Sunday, July 14, 2013

What's Wrong With Equal Custody?



What's wrong with equal child custody in the case of divorce? I've answered this question before:

Fighting for 50/50 custody default is NOT a desirable result to fight for. If this is what a Men's Rights Movement decides to fight for, good luck with that gentlemen. You are merely fighting for the right to dictate the terms of your enslavement.

What does a 50/50 default custody truly represent? A three-way parenting model. The Ex-Husband, the Ex-Wife and THE STATE being the final arbiter and decision maker in child raising decisions.

In other words, we'll call it 50/50 default custody, but what it will be in practice is 25/25/50 custody. 25% for Mom, 25% for Dad, and 50% THE STATE.

Recently, Bill Price asked the same question, but this time from a slightly different angle: What’s wrong with men having equal custody so they can avoid child support?

I said that people will often accuse men of wanting custody so they don’t have to pay child support, but instead of saying “that’s not true,” I said “so what if it is?”


Most fathers really do love their children, so it’s an unfair accusation and a low blow in most cases, but not wanting to pay child support is indeed a motivating factor in custody battles. Likewise, receiving child support motivates women quite a bit, and has been found to contribute directly to likelihood of divorce. Money matters.

But think about this: if taking care of one’s child and being an involved father is a good thing, then isn’t it good that men would rather take care of their kids than cut a check every month? Is there anything wrong with them preferring parenting over being an ATM?

I absolutely agree with this re-frame of the mainstream narrative of our mass media driven society. The standard trope is that Men who want to avoid paying child support are deadbeats and one of the lowest forms of sub-human in our Brave New World Order.

Bill makes a very good point that is always ignored whenever that meme is repeated.

"Only if the mother has a problem with it, and that’s exactly what’s wrong with the current system of mother custody combined with state enforced child support. If anyone cares to know why fatherlessness became endemic in the black population, and now the Hispanic and white working class, it’s just this refusal to allow men to act on this incentive to raise their kids. If the state were truly interested in reducing fatherlessness, fathers would be allowed to avoid child support by taking care of their kids half the time. If parents don’t want their kids, then fine — have them pay CS. Otherwise, let them do their part and raise their own kids."
 
Ah, within the preceding quote lies the answer to Mr. Price rhetorical question: "If the state were truly interested in reducing fatherlessness."

I would venture to say that not only is the state truly not interested in reducing Fatherlessness, it is in fact interested in increasing it.

I expound on this further in my latest post at The Spearhead, Here's What's Wrong With Equal Custody.

6 comments:

Magallanes said...

kids are better off with the father. If I were a dad in such a circumstance; id fly away with mu kid out of reach from their crazy mother. Single moms are the worse- but much WORSE is if the mom gets another boyfriend which is not good especially if your kid is a girl

black said...

Nobody has a clue how the national government manipulates the states.

Thanks for sharing.

Eric said...

Keoni:
I think that Price has somewhat missed the point too: although his solution might be an improvement for fathers' rights, it still doesn't address the fundamental issue that there are too many divorces.

End no-fault divorce and cut welfare to all single mothers except widows and those who've divorced 'with fault.' Those two things alone would stop the divorce industry dead in its tracks.

Another idea not often discussed is giving the Divorce Court a third option: grant neither parent custody and put the children up for adoption. That would a considerable deterrent to divorces.

ScareCrow said...

@Eric - also, alter divorce laws - axe the "style of living" compensation - so that divorced women do not end up getting 35,000 a month from sports stars or financially successful men.

That would not just deter divorce - but a few marriages as well!!!

Jon said...

This would be equitable:

1. If the father wants custody and his wishes are not contested, he gets the child and pays for his support.

2. If the mother wants custody and her wishes are not contested, she gets the child and the father pays.

3. If custody is contested, the court decides which parent gets the child based on the child's best interests, which include, since the custodial parent will be paying for his support as well, ability to financially support the child.

Anthony Migchels said...

It's interesting to see a Libertarian comment so seriously on the Usury issue.

Austrian Economics certainly does not attack Usury in any way.

Personally I'm not too happy with Ed Griffin, exactly because he obscured the usury issue with his Gold digging.
http://realcurrencies.wordpress.com/2012/01/18/who-is-ed-griffin/