Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I agree with you in spirit but I think exceptions exist. Anyways I don't think child support should come in the form of money but rather clothes, school supplies, hospital bills for the kids. The woman should not get the money and be able to allocate it.
You can call me an extremist if you like, but I believe in more. I believe that the presumption should be joint custody. When I say joint custody, I mean it. If there were true joint custody in place, then there should be no child support. Why would a judge award an ex 1 more day of physical custody per year and then have the child live in poverty the other 5 months and 29 days he is at my house?
Why should my kid have to sit on a milk crate during his visitation time with me because I am still paying my ex when he is with me?
Don't think this is an exception, this is the status qo.
You can call me an extremist if you like, but I believe in more. I believe that the presumption should be joint custody. When I say joint custody, I mean it. If there were true joint custody in place, then there should be no child support. Why would a judge award an ex 1 more day of physical custody per year and then have the child live in poverty the other 5 months and 29 days he is at my house?
Why should my kid have to sit on a milk crate during his visitation time with me because I am still paying my ex when he is with me?
Don't think this is an exception, this is the status qo.
I think perfect joint custody is impossible in most cases but I think the kids should go to the most financially stable and successful parent provided that parent wants them.
I don't find you an extremist. I find you a man fighting for your rights, I just don't agree with everything you say but I can sympathize as a man with 2 kids whose not allowed to see them (restraining order).
Yes, and they have to go to court and ask for visitation.
It doesn't matter if a court order is in place for visitation. A court order is in place for visitation. I can't say for sure, but I bet the other poster's brother already has an order in place like I do. The ex can violate that order and already knows that nothing big will happen to them or why would they even bother?
The Answer: For the same reason people jay walk. They know that nothing will happen to them even though the law is on the books. Sure in some cities there are exceptions, but many people will go on doing it in many places because they already know they can get away with it.
Ignorance is bliss for people who don't understand this or don't want to understand this because it benefits them personally.
I know if I had an enforcable order against me, I would pay just because the order is in place or suffer the consequences. Why would someone not obey a court order so easily? The answer is obvious.
What about if he's proven to be a danger to his kids?
That is the thing, most courts will find men unfit within 5 minutes...yes 5 minutes! How do I go from being a great father to an unfit father in 5 minutes with no evidence. How does this happen in a jurisdiction like Miami-Dade County for example ~96 percent of the time. It is because there is something hidden. If a judge rules otherwise, he will be removed from the bench. There is a fidiciary interest in doing this to fathers. I can go on and on about that as well.
Say I was just an ok father, how is that suddenly enough to become a visitor in your child's life? So I am supposed to act like a lopsided father by paying money but not worthy of being called a father in 5 minutes and bear the new tag of visitor and expected to be a father? No, that is not right, not nearly close in the context of correct.
That is the thing, most courts will find men unfit within 5 minutes...yes 5 minutes! How do I go from being a great father to an unfit father in 5 minutes with no evidence. How does this happen in a jurisdiction like Miami-Dade County for example ~96 percent of the time. It is because there is something hidden. If a judge rules otherwise, he will be removed from the bench. There is a fidiciary interest in doing this to fathers. I can go on and on about that as well.
Say I was just an ok father, how is that suddenly enough to become a visitor in your child's life? So I am supposed to act like a lopsided father by paying money but not worthy of being called a father in 5 minutes and bear the new tag of visitor and expected to be a father? No, that is not right, not nearly close in the context of correct.
I know the laws here favor the woman and are stacked against the man. In reality, most often the woman is the best person to raise a child. Not always though.
I think perfect joint custody is impossible in most cases but I think the kids should go to the most financially stable and successful parent provided that parent wants them.
I don't find you an extremist. I find you a man fighting for your rights, I just don't agree with everything you say but I can sympathize as a man with 2 kids whose not allowed to see them (restraining order).
Interesting take. I appreciate your moderate viewpoint. Everyone is so polarized in the USA which forces me to be just as polar.
I'd like to hear with your explanation that joint custody is impossible in most cases. I'd like to know why you feel that way.
I don't feel that way at all. I think that the people are fed bologna about joint custody. If 2 people live relatively close and there really is nothing about them that is specifically harmful to their kids, then why not rotate custody. Psychologists who seem to be friendly with the court argue that there is harm done to the child when you do that. I think there is far more harm to that essentially fatherless child when he is forced to move away from his child to pay the mother and therefore unable to see his child.
Also, States like Florida have now made joint custody the presumption unless there is allegedly something horribly wrong.
How could they do that if it were almost impossible? Their interpretation of joint custody still seems intended to numb the masses. You get to make half the decisions (yeah good luck with that).
My order was pretty common, one day short of half the year? Well that is an example of joint custody that could have worked if I didn't need to pay child support the 5 months and 29 days he was with me.
Interesting take. I appreciate your moderate viewpoint. Everyone is so polarized in the USA which forces me to be just as polar.
I'd like to hear with your explanation that joint custody is impossible in most cases. I'd like to know why you feel that way.
I don't feel that way at all. I think that the people are fed bologna about joint custody. If 2 people live relatively close and there really is nothing about them that is specifically harmful to their kids, then why not rotate custody. Psychologists who seem to be friendly with the court argue that there is harm done to the child when you do that. I think there is far more harm to that essentially fatherless child when he is forced to move away from his child to pay the mother and therefore unable to see his child.
Also, States like Florida have now made joint custody the presumption unless there is allegedly something horribly wrong.
How could they do that if it were almost impossible? Their interpretation of joint custody still seems intended to numb the masses. You get to make half the decisions (yeah good luck with that).
My order was pretty common, one day short of half the year? Well that is an example of joint custody that could have worked if I didn't need to pay child support the 5 months and 29 days he was with me.
The only way joint custody can work is if the parents live within walking distance of each other. Something not likely to happen. Otherwise day to day the kid will spend more time with one parent. Probably the parent of the school district he goes to. And then it becomes something like 75-25 custody.
Notice I said perfect joint custody. The only perfect joint custody is if the parents remained together.
I know the laws here favor the woman and are stacked against the man. In reality, most often the woman is the best person to raise a child. Not always though.
I don't agree with that. You are technically within the bureaucracy we live in being sexist towards men even if you are a man. Can you imagine if you were sexist towards a woman? All hell would break loose! I think that you lack self esteem and have been convinced by the masses or maybe by some other situation of that. Don't most people say that we can be whatever we want to be? While I feel that there is alot of fluff associated with that statement isn't that to at least some degree TRUE? Why would that statement conveniently not apply in the case of being everything that you can be as a father and not just a piggy bank?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
