think the guys making jokes about beating women and wearing “Trust No Bitch” T-shirts were exactly warm, generous individuals *before* the divorce.
And yes, line-by-line accounting is control freakiness. My partner is the stay-at-home parent. I don’t demand that he show me the price tags on the kids’ clothes, or hold up the grocery bill for inspection, because it’s My Money and I Have A Right To Determine How It’s Spent, etc. etc. ad nauseum. That would be control-freaky. Why should that change if we got divorced?
As Amp noted, the CP has to devote time to the kids that the NCP doesn’t and this time takes away from money-making time.
Separate post because Pasatiempo made such an important point. Being the primary caretaker is a major opportunity cost for making money–especially if one has already been a stay-at-home parent.
For those in the UK, there’s a special on Monday at 9pm on Channel 4 about the Fathers4Justice group, “Dads Army: The Men Who Stormed the Palace”. Before that, an interview with Bob Geldof, the Sunday Times has an article about it, you’ve got to love this quote:
We’re all encouraged to put work first and domestic matters such as our families and our relationships second — and those who don’t are regarded with suspicion . . . have we completely lost the idea of home being important? “You know when you come home . . . and she’s doing something nice, like making a meal or something, I don’t know if its just me, it’s so feminine, it’s so sexy.”
This from a millionaire celebrity who married another millionaire celebrity who later divorced him to marry another millionaire celebrity, and let’s not talk of how they ended up. We should all take life lessons from these people. Possibly, also take their money and their nannies and caterers, so we could all appreciate the sexy homely life more properly.
I do admire his activism for the situation in Africa though.
Being the primary caretaker is a major opportunity cost for making money–especially if one has already been a stay-at-home parent.
Comparing the “joys” of the workplace where you get to have the pleasures of:
a.) surviving the corporate jungle – jostling for position to keep your job – against others in an environment of downsizing
b.) being accountable for your performance ***every day***. Being controlled by a boss ***every day***. Being told how to do your job ***every day***. Being able to be fired and stripped of your livelihood ***every day***, with no warning.
Yah – they are the same thing. Making money and being a stay at home parent. I wonder how many stay-at-home parents today asked their partner if their partner wanted to stay home instead. Really. Be honest.
I know it ain’t nirvana. I know there are days where kids are frustrating. The routine can and does get tiresome. But at least you have some measure of control over your day. Most wage-slaves – even the white collar ones, do not.
Many of these people asking for accountability are white collar guys who, after they get home from a business trip, have to account for every penny they spent on the road, down to the bagels and coffee they had for breakfast. Given that as a norm they experience – I do not see the argument as something that radical.
In most cases, support accounting would be a non-issue, since the average support agreement is, in fact, around $300 and change per month. This is really only an issue for the very high income cases – the $1000/month and up cases, which is certainly a minority of the whole. As the stakes get higher, the justification for accountability becomes higher, since the opportunity for fraud increases.
You seem to think it’s unjust that a rich man pays a lot of money to support his family’s lifestyle, rather than letting his children live without all the advantages he has. I don’t agree. Parents – including noncustodial parents – are obligated to take care of their children to the best of their ability. So if someone gets rich after the marriage has ended, what is defined as “to the best of their ability” changes – now they have to pay 10,000 a month, rather than 400 – but the obligation does not.
Actually, parents that are married are not legally obligated to do any more than feed and clothe their kids to minimum standards. You don’t see the police going through gated communities asking for tax forms and income statements, then examining expenditures to see if the $1500/month they spend on their kids is up to snuff with their $500K annual income – and fining or putting them in prison of they don’t measure up. Furthermore, not everyone would agree – in fact – quite a few people would vehemently disagree, that indulging kids in proportion to your income, particularly as income goes to $100K and northward, is even good for kids. By throwing more money at them (or indulging their every want) – you may do more harm than good (we used to call this “spoiling children”).
Some states even codify this practice by capping child support at an upper limit (Nevada, for example). Other states have a declining percentage as the basic support amount as income rises (Oregon, Michigan, and some other income share states come to mind). The contention that obligations rise with income, particularly beyond middle income, is simply not true in many, perhaps most states.
I see all this talk about maniacal fathers who want to control their ex wives line by line and are whining about paying money, but isnt it equally possible that what a lot of that need for accountability comes from the fact that a lot of WOMEN are punishing their ex husbands by squeezing out as much money as possible?
There are several talk shows on the radio that do topics on this all the time and it would make you sick to hear about how much these guys have to pay out of what they make a month and how theres absolutely zero accountability for how the money is spent. When they do get to see their kids, they show up without those basic necessities that you seem to think fathers would deny, like new clothes or shoes even.
A call in radio show is of course, not statistical evidence, but i dont think you guys are allowing for the fact that there ARE women out there who abuse the system and spend money on themselves that should be going to the kids.
I realize that to support a child, the mother has to have a few basic necessities themselves, but i can also see how it would be really disconcerting for a man to have X amount of dollars taken from him and given to the mother and have no idea if that money ever really reaches the kids in any tangible way, beyond paying for gas to take the kids to school or buying them food.
Do they get taken out for movies, or get a toy or game once in awhile? Who knows? We certainly dont and because of all the bitterness on both sides that everyone has identified, any attempt to find out, such as what you deem an unreasonable request to see an invoice of how our CHILD support money really is spent on a child, is seen as controling and accusing.
Some things that are child support really do need to be spent on the mother, such as groceries, or gas, or heating or rent or whatever, but i think a lot of the frustration stems from the fact that we JUST DONT KNOW. Sending money into a black hole will make anyone nervous and paraoid. And theres just enough worst case senarios being broadcast out there that it could be making men paranoid.
Simple accountability would go a long way to easing everyones problems. Veto power by the paying party is probably rediculous, but a basic invoice saying, “your $350 a month (which seems way low to me based on what i hear, none the less, even that would crush me based on what i make) is spent on X, X, X” would help a lot, IMO.
Souraaron, although I don’t believe in line-by-line accounting–it’s too cumbersome and would produce a lot more family court litigation, of which we already have enough–I think you make a good point about the notion that children are “entitled” to a certain lifestyle because of their parents’ incomes. My husband and I provide comfortably but simply for our small children, because we know they will get more expensive as time goes by and we are taking advantage of the opportunity we have now to save as much as possible for the future while they are blissfully ignorant of designer labels, how originally their nurseries are decorated, and which toy is “hot” at the moment. If someone out there “required” us to spend exactly 20% or more of our income on them right now, their financial prospects for college and ours for retirement would certainly suffer. While I do not favor accounting, I do support cs caps for the very wealthy and/or graduated reductions in child support percentages as income rises above a certain amount. Otherwise I think we get away from the original purpose of cs which is to provide for basic needs.
Gosh, I just had no idea that the wealthy had it so hard. Maybe we can take up a collection for them.
:::sob:::
Interesting that so many people here think there’s nothing wrong with a wealthy man giving his children just enough to live on like it was a welfare payment. Stupid lazy kids not working and acting like they should have new shoes just because dad bought himself a Jaguar.
And David, I agree–the fathers’ rights activists are nervous and paranoid that they don’t know what their ex-wives are doing every minute and that they don’t have control over that anymore. But where I don’t agree with you is on the subject that these stalker-ish tendencies are justifiable because they have to write a check over. A lot of them wouldn’t be in this situation (divorced, no custody) if they hadn’t been so controlling of their wives to begin with.
I doubt you would much like it if you had to itemize your day for someone else’s perusal.
Many people, I’m sure, are not clear on the peculiarities of English law regarding custody. The fathers4justice are not overtly out to decrease support payments. In fact, their largest grievences stem from an English ruling that the mother can end or prevent a visitation if it causes her anxiety or depression. Consequently, they claim, there are hundreds of fathers throughout England that haven’t seen their kids since the divorce. I would think that we can agree that is unreasonable. Further, they are calling for specific changes in the law that will guarantee them visitation rights. I suppose that’ll teach you to have checks and balances (the judges come from the House of Lords, vestigally part of the legislative branch).
I dont look at it as stalkerish at all in most cases. Taken to an extreme i suppose, but a guy being upset because he has money taken from him every month and when(If) he gets to see his kids, he cant see if any of the money is getting to him isnt stalkerish. At its best, its him being a concerned parent, at its worst, its him being pissed off because his ex wife is spending his money on her when its not for her.
If i was getting a check from someone for a specific reason then i dont think its unreasonable to assume i might have to account for HOW i actually spend it. Im not avoccating a store by store line by line reciept or anything, but a basic invoice would probably ease a lot of minds and encourage a bit of adult responsibility between the two parties.
And i dont think its fair to make that kind of assertion as to why these men are divorced now. I realize this is a pro-feminist site, so your views might be a little slanted one way or the other, but lets not forget that regardless of WHY two people get divorced, generally speaking, whoever makes the most money ends up paying child support and such regardless of if they were “so controlling” as you put it.
Maybe they were abusive, or maybe they cheated, or maybe the OTHER person cheated and they just decided they didnt want to be married any more. The point is, its irrelevant to my argument.
The way i see it, the money that i have to pay in child support (I being figurative in this case, i dont have a ex wife or kids) is given to the wife in trust to provide my kids with the things they need and help her put a roof over their heads and such.
If i could give it to the kids, i would, but they arent adults and cant use the money resonsibly, even if they wanted to (how can a kid get a utility bill?). So im forced to give it to her because shes the adult and they are minors. Therefore, i expect that money to be used in their best interests. If they show up to visit me with frayed clothes and worn out shoes while my ex wife drives a $40,000 SUV, thats not right.
If they show up to visit me with frayed clothes and worn out shoes while my ex wife drives a $40,000 SUV, thats not right.
You know, I was a well-off kid and my parents were married, and yet I still ran around in frayed, torn jeans and sneakers that were falling apart, because I liked my torn jeans and my cruddy sneakers and refused to wear the much nicer clothes my parents bought me.
I understand that’s not the sort of situation you mean, but I can’t resist nit-picking at your example. Just because a kid is in torn jeans doesn’t mean she’s deprived. :-)
More seriously, if someone wants to allege serious neglect – “the mother is wearing designer gowns to opera shows while the malnourished kids aren’t even getting reaosnable necessities” – then place to allege neglect is with child services, and with the courts.
That – not a monthly accounting which (unless you’re demanding that the custodial parent provide receipts) could be fiction for all you know – is what should be done in cases of serious neglect.
My guess is that most of the men aren’t willing to complain because they know, in their hearts, that there is no serious claim of neglect; or that they have complained, social services checked it out, and discovered a perfectly ordinary chlid-spending pattern without signs of neglect.
* * *
Like Amanda, I think parents – including noncustodial parents of either sex – have a responibility to give their children the best life they can reasonably afford to give them. Rich people who resent supporting their families get no sympathy from me.
Im kind of suprised at how dismissive you guys are toward the idea that there might be parents (Ill avoid locking it down to just women in the spirit of nongender bias that i see bantered about on this site so often) who use child support to screw the other parent over and actually ARENT spending the child support money the correct way, to the benefit of the child.
While I also agree that i have no sympathy for rich people who resent paying tens of thousands of dollars for child support just because they can afford it, it seems to me that the more money a person has to pay for child support, the less likely it is that the majority of that money gets spent directly to the benefit of the child.
Unless you are buying your kid plasma tvs and designer clothes and all sorts of lavish gifts all the time, its much more likely that a lot of that money goes to the mom to spend as SHE sees fit.
Just because I make six figures and can afford to spend a lot of money on child support, doesnt mean that my ex wife should get a huge house in an expensive neighborhood for her and our 2 kids where most of my child support check goes to paying her morgage or property tax or whatever.
As far as calling social services goes, wouldnt that fall right into amanda’s trap of “hes harrassing me” and end up getting a restrainging order filed against the dad most likely. And i think ive seen enough foster care gone horribly wrong stories in the news to know that social services sometimes dont do their jobs correctly.
This issue can fragment into a lot of different areas, but the bottom line is, from friends i have and stories that ive heard on various programs and a little bit of my inference, this frustration and paranoia and comes from the limited rights that the non-custodial parent can sometimes end up with in a divorce and when that child support check is taken, its often a large sum of money that hurts us financially and causes resentment, and the salt in the wound is that the money dissapears into a black hole where we are told that as long as our children have a house and arent dead, its none of our business how the money is spent.
and Amp, ive seen you chew apart better arguments than im making without resorting to nit-picking someones point just to make it seem foolish. That almost makes me feel like im onto something.
Just because I make six figures and can afford to spend a lot of money on child support, doesnt mean that my ex wife should get a huge house in an expensive neighborhood for her and our 2 kids where most of my child support check goes to paying her morgage or property tax or whatever.
What if the kids stay unborn fetuses for twenty or thirty years ? Is it okay for them to live as lavishly as the Dad does in that case ?
Yeesh.
David P: Im kind of suprised at how dismissive you guys are toward the idea that there might be parents (Ill avoid locking it down to just women in the spirit of nongender bias that i see bantered about on this site so often) who use child support to screw the other parent over and actually ARENT spending the child support money the correct way, to the benefit of the child.
I wasn’t dismissing it. I’m sure there are parents of all kinds, including custodial parents recieving child support payments, who neglect their children. I just think that the appropriate thing to do, if you suspect such a thing is happening, is to report the person to child services (or family services or whatever it’s called in your state).
I don’t see how demanding a broad accounting of where the money goes will solve or prevent neglect, since someone who’s so depraved that they seriously neglect their child while spending lavishly on themselves would surely be wiliing to lie about it.
What I don’t see is you taking seriously the very real problem of some non-custodial fathers (and it is mostly fathers, in my experience) wanting to be controlling of their ex-wives.
Just because I make six figures and can afford to spend a lot of money on child support, doesnt mean that my ex wife should get a huge house in an expensive neighborhood for her and our 2 kids where most of my child support check goes to paying her morgage or property tax or whatever.
Being raised in an expensive neighborhood provides huge advantages; better schools, better parks, access to nature, the ability for kids to play and ride their bikes around in safety, peers who will generally be going on to high-quality colleges, etc.. I don’t think that you can reasonably argue that it doesn’t make a difference how expensive a neighborhood a family is raised in.
The fact is, if you want the kids to live in the best neighborhood that the family income (from either or both parents) can reasonably pay for – and I don’t know what kind of parent DOESN’T want that – then the custodial parent is going to have to live in that neighborhood, too. And unless you think it’s a good idea for the kids to be teased and known as the poor family of the block, the house has to be of a comparable size and quality to other houses in that neighborhood, and the custodial parent’s clothing needs to be stuff that won’t get her (or him) laughed at in PTA meetings.
As far as calling social services goes, wouldnt that fall right into amanda’s trap of “hes harrassing me” and end up getting a restrainging order filed against the dad most likely.
Only if the father makes multiple claims that the investigators find to be frivilous. And that still wouldn’t lead to a restraining order, since it doesn’t involve any actual phisical threats or in-person harassment; you have a very exaggerated idea of how easily courts give out restraining orders. At most, it would lead to a court barring the father from harassing the mother with more frivolous complaints.
Finally, I wasn’t nit-picking to make your argument look foolish; I didn’t think my comment had any impact on your argument. I just think it’s funny, the way so many kids with access to money choose to run around in raggy clothing. If you don’t think it’s funny, then that’s no big deal. Chill a little, please.
I knew that was going to cause a stir once i re-read it. I as a normal person (no really, i swear) would of course want my kids living in as nice a place as their mom could afford.
What i was attempting to describe was a situation where a majority of the money thats given to her for child support goes to pay for a house that she really cant afford.
I can see im fighting a losing battle (perhaps rightly so). I dont know nor have ever heard of ex husbands who are so diabolical to want to have anything to do with their ex wives lives.
I wonder though if that attitude has something to do with the fact that except in unusual cases, the ex husband feels like its the wife whos controling his life by having money taken away from him, trying to take custody of his kids away from him and put controls over when he can see them and for how long, etc etc. I think this system of control, intentional or not, goes both ways.
Course, i dont know anyone whos raped or been raped, beats people or has been beaten, or most of the other things that are talked about on here. I do have a good friend whos a gay guy though, which is why i feel like i have permission to read your site :)
Far as chilling out, im pretty chill. this is just a website. I was attempting to be…not funny per say but kind of make a dry observation that made me smile slightly. I shouldnt have second guessed myself and left off the :P
No one who uses that in a conversation is ever really mad.
“Interesting that so many people here think there’s nothing wrong with a wealthy man giving his children just enough to live on like it was a welfare payment. Stupid lazy kids not working and acting like they should have new shoes just because dad bought himself a Jaguar.”
That’s a bit of an exaggeration, Amanda. We’re not talking about reducing child support to bare subsistence levels. In most of those income-shares states that Souraaron mentioned, the maximum combined income of the parents (the amount over and above which the court has discretion to disallow further support or order extra support at a reduced percentage based on proof of the child’s ACTUAL needs) is between $10,000 and $15,000 a month. If there is that much money coming in each month and the child is getting roughly a fifth of it, there is little chance of that child going without shoes or anything else he needs, unless the custodial parent has a serious problem.
Im kind of suprised at how dismissive you guys are toward the idea that there might be parents (Ill avoid locking it down to just women in the spirit of nongender bias that i see bantered about on this site so often) who use child support to screw the other parent over and actually ARENT spending the child support money the correct way, to the benefit of the child.
I haven’t seen anyone say it doesn’t happen, just that it’s not the rule. Why get all lathered over the exception when there are other procedures, such as reporting to the child custody authorities?
I also don’t see any recognition, among those pushing for accounting, that most women work, and very few divorced women are living off their ex-husbands. If they had stayed at home while married, they have to enter the workforce at a lower level than they would have if they’d stayed in the workforce all along.
In the military, child-support orders are enforced, in large part because the military person’s pay is determined based on family size (as are other benefits, like housing). If the custodial parent is non-military, they lose the military benefits, like shopping at the PX and health care and housing, but as long as the child is a dependent, the child is entitled to the benefits. At some postings (for example, when my sister remained in Hawaii after her Navy ex retired and went home), it makes a huge difference to be able to shop at the PX. Does the ex-wife benefit by being able to buy for less and save money? Sure. But it would unfairly penalize the child if the mother were forced to buy groceries elsewhere for more money, because there would be less available in the total pool and either she would have to make up the difference by working more, or they would have to go without.
“I do admire his activism for the situation in Africa though.”
Yeah, shame he’s such an asshole to women, though. He’s an asshole to women! Why isn’t that ever enough? I mean, women make up half the human race, and he expects to be waited on. Why isn’t that important?
Oh, he said far more unpleasant stuff than the thing about expecting to be waited on. I have a fair degree of tolerance for relatively harmless, superficial sexist attitudes, but it was painful to listen to Geldof pontificate on and on about how the courts are helping women “abuse” children by taking them away from the fathers, “kidnapping”, that’s how he sees it, he asked a lawyer “don’t you ever feel like telling the mother, you bitch?”. There was no mention of what exactly had driven specific people to custody battles, no talking of the specific cases, no, it was all about the poor men betrayed by “the system”. He even clearly suggested that women *use* “those two words, ‘domestic violence'”, as false allegation. He interviewed a judge and asked him, how many of the allegations of domestic violence turn out to be true? response: oh, I would think very very few. This, after a government report saying 1 in 4 women in UK experience some form of abuse from their partners. He and the other guys from F4J were talking about how they can’t express their love for their children because it’s always perceived as wrong, and they cannot sleep in the same bed with their kids because the mothers will use that to infer they have sexually abused the kids. (Geldof explained he and his wife had their daughter sleep with them until she was 3 years old “and I know some people have views on that”… – I almost expected Michael Jackson to pop up and confirm that yes, it’s perfectly normal to sleep with your kids, and hey, even other people’s kids!). Now, nevermind whether having your 3 year old in your bed every single night is a healthy thing to do, for mothers and fathers alike (like it’s just a matter of “views”). Suppose there are some women who make up that kind of allegations to smear the father in custody battles, and suppose the legal system offers no way of actually verifying claims, and takes them all at face value, yeah. The implication was that all women would do that. It’s like when there’s one fake rape allegation, someone concludes all rape allegations must be false. And my curiosity in all this is, *why* would a woman feel so hostile to the thought of her former husband being around her kids in the first place? Why can the legal fight get so nasty? He was talking like that was the norm, but many people split without needing to fight in court over the kids. When it gets to that, something screwed up really bad, and you have to look at each case to see who screwed up most, or if maybe there’s a shared blame, of if there actually are specific cases of abuse which can be verified. But no, no mention of individual responsibilities, it was all about the fathers being wronged, and about this being a product of some mass brainwashing and consumerism and whatnot. It was ridiculous.
They broadcasted two hours of this, all filmed by Geldof, no contrary opinions, no debate, nothing but straw men and nasty generlisations about women.
He is an arrogant, self-centered asshole. The fact he campaigns for debt relief in Africa does not change that, the same way Michael Jackson campaigning about HIV in Africa does not change a thing about him.
Oh, and there was another interesting thesis he pushed – the idea that the courts are “reactionary” in custody fights because they grant custody far more often to the mothers and therefore they must think only a mother can bring up the children properly. So footage was shown of young fathers playing with their children in playgrounds and interviewed to support the argument that men can also bring up children just as well as women. Sure they can. But why should that be brought up as an item of battle only in custody fights? Why isn’t there are Fathers4Housework group where men “claim the right” to scrub toilets and clean up after the kids and babysit them and cook their meals within a working marriage, before it gets to divorce battles? Didn’t he say it’s more sexy that the woman should cook and keep the home for everybody so the man comes home and finds a warm, cozy place to rest after work? The hypocrisy was baffling.
I was just trying to point out something in Geldof’s defence. I wasn’t trying to excuse everything else that Monica has reported because I hadn’t seen the program. Reading about it, I would have to say I agree with a lot of what she says. Nevertheless, I’m still going to defend him a bit.
“*why* would a woman feel so hostile to the thought of her former husband being around her kids in the first place? Why can the legal fight get so nasty?”
Because many people get so caught up in the arguments they’ve been having for so long that shared assets, child custody, and Child Support all become a way of keeping score, whether by winning it or denying it to the other person (and don’t think I don’t count any F4J members amongst these people).
PS does he actually say their daughter slept in their bed every night? I can’t see any reason why it would be a problem some of the time, since the situation is very different (IMO) to whatever Michael Jackson gets up to.
Like Amanda, I think parents – including noncustodial parents of either sex – have a responibility to give their children the best life they can reasonably afford to give them. Rich people who resent supporting their families get no sympathy from me.
And this is where you, Ampersand, and I differ. I do not equate what you call “the best life” with “dollars spent on children”.
There are many, many children, who wish their parents would work fewer hours, and make less money, so that their parents could afford more actual TIME to spend with their parents. One does not have to be a father’s rights idealogue to believe this.
Once needs and wants that money can buy are met to a certain threshold, time spent with the kids becomes very much more important than money spent with them.
Your equivocation of my point to “resentment that rich people may have supporting their families” is absurd. That is not what I, nor most other people, are arguing. My point is that there is a threshold point where time becomes more important than money. Or as Suze Orman puts it… “People first, then things”.
“If i was getting a check from someone for a specific reason then i dont think its unreasonable to assume i might have to account for HOW i actually spend it. Im not avoccating a store by store line by line reciept or anything, but a basic invoice would probably ease a lot of minds and encourage a bit of adult responsibility between the two parties.”
Okay, I give. You’re right that checks written for specific reasons obligate the recipient to itemize what they spend their money on for the approval of the payer. The examples are numerous:
–I am required by law to justify my wages by itemizing my bills to my employer every month. If they feel that I am spending too much on fresh flowers and wine (two luxuries I allow myself), they are allowed to reduce my salary.
–When someone wins a lawsuit in court and that money is paid, they are required by law to itemize what they spent the money on to the person who lost the suit. If the money is specifically marked “pain and suffering” compensation, then the winner of the suit is legally obligated to spend it on fun stuff and not on bills.
–In the state of Texas, crime victims are often given victim’s compensation checks, sometimes even written by the person who committed the crime. I was a victim and was obliged to show the assailant how I was spending *his* money.
I would continue but I think you see the point. Even insurance settlements are not required to go towards replacing what was lost or broken. If your car stereo is stolen and you get an insurance check, you can go buy a bunch of clothes with it for all they care.
The only people who are really required to justify themselves in this way are mothers on welfare, who are deviant women like divorced mothers and that’s why we feel free to pry into their personal business.
The only people who are really required to justify themselves in this way are mothers on welfare, who are deviant women like divorced mothers and that’s why we feel free to pry into their personal business.
Add to your list:
* People on business trips (largely men).
* Estate trustees.
Anytime people are entrusted to spend a sizeable chunk of money for the benefit of a third party in most business situations, strict accounting is the rule, not the exception.
Frankly, some transparency to this process would probably help. In the majority of cases, it would be very, very, easy (daycare + grocery recepits + a pro-rated portion of a rent or mortgage payment). It only becomes burdensome when there is a lot of money at stake.
Challenging the accounting can and should be something very difficult to do. A system could be designed where, to qualify for accounting, the amount of support needs to meet a high threshold – perhaps over $1000 or so per month. It would not allow for arguing over amounts in most cases (e.g. whether someone spends $500/month for groceries or $300/month for groceries would NOT be at issue). It would be designed to find cases where there is a large amount of support being paid, but very little of it is finding it’s way to the children’s benefit (e.g. excessive gambling and cases like that). Cases that are not outright child abuse, such as using all the money to buy drugs (which are handleable by CPS), but are, in fact, certainly cases where the child’s trust is being abused, such as wasting support money on gambling that ought to be used, in the least, to help provide a college fund.
It is in the interest of everyone involved, CP and NCP, to see that the system does not reward fraud on the part of either party. I would also count as “fraud” frivolous use of such a law to badger a trustee of CS (aka CP) who receives a larger CS payment, but is proven to be a good trustee of the money, yet gets abused by a litigous ex through misapplication of such a law.
The point is this – accountability is not an issue for people that can account.
Andrew: Because many people get so caught up in the arguments they’ve been having for so long that shared assets, child custody, and Child Support all become a way of keeping score, whether by winning it or denying it to the other person (and don’t think I don’t count any F4J members amongst these people).
Yes, absolutely, I’m sure that happens, and like I said I do think there’s something that’s gone wrong already when you get to the level you need to fight so nastily over custody — but we can’t ignore all the differences in specific cases, sometimes the mother may really be a bitch and the father a nice guy who gets wronged, sometimes it’s the other way round and the father may really have been abusive or a drunken careless bastard, sometimes, they may have both been jerks, you know? How do we talk of such cases as if they were all one and the same, when they’re not? True, we shouldn’t generalise against fathers and assume they’re always the ones who did wrong. But then, why, from relatively few cases that end up in nasty legal battles, generalise against mothers – for the simple fact they get more often awarded custody of their children? unless one does have something against women already, of course, which was very clear from the film.
Don’t take my word for it only, it was really transparently mysoginistic – see the London Times review of it:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/printFriendly/0,,1-8086-1300842-8086,00.html
He was talking like some fundamentalist preacher about the decadence of western culture, only because he and his former wife and others like them screwed up their relationship so bad they had to go to court. And he’s a millionaire, his wife is dead, I’m sure he can afford 50-50 share of time with his kids, but would that be always the best solution in the best interests of the children? I don’t think so. The biblical parable about King Salomon and the two mothers comes to mind.
PS does he actually say their daughter slept in their bed every night?
Yes, he was talking to the other men in the F4J group, at a meeting, and he said that even when he was married, they had the baby sleep with them all the time until she was 3 years old.
I can’t see any reason why it would be a problem some of the time, since the situation is very different (IMO) to whatever Michael Jackson gets up to.
I’m not inferring anything sexual, it’s just not a very healthy thing for parents, whether they’re together or separate, to do to their children, in terms of encouraging independence rather than spoiling them rotten. The way he said “I know some people have views on that”, like they can’t be possibly right, because hey, he’s Bob Geldof, the man who gave us Live Aid. The ego factor there was embarassing.
I never even knew he had these views before watching this. I had no opinion on him. It was honestly very unpleasant to hear that kind of talk.
PS – Andrew, my question on “why would a woman feel so hostile” that she takes away the kids, wasn’t meant to imply that it must necessarily and always be the father’s fault, I’m just wondering how can a relationship that produced children deteriorate so bad that you don’t even want your ex around your kids? *usually* it involves something nasty, not necessarily abuse, but if the father was a decent enough person, a decent enough mother would not go to such extremes as to take the kids to another country. Of course, she might not be a decent person herself, and just do that out of spite for something that doesn’t warrant such an extreme hostility. Again, each case will be different. I’m all for innocent til proven guilty, even for these Fathers4Justice folks. But sadly, there is also, in association with mysoginist mentalities, an old notion of fatherhood as ownership – you can see that in countries that apply strict Islamic law, for instance. I sort of detected a *bit* of that attitude in the way the F4J people spoke about their children and their ex wives, to be honest, and it wasn’t very impressive.
souraaron: Frankly, some transparency to this process would probably help. In the majority of cases, it would be very, very, easy (daycare + grocery recepits + a pro-rated portion of a rent or mortgage payment). It only becomes burdensome when there is a lot of money at stake.
Why would an accounting be necessary for this when the child-support formula takes these expenses into account in setting the amount in the first place? You also mentioned drugs — do you mean medication, as in extraordinary medical expenses? Why should that fall on the CP alone?
Monica (?) mentioned women on welfare, and I must say, all this concern about ex-wives living high on the hog while their children dress in rags sounds a lot like the welfare queen trope that caught on in the Reagan years.
I worked briefly in a law firm that handled divorces, and it was some of the ugliest stuff I’ve ever had to deal with because it’s so personal and these people are hurting. But by far the majority of couples, even as they were sniping at each other, were pretty careful to put aside their animosity when it came to their kids. They may not have wanted to see the other spouse, but they would let the kids see them. We even had one client who was going to jail because he’d caught his wife in bed with his best friend and attacked the friend, but his ex made sure he saw his daughter.
And there are consequences in some places for badmouthing your ex or your children’s other parent to the kids. There was a recent case all over the New York tabloids about a woman (a former Playboy model, IIRC) who’d had an affair with a rich married man that produced twin girls, then when he tried to get joint custody, she played games and told the girls all kinds of lies about him. End result, the court awarded full custody to him.
Ginmar: Women make up half the human race, yes. Desperately poor people make up quarter of the human race, and people living below first world standards somewhere in the region of four fifths. And Africans represent about a fifth, I believe.
Someone who has made a major contribution to fighting hunger is someone I can feel admiration for even if I disagree with his views on some subjects.
Why would an accounting be necessary for this when the child-support formula takes these expenses into account in setting the amount in the first place? You also mentioned drugs — do you mean medication, as in extraordinary medical expenses? Why should that fall on the CP alone?
Because the formula does not, in all states, account for this. In some states, it is set at a flat percentage, which is well more than required for the things you state (groceries, rent/mortgage). If you are getting $1000/month or more in CS, the kind of cases I am talking about where accounting may, in some cases, come into play, there is enough discrecionary room in there for fraud … aka … gross negligence in handling of child directed resources.
For most recepients, the accounting would not be an issue, since it can easily be backed up. If you can account, you have nothing to fear. Most CPs could easily account for the money in a child centered way. A regulation like this would shed light on those cases where gross re-direction of funds is suspected (e.g. taking the CS money and supporting a gambling or illegal drug habit). Any trustee of any other kind of trust operates under these kinds of rules (in fact, rules much more strict than I am proposing).
Regarding Bob Geldolf (sp?), he sounds like a misogynistic asshole, but that doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be given credit for the considerable good he’s done. People are more than their worse characteristics; it’s obvious that very few people are purely bad or purely good. (On the other hand, just because he’s done good doesn’t mean we should forgive or ignore his woman-bashing).
I’m not inferring anything sexual, it’s just not a very healthy thing for parents, whether they’re together or separate, to do to their children, in terms of encouraging independence rather than spoiling them rotten.
Regarding co-sleeping, the vast majority of humanity has slept with their children for the vast majority of human history. Although I realize that reasonable people can disagree on this, I don’t think there’s any evidence that children are harmed psychologically (sp?) by co-sleeping, and there’s a fair amount of evidence that it has benefits for the child.
Hi Monica,
“How do we talk of such cases as if they were all one and the same, when they’re not?”
Too true, I was trying to avoid it, but I’m not sure if that’s clear from my posts.
“”PS does he actually say their daughter slept in their bed every night?”
Yes”
In which case, I agree that it’s probably not a great thing for either the parents’ relationship or for the child.
Thanks for the links etc.
PS: Ampersand, re “psychologically (sp?)”, I’m fairly certain that’s right.
PPS: How is it you do italics, since they make posts much more legible?
Andrew, follow the instructions on this web page to italicize text.
Well, I imagine that the fathers’ rights idiots do in fact think that their ex-wives are nothing more than 3rd parties representing their interests, as they no doubt think wives are. But unfortunately for them, they’re not. Ex-wives and wives, alas, represent only themselves in our modern world.
Because the formula does not, in all states, account for this. In some states, it is set at a flat percentage, which is well more than required for the things you state (groceries, rent/mortgage). If you are getting $1000/month or more in CS, the kind of cases I am talking about where accounting may, in some cases, come into play, there is enough discrecionary room in there for fraud … aka … gross negligence in handling of child directed resources.
Well, how much of the father’s income was spent on the children prior to the divorce? Were those kids getting the benefit of living in a nice neighborhood, going to nice schools, having opportunities to do sports or take music lessons after school, go on trips, wear nice clothes? Go to the doctor and dentist? If the mother stayed at home, how much income did she give up by doing that?
I think if you really sat down and thought about it, the amount set for child support is probably a fairly accurate reflection of those costs. The squalling seems to come about because instead of seeing what’s being bought, he’s got to pay an equivalent sum without having control over what it buys.
Honestly, if a man lives with a woman for a certain number of years and observes what she spends money on with regard to the children, why is it so hard to believe that her spending patterns would not substantially change when he’s not around?
“Honestly, if a man lives with a woman for a certain number of years and observes what she spends money on with regard to the children, why is it so hard to believe that her spending patterns would not substantially change when he’s not around?”
Well, that’s assuming that she WAS a wise spender–in that case you’re right. But perhaps if he observed her displaying poor spending habits during the marriage (finances are the number one cause of divorce, according to many experts), he might have a genuine cause for concern.
Anne, it doesn’t even require that she be a wise spender. Good or bad spending habits, they’ll be known during the marriage.
And we all know that if she is an “unwise” spender, all she needs is a man to guide her.
And we also know that men are just so darn good with money. It comes with having a Y chromosone.
Is that what I said, Amanda??? Spending habits have nothing to do with sex, of course. Please restrain yourself from putting words in my mouth.
Okay, how about this:
Every time a guy who makes six-figures cries poor mouth and complains bitterly about child support, asks why his kids can’t just buck up and live in a crappy neighborhood and go to crappy schools (as opposed to the good neighborhoods and good schools when their parents were together), perhaps we can demand an accounting of his money. You know, if he takes a bunch of trips to Bermuda, visits the casino, etc.
I know I’m coming off as a real bitch here, but you know, I’m getting rather weary of these ex spouses (and their second spouses) using the law to vent their spleens against each other.
Child support is for the kids. If an NCP is having trouble making payments, she/he can and should go to the courts and her/his ex to get the payments lowered. If she/he runs into roadblocks, then yes, that should be addressed. But crawling up someone’s butt and demanding they account for every penny is rather petty and demeaning. Not to mention unworkable.
And frankly, I don’t see how it’s going to improve relations with one’s ex. Sorry, but if the best interests of the children are paramount, then I’d say to suck it up and get along for their sake–and that includes the second spouses who rather unwisely bite into the fight. I’ve seen enough posts of that nature to last me seven lifetimes. Enough, already.
Women make up half the human race, yes. Desperately poor people make up quarter of the human race, and people living below first world standards somewhere in the region of four fifths. And Africans represent about a fifth, I believe.
And half of all those people – the desperately poor, the below first world standards, the Africans – are still women.
Besides, doesn’t seem to me he’s doing great favours to men either, what with his humble self-appointment as spokesman for the entire category as a mass of victimised mysoginists.
I don’t know exactly what Geldof has done for the poor and the Africans. But even supposing his debf relief campaign had brought real results rather than empty promises from politicians, I can’t get past what he actually says and supports.
Here’s another review of the programme, from the The Guardian.
– Ampersand: but even if there are different views on “co-sleeping” that say it’s a good thing, that was a secondary point – what was unpleasant is how he mentioned it, to support the view (which he also made clear later) that most of the allegations of abuse are made up by women who seize on innocent (if perhaps debatable, but still not abusive) things like the child sleeping with his dad, only to smear the love of a father for his child. He was using that example to support his views, and the other F4J guys saying they advise each father in custody battles not to let their child sleep in the same bed when they stay over, because the ex-wives (the lying, devious, treacherous bitches – that was the idea) will build an abuse case out of that, and the courts will believe them with no need for evidence, just like that, because men are discriminated against. Likewise, in his view, most domestic violence allegations are fabrications, only to smear the fathers. Go figure.
What’s the point of a woman itemizing her spending if it’s not for her ex-husband to challenge and control? And why is it, then, that we assume that her spending could be “unwise” but his judgement not?
What’s the point of a woman itemizing her spending if it’s not for her ex-husband to challenge and control? And why is it, then, that we assume that her spending could be “unwise” but his judgement not?
The point of a CP (male or female) accounting is to assure that, when the amounts of money are large, that it goes to it’s intended purpose, rather than fraudulently diverted to ends that do not benefit the child. This is for big money cases only – we are not talking about itemizing the typical CP here – we are talking about the ones who are trustees of hundreds of thousands over a period of time.
And it does not have to be the NCP at all doing the accounting (in fact, someone like that would be the least independent accountant one could think of). The person doing the audit, so to speak, would be an independent accountant who would operate under a set of standards that a legislature could agree as to being the set purpose for child support. And frankly, I would be in favor of a “loser pays” type of system, where if a NCP calls for such an independent audit, and the CP is found to be in compliance, the NCP is charged with the cost of the audit. That would certainly be one good incentive not to call for independent audits as a way to harass your ex-spouse.
The no-accountability contingent will here appears to be defending the folks who take CS money, leave their kids in squalor just above the level where CPS gets involved, and use the balance to feed their gambling habits. That is a very strange group of people to be arguing for.
I can see the confusion that occurs when a CP gets a check with her name on it – but that is, in fact, the NCP’s money that is being provided to… support the child. And in most cases, that is precisely what it does.
The bottom line is this. 5% of people, male and female, NCP and CP, will act in dishonest ways. It follows that 5% of the group known as “CPs who receive a high amount of child support”, will, given enough money entrusted to them to provide welfare for a child, will fail in that duty. Such a check and balance system, the independent accountant proposal I propose, would provide a reasonable deterrent effect to drive that number down (fraud requires opportunity, rationalization, and pressure – this proposal would reduce the opportunity, which in turn, reduces the amount of fraud).
Child support is for… children. I am suprised that some people have not yet figured that out here.
I’m not arguing about itemizing spending–good or bad spending habits irregardless, I don’t favor itemization, like I already said, because it would further burden an already overburdened system. And no one is “assuming” anything about women–obviously I spoke of “her” spending habits because that was the example Zuzu used: a wife’s spending habits of which her husband was already aware before the divorce. If my husband and I were to divorce and I were paying cs, I myself might have some concerns since I am the frugal one in our household and my presence acts as a restraining influence on his passion for expensive books and high-tech toys. Would it necessarily be about controlling him? Only in the sense that I would rather see him contributing surplus cs to our children’s college fund, for example, than filling the house with nonessentials. Would my concerns be legitimate? I think so. Could I do anything about it? No, because unfortunately our legal system can not fine-tune and fix everything, and this is a reality we must all accept when we choose to divorce. Please read everything thoroughly and in context before writing it off as sexist.
Anne, I understand what you’re saying. But what I don’t think is accepted among many of the fathers-rights people here is that child support awards are fixed only after court proceedings. And in court proceedings, each party has the ability to present evidence.
So I don’t understand why statements such as:
5% of people, male and female, NCP and CP, will act in dishonest ways.
should affect the outcome for the 95% who are honest who have gone through a court proceeding.
I’ve never been through a divorce, but I am a lawyer, a litigator. I know how much it costs to do silly things like use a database to track down witnesses (something I got a talking-to about today). And my clients tend to be corporations and investment banks or insurers who are working on behalf of their insureds, parties who aren’t nearly as worried about every dollar as the average individual trying to pay a bill. Litigation is really fucking expensive, even if you don’t play stupid power games. I understand how this becomes a high-stakes game. I understand how quickly those who start to try to play games start to feel like they’re being victimized once they get the bill for their activities.
And really, asking for an accounting just invites more lawyering and higher bills into the system. The whole idea of child-support formulas is to introduce more efficiency into the process, efficiency which is destroyed if you wind up feeling like you have to go to your lawyer to talk to her lawyer to challenge what she’s spending money on. At $150 or more per hour, it’s way the hell more expensive to whine about your ex spending money on herself than it is to actually go to the court and have them investigate a serious question about child care.
And really, asking for an accounting just invites more lawyering and higher bills into the system.
In the proposal I set forth, it only invites the higher bills to the person who loses. A system can be designed to deter the kind of petty whining you talk about.
Also important here, however, is the deterrent effect that such a law would have. If you know you can be asked to account, it is less likely that you will engage in fraud.
And again, let me stress that I am not talking here about cases where we are dickering over a few hundred here and there. You will spend more on the accountant to do the audit. This is only for cases where the cost of the audit is a lot less than the money at issue.
It is well known that child-support formulas effectiveness break down at higher income levels. Most states acknowledge this to some degree. Almost nobody is setting CS for people that make $1M/year at $200K per year – and those cases where it does happen – are an orgy of litigation to do just what I set forth above – but with lawyers instead of accountants. Frankly, I would rather accountants handle this process rather than lawyers, since in my experience, lawyers will almost always take a simple process and make it much more expensive. The difference with the independent accountant is that it acts like a GAL – it acts in the interests of the child, not the CP or NCP. If you want to appeal the decision of the independent accountant, fine, but having another independent accountant work on the result may, in fact, create the same result. The risk/reward for appealing the accountants decision is so bad for appealing that few would likely take that step.
You talk about the formulas being destroyed – that is not the case. The formulas stand regardless. If an accounting demonstrates fraud, the party who engaged in the fraud owes the child the amount that was fraudulently diverted. The formulas do not get affected at all (formulas are an entirely different issue worthy of another discussion thread).
Child support is for… children.
Indeed. So why do you want to cost children their support by diverting funds to accounting? Do you really believe that frauds will be caught in high enough numbers to offset the time, aggravation and cost of the abuse of a ‘make the CP account for it’ law? Or that we really want the courts to argue about whether the kid’s winter coat should have come from Lands End when a Sears on-sale special would do?
It would be a real boon to anyone who wants to get out of paying CP, y’know. “Agree to this lesser amount or I’m going to make you keep every fucking receipt.”
The formulas are there because they are supposed to take into account the cost of rearing the child. If the money is not being spent on the child, either the formula is whacked, or the child is being neglected. I think “My kid is wearing shoes three sizes too small” is a much more compelling argument in court than “My ex-husband could not produce receipts for the children’s clothing,” don’t you?
Anne, you are fooling yourself if you think that sexism is not a HUGE part of this. If men took custody of children most of the time and women paid child support, itemized auditing would not even be a discussion. There is no way men would tolerate their ex-wives controlling how they spent their money.
Sour, there is little to nothing chance that outside auditing would make fathers’ rights people happy, because most of the time the outside auditor would find the mother’s spending habits to be satisfactory. And the father would not have the support amount reduced or have some third party “discipline” his ex-wife for him.
Yes, well, for the most part they “tolerate” women taking control of their children–a far more important matter–and have for some time. When men take custody most of the time and women pay child support, then we’ll have something to discuss. I’ll grant you that sexism disadvantages women in some arenas, but Family Court generally isn’t one of them.
When men take custody most of the time and women pay child support, then we’ll have something to discuss.
Men generally get custody if they ask the court for it. But most people follow the same structure in divorce as they did in marriage; that is, the man’s job is breadwinner and the woman’s job is household management.
But men are also more likely to go for custody if they have a good chance at receiving it, Mythago. In the Texas community where I used to live and practice, every reputable family lawyer advised their male clients that unless their exes were seriously abusing the children, doing drugs, or living a life of prostitution, they stood very little chance of winning custody and probably should not waste their resources waging a pointless battle which would likely exacerbate hostilites among all the parties. Everyone knew the score: Moms were assumed, in the absence of only the most glaring evidence to the contrary, to be the most suitable parents–in family courts mostly presided over by MEN.
Anne, we already have an example to look at–how closely are non-custodial fathers examined in order to get their weekend visits? I saw a lot of talk at Trish’s blog advocating controlling women’s behavior down to what they eat and smoke if they have custody, but no parallel support for making men account for everything they do when they have visits. My dad had more girlfriends around than I can remember when we would visit him on the weekend, which doesn’t bother me really but makes me wonder about those who fight for the rights of men to use the children as a way to keep their ex-wives from being able to date again. Do these groups work to make sure that fathers also do not date again lest the children find out?
It is ironic that an argument thread concerning line-item accounting would contain so many line-item rebuttals. The worst part of any internet argument is cutting or pasting a few lines from a post, and then arguing against them, usually out of context. At least the passion here has generally been accompanied by good spelling and grammar.
As with any argument, I can see both sides of this one. Anecdotal evidence can expose evil on either side of this issue. The truth does lie, as always, somewhere in the middle. As JK Galbraith said, “Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy with the proof.” So, this is where I prove him correct.
Do I believe there should be some accountability with this trust. Yes. Here is my anecdotal example:
If I were to get divorced, which, fortunately is not likely, I would be required to pay $4,000 per month in child support. Yes, this is a sizeable amount of my $170,000 dollar a year salary, and I would have to sell my 911. But, I know in my situation, that money would be wholly spent on the children. We live in an expensive area, and daily expenses would literally burn through most of that money. I would not expect a line-item accounting, but it would be nice to know that at the end of the month, any residual money would be placed into a savings account for college, etc. I know my wife, as wonderful as she is as a human being, woman, mother, and wife, would do the “right thing” with any residual money and not spend it on frivolity. Unfortunately, not everyone has that luxury.
A co-worker, who had a child with a woman that was the result of a night of carelessness, has tried to become part of that child’s life. She has made his every attempt difficult. They live nowhere near each other, and she is involved in a long-term relationship with a man who wants nothing to remind him of their evening of fecklessness (except, of course, the check). His child support obligation, which he willingly pays, is $3,400 per month. He lived in her area at one point in his life (before the child’s conception), and is quite familiar with the cost of housing and other living expenses in her area. He once lived in the complex in which she rents an apartment. He is quite familiar, actually, with her live-in boyfriend. Neither of the adults in the home are employed. Neither have been employed for quite some time, even during the economic boom we experienced prior to our current administration. No judgement will be passed on the reasons for their indolence, but it is quite obvious that the money he is placing in trust as his willing, monthly obligation, is supporting much more than the mother and the child. The man was even bold enough to thank my co-worker for the monthly stipend, stating they were living quite well on his income. Anyone put in that situation would tend to be bitter, but my co-worker feels at least there is a roof over the child’s head and food in his belly.
Does he deserve an accounting. Hell, yes! Is it something that would be too expensive and impossible to enforce, so as to render it useless? Hell, yes! In an ideal world, this woman should feed, clothe, house, educate, and entertain herself and the child with that money, with any excess going towards the child’s future. The money should not be spent to feed, clothe, shelter, and entertain her slothful significant other. My co-worker is powerless to help with any financial decision making in the best interests of his child. His concern is not borne out of jealousy or malice towards the man, as he has no romantic interest in the woman. He just wants to be certain that the child he created is cared for in the best manner possible. Yes, it was not the ideal situation in which to conceive a child, and the child came from a moment of irresponsibility. But, his irresponsibility ended that evening, and her’s continues to this day. The best interests of this child are not being taken into consideration by his mother or her boyfriend. Can anyone really agree that his beer budget should be supported by my co-worker? This is a situation where an accounting would be quite appropriate, but we should never ascribe to malice what can be explained by mere stupidity.
We can exchange anecdotes for the next millenium on both sides of the argument, but taking these opinions out of context with line-item rebuttals will probably be the next course of action in this forum. Hack away! Thank you for taking time from your busy day to consider my opinions.
Do I believe there should be some accountability with this trust
I think we all believe there should be “some accountability.” Unless I missed something, nobody is arguing that a custodial parent should be making the kids wear Goodwill and eat at soup kitchens while the support money is spent on trips to the Bahamas.
But as your discussion points up, one person’s “necessity” is another person’s “frivolity.” If my husband gets take-out one night because he’s too tired to make dinner, is that frivolity? Are gymnastics lessons an educational expense, or is that money better put away in a savings account?
Line-item accounting is an excuse to control and fight the recipient. As you say, we could fling anecdotes around 24/7; I could mention an acquaintance who had to listen to one of his buddies bitching that his ex-wife “wastes” his child support because she spent $20 on a winter coat for the kid, and you know the kid’s just going to outgrow it in a year.
But, his irresponsibility ended that evening
No, his irresponsibility did not end that evening. Making an awful choice for your child’s other parent is not a one-time problem.
Thank you for proving my point. You cut and pasted my words and drove them far away from their contextual point. If you had read my words without a jaundiced eye, you would have seen I am not advocating line-item vetoes. I think that would be a travesty. Nor would I advocate using accountability to reduce support payments. The best interest of the child is important. Please allow me to dissect your frivolity, line by line:
I think we all believe there should be “some accountability.” How? If we agree, why would you criticize my point?
Unless I missed something, nobody is arguing that a custodial parent should be making the kids wear Goodwill and eat at soup kitchens while the support money is spent on trips to the Bahamas. Unless I missed something, I never stated that anyone ever said that. Way to take my words out of context and then fling them into a far away galaxy, to boldly go where my opinion has never gone before.
But as your discussion points up, one person’s “necessity” is another person’s “frivolity.” Yes, you found it “necessary” to engage in the “frivolity” of dissecting my words completely out of context, to render them devoid of any meaning.
If my husband gets take-out one night because he’s too tired to make dinner, is that frivolity? That is so far off the message it almost requires no response, but I promised myself I would leave your words intact.
Are gymnastics lessons an educational expense, or is that money better put away in a savings account? Yes, despite your misanthropy, they are an educational expense. Perhaps my list of expenses was not comprehensive enough, but allow me to cut and paste my own words in rebuttal….this woman should feed, clothe, house, educate, and entertain herself and the child with that money… It was a grevious oversight that I did not include healthcare, but judging by your response, the fact that I did not include weekly ice cream cones in the Summer is grounds for ridicule and censure. If I forgot anything else, please excuse my sin of omission because we should never ascribe to malice what can be explained by mere stupidity. Please note that I did include her AND the child, as they are a team.
Line-item accounting is an excuse to control and fight the recipient. Once again we agree. See, you like me, you really, really like me. (With apologies to Sally Field.)
As you say, we could fling anecdotes around 24/7; Wait, I need breaks to go to work to feed my children, or I will get divorced. Can we fling anecdotes part-time?
I could mention an acquaintance who had to listen to one of his buddies bitching that his ex-wife “wastes” his child support because she spent $20 on a winter coat for the kid, and you know the kid’s just going to outgrow it in a year. So, it was Ok for her to make that mistake with that Neanderthal, but my buddy is sentenced to a lifetime-of-irresponsibility label for a foolish moment of passion. (See next cut and paste.)
No, his irresponsibility did not end that evening. Making an awful choice for your child’s other parent is not a one-time problem. I would not be quick to classify this as a choice. If you were to hit another vehicle on the road today, would that be a choice, or an accident? If it is your choice, I am afraid your liability would increase dramatically. Before you jump on the soapbox and lecture me about him placing his thingie in her thingie irresponsibly…Yes, we established that. He admits that. What I meant, obviously quite inartculately, by my statement was that he has never exacerbated that moment with further irresponsibility. They were both irresponsible at that moment, yet she continues, by choice, to further that irresponsibility. She is backing up her car and hitting the other car continuously after the initial accident, while he pulled to the side of the road to exchange insurance information.
I’m sorry, but I have to revisit your last statement again. Making an awful choice for your child’s other parent is not a one-time problem. So, he should meekly accept his child’s lot in life? Please offer some solutions, not just some thinly-veiled words of the misandrist. People make awful choices daily. The true measure of character is how the effect of those choices is ameliorated. The abused woman leaves the asshole. The child abuser is punished and not defended or ignored. My co-worker has exhausted every legal means to ensure the safety and welfare of a child that most likely will never call him Daddy. That in no way, shape, or form is irresponsible. Any opinion to the contrary is outrageous.
Once again, thank you for the forum.
And, Mythago, you do not create one salient point without trying to rebut the words of others. Is this iconoclasm necessary? Must you always invoke other’s words to try to prove your point? Can your words not stand alone against the tsunami of internet opinion? Do you find pleasure in trying to belittle others? Do I ask too many stupid questions? Hell, yes!
Yes, despite your misanthropy
Jack: just because I think *you* are making idiotic arguments does not mean I think all men are idiots. But thank you for putting your bias right out there instead of being coy about it.
In YOUR mind, gymanastic lessons and once-a-week pizza delivery are reasonable. Do you think that is reasonable in EVERYBODY’s mind? Here, let’s try hypothetical me (who is the family breadwinner and therefore would be the one to get financially nailed if my husband ran off with the pool boy) arguing this to a judge: “Your honor, it’s ridiculous that my ex-husband is spending money on gymnastics lessons instead of additional math tutoring for my children. And I can’t believe this court would allow him to buy Lands End pants when Target has them on sale, or feed the children junk food instead of home-cooked meals. I ask the court to either reduce my child support payments, as my ex-husband is clearly wasting money, or give me custody so I can provide better care for the children.”
Which is to say, one person’s necessity is another person’s waste. Reasonable people can work these things out. Of course, reasonable people wouldn’t need to worry about accounting and waste in the first place, would they?
So, it was Ok for her to make that mistake with that Neanderthal
Did I say that? No, nor did I say that your friend–oops, there we go with the anecdotes–should meekly say nothing. I am saying that I don’t believe a requirement of line-by-line accounting would help your friend much. Do you? Are you really sure that this irresponsible woman couldn’t figure out a way to flout the law as she’s been doing already? I find it a little difficult to believe that she couldn’t continue to stonewall, or simply lie. (Here’s a very simple way: produce receipts showing all the money you spent on the kid’s clothes. Do not produce the receipts showing that you returned them for cash the next day.)
Look, maybe I need to dumb this down for you. I never said that I was for line-item accounting. Read it again. I asked for some type of accountability. I do not have the answer. There must be an answer somewhere. I am not advocating a reduction in support. Also, I never proffered any argument, so as idiotic as my words may seem to you, they could not be an idiotic argument. I was asking for a solution, and you created an argument. Just so you know, misandry is hating men. Misanthropy is hating all of mankind. You can not even cut and paste the right statement to rebut. I’ll say it again. I am not for a line-item accounting. I don’t think his support should be reduced. But, she should not use the money to support her loser boyfriend. The courts refuse to intervene despite considerable time and expense. How is this an argument? This is just the facts.
How about one post from you where your words can stand alone, without having to dissect others and completely remove their meaning.
I asked for some type of accountability
Again: nobody has disagreed with you on this point. If anyone thinks that a custodial parent should be able to walk into court and say “Yes, Your Honor, I spent all the child support on a boob job. So what?” and walk out scot-free, could you please speak up?
Just so you know, misandry is hating men.
Yes, I know that. I wasn’t sure that *you* knew that, as there was nothing in any of my posts suggesting that I hate all human beings.
Speaking of lack of context:
How? If we agree, why would you criticize my point?
I was noting that there is no disagreement on my point, and that on the issue of there needing to be SOME kind of accountability, we agree. That isn’t a criticism, unless you are determined–and you clearly are–to take anything short of “Nice weather we’re having today” as an attack.
By the way, Jack: this is a discussion. That means that we’re not shouting at one another in a vacuum; if I weren’t referring to others’ statements, you’d be complaining that I was just up on a soapbox and ignoring what everybody else was saying.
No, I wouldn’t. you win because talking to you is like talking to a wall. Where are your answers?
And, it’s obvious you just troll posts looking for stand-alone sentences to refute. I used misandry and misanthrope in the same post. So, your cover story is either disingeuous or utter bullshit. You must be a Republican. Your husband, God bless him, must be a SAINT. Color me gone. You bore me, hack. Buh bye.
Amanda, if we wanted to comb the books for bad rulings that fit in with each of our positions, we’d be here for days. For every trial court ruling with a bad outcome for the woman that Trish posts on her site, there’s another equally bad ruling that screws the man on another site with a different ax to grind. And each points to their own examples and says: “Yeah, they talk about THAT, but you don’t hear them talk about THIS. . .” and so on and so forth without end. Many of the more outlandish rulings get reversed on appeal anyway, if the parties take it that far. Most often, judges dismiss any proffered evidence of new lovers and such as irrelevant. But don’t think for one minute that women have never gotten provisions written into their custody and visitation orders prohibiting their exes from having the new girlfriend around when the kids are visiting–they have. What’s that all about? C-O-N-T-R-O-L. Women actually have some control issues too (gasp!), and have been known to use their children and the system accordingly.
Isolated incidents are not as significant as the overall picture. For all the hollering about sexism in the family courts, at the present time I don’t know of anyone who would actually prefer to fight a custody case as a man rather than as a woman. And to me, that says a lot.
Gosh, three minutes without a reply and the troll goes nuclear. Pity.
For all the hollering about sexism in the family courts, at the present time I don’t know of anyone who would actually prefer to fight a custody case as a man rather than as a woman. And to me, that says a lot.
I don’t know of any women who are convinced that they will be just fine in a custody battle because they’re the woman. Which is to say, men are sure that women have the advantage, but women aren’t quite so sure. That, to me, also says a lot.
And again, part of the issue is the history preceding the divorce–for a man to have the advantage would mean having been the primary caregiver, a role nobody seems particularly eager for men to assume.
Hey, I’m not the one who combs through the books looking for that rare mother who is foolish enough to think that her children are a meal ticket to riches beyond her wildest dreams.
Anyway, everyone knows that the best way to get that is to load up with the plastic surgery when you’re young, marry some rich but stupid older man and wait patiently for him to cheat on you and then divorce him. No children necessary.
For all the hollering about sexism in the family courts, at the present time I don’t know of anyone who would actually prefer to fight a custody case as a man rather than as a woman. And to me, that says a lot.
Excuse me, Jack, but I know of plenty of women who got reamed in family court. Actually, when you are a SAHM with ten years out of the workforce (because your husband wouldn’t dream of having you work–better to berate you, put you down, call you a freeloader, and accuse you of scrwing up his life) and then decide to leave a verbally and emotionally abusive husband (without a dime to your name), you try and get housing and support for your kids, let alone good legal representation. Trust me, I’d rather be the man with the $80K a year job and the resources to get a good lawyer than the woman with a huge gap in her (pink-collar) work history and zero resources.
These arguments are hilarious. They have convinced me that there are people here that really need to stop drinking the kool-aid. To think that anyone, and I mean anyone, would, if they could choose their gender going into a custody fight, would choose being a man, is either dishonest, insane, or more probably, both.
As for using the legal system to control ex-spouses, to say that this is a man’s game is also to ingore reality. The fact is that both men and women play this game in bitter contested divorces, particularly in the realm of parenting plan details, particularly with regard to just how new relationships are handled vis-a-vis children. No man or woman can assert that the other gender has some sort of moral high-ground on this issue. It is mysogyny to assert that women are worse here, just as it is misandry to assert men are worse here.
I suspect that many people commenting here are extrapolating from their personal experiences. These kinds of threads tend to attract people who have burned by the system in some way. As such, the beliefs are very personal, and not likely to be swayed by reason. I do not believe there is anything I could say that would convince a woman who was financially controlled by her ex-husband that some form of accountability for how CS money is spent is a good idea. Nor do I believe that, if someone believes that men are unilaterally driven to control their ex-spouses through CS, that someone like that would ever see accountability as a good idea.
One’s take on this debate all depends on the pre-supposed premises you buy into. If you are suspect of all men’s motives, because you experienced living with one or two of, I dunno, 3 billion of said men on the planet, then of course, it would follow that holding trustees of large amounts of CS accountable to basic standards would be nothing but a control tactic. It would never occur to such a person that, perhaps, the intent of the person making the suggestion is to see that the money they provide for their children actually benefits their children.
My premises are this. I know that double digit percentages of both genders cheat on their marriage partners. In 2002, 14% of people admitted to cheating on their taxes (does not count the unadmitted cheats). Large numbers of people – both genders – are, in fact, less than honest, less than ethical. So many people cheat on taxes, largely, because it is easy to rationalize (e.g. I am only hurting a government that certainly has enough money) … and it is easy, relativley, to get away with, since the chance of getting audited is low (less than 5%, even lower if your deductions are average for your income and you don’t get “too aggressive”). A CP engaging in CS fraud will usually have an even better rationalization (getting back at an ex-spouse who, if they have any money, has too much as far as they are concerned), and virtually no chance of getting caught (there are few places where there is any real accountability about how CS is spent). This, I am afraid, is an environment ripe for fraud.
Imagine two cases. 2 kids receive $5,000/month in child support. Both live with fathers who work low-wage jobs making $1,500 per month. Both have $6000/month of net income after accounting for support. One father livest in a modest, working class neighborhood, but sends his child to a private school, paying $18,000 per year for tuition. The other buys a big house in an exurb to give his child “the good life”. After expenses, the first father saves $1000/month of the CS and puts it in a bond fund getting 6%. The second father indulges himself first, and by extension his child, in conspicuous consumerism in the suburbs, driving the SUV with video in the back, buying new furniture for the house, taking the child on expensive vacations every 6 months, and really living it up. Unfortunatley, father #2 saved none of the money for the benefit of the child, spending it along the way, in ways that marginally benefit the child, but certainly benefit him.
Outcome – child #1 learns that a.) working class people in his working class neighborhood are just as human as you and me, b.) life is good when you have your college and retirement paid for at 18, since your father was wise enough to save enough money to provide for both, easily, since he saved over $387,000 by wisely and conservativley investing the excess CS money. Furthermore, the child in the latter example will have a more reasonable standard of living, since he will be accustomed to more modest material goods. Such a person will enter the work world after college without debt, with a huge nest egg, and nothing to worry about for the rest of his life. The person who emerges from the second example will emerge with an unsustainable standard of living. His dad will have to worry about how to live since the support subsidy has ended (without child support, he won’t be able to pay the mortgage or maintain the lifestyle he had). The child will, if he is not spending all his money and time trying to assume the pre-college lifestyle without any resources to do so, will probably end up supporting his parent who no longer enjoys the subsidy he once had.
Child #1 will enter the work world being independent. He will be able to, when his company presents him with an ethical dilemma, choose the ethical choice, because he is not afraid to be fired for making ethical choices. The support he received from his mom, ultimatley, allows him to lead a life of independence.
Nothing can be done to assure that parents manage resources in a thoughtful way to give their kids a good start at life. Transparency will not magically make that happen. On the other hand, it can prevent the most egregious abuses, and as well, it can serve as a reminder to emphasize the **child** part of the phrase “child support”.
If you are suspect of all men’s motives, because you experienced living with one or two of, I dunno, 3 billion of said men on the planet, then of course, it would follow that holding trustees of large amounts of CS accountable to basic standards would be nothing but a control tactic. It would never occur to such a person that, perhaps, the intent of the person making the suggestion is to see that the money they provide for their children actually benefits their children.
I still haven’t seen anyone provide a good argument why more control and interference and oversight should be introduced into the system when it appears that only a small percentage are abusing it. You don’t punish the majority for the activities of the minority — you punish the minority, otherwise it would be fundamentally unfair to the majority.
Having a system where support is set based on reasonable assumptions of the child’s needs and extras, that gives the CP discretion over the actual spending of the award, but also allows for a remedy in case of abuse by the CP (and enforcement of payment by a reluctant or overcontrolling NCP) accomplishes the goal of providing for the child, reducing conflict that can poison the well, and preventing abuse while guaranteeing some measure of autonomy.
Why in the hell anyone would want to add in a layer of accountants when in most cases it’s not needed is beyond me.
Good Lord, Souraaron. Talk about drinking the Kool-Aid. Not to mention smoking some crack. $5K a month in CS? That’s unusual, to say the very least. The percentages in my state run from 21% to 33% (depending on NCP income). If someone is paying $5K CS per month in my state, I’m not going to feel too sorry for them. They’ve got cash to spare.
Odd how anyone who disagrees that men are oppressed is ignoring reality. Odd also how anyone who dares think that there are NCP’s who try to abuse the system is relying on personal experiences, but when the other side relies on personal experiences and anecdotes to push the idea that money-grubbing CP’s and the courts screw over men, it’s perfectly okay. Certainly not worth commenting on then.
Odd how anyone who disagrees that men are oppressed is ignoring reality. Odd also how anyone who dares think that there are NCP’s who try to abuse the system is relying on personal experiences, but when the other side relies on personal experiences and anecdotes to push the idea that money-grubbing CP’s and the courts screw over men, it’s perfectly okay. Certainly not worth commenting on then.
Who said this? (as I spit out the words so gingerly inserted into my mouth).
You did.
And you can keep chewing on those words, as they are yours. Despite your weak “gosh, both genders can be just as bad” disclaimers, the majority of your finger-shaking was directed against women who took a dim view of line by line accounting. As was your Kool-Aid comment, and the ignoring reality comment.
This…
To think that anyone, and I mean anyone, would, if they could choose their gender going into a custody fight, would choose being a man, is either dishonest, insane, or more probably, both.
… is what I said, and I stand by it. I do not mince words… if you can choose your gender going into a custody fight, you would never choose to be a man. Stating this has nothing to do with the CS accounting issue at all, and perhaps I should have made this more clear.
And then this…
the majority of your finger-shaking was directed against women who took a dim view of line by line accounting.
Re-read the post. I mention women twice, both times in the context of equivocating women and men, not drawing distinctions between them. Certainly not in the context that you are trying to put it in so it can fit your agenda.
As much as you would like to use your “he is a misogynist – look at these words he [didn’t] say” brush to evade having to engage in real debate, it ain’t gonna work.
I still haven’t seen anyone provide a good argument why more control and interference and oversight should be introduced into the system when it appears that only a small percentage are abusing it. You don’t punish the majority for the activities of the minority — you punish the minority, otherwise it would be fundamentally unfair to the majority.
The accountants – as a check and balance against fraud that could be perpetrated by the minority who are inclined to do so. Being “audited” is not punishment. If you are being entrusted to see that child support funds benefit a child, you have a responsibility. It is not punishment to expect that you will be held accountable for something that is, in fact, your responsibility.
It is also not a “line-by-line” accounting. I do not think that would work, if for no other reason, based on the emminently subjective nature of the idea of “need”. This is not a proposal to dicker over the grocery bill here. If the NCP is using this as a way to badger the CP, s/he had better be willing to foot the bill if the accounting does not come out in their favor. Most CPs who are using the money towards the kids would endure about one instance of this kind of “nuisance audit” before the NCP would figure out how expensive this kind of badgering is. I am sure there could be other anti-harassment incentives built in as well to help assure that such a thing is not abused.
Being “audited” is not punishment.
Ha! Have you ever had a head-on collision with the IRS? It’s not pretty. It sure as hell feels like punishment. And on that note, even the IRS only audits a fraction of those who submit returns, generally where there have been irregularities.
You’re proposing to add costs into the system. Costs that have to come from somewhere. Who’s paying for these accountants? The courts? Then the taxpayers bear the burden. The divorcing parties? Then the money diminishes the pool of money available for the child, who’s supposed to be the beneficiary of the support.
You still haven’t advanced a coherent argument why this should be so — why there should be oversight and enforcement at the back end through auditing of expenses when the child-support formulas take care of that on the front end. In the absence of reasonable suspicion of fraud, what possible good does it do, what public policy is served, by auditing every last CP recipient of child support?
Ha! Have you ever had a head-on collision with the IRS? It’s not pretty. It sure as hell feels like punishment. And on that note, even the IRS only audits a fraction of those who submit returns, generally where there have been irregularities.
I don’t disagree that it can feel like a punishment. On that, we have agreement.
You’re proposing to add costs into the system. Costs that have to come from somewhere. Who’s paying for these accountants? The courts? Then the taxpayers bear the burden. The divorcing parties? Then the money diminishes the pool of money available for the child, who’s supposed to be the beneficiary of the support.
I am proposing that the initiator of the probe pay for the accounting. “Put up or shut up.” This I have mentioned elsewhere, and I will reiterate again (see above, “loser pays”). If you are found to have engaged in fraud, you then owe restitution to the person who initiated the probe (though frankly, if I were ever in that situation, I would gladly pay the cost for the accounting if I had evidence that the CP of my child was engaging in CS fraud and I thought stopping said fraud would benefit my child).
You still haven’t advanced a coherent argument why this should be so — why there should be oversight and enforcement at the back end through auditing of expenses when the child-support formulas take care of that on the front end. In the absence of reasonable suspicion of fraud, what possible good does it do, what public policy is served, by auditing every last CP recipient of child support?
For one, I have never, ever, advocated auditing every recipient of child support. Most recipients, on average, get $300ish per month, an amount which does not provide an opportunity for fraud. Most recipients would never have to worry about being audited at all, even if their ex wanted to do unlimited audits at her or her expense. I am only advocating situations where there is in fact, as you point out, reasonable suspicion of fraud. The public policy of making sure child support benefits, primarily, the children whose names are on the order, is furthered, because there would be a mechanism to make sure that the children’s support actually benefits them.
If you’re going to advocate for line-by-line accounting for CP’s, then let’s open NCP’s up to it as well. Anytime they cry poor mouth and insist their ex is bleeding them dry, let’s get some accountants to go over their expenditures, find the waste, and tell them to shut up and live more simply.
And yes, you gave a couple of throwaway comments. You also posted a couple of paragraphs focusing solely on women:
I suspect that many people commenting here are extrapolating from their personal experiences. These kinds of threads tend to attract people who have burned by the system in some way. As such, the beliefs are very personal, and not likely to be swayed by reason. I do not believe there is anything I could say that would convince a woman who was financially controlled by her ex-husband that some form of accountability for how CS money is spent is a good idea. Nor do I believe that, if someone believes that men are unilaterally driven to control their ex-spouses through CS, that someone like that would ever see accountability as a good idea.
One’s take on this debate all depends on the pre-supposed premises you buy into. If you are suspect of all men’s motives, because you experienced living with one or two of, I dunno, 3 billion of said men on the planet, then of course, it would follow that holding trustees of large amounts of CS accountable to basic standards would be nothing but a control tactic. It would never occur to such a person that, perhaps, the intent of the person making the suggestion is to see that the money they provide for their children actually benefits their children.
No mention, might I add, about the “pre-supposed premises” the NCP/father’s rights posters here buy into, how the NCP’s/father’s rights posters beliefs are personal and cannot be swayed by reason–oh, no. The focus was solely on the unreasonable women. Keep chewing on your own words.
Not to mention the fact that according to you, those who take the opposing view (that men have it better in family court) are “drinking the Kool-Aid” and “is either dishonest, insane, or more probably, both.”
Golly. So, a couple of throwaway “gosh, both men and women are just as bads” along with three paragraphs implying that the women or CP’s are insane, irrational, and/or dishonest.
And you go on to say:
This. . .
To think that anyone, and I mean anyone, would, if they could choose their gender going into a custody fight, would choose being a man, is either dishonest, insane, or more probably, both.
… is what I said, and I stand by it. I do not mince words… if you can choose your gender going into a custody fight, you would never choose to be a man. Stating this has nothing to do with the CS accounting issue at all, and perhaps I should have made this more clear.
It also has nothing to do with reality, since several posters here have already stated that they’ve seen men get a better deal in family court. Disagree with their opinions, but kindly don’t tell people what they think. They already know, and have shared it. But then again, you’ve also told me that I have an agenda, and I suppose your next post will be to inform me exactly what it is.
Keep squirming. It’s rather cute.
To think that anyone, and I mean anyone, would, if they could choose their gender going into a custody fight, would choose being a man, is either dishonest, insane, or more probably, both.
Actually getting facts is dishonest, insane, or both? Wacky!
When men seek custody, they usually get it. Now, you can argue that men don’t seek custody because they’re afraid they won’t. You could equally argue that courts give primary custody to the primary caregiver, and that decision was made long before the spouses walked into divorce court.
If the NCP is using this as a way to badger the CP, s/he had better be willing to foot the bill if the accounting does not come out in their favor.
So you’re proposing a “loser pays” system? That punishes child-support-paying parents who do not have accountant’s fees to burn. And it’s wide-open to abuse: “Look, custodial ex, I’m happy to roll the dice on an accountant, because I can afford it and you can’t. So maybe you’d better shut up and take less money or I’ll put you through the legal wringer.”
I am only advocating situations where there is in fact, as you point out, reasonable suspicion of fraud
Reasonable suspicion by whom, how would you have to prove this suspicion is reasonable and to what court, etc etc? It sounds easy. Implementation is hard.
As long as we’re pulling solutions out of the air, I’d start with parents fully sharing childcare duties. The husband who had to take a four-year-old clothes shopping will not be shocked to learn that a winter coat costs $20. The wife who figured out that she is not a bad mommy if Daddy knows how to pack the lunches will be less concerned about sharing custody.
When men seek custody, they usually get it. Now, you can argue that men don’t seek custody because they’re afraid they won’t. You could equally argue that courts give primary custody to the primary caregiver, and that decision was made long before the spouses walked into divorce court.
Let me be more precise. All other things being equal, if you could choose your gender, you could either choose the one that traditionally receives custody in divorces (um, does “Tender Years Doctorine” mean anything to you?), or the one that only in the last 20 years stood a remote chance of winning a contested custody case if no abuse was involved.
It would be an utterly remarkable turnaround of biases in 20 years. I think men have made some, slow, progress in demonstrating their capabilities as parents – you can almost say the phrase “single father”, and not get funny looks – but to say that all other things being equal, that it is better to not have the historical biases of family court in your favor… it doesn’t pass the smell test. If you don’t believe me, call some divorce attorneys and ask them. I am pretty sure they will tell you something similar (or better yet, listen in to a conversation between a man and a prospective divorce attorney about whether he should go for custody).
So you’re proposing a “loser pays” system? That punishes child-support-paying parents who do not have accountant’s fees to burn. And it’s wide-open to abuse: “Look, custodial ex, I’m happy to roll the dice on an accountant, because I can afford it and you can’t. So maybe you’d better shut up and take less money or I’ll put you through the legal wringer.”
It seems to me that if someone were really set on annoying or harassing their ex, there would be easier battlegrounds on which to fight that fight. The NCP does not get to appoint the accountant – s/he pays for it, but the accountant is appointed independently. The accountant is like a GAL, representing the interests of the child. The court would, correctly, look down on someone coming to court repeatedly with trumped up charges of fraud. Heck, after you have the materials together for the first audit (which should be easy anyway, since all you have to do is show your child related expenditures exceed the child support) – second and subsequent audits are a simple matter of sending the new accountant the box of the same stuff you sent him or her before. If some dumbass wants to force upteen audits at a grand a pop, hey, all power to ya. It’s your money you are wasting if you choose to do so.
As for suspicion of fraud, yes, the NCP, or for that matter, anyone who has good evidence that fraud is occuring would be able to bring up the matter. Why not? If you see fraud, and you can point to evidence of fraud, an ethical person reports the fraud. In a case like this, the NCP and others close to the child will have a pretty good idea about whether fraud is being engaged in or not.
As for proving it, we are back at the independent accountant. A good forensic accountant can trace the inflows and outflows of a household. This ain’t the OJ case… the evidence is usually there with bank records, check registers, and the like. The kinds of money that would be required to call it fraud would be pretty obvious. This is how it works – you get “x” thousand of monthly support. You have what was provided toward the child by the CP – including housing and transportation (call it “y”). If “y” is bigger than “x”, you are done, you pass. If “x” is bigger than “y”, we have more questions… namely, ***where did the money go?***. Hopefully, it went to a college fund, or some sort of savings that benefits the child. If that can be shown, you pass. If not, then you have, by definition, using the child’s money (child support) on yourself… fraud, if you will. This is not that complicated.
um, does “Tender Years Doctorine” mean anything to you?
Um, does “women is usually the primary caregiver, even though there is a legal presumption of joint custody in my state” mean anything to you? Fact is that if a couple has been happily letting Dad pay most of the bills and Mom do most of the caretaking, you should not be shocked, shocked if that arrangment continues–in most cases, because the parents WANT it to–in divorce.
I’m a member of the sex, by the way, whose members are considered selfish and monstrous if they prefer to leave the primary childcare to the other sex.
The accountant is like a GAL, representing the interests of the child.
You mean that you believe the court should appoint an accountant as a GAL, because the alternative is a battle of the experts–one parent hires an accountant to prove the money is being flushed down the toilet, the other hires an accountant to prove it’s not enough.
See, my mother is a tax attorney, so I have a decent idea of how much a “simple matter” audits are. Especially if you haven’t been saving every receipt and scrap of proof in a neat file closet on the assumption that the other person is going to turn asshole on you.
Good forensic accountants aren’t cheap, by the way, even if they are being paid by the court rather than private parties.
anyone who has good evidence that fraud is occuring would be able to bring up the matter. Why not?
Because of the enormous potential for waste, abuse and harm to the children. ANYONE can have standing? Gosh, no control issues there.
You’re persuading me that it would be a really stupid idea for anyone to have primary custody. I’d sure rather be of the gender that gets to send a monthly check, not have to worry about childcare while I’m at work all day, and then gets to complain about how my ex-spouse is “defrauding” me because part of the electric bill paid for his computer use, and not the kids’.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wouldn’t a college fund be an item separate from monthly maintenance?