Just like you. I do not know. I will wait for it to come out. It will.
Do you suppose after a while, it would not come up at all?
It is always a sad situation.
There is no happy way to handle custody disputes where both parents want the kids. Often the mother gets the kids and is free to move away and avoid letting the father see them. Morally, that may be even worse than the father in this case because he didn’t have the option of not moving away if he wanted to raise his kids.
But even though there is no solution, at the very least we know we don’t want a wild west of kidnapping in these situations, so throw the book at this guy.
Again, one should look at particular jurisdictions, for the laws vary. Where I am, there are two types of support – child support and spousal support. Child support is based on the person with the kids being given a portion of the other parent’s income so as to help cover the costs of raising the kids, based on what the government realistically thinks it costs to raise kids for parties of various income ranges. A good way to think of it is that it means that the support payor pays a fair share toward the raising of the children – not the entire shot. When a client freaks about the level of child support he or she is expected to pay, I have them draft a budget for what they think it actually costs to raise their children. Usually the number they come up with is higher than the government’s child support figure, so they come to realize that although the requisite amount may be brutal, it is justifiable.
Spousal support depends on a lot of factors, with a view to getting the recipient as self-supporting as possible as soon as possible. A person in his or her fifties who was a stay-at-home parent for a couple of decades and who has no job experience and no post-secondary education will get a lot of spousal support for a long time. A person in his or her twenties who worked full-time, and who did not make education, financial or career sacrifices, will get little if any spousal support.
When there is both child support and spousal support, the amount of spousal is lessened to avoid bleeding the support payor dry. We have some spiffy-fandango formulas, but a good rule of thumb is to put the incomes of both parties into a pot, pay their taxes, and split the net between them with a little bit more than half going to the payor and a little bit less than half going to the recipient if there are no kids, but more of the pot going to the custodial parent if there are kids. For example, for a long term marriage in which the wife had not worked and the husband was earning 100k, the split of after tax income would be somewhere around 61.8% him / 38.2% her with about 2.2k/mth spousal support; if they had a couple of kids, then about 46.4% him / 53.6% her with about 1.4k child support and 1.6k spousal support; and if they had ten kids, then about 30.1% him and 69.9% her with about 2.7k child suport and no spousal support. In general, the lifestyle of the support recipient tends to go down more than that of the payor.
Overall, our child support regime is a cookie cutter aproach that does not work well for everyone, but does a very good job for most people while at the same time reducing financially expensive and emotionally devestating litigation. Our spousal suport regime is moving toward the cookie cutter approach, but at this point is still very flexible, which while good for some people, still leaves a lot of room to game the system by spousal support payors who are can afford to out litigate their spouses, and by spousal support recipients who don’t want to get off the couch.
Different jurisdictions vary. The Ontario example is fairly typical for the various child and spousal support regimes across Canada and the USA (each jurisdiction looks at other jurisdictions when updating their policies, law, and procedures), but there is still a fair bit of differentiation, so don’t take the above as being applicable outside of Ontario.
I’m going to wait and see if she ever contacted a single authority figure in Mexico. There should be some record of that.
That he called from Mexico, or just called from across town and said it was Mexico, we don’t really know. It’s mom’s word against dad’s, and we haven’t heard a word from dad yet.
I don’t know–it sounds like he’s the one being vindictive and denying his spouse anything to do with the kids in this situation.
If you admit we don’t know anything, why are you trying to paint the mother as though she’s a drug addict out for a fix, or that she really didn’t care about them because she couldn’t find them? It’s way unnecessary.
Also, are you saying that if it was the other way around, and if the mother took off and left town with her kids that that would be wrong? is it only okay because the courts supposedly screw men out of seeing their kids? Somehow I doubt you’d be saying that you aren’t prepared to condemn the mother for loving her kids too much if the genders were flipped.
I’m taking dad’s POV because most everyone else has condemned dad.
If the parents were reversed? That’s easy. Mom would have had good reason for escaping dad, and too bad for dad for not trying harder to find them. That scumbag. When mom got caught, the courts would probably say, “well, it’s been 15 years. Let them be. It’s the best for the children. Sorry dad.”
That’s fine. But you are unwilling to condemn him for robbing their mother her right to know her children, and the children’s right to know their mother? Is your disgust with what you consider an unfair system really so great that you truly don’t think those are bad things, as long as a father ‘finally gets to beat the biased system?’
Your question is answered by your own post. It’s perceived as so “unusual” for a father to get custody that if the mother hadn’t been granted custody the assumption would be that she was some sort of monster. A father gets more sympathy because the likely reason he wasn’t given custody was because of his gender. One of the problems with the obvious bias against men in custody disputes is that that sort of bias undercuts the moral authority of the courts, and breeds both defiance of the law and tolerance for that defiance.
This is what the article says:
“Sagala, 43, later learned through his relatives in Mexico City that her husband was there with the children and didn’t intend to come back…”
“At that time, she was afraid to go to Mexico because he had threatened her.”
“Police eventually referred the investigation to the San Bernardino County District Attorney’s office, following the department’s policy, but the probe stalled. Police followed up with Sagala three times in the intervening years.”
Possibly it’s all the mother’s fantasy, but odds are it is pretty close to the truth. And his relatives (in Mexico City) apparently helped. That would inspire confidence in her safety down there…
Since he didn’t wait around to see if the courts were favoring the mother and cutting him out of their lives, we can’t use the excuse that the anti-male courts were at fault. He hadn’t even moved out yet when he took the kids and ran.
Given what she said, it would be surprising if the DA or police did not talk to the Mexico City police - 3 times. If the local relatives were being helpful, they probably told the policia “no se nada! No esta en casa.” If the guy had left the country back to the USA, no wonder the policia found nothing.
It is extremely misguided to direct hatred of a female bias in custody battles onto one woman who has nothing to do with that bias existing. I have a pretty strong feeling a lot of that is going on here.
It may have been a case where someone was going to get screwed one way or another. Mom was going to get screwed, or dad was going to get screwed. Are you asking me which I prefer got screwed? Are you asking me to feel less sympathy for dad than mom?
The need for the state arises out of the parents not being able to resolve their differences between themselves. Most people who divorce do not end up in court, other than to turn a separation agreement into an order and to get a rubber-stamp divorce. Reasonable people work things out between themselves. If they are having difficulty doing this, then they get lawyers to help them find solutions without ending up in court, and if they still can not put a deal together, then they go to court. Since litigation is financially and emotionally brutal, only nut cases and assholes or people having to deal with a nut case or asshole spouse end up in court. Without the state, the nut cases and assholes would be unfettered.
As far as the state sanctioned support being used as a bludgeoning tool to stomp some dads into the ground, yes, some people game the system, but the system is designed to reduce such abuse. When support payors on average end up with their standard of living being lower than support recipients, then you will have a case, but as it stands, it is the other way around, with support recipients tending to have lower standards of living than support payors.
But it’s OK to direct hatred of “deadbeat dads” and abusive men onto all men? Which is what the law does.
Absolutely not, but how on earth does that make what I said more or less acceptable?
There’s the core of the problem, the idea that if the other side gets the least concession then you lose. Generally, this is the problem with custody fights. The antagonism is so intense that one side cannot make any concession to the other. (often on both sides, to be fair). This is how people like the Giulianis argue over $40,000 a year in doggie support payments. Imagine if they had young kids to argue over.
The court is stuck in the middle. They have to pick A or B because A+B is ruled out by one or the other party, usually both. In my long experience as a man looking in on others’ families, much as the man seems to think he’s doing half the work, he isn’t. For example, when my co-worker’s kids were old enough to beleft on their own, she was the one phoning to make sure sthey were up, dressed for the weather, and off to school on time. She did the grocery shopping and cooked the meals. yeah, he was up at 5AM for hockey practice, but that level of attention did not compare.
So the court sides usually with the mother because 9 times out of 10, that’s the most involved parent. Speaking as a child whose father won custody…
Yup, joint is the default in Soviet Kanukistan, and the courts are not supposed to have a gender bias. For example, our Divorce Actsets out that:
The undelying policy behind this is set out in the Parliament’s “For the Sake of the Children” report, which also recognizes (at Chapter 1 E) that although the law is gender neutral, it takes time to get the courts to catch up with the law.
Neither is acceptable. Yet many people wave off the anti-male child custody regime by saying “hey, males aren’t victim to sexual harassment and unequal pay, and that MORE THAN makes up for the disparity in being able to be with your family.” As if all males supported those forms of sexual inequality.
But I don’t see evidence of much anti-male or anti-female bias in this thread, really, which is refreshing for a change.
Your law might. The law up here does not.
Are you seriously trying to are equate someone potentially getting screwed by a 3rd party to someone preemptively totally, royally, irredeemably fucking someone over by their own hand?
But the law “up there” is in no way involved in this. If Canadian law is fairer, good for you.
There’s little real difference. Screwed is screwed after all. And when the law clearly has an agenda against one party it isn’t so much a “3rd party” as it is an ally of the second.