Court Strongly Rejects "Choice For Men" Civil Rights Lawsuit

Via Red State Feminist, a pdf file of the court’s ruling can be found here. The court ruled “that the plaintiff’s claim is frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation.”

Here’s a bit of the ruling:

According to the pleadings, Dubay commenced a personal relationship with defendant Lauren Wells, dated her, engaged in intimate sexual relations, impregnated her, terminated his relationship, and sued her for bearing his child. If chivalry is not dead, its viability is gravely imperiled by the plaintiff in this case.

But chivalry is not the issue here, nor does it provide a basis upon which to decide the legal and policy issues that Dubay seeks to advance through this litigation. Rather, the plaintiff contends that Michigan’s paternity statutes are repugnant to the United States Constitution’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses because he has no say, he argues, in the decision whether to beget and bear a child. Therefore, he insists, he ought not to be saddled with the financial responsibility of the child’s support, and he should receive damages from the private and public defendants who are attempting to exact that toll from him.

The plaintiff’s claims have been rejected by every court that has considered similar matters, and with good reason. The plaintiff’s suggestion that the support provisions of the Michigan Paternity Act implicates the Equal Protection Clause does not find support in the jurisprudence. First, the Act’s provisions apply only if a child is born and essentially do not concern anyone’s right to choose to be a parent.

Second, the statutory provisions are facially neutral, requiring both parents equally to support the child.

Third, the plaintiff argues that enforcing the Act’s provisions, without any deviation from the neutral language of those provisions, still can implicate the Equal Protection Clause because of an underlying inequality: the State’s recognition that women can choose to be parents and men cannot. This argument in turn is based on the existence of a right supposedly grounded in substantive due process, as the plaintiff acknowledged at oral argument. But the Sixth Circuit has squarely rejected the argument that fairness or reciprocity generates a substantive right to avoid child support on the theory that a woman has the right to bring to term or terminate a pregnancy on her own.

Finally, the plaintiff has failed to demonstrate in even the most remote way that state action plays a role in the interference with his choice to reject parenthood. The consequences of sexual intercourse have always included conception, and the State has nothing to do with this historical truism. Because the plaintiff has failed to state a colorable claim in his amended complaint, the Court will dismiss the complaint against all the defendants. In addition, the Court finds that the plaintiff’s claim is frivolous, unreasonable, and without foundation. Therefore, the Court will grant the State’s motion for attorney fees….

The above is pretty much the “executive summary” section of the judgement; read the whole thing if you’d like to see the arguments developed in more detail.

NOTE FOR COMMENTS: Please don’t post about how you have an income of $500 a month and the judge ordered you to pay $2000 a month in child support to your ungrateful lazy ex-spouse who spends all the child support money on dresses she can wear to the track and she earns more than you do anyway and the judge won’t even reply to your motions. Unless I know both you and your ex-spouse, and can hear her side of the story for myself, I don’t think anecdotal evidence of that sort really helps advance the discussion.

.

This entry was posted in Choice for Men. Bookmark the permalink.

277 Responses to Court Strongly Rejects "Choice For Men" Civil Rights Lawsuit

  1. Mendy says:

    After reading all the comments on the thread, I’m left with one idea: Unless fraud can be proven as in a man or woman has deliberately lied about the status in regards to conception both parents are and should be required to support any child born from their decision to have sex.

    Yes, women have more choices in regards to how to handle an unwanted pregnancy, and that comes down to biology. However, once the child is born and drawing breath it is going to need both financial and emotional support and guidance. I know many men who pay child support, and yet do not fully support thier children. I know several women that want the money from their child’s biological father but want no involvement for him in the child’s life.

    In regards to welfare for single mothers: My mother was disabled and after her divorce she raised us on public assisstance and his child support. Even now, a family of three can get up to 700 per month in food stamps, section 8 housing assisstance, and medicaide for the kids. As fare as welfare (cash assisstance) I believe that a person is exempt from having to work until the child reaches school age, or unless the state pays for daycare services in your area.

    No, my Mom didn’t get rich, but we also didn’t do without either. I wasn’t easy, but she did it just like I did it for two years until I got my present employment. What I see most of my friend’s children missing isn’t the financial contribution of two parents, but the emotional support and involvement of their absent fathers.

    Not really sure where I was going with this, but it’s early and I’ve only had one cup of coffee.

  2. plunky says:

    The “use a condom every time you have sex” argument is about as valid as abstinence only IMHO. It’s a nice fantasy to pretend that men have good birth control options, but we don’t. We can pretty much use a condom, which makes sex less fun/intimate/etc or have surgery to permanently prevent us from impregnating. Please stop with the “it’s selfish to not use a condom every single time you ever have sex” stuff.

  3. Robert says:

    The responsibility to care for the created child is not identical with the responsibility not to kill a fetus or a child.

    What responsibility is there not to kill a fetus?

    the fact that the expectant father has to pay for care of the child after point x doesn’t mean he is free to kill it before point x

    Well, of course not.

    His right to kill it derives from the principle of reproductive autonomy.

    …you can see that the responsibility to the child, should it be born (and once it is born) is a separate issue from the right of the mother to have an abortion.

    Well, yes. That’s why I was trying to nail down when, exactly, we have a “child”. You can’t kill a child, so if you want to absolve yourself of responsibility, you have to kill the entity before it reaches that stage.

    No child, no responsibility of care.

    Exactly.

  4. pheenobarbidoll says:

    “The “use a condom every time you have sex” argument is about as valid as abstinence only IMHO. It’s a nice fantasy to pretend that men have good birth control options, but we don’t. We can pretty much use a condom, which makes sex less fun/intimate/etc or have surgery to permanently prevent us from impregnating. Please stop with the “it’s selfish to not use a condom every single time you ever have sex” stuff. ”

    Not only is it selfish (thats what claiming its less “fun” means btw) it’s foolish. Condoms don’t just protect you from an unwanted pregnancy, they protect you from many diseases, some of which last a lifetime or end a life too soon. A huge number of those diseases show no symptoms and a great deal of people have no idea they’re infected.

    Thats like saying ” dont tell me driving drunk is selfish”.

    Men DO have good birth control options. Not only do mens BC options have a higher chance at preventing pregnancy, they prevent diseases. Other than the female condom, womens BC only protects against pregnancy to a lesser degree. And to do THAT, they have to have their hormones jacked with or stick a piece of rubber inside them.

    grow up.

  5. Broce says:

    “We can pretty much use a condom, which makes sex less fun/intimate/etc or have surgery to permanently prevent us from impregnating. ”

    And the “minor” inconvenience of birth control to women:

    The pill can create all sorts of problems; this is in the news a lot, and I’m sure I don’t need to detail it, but keep in mind words like “stroke” and “embolism.”

    The IUD causes menstrual periods to be heavier and more painful. It can also perforate the uterus.

    The diaphragm? Women can be sensitive to spermicide used with these, causing vaginal irritation and itching. When I used a diaphragm, I got a bladder infection every single time.

    ALL of these side effects can decrease a woman’s pleasure in sex greatly.

    But of course, those minor issues are so much less important than the reduction in “fun” that would be caused by his using a condom.

    Cry me a river.

  6. nik says:

    Child support is about a born child… There are no laws in existence (or even in committee) that requires a man to pay for anything while the woman is pregnant. He is not responsible for making sure she has a roof over head, that she is being fed (let alone properly). He is not responsible, in any way, for any pre-natal care. He will only become financially responsible if and only if a child is born; at which point, he becomes responsible for and to that child (not the child’s mother).

    Child support is by definition about a born child. But if you read the judgement you’ll find ‘paternal’ obligations go beyond this. The act requires men to share equally in the ‘reasonable and necessary’ expenses of the confinement/pregnancy. So they can be made to contribute to the cost of bringing about the birth of the child and the survival of the mother (with her veto on adoption) even if what they want is for one or both of them to die.

  7. Mendy says:

    bean,

    This was some 15 years ago, and as I said my mother was disabled and so she got SSI in addition to Housing assistance, food stamps, and medicaide for us. I currently live in Louisiana, and I’m not sure about other states. I just knew that when I was drawing food stamps during my first marriage only one of us “had” to work until the kids were school aged. Of course this was me, because my ex was too lazy to work to help support the family.

  8. Pingback: Metablog

  9. hf says:

    But “these guys aren’t stepping up to their responsibility!” is a laughable position from people whose entire gender philosophy is predicated and centered around ensuring that women are able to sidestep their own responsibilities.

    Robert, liberals do not define themselves by their opposition to you. (I assume the bit about women’s responsibilities represents your own philosophy.) And while people may use the word “responsibility” as a rhetorical device when talking about child support, this does not seem logically necessary. I imagine voters’ thought process goes something like this, if we put it in more neutral terms:
    1. We want to protect children. This goal trumps all other moral values.
    2. In order for children to survive, someone has to pay their cost of living. [Unlike the concern about same-sex marriage, this involves a scientifically proven and indeed rather obvious fact to balance the desires of adults.] I don’t want to do it, though I will if I see no alternative.
    3. Parents traditionally fulfill this role. If we can make this system work in a particular case, we can move on to the next child (who may have no parents).
    4. I’ll therefore vote for laws that require parents to pay to keep their children alive. Because I can. See #1.

    At what identifiable point in time does this “child” entity, the one whom a debt of parenthood is now owed, come into being?

    I should probably ignore this, but I’ll try to respond briefly. According to Amp, a child might exist after the 28th week of pregnancy. But of course we’d have to look at a particular case to find out, for example, if the “child” has a head or if the pregnancy went wrong at some point. If you can prove that 28th week abortions involving a viable pregnancy even happen in the USA, and that we’ve made a reasonable effort to avoid such situations by providing earlier (and thus morally unambiguous) birth control — at a minimum, removing any State or “pro-lifer” produced barriers — then maybe we can talk about balancing concern for a possible child against the rights of the mother.

  10. mythago says:

    So they can be made to contribute to the cost of bringing about the birth of the child and the survival of the mother (with her veto on adoption) even if what they want is for one or both of them to die.

    If you read the judgment, then you’d know that this obligation is imposed on the mother as well as the father. Regardless of whether she wanted to be pregnant, or had an opportunity to abort.

    The law is very simple If there is a child, both parents are responsible for that child, whether or not either parent wanted that child, meant to conceive that child, or was able to get an abortion, or in any way wanted to be a parent.

    What C4M does is to create an escape hatch for men only. There is nothing in the law now that says “If you couldn’t terminate your unwanted pregnancy, Mom, you have no legal or moral obligation to the child when it’s born.” Arguments about abandonment and adoption are red herrings meant to obscure this fact.

    And, again, I find it rather telling that the arguments are all about child support. Forget the huge legal and moral burden of being the biological parent of another human being; it’s the money, honey.

    Robert, what you really believe is that women should not have the right to terminate support of their child while it is still in the womb.

  11. Sailorman says:

    This thread got way too odd for me when the castration comments started :) so I mostly dropped out.

    Myth, the arguments are only about child support because that’s, well, what the c4m movement is about. Child support is a separable issue which (in theory, though apparently not in practice) can be be discussed without getting into abortion, castration, where in the birth canal a baby’s head needs to be to be alive, etc etc.

    Similarly, the prochoice movement usually isn’t about child support, either. And it need not be, as abortion rights and child support are not necessarily required to come up simultaneously in every conversation. And the immigration rights movement isn’t about food stamps. And the….

    BTW: you say “Forget the huge legal and moral burden of being the biological parent of another human being; it’s the money, honey.” For a noncustodial parent, the “huge legal burden of being the biological parent of another being” you talk about IS MONEY. It’s not custody, it’s money. And you’re right: It can be a huge burden. That’s why people talk about it.

    Which is a very interesting topic. And a normal topic to discuss–in theory. But it sure as heck doesn’t seem possible to discuss it here, so I’m dropping back out again.

  12. mythago says:

    But it sure as heck doesn’t seem possible to discuss it here, so I’m dropping back out again

    Sorry, but I don’t play the ‘no tagbacks’ game. If you don’t want to discuss an issue, don’t bring it up. “I’ve said my piece, now everybody shut up”? Nah.

    For a noncustodial parent

    Exactly my point, Sailorman. The arguments aren’t about how unfair it is that the father might have to have some custody, or spend every other weekend being Daddy to a child he doesn’t want. They’re not about the mother abandoning her child and leaving the man the single parent of a child she claimed to want, but he doesn’t.

    If you really think money is a worse burden than parenting, you haven’t spent much time rearing children. Which I suspect is also true of the C4M crowd.

  13. Sailorman says:

    [Rude comment deleted. Sailorman would like it to be known that he has three children. –Amp]

  14. Beste says:

    Even is if C4m was lega?!?! Alot of us would still choose parenthood.

    I don’t see how this is any different to a women supporting legal abortion, even though she would never have one herself.

  15. mythago says:

    Then I find it very strange that Sailorman appears to agree that money really ought to be the central issue in this debate.

    After all, nobody frames Roe in terms of the impact of pregnancy or childbirth on the mother’s income.

  16. Robert says:

    I also have three children, with whom I am deeply involved. Just for the record.

    You are quite right, btw, that I don’t think women should have this right. But since they do, I want to see:

    a) the universal application of the principles of reproductive autonomy and gender equality

    or

    b) an abandonment of “equality” and “autonomy” arguments, and an admission that female reproductive supremacism is the actual agenda

    or (best-case)

    c) an acknowledgement that “equality” and “autonomy”, actually applied, do not serve the interests of children, and are not the appropriate criteria on which to base reproductive policy

    They’re feminist principles; feminists should either actually believe them, or stop using them.

  17. mythago wrote:

    Then I find it very strange that Sailorman appears to agree that money really ought to be the central issue in this debate.

    After all, nobody frames Roe in terms of the impact of pregnancy or childbirth on the mother’s income.

    Choice-for-men, as choice-for-men advocates frame it–and I don’t think Sailorman is quite a C4m advocate; what he seems to want to do is argue it out to see where it goes–is about whether or not they should be obligated to spend money on a child they did not want. They do not, or at least I have not heard anyone who advocates C4M talk about the emotional difficulties that attend finding oneself the parent of a born child one did not want; they do not talk about how we might think about C4M in terms of the male body and male sexuality and reproductive biology prior to vaginal intercourse, something I wrote about here. What they are worried about is the money, and while I don’t have much sympathy for this complaint, precisely because it is not placed in the larger context of what it means socioeconomically, culturally, politically and personally to help to conceive a child, I think it is wrong to dismiss the fact that, given women’s reproductive choice and the way our society structures the meaning of sex-for-pleasure and the responsibilities of child-rearing, it is a woman’s choice to give birth that “activates” a man’s financial responsibility to the child they conceived together, whether or not he wanted that child to be born. I also think it is wrong to dismiss the impact that this “activation” will have on a man, whether he is a man who wants to “do the right thing” or he is a man who wants to try to get out having to pay.

    Ah shit–just looked at the clock and I have to go. I will try to finish this later.

  18. Beste says:

    Women have *some* rights when it comes to reproductive autonomy but it is no where near enough.

    Other than legalised C4m I also want to see no restrictions on abortion, an opt in/out policy for women and more available clinics .

  19. Sailorman says:

    what do you mean by an opt in/ opt out policy?

  20. beste says:

    Should the father want the child and the mother doesn’t. A opt out/in policy would allow the mother to irrevocably relinquish her parental rights and responsibilities by filling out an affidavit..Therefore giving the father full single parent status.

  21. mythago says:

    it is a woman’s choice to give birth that “activates” a man’s financial responsibility to the child they conceived together

    And yet again: financial responsibility is “activated” for both parents regardless of whether the woman chose to give birth, much less whether she chose to get pregnant.

  22. Mythago: You are, of course, correct that a woman’s financial responsibility to the children she bears is “activated” by her choice to give birth no differently than that of the man with whom she conceived the child. My point was not to deny that the woman has financial responsibility, but simply to acknowledge the fact that the choice which “activates” the man’s responsibility is, if he doesn’t want the child, not his and that the fact that the choice is not his is going to have an impact on him–I did not define the impact I was thinking about in the post you are quoting from, but what I had in mind is that it is not unreasonable for a man in that position to be quite resentful of the woman, and I was going to go on to say that I think what C4M really is at some level is an attempt to politicize that resentment. As such, it is an essentially immature position, whiny and childish.

    The reason I wanted to acknowledge the validity of the man’s resentment towards the woman was simply that I think it makes it easier to distinguish between his relationship to her and his relationship to the born child and to point out that any contractual negotiation a man might want to engage in in terms of his future responsibilities towards that child–I don’t know why but I am still sort of picking away at why the whole contract-thing bothers me–would need to be with someone whose job was to represent the best interests of the child, independently of the mother and the father, and that negotiating with the woman who is the child’s mother does not meet that standard.

    And now that I have said what I meant, I have read your comment again and I realize I might have misread you: when you say “whether or not the woman chose to give birth,” are you talking about a situation in which she had an abortion or in which birth was the only option and so she didn’t really have a choice, or is there another possibility that I am missing?

  23. mythago says:

    The contract thing probably bothers you because child support is an obligation to a third party–the child. It’s not a mutual agreement between Mom and Dad.

    By “didn’t have a choice” I mean that the law pays absolutely no attention to whether Mom was able to have an abortion in determining her obligation to her born child.

  24. Sailorman says:

    Beste: Sure. To the best of my knowledge this already exists. If one parent wants to raise a child entirely solo and the other parent wants nothing to do with the child, there’s generally no barrier to that deal. I have a feeling that the rules may be slightly different for welfare parents of either sex (I suspect that, as with medicare, you are not “allowed” to decline a benefit available to you such as child support while simultaneously receiving government welfare assistance to cover that benefit) though I am not positive and do not have the time right now to research the laws.

    I’m not a “c4m” advocate; I’m a “free will contract” advocate. The crucial distinction is that the free will contract theory applies to both parties, while the traditional c4m movement is primarily aimed at enhancing only male rights. So long as both parties are not coerced, incompetent, etc, I prefer laws (or lack thereof) that enhance BOTH of their abilities to make their own decisions so long as they are morally defensible.

    Sigh. This blog is absolutely fascinating and is KILLING my hours this month. Oh well.

  25. nik says:

    If you read the judgment, then you’d know that this obligation [to pay for the cost of the mother’s confinement and pregnancy] is imposed on the mother as well as the father. Regardless of whether she wanted to be pregnant, or had an opportunity to abort.

    I admire your willful refusal to admit the obvious, but the mother’s obligation to pay for expenses which she incurs is not created by this law. It would exist even if this law did not though ordinary contact law. This law modifies that so that both parents share in the expenses, it’s daft to say the obligation to pay bills which she incurs is imposed upon her by this law.

  26. Ampersand says:

    I admire your willful refusal to admit the obvious…

    Let’s try to dial down the snark level a bit, please.

  27. craichead says:

    Personally, I don’t think it can be reduced to wallet vs uterus. It’s really more than about just money.

    In my opinion it isn’t so much that men shouldn’t have to financially support their children, it’s about how that’s imposed. If, for example, the father of a child was simply compelled by law to pay 17% of his income in support of the child, I’d find that to be arguably fair and acceptable.

    But the problem is that he’s not just compelled to do that — like, say in the way the IRs claims taxes — he’s compelled to pay a fixed amount and then beg to have that modified if his life circumstances change. He has in effect lost the ability to freely make very basic value choices about his life that most of the rest of us take for granted.

    For many fathers, the way child support is imposed is utterly brutal and unforgiving. One can cite anecdotes of losers who’ve skated their whole lives without paying a dime, but for a middle class man who mostly conscientously does what he can to make something of his life, they’re a direct and extreme incursion into basic aspects of his life most people take for granted.

    I find often in threads like this one, a willful refusal to acknowledge that fact during the course of argument.

    Amp has another thread around here about how it’s a myth that child support awards are insanely high. They’re not necessarily “insanely” high when they’re set, but what I would add is that the price to very reasonable personal freedoms is beyond “insanely high.” That cost will not appear in any balance sheet or statistic.

    There is a middle ground wherein people can be expected to live with the consequences of choices they make and the children that result. The choice for men case has emerged because so many wrongly find that middle ground to be unreasonable.

  28. mythago says:

    the mother’s obligation to pay for expenses which she incurs is not created by this law

    nik, yet again: the mother is obligated whether or not she ‘created’ her expenses. If she is raped and locked in a basement for six months, then turned loose after it is too late for her to obtain an abortion, I think even you’d admit she did not become or remain voluntarily pregnant. Yet the law obligates her to pay the expenses of the pregnancy, as well as having legal obligations to the child.

    I don’t know how many repetitions it takes for this to be clear: The law does not care if you wanted to be a parent or how you became a parent. You have a kid, you’re responsible until you can get somebody else to take those responsibilities (and the kid) off your hands. This is true of women as well as men.

    they’re a direct and extreme incursion into basic aspects of his life most people take for granted

    That would happen to be true of parenthood in general, and of the costs of childrearing in general. I do believe that rather than bicker about child support, we ought to put more energy into making men equal, and even primary, caretakers of their children. That tends to put the ‘incursion’ of child support into perspective a bit.

  29. craichead says:

    Mythago-

    First let me say that I absolutely agree with the idea of making men more equal in terms of being primary caretakers. And yes, it absolutely puts child support in perspective — in all of its facets aside from financial. It’s a re-education of both men and women, but I suppose that’s a thread unto itself.

    Myth said, “That would happen to be true of parenthood in general, and of the costs of childrearing in general. ”

    Right, but there’s also an important point to consider that’s being missed, I think. When a parent is a primary custodian, they must consider their child in all of the decisions they make. If the primary parent considers changing jobs or careers, she’s got to sit down and do the math to figure if it’s do-able. Is this what you’re getting at?

    I’m not saying “let men out of child support” or “let men opt out of responsibility.” I’m saying make the enforcement system less brutal.

    I simply think that setting support based on a fixed point in time and making it highly improbable to change it is unjust.

  30. mythago says:

    I agree with your last point, but do consider that it might not have the results you want.

  31. Robert says:

    The problem with variable support is that there are plenty of guys out there who will self-impoverish, reduce their income, etc., go to the judge and poormouth to get a minimal support payment, and then re-up their income on the side or under the table to regain their standard of living.

  32. Mendy says:

    Robert,

    You hit the nail on the head. My ex-husband flat out stated to my ex-father-in-law that he’d rather go to jail than pay me one penny in support for his children. I knew he felt that way long before we divorced, and so there was no judgement made for child support in our custody papers. I’ve been told repeatedly that I need to take him to court to “force” him to pay support. My thought is that he never supported the family while we were married why should he start now? The answer is , of course, that he won’t and I’d rather spend my time and energy in raising my children to be healthy well adjusted human beings rather than getting caught up in a legal game of “make the turnip bleed”.

    I do think that when it can be proven that mothers recieving child support aren’t in fact using that money to support her children that the father ought to have some recourse. An example would be a woman that has remarried since her divorce and uses the support money to make take a carribean vacation. (This is a true anecdotal story of a woman that I work with). Her new husband earned twice what she did and had no children of his own, so she said that she used to money to “do the thinks her ex wouldn’t let her do while married”.

    I am all for child support, when that money is indeed used to support the children. I feel that in most cases the money is used to support the kids in the form of housing, clothes, school, childcare, and medical care. However, there are exceptions and in those cases the father has very little recourse.

  33. craichead says:

    Robert-

    yes your’e right there are. That’s the same sort of reasonoing behind the patriot act — there are people out there who’ll do bad things, so we have have to monitor everyone without just cause.

    And Ai guess that’s the gist of it. Where’s the just cause?

    Is what you'[re saying that you think a guy should have to beg a judge’s permission to change his income or line of work? Personally I think someone should have to do something wrong first before we decide to get the judge involved. If you feel differently that’s your perogative, but that’s also pretty tyrannical in my opinionn.

  34. Robert says:

    “Beg a judge’s permission”? If by that you mean petition the court to have a support order modified, then yes, that would seem to be the necessary step. What’s the alternative? Having NCPs unilaterally modify their support as they deem appropriate under the circumstances? I can envision that working out really well.

    I understand the frustration felt by non-custodial parents who have to have their lives under a judicial microscope every time they turn around. That’s the tragedy of divorce, and parents of both sexes who decide that divorce is the answer to their problems should probably be aware of the fact that their private lives just became the property of the state.

  35. mythago says:

    a guy should have to beg a judge’s permission to change his income or line of work?

    Where on earth did you get the notion that a non-custodial parent (“guy” or not) has to have permission to change jobs? The court determines levels of support–not where you’re allowed to work.

    Her new husband earned twice what she did and had no children of his own

    Since money is fungible, and you didn’t say that the children’s standard of living went down, presumably both you and the mother are a little confused here; if she’s able to afford a Caribbean vacation because of her husband’s money, then really the vacation is being paid for by Mr. New.

  36. craichead says:

    Robert said, “What’s the alternative? Having NCPs unilaterally modify their support as they deem appropriate under the circumstances?”

    That’s a pretty pointedly gross exaggeration of what I was saying, don’t you think?

    “I understand the frustration felt by non-custodial parents who have to have their lives under a judicial microscope every time they turn around.”

    That’s not really apparent from most of what you say.

  37. mythago says:

    That’s a pretty pointedly gross exaggeration of what I was saying, don’t you think?

    Not at all. You mischaracterized the ability of either parent to seek a support adjustment as “a guy should have to beg a judge’s permission to change his income or line of work” – that’d be a distortion, not an exaggeration, by the way. Robert asked whether, as seemed to be the case, you would prefer a system where a non-custodial parent could say “I’m just going to go ahead and decide how much I should pay, because my job changed.”

  38. craichead says:

    No he wouldn’t decide how much he should pay — guideline still prevails. It’s just that if he goes from working a $60,000 per year job to a $40,000 per yeat job, he pays 17% of his new pay scale. That’s all.

    The custodial parent does not need a judge’s permission to do this. They simply have to decide if they’re willing to take the pay cut.

  39. craichead says:

    Maybe I should give a concrete example. I’m not divorced BTW.

    Over the last 15 years, I’ve developed a pretty good career, but it’s in a field which is very definitely on the wane where I live. Most places are pulling up stakes or teetering on the brink of going out of business.

    Combined with that, family obligations make it impossible for me to move right now.

    So what I plan to do is begin over at a new career which promises economic stability well into the future. Problem is, inorder to make a pre-emptive move for financial security, I’ll have to take a fairly significant pay cut.

    Now, if I was a divorced Dad, I would not be able to make that very basic and very necessary choice in my life. I couldn’t go and get a modification now, because I haven’t had a change of circumstance yet. And if I were to change firs, a judge could likely deem me to be willfully underemployed, not to mention that even if he were to offer a modification, I’d likely wait several months for it to come through.

    So to Robert and Mythago, if you were a divorced dad in this situation, what would you do?

  40. mythago says:

    The custodial parent does not need a judge’s permission to do this.

    The non-custodial parent doesn’t need a judge’s permission to do this, either. You keep saying that the ‘permission’ is to change jobs. It isn’t. A court has to approve a change in support, not a change in jobs. That’s true if income goes up, not just down.

    if you were a divorced dad in this situation, what would you do?

    I’d talk to my lawyer, rather than assuming there was no way to show a genuine change in circumstance or that I would be deemed willfully underemployed. And if I was going to have to wait until I take that pay cut, I guess I’d have to treat my child support the same way I think of other costs. The electric company, the grocery store, the car finance company don’t reduce what I am obligated to pay them just because I changed jobs.

    As long as we’re making up hypotheticals, let’s say that you are the custodial parent receiving child support. Your ex-spouse tells you that they’re switching careers to something they perceive as more stable in the long run, but they will take a significant pay cut, so you should expect a big drop in support payments as they’ll be reducing payments to a proportional cut of their new salary. What would you do?

    You see, what I’m not really hearing is an understanding that parenthood impacts your choices. “Should I tank my income for better stability in the long run?” is a question parents who aren’t divorced ask themselves. And “Geez, we could afford X if it weren’t for the kids’ medical bills and buying new school clothes” is something all parents probably consider at some point. So I’m not quite sure why the hard choices about jobs or recognizing the costs of parenthood are things that we should laud non-custodial parents for.

  41. craichead says:

    Myth said, “I was going to have to wait until I take that pay cut, I guess I’d have to treat my child support the same way I think of other costs. The electric company, the grocery store, the car finance company don’t reduce what I am obligated to pay them just because I changed jobs.”

    One can easily change those costs without a judge or lawyer. You drive a used car, get rid of cable, Use less AC, buy cheaper groceries and don’t eat out. Those are how you’d adjust. Your child would adjust along with you.

    “Your ex-spouse tells you that they’re switching careers to something they perceive as more stable in the long run, but they will take a significant pay cut, so you should expect a big drop in support payments as they’ll be reducing payments to a proportional cut of their new salary. What would you do?”

    I’m assuming that if I’m the primary parent, I would have argued to be (in a situation such as this anyway. We’re not assuming Dad just ran out). Given that, I also in effect argued for primary responsibility. If I’m not willing to live up to that, I had no place arguing for it to begin with. But also keep in mind, Dad’s not asking to opt out of support, he’s changing careers and taking a pay cut. Families do this all the time and they adjust.

    I’m not ignoring that parenthood impacts choices. In this case, he’s still going to pay his guideline. In effect, that still must be taken into account.

    Child support may not be insanely high in dollar amount, but in today’s economy, the standard of holding someone to making the same amount of money and restricting their choices to do so is in my opinion an insanely high standard.

  42. mythago says:

    One can easily change those costs without a judge or lawyer.

    I’m talking about existing debts, not future ones. But your argument is a good answer to the “how do I afford child support after my pay cut?” one.

    Given that, I also in effect argued for primary responsibility. If I’m not willing to live up to that, I had no place arguing for it to begin with.

    So you’re saying that primary physical custody means they have financial responsibility, and the non-custodial parent’s contribution is more of a ceremonial obligation?

  43. craichead says:

    No. What I’m saying is that the purpose of child support is to help provide that the kid lives basically in the same standard of living as if her parents hadn’t divorced.

    What CS enforcement does now is stop time at a little point in the past, but only with regard to the NCP. The NCP may have made the same career choice if the parents were together.

    All I’m saying is that if the CP can’t weather a change in the NCP’s income, then they maybe weren’t well suited to be the CP.

  44. craichead wrote:

    All I’m saying is that if the CP can’t weather a change in the NCP’s income, then they maybe weren’t well suited to be the CP.

    Which makes it sound like financial status ought to be the primary criteria in determining which parent gets custody. Which, if you really mean that, says a great deal about what you value and why money is so central to your argument here.

    I don’t think anyone would disagree that a noncustodial parent who is as straitjacketed in terms of her or his career and other choices as you seem to imply all NCP’s are would, all else being equal, be deserving of sympathy, but I wonder if you realize that this statement could be applied to all parents, i.e., if they can’t weather the changes in income that life brings, including the ways that having children changes the way one’s income must be used, then they shouldn’t have become parents to begin with.

  45. Sailorman says:

    Richard,

    I have lost track of where you fall on the “sex is avoidable” issue: Given that pretty much all forms of BC other than sterilization will fail eventually, do you think “if they can’t weather the changes in income that life brings, including the ways that having children changes the way one’s income must be used, then they shouldn’t have had sex to begin with” (note my edit in bold)?

  46. Sailorman: I am not sure what the point of your question is. The original version of the statement you have edited is not something I agree with. Rather, I was trying to point out that craichead’s statement about custodial parents, with which I disagree, implies a general rule that could be applied to any set of parents. I realize my post was not entirely clear about my own position vis-a-vis these statements.

  47. mythago says:

    All I’m saying is that if the CP can’t weather a change in the NCP’s income, then they maybe weren’t well suited to be the CP.

    So if the NCP’s income drops, making it hard for the CP to ‘weather’ this change in income, we should consider making the now-lower-income NCP the CP?

  48. Sarah says:

    Seems like a plan.

  49. craichead says:

    Well Mythago, I’d say that a parent who’s handling covering expenses for taking care of the child at his place as well as a sizeable chunk of taking care of her at someone else’s place probably could handle it.

  50. mythago says:

    So, again, you’re saying that the NCP’s contribution is really more of a token, that the CP should be able to fully support the child without that contribution, and if a lack of child support causes hardship, the CP should lose custody?

  51. Sarah says:

    I think what he means is that the most capable parent should get custody, if one parent cannot raise a child without assistance but the other can then the latter is the more likely candidate for CP, surely the NCP should indeed be a support rather than being the lynch pin?

  52. mythago says:

    But this would be the NCP who can’t even afford a share of the child support. And, in craichead’s example, is switching to a new job–where you’d now be adding the stress of childcare on top of the expenses of support.

  53. Nick Kiddle says:

    So if the NCP’s income drops, making it hard for the CP to ‘weather’ this change in income, we should consider making the now-lower-income NCP the CP?

    To judge from my ex’s apparent logic, no, we should consider taking the children away from both parents.

  54. craichead says:

    I think the reality being missed is that quite often — especially in situations where there is substantial visitation by the NCP — expenses for raising the kids can be similar.

    In raising children, probably the biggest expense beyond secondary education is keeping a place for them. In my experience both parents, whether CP or NCP, have to have a home big enough for the family. Based in that experience, I often see quite often among middle class divorced dads, the situation of keeping up similar expenses at his home, while at the same time subsidizing a similar arrangement at another home.

    I think some of you are extrapolating far beyond what I’ve posed. I’m not posing that an NCP should be let off the hook for child support or that he should be free to go from engineer to basket-weaver. What I’m getting at, is that if the CP can’t weather a change from 17% of $60,000 to 17% of $40,000, then there’s something wrong.

  55. mythago says:

    What I’m getting at, is that if the CP can’t weather a change from 17% of $60,000 to 17% of $40,000, then there’s something wrong.

    And you have made it clear that the ‘something’ that is wrong, in your opinion, is the CP’s fitness as a custodial parent.

  56. B says:

    So lets say that the custodial parent pays about 20 000 dollars all in all for supporting their child (and usually the cost is actually higher for the custodial parent than the ncp – but for the sake of the argument I’ll make it the other way around here). Suddenly the non-custodial parent cannot pay their 10 200 (17% of $60 000) any longer but instead pays 6800 (17% of $40 000). The custodial parent, struggling with bills and the cost of childrens clothes, find this loss of 3400 difficult to take.

    What in this scenario makes you believe that the person who can only pay 6 800 in child support suddenly will be able to pay 20 000 to support their child even if the other parent starts to pay support in their turn? And apart from the cost is the investment in time and emotional support that a child needs. How do you expect this person to handle that while looking for work?

    It just seems to me that a lot of people fail to realise what it really takes to raise a child.

  57. craichead says:

    I’m not one of those people. I’m raising a child and I’m also responsible for about 90% of what it’s costing us as a family to raise her. I’m not divorced BTW.

    You may be correct to state that it takes $20,000 per year to take care of the child. But that’s not an exclusive sum being used to ONLY support the child. It’s nearly impossible to separate the costs of supporting the child that are also shared by the needs of the parent, such as the home, the groceries, the utilities, etc. The NCP very often in middle class situations is covering much of that while also subsidizing that cost at the CP’s home.

    So, yes, I’d say that if the NCP could cover that $20,000 cost since much of it is being covered already.

    Incidentally, every NCP father that I know personally that I can think of right now, has his kids about 40% of the time and pays the full guideline in the way that a truly non-custodial parent does. It’s these guys really that I’m thinking of in this discussion since I see the cases of those living on the financial margins as a wholly different case.

    Could you imagine doing that?

  58. craichead says:

    Here’s an actual real life concrete example.

    I know a guy named Chris who was working two jobs when his marriage fell apart — a regular fulltime Mon-Fri job and a part time job on the weekends.

    The judge set CS based on the income from both jobs.

    So, now that he’s divorced, he needs the weekends for his parenting time since he was given every weekend for visitation. It’s now his only time with his son.

    So he quit his second job and went to court to have his CS modified to pay the guideline for his fulltime job. The judge said no.

    Last I knew, he had to give up his apartment and was living on his sister’s couch.

    Now please answer this question:
    Why should a person, with a solid several year record of taking financial responsibility for his child have to ask a judge’s permission to lower his income enough so that he can actually spend some time with his kid?

  59. Nick Kiddle says:

    Incidentally, every NCP father that I know personally that I can think of right now

    I could hit back and say that every NCP father that I know personally that I can think of right now has seen his child a mere three times since that child was born, and then only because the custodial mother took the trouble to bring the child to where the father was going to be. What does it prove?

    And my case might be some freakish outlier, but the biggest cost I’ve had to pay for being a custodial parent so far has been the money I couldn’t earn from the jobs I couldn’t take because I had a dependant child to take care of. How does that figure in your analysis?

  60. craichead says:

    Actually that figures prominently in my analysis since, having exactly the same experience, it sort of got me thinking, geez what if I was an NCP who had a child support order.

    My story is that I had a pretty happening career in the biotech industry, but when I was laid off due to downsizing, I had two choices — move or give up the career I loved and had worked hard at for 15 years. At the time I got laid off I was making $70,000 per year and I had offers on the table in other states for about $90,000. There are no other biotech companies within 300 miles of me.

    But my wife refused to move. So, second choice: pursue my career or be a father to my daughter.

    The choice was a simple one.

    But as a result, I’m starting over at 41 and I’ve taken a $25,000 per year paycut. If I was a paper NCP like most of the divorced dads I know, I’d basically be forced to move away from my daughter and would probably at best see her every other weekend. Beleive it or not, it probably would be as hard on her as it would be on me.

    Honestly, I’d rather be a poor custodial parent than a wealthy NCP.

  61. mythago says:

    Here’s an actual real life concrete example.

    So, again, you’re going to present anecdotes to argue exactly what Robert asked you–that NCPs should be allowed to unilaterally lower the amount of support they pay. CPs who complain should, in your opinion, have their custody re-examined.

    Honestly, I’d rather be a poor custodial parent than a wealthy NCP

    Plenty of wealthy NCPs disagree with you.

  62. Nick Kiddle says:

    So, second choice: pursue my career or be a father to my daughter.

    But that’s the thing: it’s a choice. Custodial parents don’t get to choose: they sacrifice or they cease to be custodial parents.

  63. craichead says:

    At some point did they not choose to BE custodial parents?

    I mean, virtually every single NCP I know would much rather be a CP. They didn’t get to choose.

  64. mythago says:

    I mean, virtually every single NCP I know would much rather be a CP.

    So are we relying on anecdotes for proof now? I don’t think you want to go that route.

  65. Ampersand says:

    I mean, virtually every single NCP I know would much rather be a CP. They didn’t get to choose.

    Statistically, the vast majority of NCP – above 85%, iirc – never make any legal request to be considered for custodial parenting. See the book Dividing the Child.

  66. Robert says:

    Sure. And most people never run for President, either, but they wouldn’t turn down the job if it were offered to them. NCPs don’t make legal requests for custody because they know they wouldn’t win, and would just tick off the judge for wasting hisher time.

  67. Ampersand says:

    That’s a theory, but it’s a pretty incredible one, since you don’t seem to allow that there could any NCPs who don’t ask for custody because they don’t want it. (But maybe that was just careless writing on your part).

    As Dividing the Child – which is, I should point out, a book frequently cited and considered reliable by MRAs, so I don’t think it can be dismissed as a biased feminist work – points out, there’s no evidence that there’s a widespread problem of NCPs who really want custody, but are afraid to ask for it for fear of judicial reprisal.

    Nor is there any evidence that NCPs who ask for, but don’t receive, CP, wind up with less visitation or higher child support payments for their income than NCPs who never ask for CP. So if asking for CP does “tick off the judge,” apparently ticking off the judge has zero negative consequences – so why worry about it?

    In my opinion, a more likely scenario is that typical judges aren’t actually ticked off merely because someone asks for custody.

  68. Robert says:

    I’m sure there are lots of NPCs who don’t want custody. I’m simply pointing out that “most don’t ask” doesn’t prove anything. Divorce proceedings are difficult and people are making tactical and strategic decisions; it isn’t always obvious what they want to have happen from just observing their actions.

    Your third paragraph I take as some type of witticism. There isn’t evidence that something has negative consequences, and therefore nobody would ever avoid the something for fear of negative consequences. Because most people check the studies and the data before they make a decision. (Eyeroll.) There aren’t any studies that lighting up a big ol’ bong in the food court in the mall will get you in trouble, and yet everyone refrains from doing it.

    I doubt that a typical judge WOULD be ticked off at a mere custody request – but I also doubt that a parent whose entire life is in the hands of that judge is blithe about taking the chance, especially when the parent knows their chances are poor. Again, that doesn’t go to desire – it goes to strategy.

  69. craichead says:

    Bwahahahaha! Sorry I just had to let that out.

    I guess maybe you didn’t know, but there’s an awful lot more to gaining custody of a child than “asking the judge” for it.

    When you said this one, “Statistically, the vast majority of NCP – above 85%, iirc – never make any legal request to be considered for custodial parenting. ”

    It helped me understand your perspective a lot better.

    There are actually many legal requests out there for NCP’s to be considered for custodial parenting. There was one called Bill A330 recently in NY state that got voted back into committee.

    Or don’t you consider lobbying for legislation to be a “legal request?”

  70. Ampersand says:

    Bwahahahaha! Sorry I just had to let that out.

    No, you didn’t have to. You chose to do so, because you’re rude and you don’t treat people who disagree with you with respect. Please reread the moderation goals. If you genuinely feel that you “just [have] to” make comments like that, then please stop posting on “Alas.”

    I guess maybe you didn’t know, but there’s an awful lot more to gaining custody of a child than “asking the judge” for it.

    Asking for custody is a necessary, but not sufficient, step for gaining custody in virtually all contested custody cases. Your objection would make sense if I had ever claimed that asking for custody was a sufficient step, but of course I never made that claim. Therefore your objection is illogical.

    As for your substantive point, I very much doubt that the majority of NCP are actively lobbying for A330 or similar legislation, or indeed for any other goal. (I don’t think NCPs are special this way; the large majority of Americans aren’t very politically active). Therefore, unless you can provide evidence that I’m mistaken about this, the existence of A330 does not logically refute my claim in any way.

  71. mythago says:

    NCPs don’t make legal requests for custody because they know they wouldn’t win, and would just tick off the judge for wasting hisher time.

    That’s one interpretation. Since we’re making these up, another interpretation would be that most people see childrearing as the woman’s job, and are just as happy to keep it that way after a divorce, leaving the mother with primary physical custody. “Do you want to be a single parent and have to juggle that life with childrearing?” is not exactly on the same plane as “Hey, wanna be President?”

  72. tweedledum and tweedledee says:

    Frankly this current argument is all about control: who gets to control whom, and responsiblity: how to avoid it. Currently, I have no sympathy for a man who voraciously claims he doesn’t want the responsibility of child support, but who hasn’t made the slightest effort to get a (reversable) vasectomy, and yet is somehow still entitled to consequence-free vaginal intercourse .

    Cry me a river.

    Yes, I know vasectomies sometimes fail to “take”, that’s why you go to your follow-up appointments to check for presence of sperm, and don’t have unprotected vaginal sex until you know the procedure was successful. Even after a successful procedure, continue to have periodic checkups to ensure you stay that way.

    If you don’t want to take responsibility for your own reproduction, do you really have any reason to whine about unwanted child support payments?

  73. AJ says:

    Perhaps you right….and what do we do about woman that tell the man “don’t use the condom honey I am on birth control pills….and doesn’t tell you she missed a few before the intercourse.

    Than….what do we do when there is an unwanted child and the mother knew she wasn’t protected and she had sex and let you ejaculate into her causing the reproducing of this child?

    Than….what do we do when the support payments are so high, because you have two children that live with you and support? Is it right for the two children not subject of the court proceeding to be evicted out of their home? Told they can’t go to religion anymore because the court said so? Do we tell people that have an unwanted and unplanned pregnancy that the other child is more important to the world then you are? Do we tell the other children they cannot go out with their friends or to the movies? DO we tell children not subject to a court proceeding the judge told them to go to hell?

    Than….what about paying child support payments BEFORE the child was even conceived by a very vicious and mean judge who miscalculated after slamming you and telling you your children whom you brought into this would and wanted are now reduced to rubble becuase their father was lied too and thought the woman wasn’t as vicious as she turned out to be?

    Then the woman takes off to Florida to live with her sisters and mother and doesn’t work anymore. The father is now a support machine for the two of them while trying to struggle to live….and now I add….I am 100 percent permanently disabled….where do I get money?
    Even if I wanted this unwanted child in my life…I couldn’t have him because a judge said she can live in Florida and if I want to address it go there to fight….yeah…being 100 percent disabled and trying to find the next dollar to survive and feed my two children that live with me.

    Why is the US Government allowed to terminate support payments at 18 and yet….other men are responsible for support payments to 21 and in some states 23 while their child is now gainfully employed?

    Where is the justice and fairness to everyone else?

    The resounding response is…there is none. The system is brutal.

    Your right though…..I should have wore a condom….but I didn’t. So what about my two children?

  74. Ampersand says:

    AJ, as I wrote at the end of this post :

    I’d support a two-tiered reform to child support. Child support payments should be made more sensitive to individual situations, so that noncustodial parents are not saddled with irrational and impossible-to-pay child support orders, as has happened in some outlier cases. At the same time, typical child support payments are simply too low, compared to the cost of raising a child; therefore, most non-custodial parents should have their child support obligations increased.

    If you’re describing your situation accurately, then that’s horrible, and I’m sorry that’s happened to you. And I’d support reforms to help NCPs in your situation. But getting rid of legally mandated child support entirely (but only for fathers), which is in effect what so-called “choice for men” would do, is not the solution. Fairness for non-custodial parents is important, but fairness to the other parties involved is also important.

  75. AJ says:

    Sir:

    I do agree with you.

    This is my situation as I am living it and I as you can see are going through hell.

    The only concern I have is that the courts did not take several factors into consideration:

    1. My children before this most unfortunate situation….like their lives did not matter whatsoever and even if it meant for them to become homeless. The judge cited that I live in an affluent area. This is far from the truth. My area is considered middle income. Many of us are blue collar workers…..policemen, firemen, sanitation and many other state, city and federal workers. Are we upper class in our salaries? Of course not. Nor can we be. I worked 3 (three) jobs to support myself and my children (whom live with me) before I was very seriously injured that has left me 100 percent permanently disabled.

    2. The gross abuse from the system is intolerable. There is no fairness to the non custodial parent. Even if I wanted to be involved in this child’s life I could not due to the fact she removed this child from NY to FL without my consent or with permission or authority to do so…and I went to court to prevent that. The judge did not care I am 100 percent disabled and cannot afford to travel to FL.

    3. A custodial parent needs support. I agree with you. But they must take other factors into consideration. And there are no provisions that compel a support magistrate to do so. They [MAY] adjust the award but there is no outright provision as circumstances permit. So if a judge doesn’t like you, as in my case, its tough luck.

    4. Other children MUST be taken into consideration if their wisdom is to be applied….in the best interest of the children. You cannot tell children to move, stop religious education, or any type of entertainment that normal, healthy children do.

    Thank you for listening.

    AJ

  76. Pingback: Excerpt from “My Daughter’s Vagina” « It’s All Connected…

  77. Pingback: Richard Jeffrey Newman - Excerpt from “My Daughter’s Vagina”

Comments are closed.