Juxtapositions

I love the late night news. Catching up on all the happenings of the day that was is always a nice way to end a day, in my books.

But today there were two stories juxtaposed that had me thinking. The first was the Supreme Court ruling that said that non-custodial parents paying child support (let's face it, men mainly) had to disclose any raises in income to the custodial parent (um, that would be women mainly) and then increase child support accordingly. Sounds logical to me - after all, they are still your children and shouldn't they be the beneficiaries of your career achievements too? But one man let the reality as many men see it slip. He actually posed the question how could they be sure that the women - er, he means the non-custodial parent - were spending that extra money on the children? Wow. He's right, you know. Maybe all those women are spending it on rent, or fat-free food, or heating, or car payments to get the kids - your kids - to soccer. Unbelievable.

The next story was one on the declining birth rate in Canada, and the fact that the average age of a Canadian woman giving birth is edging up to near 30.

The two stories can't be connected - or can they???

Opinions, please.

Comments

Turtle Guy said…
I have friends experiencing several different custodial situations. I'll share two of them with you here.

COUPLE A

He is a landscaper, she is a deadbeat. She was granted custody initially, mainly based on her gender and likely spends support money on many... recreational habits. It was a four-year fight for the supporting Dad to even get visitation - let alone partial custody. Good money after bad has gone toward clothing that mysteriously disappears when the wee one is at Mom's. At Mom's the food is so much "cooler" because it's sweet and sugary. Doesn't stand a chance in comparison to home-grown vegetables and meat from the butcher.

COUPLE B

The split was a result of his adultery. He admitted it, gave up the house, makes $500G / year and fully supports his two sons accordingly. She works full time as well and they share the custody and responsibilities. Both boys love their parents and understand the situation. There's no way on God's green Earth she will EVER take him back, but they have a wonderful working relationship and she has been quoted as saying "We have children together - there's no way I will ever give up contact with him. He's a descent person."

My thought is that there are deadbeat men as much as there are deadbeat women and the injustice of the whole thing lies where legal decisions are based on the gender rule book. Why is it Moms generally get first shot at custody - regardless of the situation? I think to be fair, gender should not even be a factor. Who is the better parent? Who can provide? Who is truely objective when it comes to the care of the child? All this aside, with respect to older children, who are THEY comfortable with? There are many, many more questions because this is not a hard-and-fast-solution issue. Anyone would be a fool to say they have all the answers.
Alain Saffel said…
Perhaps you're operating on the assumption that fathers don't support their children either, via rent, food, allowance, school supplies, heating, etc. Well, they do.

The courts are biased towards women and men pay the price.

The stories are related. Birth rates will decline further as more men opt out of parenting because they would like to see their children and now see them used as pawns in a power game. They also don't want the financial ruin that inevitably comes along with divorce and children.

It wouldn't happen if Canada had fair laws related to divorce.
Sarah Elaine said…
I think the stories must be related, but I'm not sure there is a simple reason as to why that is. Humans are complex creatures.

Relationships have gone bad since time immemorial. Women have been the primary caregivers for about the same amount of time. (Yes, men care for and about their children. They just do it differently than women, I would say.) The "new" laws we have are an attempt to make things more equal... But laws made my humans are inevitably flawed.

Hhhmmm... I am getting too philosophical here for my own good. There are lots of anecdotes... and opinions... but "right" answers? I'm not convinced those can be legislated.
zouzou said…
totally connected! women are waiting longer to have more money so they don't have to rely on support from idiot men.
zouzou said…
okay to be fair, I also know several very decent men who have complete psycho cases for ex-wives and are living through hell trying to get custody of their children. One guy succeeded after $40K in court costs and another is still trying. I also think the most capable parent should get custody but it's difficult to detect neuroses in the courtroom...
wthenrest said…
We have a male/ female ratio in this debate... the stories are definitely related ...however the point to me isn't who is the bad parent or who isn't doing what... isn't the point of child support - THE CHILD. The courts are looking at economic stability and things that are more pragmatic. The humans in the mix are not just textbook cases. I agree with many of the comments. The courts can't make a law for hurt, resentment, love all that. They only have tangible things to go by and we know that isn't always a true picture.
As far as decline of birth rate, I think it is both men not wanting to be 'pawns' along with their children and women not wanting to hound deadbeat men ... maybe it is also the rational of seeing our illustrious neighbors blowing everything up, or seeing the starving faces of war torn orphans all over the world. Further, some people are less in the grips of influences that dictate copious children at a young age. I think we can expand that net of ‘why no babies’ to some of the larger insanity of the world and not just the battle of the sexes.

Popular Posts