Thursday, June 24, 2010

Children are not property

A reader comments:
I have walked out of court many times in tears because the best interest of the children are not at the heart of the decision making process.
Has anything else ever happened? In 6 years of watching the family court, I have never seen it put the best interest of the children at the heart of the decision making process. Not even once. I doubt that it ever happens.
I was also surprised by the comment in the article "That's when it really hits home, when you realize your daughter really isn't yours anymore." Children are not property they are people, individuals who need to be treated with respect and love, child support is meant to provide them a life that is not at poverty level, a life similar to what they had prior to the divorce.
Children are not property, but nearly ever civilization has allowed parents to make the child-rearing decisions. I don't think that any good has ever come from judges making such decisions.

You description of child support is not correct. If it were, then child support would be ordered based on what is necessary to be above the poverty level. But the California formula does not use the poverty level at level. Even wealthy parents receive child support. And there is no obligation to spend the money on the kids.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

two things to remember about the CA support guidelines. First, it's tax free income to the recipient so an unscrupulous/vengeful/whatever ex can simply work to deny custody and visitation in toto to the other ex. The formulae used to calculate support is then solely a percentage of what the non-custodial parent makes without regard to the custodial parent's income. Period. That's what happened to George, myself, and several other dads I know in this county.

Secondly, the equations and rationales used to calculate support in the state of CA were based on falsified data generated by a Stanford sociology PhD back in the 80s. It all came out in a very famous book and the author went on to participate in the committees that generated the then new guidelines. That data and study were later publicly retracted in the mid 90s due to a lot of whistleblowing by her research associates, but the damage was done and the new guidelines put in place and never readjusted.

No, BIOTCh is simply smoke being blown by a very large industry made up of lawyers, shrinks, social workers, and govt employees that stands to profit financially and ideologically (read: control). George's experiences with Perlmutter surprise me not at all, as well as Dan Brewington's with his evaluator, they're not different from mine. Children are simply the pawns as well as the fulcrum for those who profit from this system, and the vengeful ex's (both moms and dads) who abuse the system to their own ends are just tools. And fools. My two cents, your mileage may vary, etc.