Quote from Percy

First: it needs to be established that BOTH parents are Totally, Wholly, Individually, Jointly & Severally, Responsible and Accountable for the complete Financial, Mental, Emotional, Physical, Spiritual, Health, Education and Wellbeing of the children they produce together.

This means that Each is wholly Responsible; niether can prevent the other from the necessary participation and obligation. The failure or impediment of one puts the onus on the other. Neither can 'withdraw' or force the other away from the child.

I can see a problem with this. Too many parents are not reliable, especially just after a relationship or marital breakdown. A spouse effectively forced into a divorce unwillingly is often emotionally disabled for a time and will find it hard to meet obligations to work, family or even themselves.

Under circumstances where one parent has to take the majority of the effort for childrearing - be that financial, time, work disruption or otherwise - is it still acceptable for the other parent to just pop up and say "hey, I'm here now .. I'll take the kids for a fun weekend" only to be gone for another month while the children have to be consoled that the absented parent really does love them?

Does a failure to be a responsible parent not remove the rights of that parent, somewhat?

It is unfair to treat a parent not living in the home differently than a parent that does live in the home. Several state supreme courts have ruled child alimony unconstitutional. You can't fix it to make it more fair unless you start telling all parents how much they must spend on their child every month and I would love to see them try THAT. The protests might bring down the whole system.

What should be the norm is joint custody and no money changing hands. That would remove the benefit of kicking the father to the curb. If the mother then wants to save money on childcare, she can let dad have the child more often than she does now.

Does a failure to be a responsible parent not remove the rights of that parent, somewhat?

No. Who takes that right away and how? Failure opens that parent up to charges of neglect and culpable neglect. They still have the right to be a parent but they are evading the responsibilities that go with it. They are able to seek aid and support.

The State must NOT take away the right of a parent to be a parent.

Quote from Percy

The State must NOT take away the right of a parent to be a parent.

Nor should it enable such to be done, for instance by unjustly rewarding the person breaking up a marriage on no-fault divorce to be the parent who has default custody of the very children they have harmed by breaking up the family.

But should the state enforce an irresponsible parent's rights to be a parent, even when doing so disrupts the children and the responsible parent? I've seen a parent disappear for many years, only to come back and expect to be a part of the children's lives, disrupting the relationships they had formed since with a person who acted as parent in the meantime - is such a person to have rights to upset the children and the prevailing domestic calm?

Can a person ever be held to have abrogated their rights as a parent?

Quote from Douglas

From my research done over ten years ago, while trying to determine what was likely to be best for my own children, I agree that joint custody is often (but not always) the ideal.

The problem is that joint custody of the typical number of children means that there needs to be not just one three-bedroom house per family but two. In some places, that's not an issue but in many parts of northern Europe, including my native UK, housing is damned expensive and only the very wealthy can afford two three-bedroomed houses, especially right after the cost of breaking up a household.

Then there is the issue of getting together with a new partner, who ALSO has joint custody: is that now a four bedroom house (well outside most people's budgets in the UK), or time-sharing on the first two (which is a great way to make a child not feel at home).

I'm not trying to pour cold water on what is usually the ideal solution for children (and incidentally would go a long way to dis-incentive a break up for financial gain). I'm simply trying to face the facts in the hope we can find real-world sensible solutions.

Children are extremely spoiled today. They don't need their own bedroom everywhere they go and to make that any kind of requirement is ridiculous. Here, in my town, we have 12000 people who were evacuated (about 1/3 of the town) and many are at a shelter. I hope the kids are ok....without their own bedroom.

Child alimony encourages divorce and the need for two homes (not two 3-bedroom homes) per family. You can't fix that to make it better, the only solution is to get rid of it. It's like dressing up a turd, it's still a turd at it's core.

Can a person ever be held to have abrogated their rights as a parent?

To my mind, no. They can be held to account for neglecting their responsibilities, however.

The 'right to be a parent is a fact of Humanity, not a 'grant' by an authority.

Each is wholly responsible;
1) Enforcement will be an issue. This will only be functional after reforms to DV laws. Physical distance will also be an issue, especially as relates to non-financial support. The idea of including Mental, Emotional, Spiritual, and Wellbeing portions encoded into the law will result in state determination of a minimum standard….which may or may not be applicable to the parents’ (or parent’s) wishes. These concepts being enshrined into law may also intrude on basic Constitutional Rights of freedom of Speech and Religion as regards parental rights and invites complete state control and regulation as to every aspect of child-rearing.
The standard should be altered to Financial, Physical Health, and Education, and only include Mental, Emotional and Wellbeing wherein it would have a disruptive effect on society or the aforementioned Financial, Physical Health, and Education.
Any organization designed to determine these mechanisms of Accountability must not be private in nature, but wholly public and in accordance with state and local law (not federal). As such, only state and local funding should be applied, and officers involved therein should be duly elected officials, reflecting the regional aspects required for the care and maintenance of a child.
An action plan or contract representing the three parties (both parents and the unnamed Office of Accountability) will have to drawn on a case by case basis, with all review by the attorneys of said contract, and witnessed. This document may be altered when agreed upon by all parties or by the courts as needed with changing circumstances.
We are in agreement that Parental Alienation laws need to be passed; however, I do not have enough information concerning current law as to how the system would operate with that respect, or what form the laws might take.

I do agree with the third point;however I do not agree with welfare laws as they currently stand (within the U.S.), and would only see this pass after a reformation of the current assistance and welfare system.

Quote from Garak

What should be the norm is joint custody and no money changing hands. That would remove the benefit of kicking the father to the curb. If the mother then wants to save money on childcare, she can let dad have the child more often than she does now.

I can't see any reason why this isn't done already.

This would be the perfect answer.

Another issue to consider in this is remove gender from all applications. That way, SAH dads would stand a much improved chance of gaining custody because the Judge or whoever could assume all they want and it would have no meaning.

If the three principles were to be brought into play, many unjust laws would have to be repealed. Many Institutional biases, and even 'Departments (like the C$A) would have to be disestablished.

This is what we want.

Governmental and sexist, misandric bias would be obliged to give way in the face of real Equality.

Whilst there may be some move to defining baseline levels of provision for children, the Government would be constrained by the Interference principle.

Regarding the Mental, Emotional, Spiritual Wellbeing aspects, these are the Parents decisions, NOT the State's. If they were to be taken from the parent it would violate the principles. Do not let the State get a wedge start.

The issue is Accountability. The mechanism and detail is a matter for discussion. That accountability is to the Child, with some Legal mechanism devised to represent the child. This does NOT have to be wholly a lawyer or 'professionals' matter but rather a panel of ordinary parents.

Quote from Percy

If the three principles were to be brought into play, many unjust laws would have to be repealed. Many Institutional biases, and even 'Departments (like the C$A) would have to be disestablished.

This is what we want.

Governmental and sexist, misandric bias would be obliged to give way in the face of real Equality.

Whilst there may be some move to defining baseline levels of provision for children, the Government would be constrained by the Interference principle.

Regarding the Mental, Emotional, Spiritual Wellbeing aspects, these are the Parents decisions, NOT the State's. If they were to be taken from the parent it would violate the principles. Do not let the State get a wedge start.

The issue is Accountability. The mechanism and detail is a matter for discussion. That accountability is to the Child, with some Legal mechanism devised to represent the child. This does NOT have to be wholly a lawyer or 'professionals' matter but rather a panel of ordinary parents.

A jury of ordinary parents? Having lived with child alimony for almost 4 decades, who would rule against child alimony unless they are MRA's? Mothers expect it now and fathers don't mind paying it. That's the general attitude of the common parent in 2011. This jury would keep the status quo.

If child alimony were to end today and all current orders ceased, what do you think single mothers who collect it would do? Would they give the child to dad more often? Would they give custody to dad? Would they find a stepdad ASAP?

My point is that continuing this horrible system in any form will not change enough to matter, it must end.

My point is that continuing this horrible system in any form will not change enough to matter, it must end.

Agreed,

I am suggesting a way to replace it with a humane and rational, responsible and achievable alternative.

Mothers expect it now and fathers don't mind paying it. That's the general attitude of the common parent in 2011. This jury would keep the status quo.

No. They would not be able to. A panel of parents or any other mechanism would be constrained in its decisions by the three principles. They would not be able to 'Interfere' or demand that one parent pay for the other.

The three principles underpin a complete change.

Quote from Percy

Agreed,

I am suggesting a way to replace it with a humane and rational, responsible and achievable alternative.



No. They would not be able to. A panel of parents or any other mechanism would be constrained in its decisions by the three principles. They would not be able to 'Interfere' or demand that one parent pay for the other.

The three principles underpin a complete change.

Oh, guess I misunderstood then.

Garak, what you say makes perfect sense and is the perfect soultion. If we have 50-50 parenting why should a parent pay child support. Its such a simple idea that it is wonderful.

This leads me to ask how the hell did we get to situation where we did not have 50-50 parenting - or did we have it sometime in the past?

Quote from Richard

This leads me to ask how the hell did we get to situation where we did not have 50-50 parenting - or did we have it sometime in the past?

• In days gone by, children were almost always produced within a marriage.
• In days gone by, that marriage could only be dissolved by proving that one spouse had broken their marital promise, or perhaps had done some other heinous deed.
• In days gone by, the spouse at fault - who had proven themselves bad at keeping a family - by default lost the right to live in the same home, which would be the home where the wronged spouse would remain with the children.
• In days gone by, the ex-spouses would have a defined relationship with one another, set by the proof that one of them was at fault. While this did not always lead to emotional calm between them, it at least gave a chance of closure and left them often able to arrange the best for their children under the circumstances; this might include some joint parenting.

Then came no-fault divorce. The marriage promises (that are defined by the state in most countries) are ignored and instead another set of rules (that are defined by the state in most countries) come into play - mostly being almost no rules.

• Under the anything goes marriage/divorce concept, the first to get to court is often the 'winner' with the unprepared spouse being mostly the loser.
• Under the anything goes marriage/divorce concept, the winner holds onto the home and the children.
• Under the anything goes marriage/divorce concept and with feminism on top of it, by default (though not in every case) the ex-husband is expected to pay for his children (and any other children his ex-wife had during the marriage) whether he also cares for them or not while the ex-wife is not expected to pay for her children whether she also cares for them or not.

And now we sit here scratching our heads and wonder "how did we get into this mess?"

Quote from Percy

The 'right to be a parent is a fact of Humanity, not a 'grant' by an authority.

Then who enforces that right? Whoever it is, is effectively the body determining the right (or not) to be a parent.

Is a parent defined by genetics only? Why or why not?