Discussions
Should a father's parental rights be terminated for not paying child support?
Posted by womenslegal • 8/11/08 • Subscribe to this Discussion [RSS] • Report This Topic
Topics: child support, childrens rights, mens rights, parental rights, womens rights
This is a very touchy subject, however, what do all of you think? If a father has been ordered to pay 76.00 a month for child support and refuses to do so, should the father's parental rights be terminated? If the father of the child does not support that child in any way, should their rights be terminated? If so what are your thoughts.
User Comments
-
Well, I'm sure there are a lot of factors in any situation. But being a father is more than simply providing money to the mother. Of course being a parent does mean you're financial responsible for the child, so it works both ways.
So many factors, maybe he's having a hard time financially ... I dunno. -
(1) This post seems to presume that only mother's do have or ought to have have custody of dependent children.
(2) It also seems to presume that parental visitation rights is connected or ought to be connected with financial status. An interesting concept that I would like to see some supporting arguments for because I sense that bias is clearly evident in this post.
(3) Specifically, this "interesting bu un-supported concept" does not seem to account for situations where the non-custodial parent maybe unemployed, a student or ill or disabled.
(4) It really doesn't matter what we think. What matters is the applicable law in the conutry, state, province, etc. specifies.
Therefore I conclude that there aren't any facts offered here on which to formulate an informed opinion so I'm not offering one off the top of my head.
Note: In Canada child support is not directly paid by the non-custodial parent to the custodial parent. The debt is owed to the government and if it is not paid the party is subject to legal proceedings. Ability to pay and visitation rights are not linked.-
Child support payments are dependent upon the parent's salary.
-
The fact that the formula takes income into account does not mean that a parent at the lowish end of the income spectrum can afford to make those payments. Beyond that, if a parent loses his job, he can have child support temporarily reduced, but in many areas only if he can afford legal assistance to get that done--which, of course, most unemployed people whose previous employment was relatively low level cannot. And child support in most states can't be modified again within 12 months, so if a modification has recently taken place and then a non-custodial parent loses his job, he's pretty much out of luck. And, in most states, child support isn't entirely suspended just because someone has no income...it's just reduced. -
General response here (in light of recent replies above) - I didn't take the question to mean that a parent could lose custodial rights should they hit "hard times' but rather, outright refused to pay support...
-
-
I think that in the case of a dead beat dad - yeah, parental rights should be stripped. However, if the mother and father have an arrangement that they are happy with (regardless of the court's ruling) then no.
All that said, I don't think that threatening to remove parental rights from fathers if they opt not to pay child support will cure the dead beat dad problem...I really don't think they'll care at all.-
I think it just makes it tough for the dads who want a relationship with their kids but can't afford it. That's kinda sad.
My ex-bro-in-law, for example. A lazy guy for sure, but some chick fell in love with him & had 2 kids with him. The entire time they were together he rarely worked and rarely brought home any money. But he lived with them so he had a relationship with the kids.
3 years later she falls in love with some other dude, leaves him and then didn't want him to see the kids 'cause he can't keep up with the child support payments. Seemed kinda unfair to me.
Now the kids are teenagers and mad at their mother because she kept them from their father for years and they're now trying to rebuild a relationship with him.
I think this stuff often has more to do with the ex husband/wife than with what's best for the kids. -
Do the payments in Canada not coincide with the employment status of the parent?
I think that if the father had the money to make the support payments two things would have happened (from a woman like that):
She wouldn't have left him in the first place (seeing as he had money), or she would have denied him child custody anyway (seeing as she seems vindictive). -
Yes, payments are based in income, but this happened a while ago. I think he often made money under the table, as did she. Ultimately it was just a mess, he wasn't the most stand-up guy ... but she was no prize either lol Both had an aversion to work.
-
And, in fact, in that case it would be a big benefit for the parent, since it would relieve him of any further child support obligation, obligation for medical expenses and other necessities, college expenses, etc.
-
-
I have witnessed several situations where mothers who were granted custody of dependent children by the courts were not fit parents and their spouses were. In these cases friends, relatives and neighbours were well aware that the mothers in question were not the best custodial parent choice.
The kids suffered greatly as a result of the legal bias of the times, which was that mother's ought to always be granted custody except in the most extreme cases of neglect or dysfunction. Eventually the fathers in question did get custody but they had been run into the ground and into debt to achieve what was just and what was best for the kids. The only people who benefited from the gross perversion of justice ie. were the lawyers. IMHO that "mothers own the kids and father's are merely wallets" type of thinking to be as concept that is as full of holes as a slice of swiss cheese is. I alas find the concept of automatically tying visitation rights to whether or not child support payments are up-to-date, without taking individual circumstances into consideration to be perverse.-
That mentality is slowly changing here, where I live due to an overwhelming public outcry, and tough cases like the one we fought for my two brothers.
Slowly but surely... -
I'm really surprised to hear that such a mentality still exists anywhere. I practiced law in very rural areas in the early 90s and the courts were already far beyond any presumption in favor of the mother.
-
Not here, unfortunately. The courts AND child services fought us tooth and nail to keep the brothers with the mother, even though the biological mother was severely abusive.
-
-
The number of vindictive women issuing from dysfunctional family backgrounds I have experienced has led me to be very suspicious when it comes to answering "airy fairy" questions like this.
-
I can understand your position of vindictive women. But what does that have to do with a father paying child support.
-
This is not an "airy fairy" question. If this question has offended you I am sorry. I want to get a census of how people feel. I have found that father's who have visitation with their children don't pay child support. These father's simply feel they don't have to and refuse to take responsibility for their children's needs.
-
I think she said airy fairy because you didn't give any context. So it's kind of hard to say how ya feel. There are too many factors that play a part in these issues.
-
@womenslegal
Hi there. I'm not offended. I think I have made it clear that my opinion is that you did not provide facts upon which to found an informed opinion, therefore, whatever census you do get will have little to no value because all it can be based upon is "airy-fairy" feelings.
I hope you understand that there is no black/white rule that can be applied to complex situations with as many variables as the custody of children has. I also hope that the ancdotal comments myself and others have made will make you sensitive to the complexity and the difficulty in linking the oncept of taking away visitation based on non payment of child support. -
Timethief, I disagree. Every U.S. state has made a decision on this issue in the abstract--the law either ties child support with visitation or it separates them. Major studies have been conducted over several decades analyzing whether or not a non-custodial parent should be denied access when s/he fails to pay child support...as a matter of public policy, not on an individual case basis.
-
-
Most states don't act in terms of "parental rights" in a custody/visitation/support case--they look to the best interests of the child and the right of the child to support (financial and personal/emotional) from both parents. For that reason, most states have made the conscious decision to separate the issues of child support and visitation because withholding visitation is believed to be harmful to the child. In fact, some states (Delaware, back in the 90s, sticks in my mind) have dabbled in penalties for failure to exercise visitation.
-
Should fathers (and mothers) be held accountable for not providing financial support for their children?
-
again ... it's not a black & white issue. Too many variables. But overall, parents should be financially responsible for their kids.
What about parents who stay together and can't provide food for their kids? Is the government suppose to go in and remove the children? Or should it provide them with financial aid & help to find work so they can stay together.
-
-
Once a father always a father -
This IMO is not a "could" situation. The courts where I live recognize both parents as being jointly responsible for the financial support of the children they choose to produce. They also place the emphasis where it belongs, on the best interests of the children.
-
And how is that enforced?
-
In Canada all child custody payments are set by the courts and paid to the government, as opposed to the custodial parent. Enforcemnet is through the provincial courts and there are inter-provincial agreements in place with regard to the same.
-
Sorry, Timethief, I thought you were responding to the question about ALL parents being held accountable for supporting their children, not just those who were no longer together. The enforcement mechanism you describe is similar for divorced and separated parents in most jurisidctions in the U.S.
-
-
I knew this was going to be touchy. I totally understand everyone. I know its not all black and white. It's true once a father always a father. But....
-
Touchy? You haven't been around here very long, have you?
-
"touchy" lol
-
-
For my situation, I am financially responsibile for my daughter. I also have custody of her where her dad has visitation. He pays support when he feels like it. It is something I don't expect on a monthly basis. My daughter is aware that he does not buy her things such as clothes for school, notebooks, etc. She depends on me which is perfectly fine with me. It is definetly bothering her.
-
How do you think it's beneficial to let your daughter know that her father is not contributing?
-
So what's your beef? And who's your beef with? And why does your daughter have to be burdened with the knowledge that her father doesn't pay child support regularly? Why rob your daughter of her childhood and pollute her relationship with her father over his debt which due and payable to you? What business is that of hers? And how does she benefit from knowing your business?
-
-
No, I haven't I am new, but catching on real fast. LOL
-
Yeah, this isn't touchy--I've seen more hostility generated by someone saying "Merry Christmas" on these boards.
-
lol
-
-
Well, I think the same thing here(California). Child Support services collects the funds from the parent and disburses it to the other. If a parent is on county benefits for the child, then the parent has to payback the county.
-
Facts! Suddenly we have facts.
-
-
Merry Christmas!
-
Welcome to BC where we pull no punches.
-
-
I just wanted to see how people feel. I have surrendered the fact that my ex will never pay. My daughter doesn't know he doesn't pay support. When she requests things from him, he doesn't buy it for her. Not on a "buy me get me" thing. When she wanted a new backpack, stuff like that.
Add Your Comment
Login to leave a message.
