I disagree.
A parental relationship is not just historical/biological. If the children - for whatever reason - are not interested in having a family relationship with this guy, then that lessens his moral obligation to treat them as family for purposes of maintaining their lifestyle, IMO.
I also can’t get over the women who have sons who think it’s OK to cut a father off from his kids, lie about him, etc. when it isn’t justified. How would she like it if someone did that to her sons?
A while back, I was at a meetup and a woman started talking about how her daughter was in the midst of an ugly breakup and accompanying custody dispute (in this case, it was discovered that the father had not told her some big things - prison time he had served, among other things - and the couple had never married). Another woman there, the mother of two then-teenagers, said, “I sure hope I never have to go through this with either of my kids.” That’s an aspect of divorce, etc. that isn’t discussed - how it affects other family members.
A while back, NPR’s “Talk of the Nation” did a show about grandparent visitation rights, and most people assumed it was the result of a couple going through a nasty divorce, and the wife says, “The courts say I have to let him see the kids, but nothing about his family BWAHAHAHAHA” but in fact, they said it mostly involved couples where a parent, whether still married or not, had died, and the surviving parent was planning to remarry and leave the area, and the deceased parent’s relatives wanted to make sure they remained part of the kids’ lives. I found that quite interesting.
Whether you think he has a moral right to punish the kids (and you seems to believe it does whether the divorce really was his fault, whether he ignored them first , whether it’s got nothing to do with him but is related to the simple fact that as children get older they prefer to spend weekends with their friends rather than their parents etc ) or not , he clearly doesn’t want to change their lifestyle both from what is was before the divorce and from his current one because he suddenly discovered there is virtue in a simple lifestyle- but it’s only virtuous for the kids from the failed marriage, not for himself or the kids from the current marriage.
That doesn’t follow. These women genuinely believe - whether because they’ve convinced themselves or otherwise - that their exes are horrible horrible people, and their kids need to be protected from them. They don’t have to be concerned with someone doing it to their sons, because they expect their sons to not turn out to be horrible people so naturally that won’t happen to them. (If it does, well it’s because the sons’ spouses were also horrible people, much like their own ex-husbands …)
You can read any number of threads on this MB and you’ll be struck by how many Dopers were married to evil horrible people. Meanwhile, few if any Dopers seem to be evil horrible people themselves. The ratio is astounding. 
I don’t see what any of this has to do with what I wrote, which was not about punishing anyone or the virtues of the simple lifestyle. What I wrote was, again:
Ah. So it’s moot.
Moot and not of interest to most folks.
If the parents aren’t putting the court in the middle, or making demands on community resources, why would the court have an opinion?
The courts also have an interest in what’s best for the courts and for the community.
No comment on that particular case. But this is an example of the courts and other agencies having an interest in child support payments. It’s also why the standard operating procedure is the court garnishing the paying parent’s paycheck up front, instead of waiting to see if there’s a complaint about non-payment. As a side effect, the garnishment also protects the paying parent from claims that they didn’t make a payment when they did.
BTW, the willfully underemployed accusation can be aimed at the custodial parent, too. Although if they’ve got two or three preschoolers the judge is probably not going to act on it if the custodial parent isn’t likely to be able to get a job that pays more than what the child care would cost. Once the kids are in school, though, it’s a possibility.
Because where I first distinguished between the frugal man and the cheap or vindictive man was in response to a post that as best I remember was supporting the right of a frugal man to force his children to live a frugal lifestyle after divorce, since he was able to do so before the divorce (whether or not he actually did so)
About the punishment- deciding not to provide your kids the lifestyle post- divorce that you provided them pre-divorce ( and that you continue to enjoy) because "the children - for whatever reason - are not interested in having a family relationship with this guy" is indeed punishing them for not being interested in a family relationship. It may be justified in some cases, and you may believe it's justified in all cases ( "whatever the reason") but it's still punishment. After all in the situation you're talking about, he'd presumably be willing to maintain their lifestyle if the kids were more interested in a relationship with him.
Disagree. A parent’s responsibilities are not changed by this. You can’t morally “divorce” your own minor children. Once they are old enough to be emancipated, that’s a different story.
That’s not a punishment. You like calling it a punishment so that you can call the guy vindictive, but that’s just semantic positioning.
A punishment is a retribution for some prior act. This is different.
If your claim to support is based on a family relationship, then to the extent that there’s less of a relationship there’s less of a claim.
To paraphrase Robert Ingersoll, there are some things that are neither rewards nor punishments; they are consequences.
They’re divorcing you.
Bottom line is that you’re divorced (from them). Coulda shoulda woulda. It happened.
I don’t agree that the claim to support is based on the strength of the current family relationship.
But even assuming that the claim to support is based on a relationship, I don’t believe that the reasons for “less of a relationship” are completely irrelevant- after all, that relationship may be due to the non-custodial parent’s actions. Perhaps the child at age 10 isn’t interested in seeing the parent because he or she spent too many weekends at age 8 waiting in vain for the parent to show up after turning down other other invitations. Or maybe the reason for less of a relationship is just a atural consequence of the child growing older. Or perhaps the child doesn’t want to spend time with the non-custodial parent because that parent is constantly complaining about the other. It apears that in your view ( “whatever the reason” ) it’s fine for the non-custodial parent to engineer the poor relationship that will then lead to less of a moral obligation to maintain the previous lifestyle.
But I’m sure you wouldn’t call that rewarding the non-custodial parent for prior bad behavior. Nope, it would just be a consequence, neither a reward not punishment, Except that in human relations unlike nature, consequences come in two flavors- positive and negative. In everyday speech, there is rarely a distinction made between a negative consequence and a punishment. But I’m the one using semantics.
More fair that the child and custodial bear the burden of raising the child (because he would have custody) vs. the right of the non-custodial parent to have her money taken, yes. I get that you’re trying to elevate the child’s suffering to disproportionate amounts to highlight his innocence, but think of it like this: if parents say a child should live frugally, we say “tough shit, parent’s rights”. If parents say the child needs to take the bus, doesn’t get toys, or can’t have friends over, we say “tough shit, parent’s rights”. The only line is abuse, then we say, “tough shit, child’s rights”.
I don’t get why you think that the same thing cannot be said if the parents are divorced and one parent decides to say “tough shit, my rights”. Suddenly, we are concerned with the rights of the child over the non-custodial parent’s to maintain a lifestyle he may not have had when they were married? Why? Why can’t we say “tough shit, parent’s rights”? It seems to me that you’re arguing that the rights of the custodial parent wins out over the rights of the non-custodial parent, and this whole notion of child’s rights, which we never cared about when the parents were married, is used as a smokescreen. Am I wrong? 
Well no one’s asked me this, but not necessarily. I do mean for a flat rate of $1100 to be able to go down as well if the custodial parent does not have the means to pay. While we’ve only talked about how cost of living and other expenses can increase that amount, I have no problems if $1100 is reduced because the non-custodial parent can’t pay or if the child-rearing expenses are lower than average
To be honest, I don’t care if it happens a lot or a little. That it can happen is my concern. If your argument is that I should spend my time pursuing more worthwhile endeavors, then I agree with you totally. I just thought this was an interesting topic to debate
Now now, no need to create a strawman to attack me. You can attack me through reasoned debate. Just don’t be upset if I find you unconvincing
Because they are no longer married so one spouse should not be beholden to the other any more. In the example I made in the first post, Halle Berry could have gotten custody, but her ex got it. Supposing that he has full custody, the fact that he wants that responsibility should mean that it was his own decision to assume that costs of raising that child. Therefore, if he wants to take that responsibility on, he should be solely responsible for the child (barring the $1100 minimal that I feel Berry should have to pay).
In this case, because they are no longer married, each parent becomes a separate entity. The ONLY thing connecting them is the child now, they are otherwise legally strangers. So why should she pay a stranger a fee because she’s rich? She has no obligation to pay her gardener more than the middle class person pays their gardener. Once she satisfies the terms of her responsibility (ie. the child) and pays the basic $1100, she should treat Gabriel Aubry as a legal stranger and not pay anything to him no matter how much money she has
Let’s just say that I don’t believe it should be a legal obligation to pay the custodial parent more than the $1100 I stated. That is the logical, objective amount. Any more and I believe it amounts to punishment by the state to enforce a certain moral behavior
I’m fine with that because they’re married. Not when they’re divorced. I think that’s perfectly reasonable
I think parental alienation is an unfortunate thing, but laws that force contact violate the autonomy of the parent. Parents can be dicks, they can be crazy, but as long as it doesn’t amount to abuse, then parents should be able to be dicks and be crazy. If the child has a better time with one parent than the other, oh well, it sucks, but one parent is richer than the other and that’s that
My contention is that the $1100 fulfills the parental obligation completely. Nothing more is required
To me, after you divorce, you don’t have to agree. If one parent wants something for the child and the other doesn’t, then too bad, they’re not married anymore and one parent doesn’t get to decide for both. I get that not forcing one parent to pay for the other means that the parent with the money gets to, by default, decide for the poorer parent. But I have no problems with that because its done by default and not coercion. Meaning that its ok if something happens through inaction but not ok if it happens by a positive action.
The reason why I’m in favor of it is because I think that’s more fair, and people can be sleazeballs if they want to and we shouldn’t be forced not to be
I wouldn’t think it should appear that way, but in case it did, I would clarify that this is not my view.
Reason being that a parent owes a kid a chance at having a parental relationship, much in the same way they owe them financial support. So if the parent deliberately engineers a poor relationship, the fault lies with them at that point.
But if due to no fault of their own there is no relationship, then their obligation is subsequently lessened.
Yes, you are. But I’ll tell you what - since you’re saying there’s no distinction between the two, let’s just knock off calling it a punishment and use other terms instead.
This might make it a bit harder for you to argue that the guy is being “vindictive”, but that too is only a consequence, not a punishment.
Parental responsibilities come from the fact of being a parent.
What a minor child does has no impact, legal or moral, on parental duties.
A person may well consider themselves “divorced” from their kids, and have no further duties towards their own children. Society rightly stigmatizes such people as “assholes”, and rightly calls them deadbeats when they deliberately fail to make the payments they owe; the legal system then punishes them in various ways.
It happens.
OK, so we disagree on this point.
I’ve not said that such a person has no further duties towards the children. The person brought these children into the world.
What I said is that the guy’s obligations are lessened.
What we’re discussing here is if the guy is paying basic care but is not looking to maintain the kid at his own higher standard of living (or those of his second family, with whom he actually has a relationship).
Seems to me all or nothing. I can’t think of any argument as to why one would think “The person brought these children into the world” matters, only not very much.
Why should society, or the law, let him or her morally and legally discriminate between one set of children and another? He (or she) brought them all “into the world”.
People have known for hundreds of years that shit ain’t right.
Hell, this is like watching Cinderella, and thinking “damn, why are the parents the bad guys in that story for making Cinderella the menial servant dressed in rags? Whatever happened to the rights of the parents? Justice for wicked stepmothers!” 
I addressed this earlier, when I first made this point.
What I said was: “A parental relationship is not just historical/biological.”
Having brought someone into the world only gets you so far. The idea that they need to have the same standard of living as you is based on them being part of your family.
You continue to misunderstand. NEITHER parent can make a unilateral decision concerning the child.
Consider a hypothetical. The parents are divorced, and one parent decides to say “tough shit, my rights. I want to maintain this fancy lifestyle, and you are not part of that.” Then the OTHER parent says, "“tough shit, my rights. I want to maintain this fancy lifestyle, and you are not part of that.” Now what happens to the kid?
The rights of the child trump those of both the people who brought him into this world. That’s part of what being a parent is. If you fail to live up to your legal obligations to your child, the state can put you in jail (even though your minor child has no legal obligations to you).
But we did care about the child’s rights while the parents were married. In my state, as in most states, if one parent thinks the other parent’s actions or decisions are causing harm (physical or emotional) to the child, that parent can invoke the powers of the court, whether or not they are married. (If you are married to somebody you believe is harming your child, the normal course would be to separate and obtain temporary custody orders, but it would be possible to have the child taken into foster care or obtain other state involvement.)
The state will not disturb a decision made jointly by the parents, whether or not they are married, absent some good reason (such as cruelty, failure to provide adequate food, etc.). However, if the parents can’t agree, the state can get involved, and the presence or absence of a marriage certificate doesn’t change that.
But in fact you have no idea what went into that agreement, or any private agreement, and no notion of the motives of the respective parties. It is quite possible BOTH parties wanted to assume the costs and responsibilities, but decided that due to their differing obligations that one or the other was better equipped to act as the primary caretaker. (Various articles about the Berry/Aubry custody action report that the two in fact have joint legal custody of their daughter.) When people who live on different continents have a child together, they may decide that it is in the child’s best interests to reside primarily in one location, even though both are willing to assume responsibility.
Would $1100 satisfy her responsibility to the ongoing physical, mental and emotional needs of her child? In her situation, where the kid has already been the target of paparazzi, it is entirely possible that keeping the child safe and secure requires full-time security personnel, in which case $1100/month is peanuts. Similarly, in cases where the child’s health care needs cost far more than $1100, can one parent say “too bad, so sad, that’s all I’m paying.”? [Not in my state they can’t.]
Suppose I say it should not be a legal obligation to pay the electric company more than $140/month, and I believe that is the logical objective amount. If the electric company gets a judgement for the excess bills I don’t pay and garnishes my bank account, am I being punished?
That rule of law has nothing whatsoever to do with the parent’s marital state; it has to do with the parent’s legal obligation to their children. For example, reasonable and necessary medical care is a parental obligation: if Mommy takes Junior to the emergency room and can’t/doesn’t pay the bill, Daddy can be forced to do so regardless of his marital state and regardless of whether he knew and/or approved of the decision to go to the ER. It’s not Daddy’s obligation to Mommy; it’s Daddy’s obligation to Junior. Similarly, Daddy has the legal obligation to provide the necessary care and control for the physical, mental and emotional health of every child in his legal custody. He is allowed to delegate that obligation to Mommy or Grandma or whomever, but if they fail to follow through, he’s on the hook even as they are, regardless of whether he’s got a marriage certificate.
Does parental alienation result in emotional harm to the child? If so, it is more than “unfortunate”; it is illegal. The act of bringing a child into the world abrogates some of your autonomy.
A decision by default is not better than one by coercion. In both cases, someone else has to live with the consequences. You are correct that one parent doesn’t get to decide for both: if they cannot agree, the judge decides.
Another thing I do not understand is women who REFUSE child support. Not didn’t ask for it, which is not the same thing, but REFUSED it.
There are situations where custodial parents don’t ask for it, and it makes sense; most commonly, it’s because they know the money will cause more problems than it will solve. But I’m talking about one where the NCP WANTS to pay, and sometimes even sends money anyway but she tears up the checks or sends the cash back.
:eek:
The court can force a custodial parent to let the non-custodial parent see the child but there are no laws that force contact if the non-custodial parent doesn’t want to see the child.
YogSosoth, are you going to continue to ignore the point about continuity between the separated parents? That is, if your plan came to be then one parent could be living in a rathole while the other parent was living in a mansion, and the child was still visiting the parent in the mansion. Do you not think that could be a problem?
And I’m fine with that. Allowing the non-custodial parent to see the child, to me, is something that courts should settle because its the clash of one parent’s right vs. another. That’s a proper utilization for the court. But forcing contact by a parent who doesn’t want to see her child is a dispute between the rights of a parent and the rights of the court. That’s why I’m kind of surprised that some people in this thread have been shocked that I said a parent’s obligation to her child ends with the basic needs fulfilled.
I guess the best way to explain it is that I don’t consider one divorced parent, if she doesn’t have custody, making a decision for herself to mean that its a unilateral decision for the child. The affect on the child is an unfortunate side effect and I don’t consider the child’s status to override the parent. For example, if the non-custodial parent wants to donate all her money and possessions to charity and cannot pay child support, that’s a unilateral decision she makes for herself that affects the child’s support payments. I’m ok with that.
In your hypothetical, the child’s rights only amount to $1100 per month. That’s the obligation. He is not entitled to love, respect, or affection from either parent. Again, I see it the same way as being born into a poor family. You can say all you want that the child deserves a certain stability and environment, but sometimes its not possible (if both parents are poor), or would clash against other rights (taking taxpayer money or the money of the nearest rich guy and giving it to the kid). At a certain point, I think you just have to accept that some people are born into better situations. We can’t level everything, we can try, but we must balance that out against other rights. After divorce, the non-custodial parent’s only obligation is to herself (barring the $1100) because she has divorced herself from the spouse and the previous life
I think I made a note that I draw the line at abuse. I was referring to decisions other than that.
But you’re wrong, the state does not intervene as long as they are married. The same decision, made by one parent unilaterally, can affect the child in any way within a married and the state will do nothing. If one parent says she’ll no longer buy luxury stuff for the child and wants to move to Podunk, Idaho and she controls the money, then oh well, the family’s moving whether it will negatively affect the child or not. Because within a marriage, it is assumed that the child’s basic needs get taken care of, so anything more than that is undeserved luxury. Outside of a marriage, the $1100 satisfies that requirement
That’s fine, I’m just using the payment amount as a jumping off point. It doesn’t really matter for the purposes of this debate if they all agreed to it. We can imagine that there are exorbitant payments for custody, Berry’s is one, some of the others I listed in the OP are other examples. The point is that no payment should ever be that high and mandated by a court. If Berry wants to pay that amount, it shouldn’t have been up to a court to certify or put a stamp on it any more than if Berry wants to buy a burger for the kid, a court shouldn’t intervene.
A personal moral responsibility is different from a legal one. $1100 does not satisfy the personal moral responsibility but it absolutely does satisfy the basic needs of a child to pay for food, shelter, and clothing. As far as the other stuff you listed, it would be covered under my consideration for unique circumstances that I’ve talked about. However, personally speaking, I don’t think it is realistic to think of paparazzi as dangerous to a child. Incidents of harm are usually to adults, and accidental, and rare enough that it should not be a consideration. If a group of people wanted to take pictures and be disruptive of a child while she’s out doing her normal kid stuff, I would not agree that she is entitled to have some type of bodyguard. And unless you’re the president’s kids, no kid needs extra security following them around all the time. So if Berry’s kids have that as part of the settlement, I think it should be removed. As for the child’s health care, remember I did specify that $1100 is the baseline and that special circumstances can change that number, including medical reasons
In this case, I’m sure that you will feel it is punishment, but someone who thinks that $140 is the proper amount would not
The rule of law doesn’t change. The law takes into account the circumstances. Divorce changes the circumstances to one where instead of an assumed familial support, it is converted to hard dollars and cents and that substitutes for the parental obligation
Some emotional harm is ok. If a child gets yelled at by the parents, that’s fine. If the child is screamed at 24/7, then that amounts to harm. Similarly, a slap on the hand is ok when the child does something bad, but beatings that result in bruises with a bat is abuse. Parental alienation in that a parent who is divorced doesn’t want to see the child or have anything to do with it is harmful, but it doesn’t amount to abuse and should be perfectly legal. The reduction in autonomy you mention is made up with $1100, nothing more is owed
I simply see a difference in actively doing something vs. passively allowing something to happen. Its like that moral question where a person is asked if they would save lives on a train by either allowing someone to get run over or actively pushing them into the path of the incoming train. Most people, and I agree with them, say its ok to allow someone to die but they draw the line at pushing someone into the path. Here, I agree that consequences are often similar, but I think its ok for a parent to do nothing and let the child suffer for it rather than the court force the parent to do something.
What is your stance on parental rights after adoption? Do you think a child adopted has the right to seek out a parent’s information? Should a parent who gives up the child for adoption be forced into contact with the child if the child desires? Let’s say the child is not 18 yet, what is that parent’s obligation?