Non-Custodial Parent Biased Double Standard?

Question

Why is it that if a poor custodial mom cannot make ends meet, we offer her assistance? And if an impoverished noncustodial dad has the same problems, we make him a criminal?

Answer 1

I know what you are trying to say and the other's are missing your point.

What you are trying to say if I am reading right is why doesn't the father qualify for help also if he hits a rough patch.

The money you pay into child support doesn;t help you when it comes to tax time. You can't use it if you apply for assistance. They tend to think you are getting to keep this money.

Also a woman is given custodial custody almost 100% of the time even if she can not provide for the child with her income and the child support. A man however must prove the woman is a serial killer befor he can even attenpt to get custody.

The child support I pay is well above what it cost to support a child. I pay almost a grand a month. My Ex gets that tax free. I know people who are married who live on just bit more than that take home income a month.

Their is not a person out there that can honestly say the law doesnt favor the woman. I am not talking about the child I am talking the woman. My Ex failed to have my children home for my visitation times 10 times in one year. I took her to court over it 8 times each time the judge winked and said mam please let him see the kids. How is that to the benifit of the child. Now if I missed one of my child support payments they would have thrown me in jail. Stating they were looking out for the welfare of the children.

Answer 2

It is true that custodial parents can make it impossible for the noncustodial to survive (whether mom or dad). My ex and her new spouse moved my kids to the other side of the country to the state that makes the noncustodial pay the absolute most in child support. (I'm paying like $972.in support and $368. in child medical insurance for two kids) This manuever by my ex was all for the purpose of making me give my kids up for her new spouse to adopt. Well it worked and now we're in the process. It's was either jail for me because I wouldn't be able to keep up those payments with my debts too (or) let her new spouse adopt my kids. I've stopped being mad about it and just think of moving on.

Answer 3

The facts are different -- it's not a parallel.

Regardless of gender -- whoever is custodial has certain obligations and responsibilities -- and whoever is non-custodial has certain obligations and responsibilities, which usually includes child support.

Refusal to pay child support is violation of a court order -- it doesn't matter what gender the person is -- and I've seen it work for a non-custodial mother who refused to pay child support to the custodial father.

If the non-custodial parent cannot afford the child support, based on a change of circumstances, they can go back to court and seek a modification based on the new financial situation. But they cannot just ignore the court order -- that is what triggers the penalties.

Answer 4

The parent who does not have custody of the kids has the capacity to go out and get extra work to support him or herself. The one who has the kids has to have SOME time to give them attention, do laundry and so on.

By federal law they can only take 50% of your income if you are not behind or 65% if you are, so the more you make the more you will keep.

Custodial dads who can't make ends meet can get help, just like moms. Moms who are non-custodial parents and won't pay child support are prosecuted just like dads.

Answer 5

That's a fair question. That is why when my ex could not afford to pay I didn't push it. Now he pays with no problem even though both kids are over 18. He pays his back support. It's so much better for the kids if the adults can just compromise. I agree that dads are discriminated against, I've always felt this way and it's wrong.

Answer 6

If you can't pay for them don't have them as long as the Dad is paying his child support More Power to him if he can't then he needs to get a second job Children are not cheap and it isn't their fault and they shouldn't suffer because the Parents couldn't keep it together

Answer 7

I trust Jen i could not have reported it better. With the exception my ex replaced into order to pay 172 a month and that i have not seen a dime. he's a criminal!!! He does spend maximum of his funds on cigs and beer also, and lives at the same time with his mommy. If in worry-free words I knew the thanks to placed him in penitentiary i'd in a heart beat.

Answer 8

This is a little bit of a long answer!

It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL is the bottom line!

Plaintive possessed a constitutional right of which he was deprived.



CHALLENGING GENDER BIAS IN CUSTODIAL DECISIONS



A. Bringing an Equal Protection Challenge

Fathers seeking to bring an equal protection challenge in court face many hurdles. Perhaps the biggest hurdle is proving that the court intended to discriminate when it awarded custody of the children to the mother because of gender discrimination.



Policy of this violates my Constitutional Rights.



Judicial Council of California Administrative Office of the Courts.

August 1996



I am pleased to provide you with this booklet on gender fairness issues, “Guidelines for

Judicial Officers: Avoiding the Appearance of Bias.”



“Hesitated to award a father primary child custody or given a smaller support order if the paying spouse is the mother primarily because of their gender?”



A child born outside of marriage has the same inheritance rights as a child born in marriage. (In re Bassi's Estate (1965) 234 Cal.App.2d 529, 541-548.)



A child born outside of marriage has the same rights to receive through his/her parents Social Security, union and insurance benefits as a child born in marriage. (Rodriguez v. Rodriguez (N.D. Cal. 1971) 329 F.Supp. 597.)



A child born outside of marriage may sue a third party for the wrongful death of a parent. (Juarez v. System Leasing Corp. (1971) 15 Cal.App.3d 730, 737.)



7) The municipality had a policy or custom.

Violence Against Women Act is BIAS.

Removing a Child because the parent is disabled is BIAS.



"Women's shelters receive funding from the state pursuant to a gender-specific funding statute," said Marci Fukuroda, a domestic violence lawyer for the Los Angeles-based California Women's Law Center. Under the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, the California legislature sets aside money to fund programs for female and juvenile domestic violence victims in need of emergency shelter.



Hyped up Fact: their male partners beat almost four million women in their homes every year.

Hyped up Fact: Because violence inflicted upon a woman by her partner is treated much differently than violence inflicted by a stranger, batterers are not always arrested.



In 1974, the first battered women's shelter in the U.S. opened its doors in St. Paul, Minnesota. Today, having been funded by billions and billions of dollars, thousands of shelters, hotlines and government programs exist to help women who are victimized by violence. Nothing remotely comparable exists for men.



Studies of spousal and dating violence indicate that women are as likely as men to assault their partners physically.



Correspondence and reprint requests should be sent to Martin S. Fiebert, Ph.D., Department of Psychology, California State University, Long Beach, 1250 Bellflower Boulevard, Long Beach CA 90840 or e-mail [e-mail].



The Alabama Supreme Court addressed the issue of whether such a maternally-slanted bias could withstand a 14th Amendment challenge, and found that it could not. The court stated: "...we conclude that the tender years presumption represents an unconstitutional gender-based classification which discriminates between fathers and mothers in child custody proceedings solely on the basis of sex."

Once recognizing and acknowledging this bias, we can start to work at correcting the imbalance which it has perpetuated, just as is done with any other discriminatory bias which has wronged the peoples of our society. Perhaps the most important factor in this case will be the educating of those who make the decisions: the judges, the lawyers, the psychologists and social workers.

CHAPTER 6
PARENTAL RIGHTS
I. PARENTAL FITNESS

Persons with disabilities have the same right as anyone else to bear and raise children. A
parent's or child's disability does not by itself indicate a need for intervention by child protective
services. A parent's physical disability cannot be used as a basis to deny him or her child custody, unless the disability prevents the parent from exercising care and control. (Welf. & Inst. Code, §§ 300, subd. (b) and 16509.2.)

It is Policy to discrimination against parents in favor of child protection. These institutions are suppose to be upholding the Constitution and protecting the rights of the citizens of the United States but have failed once again. Child Protection like CPS are not entitled to immunity. Miller v. Gammie, 01-15491, 292 F.3d 982 (9th Cir. 2002) Order Taking Case En Banc: 309 F.3d 1209 (9th Cir. 2002) Nor, are they an officer of the State without proper licensing, without such are impersonating an officer. TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 43 § 912



8) This policy or custom amounts to deliberate indifference to constitutional rights.

Contract include:

Consent - The agreement must have been entered into freely. Consent may be vitiated by duress or undue influence.

Legality - The purpose of the agreement must not be illegal or contrary to public policy. Must be Constitutional in nature.

A contract which possesses all of the above ingredients is said to be valid. The absence of an essential element will render the contract either void, voidable or unenforceable Ab initio literally "from the beginning." When an agreement is for legal reasons void ab initio, it is void for all purposes throughout the period of its purported existence, and not merely from the moment that it is declared to have been void by the Court. When a man enters upon lands or into the house of another by authority of law, and afterwards abuses that authority, he becomes a trespasser ab initio.



(9) the policy or custom caused constitutional deprivation.



Parental rights are so fundamental to the human condition so as to be deemed inalienable. Termination of parental rights equals or exceeds the detriment of criminal sanctions.



The "liberty interest of parents in the care, custody, and control of their children is perhaps the oldest of the fundamental liberty interests" recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court. Troxel v. Granville, 527 U.S. 1069 (1999). Moreover, the companionship, care, custody, and management of a parent over his or her child is an interest far more precious than any property right. May v. Anderson, 345 U.S. 528, 533, (1952). As such, the parent-child relationship is an important interest that undeniably warrants deference and, absent a powerful countervailing interest, protection. Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18, 27 (1981).



The agency has complied with the case plan by making reasonable efforts, including whatever steps are necessary to reunify the family.



There are three exceptions to the mandate that states file or join a petition to terminate parental rights:

1. The child is being cared for by a relative;

2. The state has documented a compelling reason that filing a petition to terminate would not serve the child's best interests; or

3. The state has not made reasonable efforts to reunify the family.



A. Court must make finding that “continuance in the home of the parent or legal guardian would be contrary to the child’s welfare.” (42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(1).)

This finding must be made at the time of the first court ruling authorizing removal of the child from the home.

(45 C.F.R. § 1356.21(c).)

NEVER eligible for Title IV-E funding (45 C.F.R. § 1356.21(c).)



B. Court must order that “placement and care are the responsibility of the State agency or any other public agency with whom the responsible state agency has an agreement.” (42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(2); 45 C.F.R. § 1356.71(d)(1)(iii).)

C. Court must make finding that “reasonable efforts have been made to prevent or eliminate need for removal.” (42 U.S.C. § 671(a)(15); 42 U.S.C. § 672(a)(1); 45 C.F.R. §1356.21(b)(1).)

This finding must be made within 60 days of the date of removal. (45 C.F.R. § 1356.21(b)(1).)



10) the policy or custom of allowing the other parent to kidnap the child.

If your spouse kidnaps your children, you are entitled to get help from the district attorney. If you have been awarded sole custody of your children and your spouse takes the children from you in violation of a custody order, you can ask the district attorney to take all actions necessary to locate your children and to enforce the custody order. A peace officer is authorized to take a child into protective custody if it appears that someone will conceal the child to evade the authority of the court, there is no lawful custodian available to take custody of the child, there are conflicting custody orders or claims regarding the child, or the child is an abducted child. (Fam. Code, §§ 3134.5, 3411, and 6240 et seq.) A parent deprived of joint physical custody of a child can also make use of laws for the relief of child-snatching and kidnapping. (Fam. Code, § 3084.) Child abduction is punishable by up to a maximum jail or prison term of four years, a fine of not more than $10,000, or both. ( Pen. Code, § 277 et seq.; see further discussion in Violence Against Women and Children portion of this handbook.) If a person has wrongfully taken a child from another state or has engaged in similar reprehensible conduct, the court may decline to exercise jurisdiction in a case brought by that person for purposes of adjudicating custody. (Fam. Code, § 3408.)

The court may order financial compensation for periods when a parent fails to assume caretaker responsibility, or when a parent has been thwarted when attempting to exercise custody or visitation rights contemplated by a custody or visitation order or agreement between the parents. (Fam. Code, § 3028.)

Family Code section 3400 et seq. contains the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act, or UCCJA. The purposes of this act are to:

1. avoid jurisdiction competition and conflict with courts of other states in matters of child custody that have in the past resulted in shifting of children from state to state with harmful effects on their well-being;

2. promote cooperation with the courts of other states so that a custody decree is rendered in that state which can best decide the case in the interests of the child;

3. assure that litigation concerning the custody of a child takes place ordinarily in the state with which the child and the child's family have the closest connection, and where significant evidence concerning the child's care, protection, training, and personal relationships is most readily available, and the courts of this state decline the exercise of jurisdiction when the child and the child's family have a closer connection with another state;

4. discourage continuing controversies over child custody, in the interest of greater stability of home environment, and of secure family relationships for the child;

5. deter abductions and other unilateral removals of children undertaken to obtain custody awards;

6. avoid reintegration of custody decisions of other states in this state insofar as feasible;

7. facilitate the enforcement of custody decrees of other states; and

8. promote and expand the exchange of information and other forms of mutual assistance between the courts of this state and those of other states concerned with the same child.