Conference quark::mennotes-v1

    Of  course the mother should pay child support if she is employed
    and is the non custodial parent (unless they have equally split
    joint custody). I know women who do so.
    
    The man in question can go to court and get them to decree child
    support.
    
    Bonnie

    I hope that once the entire divorce is finalized (This seems to
    take a very long time) and the custody rights settled, that
    something will happen.  Hopefully she will have supervised custody
    rights only (she as flakey as a bowl of rasin bran) and will be
    responsible for some kind of financial aid....

    She's been responsible for black eyes, cut lips (throwing books
    and other hurlable objects at them) falling asleep while the children
    are in her care, which once resulted in the little girl getting
    quite badly burnt on the forehead with a lighter and hair spray..
    (there's other horror stories, and too upsetting to continue at
    this point)  But yet, my brother-inlaw was issued a restraining
    order at one time,,   why, I still don't know....  he's never
    raised a hand to her, and he's great with his kids.  Right now,
    they're all he's got in the world...
        
    Just seems that the 'system' is in the mothers favor in this state.
    You'd basically have to prove, beyond any reasonable shawdow of doubt
    (like a video taping of the mother throwing a kid infront of a truck)
    that she was unfit.  She currently has legal custody of the youngest
    one, but has not once, enforced that custody.  Which in the long run is
    better for the kids, but adds a ton of pressure to my brother-inlaw.
    We all try to pithc in and help out, but this guys got one long road in
    front of him.. 
    
    She seesm to be content with being able to use the kids as leverage
    to get to my brother-inlaw.  Problem is, he lets her....

    I sympathize, but would ask that you not try to use this conference
    to put the mother on trial.  It's very hard to give objective
    advice when one only hears a single side to a story.
    
    Your basic question was simple - should a non-custodial mother
    be liable for child support, and the answer, as Marge and Bonnie
    have suggested, is "yes".  However, the ability to actually make
    that happen varies from state to state, and even from case to
    case.
    				Steve

    Check the note on Custody in this file.
    
    The way it works is this.  According to the constitution of this state
    and country, it is illegal to discriminate on the basis gender. Now,
    when courts face the problem of with whom and when will children of
    divorce go, they rely on precedence or some other "rational basis" for
    making a decision.  In the United States, this basis was established
    and formalized in the early 1900's as the "tender years" theory which
    presumes that the maternal instinct far and away makes females better
    parents than the paternal instinct makes males.  Moreover the flip side
    of the coin, the one we hear and read about most often, concluded that
    females are not suited and consequently may be excluded from economic
    responsibility, military service, smoking, voting etc., etc., etc.
    Unlike the discrimination which women encounter which expresses itself
    in a variety of venues and can be attacked with a variety of tools
    (law, union contracts, strikes, consumer boycotts, bra burning
    demonstrations) just about the only time that paternal rights come up
    is is when the family has disintigrated and has entered our advesarial
    (sp?) court system, where to our surprise, judges have full and
    complete discretion (I've over stated their discretion somewhat, but
    not by much).  When faced with dealing with a child, a judge, who has
    no relationship with any of the parties and who is also ill equipped to
    see much less interpret the psychological and emotional issues falls
    back on judicial precedence to deal with this individual crisis.
    Consequently, women are awarded custody in excess of 95% of the times,
    a rate which would be per se violation and grounds for a law suit
    charging discrimination if the situation involved hiring practices of
    women and minorities. 

	Thats just the way it works right now.
    
    Craig
    

    First off, Steve, I understand where you're comming from, I'll
    refrain from the negative statements in the future. 
    
<<    I guess what I'm looking for is a number where there really was
<<    discretion used on the part of the judge and where the woman won
<<    custody.  (if available)

    Marge, just ask any lawyer.  In a custody case, the father has a better
    chance of ice skating in hell, then winning custody. Unless there's
    sufficent proof that the mother is unfit, and not even DSS gives a damn
    until something bad happens, and even then, it's questionable as
    to how effective they are...

    and in this case, nothing really happens until the case history is too
    obvious to ignore... 
    
    But should the father mess up once,, the guy is done for. Trust me on
    this  When Casandra got burned, they didn't seem to be too concerned.
    
    However the mother reported a small bruise on the sons arm, (probably
    from a fall, the kids pretty rugged) My brother in-law was almost
    immediately halled in for an investigation...  They wanted to know how
    that bruise got there, who did it, and why, then informed him that
    they would be furthering the investigation, and comming to his home to
    "Check everything out!!"  They did.... and what they got was an
    eyefull of a fine, clean, perfect environment.  When the daughter
    was burned severly enuff to have been hospitalized for two weeks
    whwile in the mothers care,,, where was DSS ? (Department of Social
    Sevices for thos who are asking, "What is DSS...")
    
    My point is, 
    
    1: It's not always the mother who needs the courts and financial
    support 
    
    2: When it's not, and the father holds sole custody, the
    mother should be held equally as responsible as the father. 
    
    3: When determining custody, there should be NO preestablished
    precedent as to who gets custody. 
    
    4: The kids saftey and well being can be in just as much jeopardy with
    the mother as with the father if they're incapable of insituting the
    porper care.  
        
    I don't feel that their is an unbias, impartial ear in todays court
    system.  Perhaps it's just Mass....  The mother is appeared as the
    innocent, abused one.  And while I wont deny that happens at an
    alarming rate, it's not exclusive to mothers.

    I know  my note started of in a different vain, but this just seems
    to be evolving in to a differnet discussion...
    
    Good one though...
    
    /ray

    
    In the state of Mass the courts do favour the woman in a custody
    suit. New Hampshire decides who is best able to care for the child.
    A freind of mine has had custody of his two girls for two and a
    half years. His ex wife litterally walked out on them. He was living
    in NH at the time and was awarded full custody. The mother was supposed
    to provide finantial support but never did. Well, here it is two
    and a half years later, they all live in Mass and the mom takes
    the case to court. She won full custody and the court has authorized
    his paycheck to be garnished. 
    This isn't an isolated incident either. I have another friend that
    had the same thing happen to him a couple of years ago. 
    There's nothing either of them can do or so their lawyers have told
    them. 
    In Mass the system falls short of protecting the interests of the
    children and anyone else involved. Not only are the fathers in these
    cases affected so are the grandparents whose visitation "rights"
    are greatly reduced or completely eliminated. 
                                                 
    
    

    She was supposed to be paying custody, never did.  She decides
    she wants custody, gets it, and HIS paycheck gets garnished !
    
    Amazing...  but completely believeable !

    Let's face.  The guy gets ripped off every time.  A woman pay child
    support!  Ha!!!  What a laugh.  That will NEVER happen if the woman
    does not want it to.  EVERY COURT IN THIS FREAKING STATE WILL FAVOR
    THE WOMAN OVER THE MAN.  The ought to be a way to sue the court
    system for discrimination.  What about the federal agency that handles
    hiring discrimination cases?  I can't remember the name of it. 
    They should be handling these cases also, shouldn't they?
    
    Please pardon the anger early on.  I get VERY angry when I think
    how women have cried discrimination only when it suits them and
    have almost never tried to assist the men when they are being
    discriminated against.
    
    Ed..
    

    RE: .10
    
         You tell 'em, big Ed.
    
                                   Greg

    Re .10  (Ed)
    
    This woman thinks that if everything she is hearing about the Mass.
    Family Court is true (and I *do* know that women get custody in
    the overwhelming majority of custody cases), that men are being
    discriminated against, and something should be done about it.
    
    Elizabeth

    Re: .12
    
         Unfortunately, it isn't just Massachusetts.
    
                                   Grog

    Re: .14
    
         Nope, just an old nickname.
    
                                   Grog

    You got big feet to Grog??
    
    GEESH MIKE!  I knew that!

         Anyway, we are deviating from the topic.
    
         After having seen and heard horror stories from around the
    country, I think the courts are sexually discrimanatory around the
    entire country.  Unfortunately, not enough people are making enough
    noise to force a change.
    
                                   Greg

>    Re .10  (Ed)
>    
>    This woman thinks that if everything she is hearing about the Mass.
>    Family Court is true (and I *do* know that women get custody in
>    the overwhelming majority of custody cases), that men are being
>    discriminated against, and something should be done about it.
>    
>    Elizabeth
>

Yes, (Not knowing everything you have heard)... but Men are MOST definitely
discriminated against in Mass.

    They (the minorities if you will) are just making up for the past.
    HEY, Why shouldn't I pay for my great grandfathers acts of
    discriminations.  Its only F>A>I>R> right?
    
    Noone is screaming cause thats the deal.  The (Majority if you will)
    is getting the butt end??  so what!  They have alway had the upper
    hand before....
    
    Yeah, right.

    I wish that more women who believed, like Elizabeth, that the courts
    are not being fair to men would speak up.  It has been my opinion
    that unless the father is shown to be totally unfit he should be
    given AT LEAST joint custody.  The living arrangements would have
    to be worked out, but that only seems fair to both the father and
    the children.
    
    Until we get a more mixed voice (men AND women) shouting to the
    stupid judges and lawmakers, then I don't think that things will
    be changed.  After all, look at the suffragettes (sp?) (woman's
    right to vote), civil rights (blacks rights to everything), etc.
     It was only when EVERYONE was shouting that things were changed.
     Even the issue of the women's right to vote was supported by many
    men, I am sure.  Otherwise, they would never have succeeded in their
    cause.
    
    I pray that I am never in a position to have to depend on the family
    courts to determine how I will live the remainder of my life, but
    if I am, maybe I will be in front of a modern judge who understands
    the hurt that will be going around on ALL sides of the issue (mother,
    children, AND father).
    
    Ed..
    

    May be bogus Mike, but thats how it is and how people think it SHOULD
    be.

>    Until we get a more mixed voice (men AND women) shouting to the
>    stupid judges and lawmakers, then I don't think that things will
>    be changed.  

if they're stupid, what difference is shouting going to make...

this is a pretty negative outlook on my behalf, and it really BUGS me that I 
think this way...The way the courts are set up now, you and I, Mr. and Ms. 
Average Citizen, have to take our place in a line that lasts for three years or 
more to see any kind of justice, to see any kind of change.  Those judges and 
lawmakers are feeding power in to themselves and away from us in ways that are 
subtle as well as blatant.  They like things this way.  Why should they want to 
change.  Grrrr.

>     It was only when EVERYONE was shouting that things were changed.

That was a long time ago.  Now, people don't even vote.  Now, the people who 
run the nation have tightened the reins...
    
>    I pray that I am never in a position to have to depend on the family
>    courts to determine how I will live the remainder of my life, 

A-MEN!!!

    
    F.A.I.R.   A national father's organization is gaining strong support
    in their lobbying efforts to abolish these discrimintory laws and
    attitudes.  Their principle focus is awareness with the goal of
    providing equal and fairness for the family in divorse situations.
    
    Understanding that this is not true today F.A.I.R. is working hard
    to make legislators and the judiicial systems aware of the short
    comings.
    
    
    You can  get more info on F.A.I.R. by calling 800-722-FAIR
    
    Bill

    I KNOW OF THREE FATHERS WITH CUSTODY AND NONE ARE RECIEVING
    ANY CHILD SUPPORT FROM EX WIVES WHO CAN AFFORD IT

    Hi,
    
    Not to cause ruffled feathers, but just to add my 2 cents. 
    
    I am a divorced mother of two teenagers.  I have never received
    support nor do I chase it.  Reason being is I have seen too many
    mothers say, "You need new shoes...go ask your father....he doesn't
    give me enough money....."  The kids that I have seen basically
    think they are with their mother for the support money alone.  The
    mothers who chase also become obsessed with it causing anger, grief,
    their kids tippy toes and head games begin.  "Your father can buy
    his girlfriend gifts, but he can't buy you new coats!!!!"  In my
    case, he skipped state to avoid support.  How do I feel?  What goes
    around comes around.  Because of the new Mass law however, I did
    receive his IRS return.  It wasn't expected so therefore we treated
    it as a luxery.
    
    I firmly believe that if the father has custody, the mother must
    according to the laws, pay support as well as help with 1/2 of stuff
    like braces, medical (what insur does not pay), etc.  After all
    it did take two.