A Little Parity for Fathers, Please

I’ve got a friend whose wife divorced him a few years back. During the divorce proceedings, she decided to move out of state with the kids. I’m absolutely positive that there are aspects of the divorce that I’m not aware of, so I’m not going to make a value judgment on the divorce itself. After all, since this man is my friend, it’s fair to say that I’ve got a bias in his favor. But what I’d like to discuss today has nothing to do with divorce – it’s got to do with child custody and child support as it relates to fathers.

When my friend went to court for the custody hearing, his soon-to-be ex had already decided to leave the state. She wanted complete legal custody of the kids, complete physical custody of the kids, and the maximum amount of child support she could get. This was the only acceptable option for her. My friend wanted joint legal custody, and primary physical custody of the kids, but only because she was moving out of state. He’d have been happy with joint physical custody if she hadn’t decided to move. As it became apparent that he wouldn’t get primary physical custody, he decided that he’d ask for every third weekend with the kids, instead of the standard every other weekend with the kids. This, he stated, was because he didn’t want the kids to spend so much of their time on the road – he wanted what was best for them. So, when the custody was determined, he spent every third weekend, plus six weeks over the summer with his kids.

A year or so ago, his ex moved back to town with the kids and her new husband. My friend was ecstatic that he would now be able to spend more time with his kids, and indeed it started happening. He got them once in a while during the week, and saw them every other weekend. Somewhere along the line, he decided that he wanted joint physical care. Since he and his ex were living in the same town, this seemed like a reasonable request… at least it seemed reasonable to him. The boys’ mom, on the other hand, didn’t like the idea at all, and was completely unwilling to amend the status quo in any way, shape or form.

At this point, my friend realized that he had no other recourse than going back to court. The ex said that if they did go back to court, that she’d fight any changes in custody, and that she’d go for more child support. He wanted his boys, and she wasn’t willing to give him any more custody than he already had, so he had no choice but to go back to court. She made good on her threat and asked for more child support.

During the hearing, each of them presented their side of the argument. She said that the kids should know where their home is. He said that the boys should be able to spend an equal amount of time with their dad, especially considering they all lived in the same town. His attorney reminded the judge of the state law recently passed saying that joint custody and joint care was the preferred custody arrangement in new divorce cases unless one parent was proven unfit, or wanted less than full custody. The judge hinted that joint custody would be awarded when he said that an ideal custody situation is where a child says “I’ve got two homes” when asked about living arrangements.

In the end, it didn’t go exactly as my friend had hoped. He got a slightly extended version of every other weekend, with the visitations starting Wednesday evening during his custody times. He also got six weeks during the summer. So he essentially got the custody that she had set forth when she moved back to town. But here’s the kicker – he’s paying more child support. Yes, he got more time with the kids, but his child support went up, despite the fact that he’s spending more time with the kids. To add insult to injury, the judge made it retroactive to the beginning of the year, and the increase in child support is enough that he’s probably going to lose his home.

Based on everything I understand about the court system – and I’ve got personal experience with divorce and child custody – the stated goal of the courts when it comes to custody battles is the best interest of the child. Assuming that each parent is equally fit, how is a child not getting to spend equal time with each parent in the best interest of the child? How is it in a child’s best interest to wonder why he can’t spend more time with daddy? How is it in a child’s best interest to see a father lose everything he has because of child support payments?

I understand the deadbeat dad argument. I realize that men used to abandon their family, leaving them with nothing. I also realize that this still happens. But I’ve also got enough life experience to know that the deadbeat dad is the exception, not the rule. Despite the modern reality that most men want to share in the care and upbringing of their children, they are forced to be secondary parents, and pay through the nose for the privilege of watching their children grow up from afar. When it comes to parental rights, fathers are considered less emotionally able to care for their kids. And when these fathers are ripped away from their children, the court compounds the agony by forcing them to pay exorbitant amounts of money in order to keep things “fair.”

It’s time for this to change. While I don’t believe that all men are created equal, and I do acknowledge that some men are deadbeats, it’s unreasonable to assume that mothers are superior parents, just because of their gender. Men should be given the opportunity to spend an equal amount of time with their children. Not only should men be given the opportunity to be treated as equal parents, but the current child support laws should be revisited as well. If a father has equal custody of the children, then he should not be forced to pay support to the mother. Just as he has an obligation to work to feed his children, so does she. And if she fails to live up to this obligation, he should not be punished for it.

As I say this should be the standard, I do realize that some men are either unfit or do not want equal time with their children. Allowances should be made for these exceptions, and child support is still warranted in these situations. But considering how much times have changed, realizing how much society has evolved, and understanding that it’s the standard – not the exception – that men want to be actively involved in their children’s lives, it’s time to change the laws and court practices to reflect this new reality. It’s time to let men be equal parents, and in these circumstances, it’s time to ask the women to stand on their own two feet and not expect the men to keep subsidizing their portion of the child-rearing.