Custody vs. Child Support

[Mom4Joint]

This is more of a rant than anything else, but I'd like to see what the opinions of other people are.  

Many times over, I've heard the argument being used that a non-custodial parent should not have a second family unless they can afford to pay most of their salary for child support of the child from the previous relationship.  While this sounds logical, I have come across some interesting legal discussions which question this line of reasoning.

We say that if a father believes that his child support ought to be reduced due to children in a new relationship, that he is selfish and that he should have kept his pants zipped.  Yet there appears to be a double standard which exists.  Take for example the following case:

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=205426&hits=

In Kaiser v. Kaiser, a custodial parent (bm) is requesting an appeal of the judgement of a lower court which denied her request to relocate from Oklahoma to Washington D.C. for a better paying job.  Her argument was that in her current position, she could not be further promoted.  She believed that the move would be better for her son and herself.

The GAL appointed in this case DID NOT recommend the move, as the GAL believed it would limit, if not damage the relationship between father and son.

However, the appellant court reversed the decision of the courts and referenced the following statements in their reasoning:


"¶26 The following thoughtful observation from Tropea v. Tropea, 665 N.E. 2d 145, 148(N.Y.App.1996), has often been quoted by courts considering this subject:

Like Humpty Dumpty, a family, once broken by divorce, cannot be put back together in precisely the same way. The relationship between the parents and the children is necessarily different after a divorce and, accordingly, it may be unrealistic in some cases to try to preserve the noncustodial parent's accustomed close involvement in the children's everyday life at the expense of the custodial parent's efforts to start a new life or to form a new family unit."

"¶27 The court in D'Onofrio v. D'Onofrio,365 A.2d 27, 29(N.J. Super 1986), discussed considerations of the post-divorce family as follows:

The children, after the parents' divorce or separation, belong to a different family unit than they did when the parents lived together. The new family unit consists ONLY of the children and the custodial parent, and what is advantageous to that unit as a whole, to each of its members individually and to the way they relate to each other and function together is obviously in the best interests of the children. It is in the context of what is best for that family unit that the precise nature and terms of visitation and changes in visitation by the noncustodial parent must be considered."

"¶35 In In re Marriage of Pape, 989 P.2d 1120, 1128(Wash.2000), the court explained:

"We are aware of and are sympathetic to the difficulties faced by parents whose children move, with the other parent, some distance away. However, these difficulties are a consequence of the dissolution of marriage. Once the decree of dissolution is entered, a trial court's involvement in decision-making for the family is minimized. The court's role in a family's life following dissolution of marriage is not to review every parenting decision to determine if it is in the child's "best" interests. Once the court has determined the best residential placement of the child, based on the best interests standard set forth in the statute, the important job of the court is finished. The court does not again become significantly involved in parenting decisions, unless the child's well-being is seriously threatened by parenting decisions. A change in the location of the child's place of residence, with the primary residential parent, generally does not pose such a serious threat.""


What I find so upsetting about these statements is that there is a presumption by the court that the family unit ONLY consists of custodial parent and child and the relationship of the noncustodial parent and the child is inconsequential.  In fact, they argue that it is sometimes imperative that the relationship of the child and NCP be sacrificed so that the CP can "find a new life."

Is this not a double standard?  We say that a CP can find a new life, and that sometimes it is at the sacrifice of the relationship between the NCP and child.  Yet, if the NCP finds a new life, with a new spouse and new children, we would NEVER allow for child support to be adjusted accordingly, arguing that, sometimes the financial needs of the child should be sacrificed so that the NCP can find a new life.  

IF an NCP complains that they cannot afford the high monthly child support, we say, "you should have kept your pants zipped."  But if the CP complains because they cannot move and find a new life, we NEVER say, "you should have thought about that before you jumped in the sack!"  

Is anyone else as appalled by this as I am?  Please do not misunderstand me to mean that I think NCPs should pay less child support.  I just believe that CPs should be held up to the same standards as NCPs.

[Brent]

>Many times over, I've heard the argument being used that a
>non-custodial parent should not have a second family unless
>they can afford to pay most of their salary for child support
>of the child from the previous relationship.

Yep, it's unfair and unrealistic to the second family. It's as if Child Support Enforcement workers came from the restaurant industry where the motto is "First come, first served".

Then they cry "It's for the children!". Yeah, unless they come from a second family.

[SadStepMom]

I agree completely.  

Also add in the whole no fault divorce thing.  DH's experience, he didn't want to be divorced, it was completey her choice, he liked being married. They get divorced.  While he is deployed, she moves with the kids far far away.

She is remarried, doesn't work.

So was he supposed to not remarry or have any more kids, even though he loves being married and having kids, just because she decided she didn't want him anymore?

[flewwellin]

Our sittuation--- DH has two beautiful kids with his first wife ages 4 and 6, now I (his second wife) is pregnant with his 3rd child.  We techniqually can have the child support reduced, but have decided not to do this.  The only time we will go for a reduction is when the youngest child is 12 to eliminate the child care expenses due to the fact that child care expenses is added into the mthly support order.  At this age both children will be old enough to be able to do without a babysitter, or daycare facility after school.  And last when the child graduates from high school, which is termination of child support in our state.  

However I don't agree just because a man or woman was married before and bore kids with that person they shouldn't be allowed to have another family.  This is the United States of America, like many of your other laws, KEEP THEM OFF MY BODY! (in other words it's a free country we can have as many "families" as we choose.