• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Child support, but no visitation rights.

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
According to this:

YouTube - judge judy too Hard for lawyer (stupid lawyer) 1/2

The defendant had decided to sue his ex wife to enforce his visitation rights.

To prove that he HAD visitation rights, he had to show the lawyer his tax returns for the past few years to prove that he had a child support obligation.

Now, if the mother refuses to honor the father's visitation rights, shouldn't the father be relieved of his child support obligations?

Doing so would probably encourage the mothers to grant the visitation rights.

Thoughts?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
If the father pays as he's suppose to, and she then refuses the visitation rights then he can sue her - he would have a case because he was doing the right thing, she was not.

However - if you fail to uphold your end of the deal to pay support you cannot then come around and claim that you have a right to see your kids - because you were doing the wrong thing.

I think it's a bit unfair but that's how it goes.

But, moreso, who the **** goes to Judge Judy for child support issues?
That's not something that should be painted all over "reality courtroom tv" - that was beyond stupid and offensive to the kids, at least.

That being said - she's hard on the lawyer because he's an idiot, incapable of pulling together his part of his job (paperwork) and didn't come prepared. . . and charge the poor guy money and failed to provide services in return. (skip to 7:35 - beginning of details of the case, why they're there . . . the focus of her beef)

*edit: while watching*
Did you link to the wrong video? . . . ah, there are 2 parts.

LOL "take a copy of this tape and send it to the bar association" . . . . she's a gem.

but, still, this was an assault case - she didn't rule per child visitation. He originally went to them in order to deal with child support issues but that's unrelated to this exact situation.
 
Last edited:

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
But, moreso, who the **** goes to Judge Judy for child support issues?
He didn't.

If you actually ****ing watched the video, you'd know that was just a background issue in the grand scheme of things.
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
He didn't.

If you actually ****ing watched the video, you'd know that was just a background issue in the grand scheme of things.
Don't get pissy with me just because you locked into an issue that wasn't even being addressed or up for judgement by the court case in the video itself. . . I wrote my post responding to your question upfront, first - then I started to watch the video - and then I edited my post while watching the videos in an effort to address your first issue: child support, and the second issue: the court case itself. . . separately and more clearly.

You didn't realize I edited in a "oh, duh . . . " moment and want to get all pissy with me even though I tried to correct that faux pas then oh well. :shrug:

Next time I'll be more certain to declare whether or not I've wasted time watching a reality-court video when it has no relation to the thread content that's being presented for debate.
 
Last edited:

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Child support is for the financial benefit of the child, not the mother. Visitation is largely unrelated.

If a guy is an awful father who beats his children, should he get visitation? No. Should he still pay child support? Of course.

edit: Also, "Judge" Judy is not a judge, she's an arbitrator who takes binding arbitration and puts it on TV. She has no authority to rule on child support/visitation matters.
 
Last edited:

jallman

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 12, 2005
Messages
36,915
Reaction score
11,283
Location
Los Angeles, CA
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
He didn't.

If you actually ****ing watched the video, you'd know that was just a background issue in the grand scheme of things.
No wonder your threads all die...no one wants to deal with your rudeness.
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Child support is for the financial benefit of the child, not the mother. Visitation is largely unrelated.

If a guy is an awful father who beats his children, should he get visitation? No. Should he still pay child support? Of course.
That should be decided during the divorce case.

After the divorce is finalized, there should be consequences for not honoring whatever visitation rights the father IS entitled.

edit: Also, "Judge" Judy is not a judge, she's an arbitrator who takes binding arbitration and puts it on TV. She has no authority to rule on child support/visitation matters.
Naw duh!

What honestly makes you think I DON'T know that?
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
No wonder your threads all die...no one wants to deal with your rudeness.
I wouldn't be so rude if you weren't so damned stupid.

I'll tell you what: I'll grow up when you smarten up. Deal?
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
That should be decided during the divorce case.

After the divorce is finalized, there should be consequences for not honoring whatever visitation rights the father IS entitled.
And there are, but those consequences are entirely unrelated to child support.

Again, child support is between the non-custodial parent and the child.
Visitation is between the non-custodial parent and the custodial parent.

You don't punish the child for the custodial parent's actions.


Naw duh!

What honestly makes you think I DON'T know that?
...
 

middleagedgamer

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 22, 2008
Messages
1,363
Reaction score
72
Location
Earth
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
And there are, but those consequences are entirely unrelated to child support.
They are related in the sense that they both involve the welfare of the child.

They are related in the sense that one should influence the other.

Again, child support is between the non-custodial parent and the child.
So, why is it that the custodial parent is allowed to spend that child support money however she pleases?

She can spend it on beer and cigarettes, and there's absolutely no repercussions.

Visitation is between the non-custodial parent and the custodial parent.
Prove it.

You don't punish the child for the custodial parent's actions.
You do when the custodial parent is abusing those rights and privileges.

At the very least, any money you expend asserting your legal rights to visitation should be taken out of any alimony and child support obligations, which would have the same overall effect.
 

RedAkston

Silent Bob for President!
Administrator
Moderator
Supporting Member
Monthly Subscriber
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2007
Messages
44,825
Reaction score
26,027
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Moderator's Warning:
Let's cease with the personal attacks shall we?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Aside from the rocky direction of this thread and the other mod-business that happened - because it's a near issue that I'm actually fighting my state on . . . I'll still politely chime in because it's important to know.

So, why is it that the custodial parent is allowed to spend that child support money however she pleases?

She can spend it on beer and cigarettes, and there's absolutely no repercussions.
If the custodial parent who receives child support is spending it freely on HERSELF then there's likely a case against her because child support is meant for the CHILDREN'S needs - not Mom's (or Dad's, depending on who has custody) - it can be waged that the needs of the child aren't being met if they need things like new glasses, clothes, dental visits, adequate nutrition, medication - all the while Mom's satisfying her cravings and buying designer purses - and the kids are going without adequate care.

It takes a good bit of evidence to prove this - but it's still worth pursuing if it's going on.

Non-custodial parents still have rights! If those rights are denied by the custodial parent - depending on how frequently and how severe the denial-issues are - it might even be waged that the custodial parent can't actually take care of the kids . . . and a new hearing to re-examine custody could be in order.
 

RightinNYC

Girthless
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 21, 2005
Messages
25,894
Reaction score
12,484
Location
New York, NY
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
They are related in the sense that one should influence the other.
But they don't.

So, why is it that the custodial parent is allowed to spend that child support money however she pleases? She can spend it on beer and cigarettes, and there's absolutely no repercussions.
If the non-custodial parent believes that the custodial parent is not providing the child the things that he needs, he can bring that up to the magistrate.

Prove it.
I've worked on a few dozen child support cases, representing both the government and custodial parent. That's the standard, in NY at least.

At the very least, any money you expend asserting your legal rights to visitation should be taken out of any alimony and child support obligations, which would have the same overall effect.
No, they should absolutely not be taken out of that. Again, child support is for the benefit of the child. The child has already been punished enough by the fact that the parents can't work things out between them.
 

Mell

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
145
Location
Germany
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Now, if the mother refuses to honor the father's visitation rights, shouldn't the father be relieved of his child support obligations?

Doing so would probably encourage the mothers to grant the visitation rights.

Thoughts?
I am not so sure doing so would encourage the mother to grant visitation rights. I dont know why she wont allow visitation in the first place. Are there circumstances? Visitation rights should not be for sale.

But, people in general tend to behave crazy when they get divorced. Laws that are there to guide people work better or at all, for reasonably sane people, and warring couples generally are not behaving in a sane and/or reasonable way.
 

Mell

Well-known member
Joined
May 11, 2010
Messages
1,008
Reaction score
145
Location
Germany
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
''However - if you fail to uphold your end of the deal to pay support you cannot then come around and claim that you have a right to see your kids - because you were doing the wrong thing.''
I think he still should have a right to see the kids, even without paying the support, because the kids have a right to a relationship with both parents, as long as there are no safety issues involved. If he is violent and/or abusive, then that is a reasable reason for the mother to object to visitation rights. Women and childrens physical and psychological safety should be protected by law.
 

Deuce

Outer space potato man
DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 6, 2010
Messages
74,114
Reaction score
32,327
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Shouldn't this be in a different forum?
 

Aunt Spiker

Cheese
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 20, 2009
Messages
28,433
Reaction score
16,986
Location
Sasnakra
Gender
Female
Political Leaning
Moderate
Sadly, there's no 'family / child' forum so we're always lost when we post those issues.
 

molten_dragon

Anti-Hypocrite
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 24, 2009
Messages
10,110
Reaction score
4,744
Location
Southeast Michigan
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
I think this is a great idea, with a couple caveats. IF the non-custodial parent was granted visitation, and IF the non-custodial parent has been paying child support faithfully, then if the custodial parent is not allowing visitation, the non-custodial parent should be relieved of their need to pay child support.

Not allowing visitation damages not only the non-custodial parent, but the children. And even if the custodial parent is only spending child support on the children like they should, it's likely that they are reaping benefits from it (nicer/larger living arrangements, more of their own money for entertainment, eating out, etc.)

Ideally, both child support and custody/visitation would be part of a contract, that if violated by one party would render the whole thing null and void.
 

Kali

Stigmatized! End R Word!
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 8, 2008
Messages
13,334
Reaction score
1,835
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Very Liberal

Harry Guerrilla

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
28,955
Reaction score
12,423
Location
Not affiliated with other libertarians.
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
I think this is a great idea, with a couple caveats. IF the non-custodial parent was granted visitation, and IF the non-custodial parent has been paying child support faithfully, then if the custodial parent is not allowing visitation, the non-custodial parent should be relieved of their need to pay child support.

Not allowing visitation damages not only the non-custodial parent, but the children. And even if the custodial parent is only spending child support on the children like they should, it's likely that they are reaping benefits from it (nicer/larger living arrangements, more of their own money for entertainment, eating out, etc.)

Ideally, both child support and custody/visitation would be part of a contract, that if violated by one party would render the whole thing null and void.
I'm sort of dealing with an issue like this, it's my niece, her father and my sister.

So my brother in law got custody, my sister gave my niece up to him, she was only given a nominal amount of child support to pay.
My brother in law did that, so she could set herself back up and prove she would be responsible.
Well she hasn't paid but 1 month of support in over 3 years, so he withholds custody for that and other reasons like her wreck less/destructive lifestyle.

My niece doesn't even recognize my sister as her mother anymore, her step mom has been great and really took the role as mother.
It's a shame because now my sister is bring this to court for custody and all sorts of financial damages.

I wish her step mom could adopt her and be rid of my sister once and for all. :(
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,490
Reaction score
8,579
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
-- If the custodial parent who receives child support is spending it freely on HERSELF then there's likely a case against her because child support is meant for the CHILDREN'S needs - not Mom's (or Dad's, depending on who has custody) - it can be waged that the needs of the child aren't being met if they need things like new glasses, clothes, dental visits, adequate nutrition, medication - all the while Mom's satisfying her cravings and buying designer purses - and the kids are going without adequate care.

It takes a good bit of evidence to prove this - but it's still worth pursuing if it's going on.
Very few UK courts will transfer residence even in such cases as you describe - the most promising way to transfer residence is for the child itself to reach an age where it decides for itself that it wants to live with the other parent. If the child is obviously suffering malnutrition or has been beaten and has the bruises to prove it then a UK judge would consider - however the usual route is for Social Services to be called in to investigate. Any report they come up with either backs the custodial or non-custodial parent - judges work off the reports of others generally.

I've personally never heard of and am never likely to hear of residence being transferred (or even an enforcement order to make sure a parent is not spending the child support payments on themselves) because the custodial parent is spending the money on designer handbags.

-- Non-custodial parents still have rights! If those rights are denied by the custodial parent -
The position in UK and a lot of European law is that the "rights" reside with the child. Thus if the child wishes for a relationship - despite a hostile custodial parent then the courts are there to help enforce the child's rights, not the parent's. How well they do it is another matter.

According to this:

YouTube - judge judy too Hard for lawyer (stupid lawyer) 1/2

The defendant had decided to sue his ex wife to enforce his visitation rights.

To prove that he HAD visitation rights, he had to show the lawyer his tax returns for the past few years to prove that he had a child support obligation.
This Judge Judy case simply goes to prove why lawyers and judges should be kept out of as many child contact cases as possible and that education as to the child's rights to contact with both parents after any divorce or separation is important.

-- Now, if the mother refuses to honor the father's visitation rights, shouldn't the father be relieved of his child support obligations?

Doing so would probably encourage the mothers to grant the visitation rights.

Thoughts?
The Australian Child Support Agency took the decision a 10-15 years ago to reduce child support payments to the mother where it could be proved that the mother was obstructing contact (without good reason) - on the father's forums I'm a member on the word is that it works to reduce intransigence among hostile custodial parents.

It's only when a legal adoption process is taken on by a new partner to the mother (and this includes the biological father giving up the child for adoption) that a father is relieved of child support obligations.
 

Infinite Chaos

DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 28, 2007
Messages
18,490
Reaction score
8,579
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
-- My niece doesn't even recognize my sister as her mother anymore, her step mom has been great and really took the role as mother.
It's a shame because now my sister is bring this to court for custody and all sorts of financial damages.

I wish her step mom could adopt her and be rid of my sister once and for all. :(
I realise this is personal to you and it was a brave decision to post that in public - however there are responsibilities that go with being the custodial parent and the most important is to keep an avenue of contact available for the child with the non custodial parent: whether they are a drug user / prostitute / politician / lawyer / teacher whatever. I even (didn't enjoy it) had to advise an abusive father once through the contact process and he was able to send cards.

The child chooses (hopefully without coercion from the other parent) whether to keep letters / answer phone calls or spend time with the non custodial parent. I strongly believe an avenue must always be kept open.

That contact can be indirect (letters / phone calls / cards) or it can be direct (supervised / unsupervised / visiting / staying etc) but it is up to the child whether they have a relationship of whatever sort with the other parent - not the adults involved. If the non custodial parent signs up for adoption and the other parent agrees then the custodial parent can be out of the child's life for good - but in my opinion this is best done when the child is really young. I'm not even sure if any judges have approved giving up parental responsibility for older children ever.

Speaking directly about your sister - if this was a UK case, I would say what has happened is she's got her life back in order and wishes to spend time with her daughter. If she's using a lawyer, the lawyer has advised her to aim high so that the judge would find a halfway house situation (contact). The reasons include getting the parent seeking contact to spend money on legal costs (my biggest gripe against lawyers being involved in contact cases) as well as trying to show to the judge and to her daughter that she cares. For her own self respect, she needs to demonstrate to herself and to her daughter (when she's old enough to question why her mother wasn't there) that she hasn't abandoned her child.

I would hope that your (ex) brother in law has tried to keep a memory of the other parent - pictures / letters etc available as the decision really belongs to the child whether they have a relationship or not. I'm not saying the mother suddenly gets contact or custody (this won't happen) but if the mother really is serious about contact and has turned her life around - then the child deserves and needs the chance to meet and get to know her mother - even if it's only through letters and cards for a few years while the child gets used to things.

Custody and unsupervised contact sound out of the picture for a while.
 
Top Bottom