More Support for My Argument
I argued against the opponents of co-parenting in Michigan a couple of days ago. The Detroit News ran a great article on the subject. Part of my post refuted the idea that the only one that might be trying to “get even” or have less-than-ideal motives is the non-custodial parent. Also, there was the ridiculous idea that the non-custodial parent only wants the child for more time so they can pay less in child support. What about the custodial parent that wants the other parent to see the child less in order to get MORE child support.
Here’s a post a ran across today from a forum.
So, you want to revoke the non-custodial parent’s rights, but still get money? Not much moral high ground there. Don’t get me wrong. I completely DON’T understand Dads/non-custodials that don’t want to see their children. But, I’ve also learned that there are two sides to a story, and we don’t know what the other parent’s side is.
3 Responses to “More Support for My Argument”
Leave a Reply
May 31st, 2008 at 8:23 pm
You need to go back to Twittering so I can keep up with you. :)
June 3rd, 2008 at 1:12 pm
It’s very interesting that those interested in keeping the horrifyingly broken system in place almost always every use one side of any given argument:
- An NCP only wants more custodial time to pay less child support.
This fails the stink-test on many levels, not the least of which is that parenting time is what tops the list of items that are “in the best interests of the children” - not cash. Further, along with potentially lower CS payments comes increased costs associated with having the children on an increased basis. Finally, an NCP doesn’t spend tens-of-thousands in legal (and other fees) to obtain more custodial time only to save a few hundred (if they’re lucky) in CS costs per month.
You can’t make that argument without giving at least an equal level of credence to the opposite: A custodial-parent doesn’t want the NCP to have more time with the children to keep the already artificially high child support payments - as high as possible.
- The overwhelming majority of the time, I would argue that the custodial parent is the “get-even” parent. a - it’s normally the woman. b - the father has already been decimated emotionally and financially. It’s easy to continue to crush a person’s spirit when they’ve lost so much already.
I’m not saying it doesn’t happen with NCPs… but again, you can’t make only one side of that argument. There are too many publicized experiences (my own being one of them) where the motiviations of the custodial parent is “getting back at the ex” for transgressions real and/or perceived.
~Mister-M
June 16th, 2008 at 11:34 am
Thanks for your site! I check it often and totally get your position! I’m a stepmama with a man who has long been, and still is fighting for equal rights and time with his daughter. It’s a tough road, keep your head up :)