The child support racket is the single biggest injustice that nobody knows about. Good men are stripped of their rights, impoverished, and receive almost no sympathy from the masses. The topic of men’s rights is taboo, but this is something that needs to change.
This blog is dedicated toward helping men (and women) who are victim of this racket. This is a difficult topic to write about because there are so many preconceived notions about what is right and wrong. People are quick to judge and often respond emotionally - think of the kids! - rather than rationally.
The vast majority of parents love their children and want them to be taken care of. Few who have the means to prevent it would let their child starve or suffer. When it comes to “child support”, everyone attempts to argue in the best interest of the children.
The problem is that the vast majority of good people with good intentions are unable to agree on what is best for the children. This is especially true when what is at stake is not only your right to raise your child and teach them your values, but also hundreds of thousands of dollars.
Whether or not the parents can agree, they are not the ones who get to decide. Instead, the finial decision is ultimately made by a government judge when they award custody. But even the judge doesn’t have much say on “child support” because state and federal legislators have defined hard rules based upon income.
The problem with all of this is that government judges have their own values on what is in the best interest of the children. These values are usually biased along these lines:
The fastest way to lose custody is to advocate beliefs that challenge the status quo. Concerned about vaccines? Want to homeschool your child? Admit to anti-government beliefs? Use alternative medicine? Believe in living simply while saving and investing for the future? Want to become a missionary or pursue something other than financial riches? Good luck keeping your kids or getting to chose your job.
Each and every one of those things are things that a good parent could believe. Yet the Judge gets to decide. The truth is that there is no such thing as the best interest of the children as that implies a universal truth, rather than a subjective judgement. If parents, who love their children, are unable to make an unbiased appraisal, then how can a court?
Anyone who claims to speak on behalf of the children, is ultimately speaking on their own interests. A catholic Judge will favor a catholic parent over an atheist. A republican Judge will favor a conservative home. A liberal judge will favor a liberal home. Everyone is interested in raising kids in their own image and will claim that it is in their best interest.
This single question, “what is in the best interest of the kids?”, single handedly derails the debate and hands arbitrary power over how children should be raised to the government. The side effect is that millions of kids are harmed each and every year.
This blog is not about shirking responsibilities to children, but rather defending the children and families who are harmed by self-serving interests of government bureaucracy. Are kids really better off when a court impoverishes one parent so another parent can share a higher standard of living? Are kids really better off when one parent is thrown in jail? Are kids better off living the high life as a kid and then supporting their broke father in retirement, or living an OK life as a kid and getting an inheritance? How many families would stay together if the mother couldn’t walk away with the kids, the house, and a large part of the father’s future income?
Everyone talks about the “rights of the children”, but apparently children only get these magical "rights" the moment their parents split. What kid has the right to demand his dad work overtime so he can have a bigger room? What kid has the right to chose his father's career? What kid has the right to demand name brand clothes over generics? What kid has the right to demand his parents pay for college? Is a child entitled to an allowance and a share of his parents income?
These are not rights that belong to children, but somehow they become a right as soon as someone decides to take your kids and make you pay for the privilege. What really happens is that courts grant one parent discretionary spending power over the other parent’s income. In almost all cases there isn’t even accountability. This transfer of authority has nothing to do with the children, because the children never had this right in the first place.
When you get married both parties have right to spend marital funds on the children. The purpose of a divorce is to divide assets and end the co-ownership and equal spending authority. Aside from “spousal support”, an ex-wife has no authority over the future income of her ex-husband. While they remain husband and wife they can each spend marital funds on the children as they see fit, but after divorce they no longer have right to spend each other’s money. A divorce is between the parents, not the children. Child support cannot be defended as a logical extension of rights due a spouse because it is applied regardless of whether or not two people were ever legally married.
At the end of the day, the true test of right and wrong comes down to when and where the use of force may be initiated against another person. Is it legitimate to kill someone who actively resists arrest for failure to pay child support? Is it in the best interest of the child to kill their parent for failing to pay an any amount of money to their ex?
It all becomes very clear. Child support has nothing to do with rights and everything to do with entitlement enforced at gunpoint. When you remove all of the “middle men”, you have one parent pointing a gun at the other parent and demanding a payment. What mother would tolerate their son's ex-girlfriend making the same threat to her son?
In my opinion, raising kids in a home of someone with that mindset cannot be good for the children or society. There is no such thing as a “deadbeat dad”, only dads that are beat-dead unless they submit to involuntary servitude.
