Friday, August 02, 2013

Illinois dad loses to Texas oil money

Here is an Illinois appeal of a child custody and move-away decision. The judges tried to deny that it was all based on money, but the deciding factor was that the mom was remarry a man making $130k a year in Texas.
We hasten to add that there is no correlation between money and human worth and that we do not intend the least denigration of either parent. Nevertheless, such economic hardship is not to be taken lightly. Poverty can be grim and corrosive, and social mobility in the United States is not what it used to be. We do not mean to subscribe to an iron-clad determinism, but the opportunities L.C. has during his childhood probably will determine the opportunities he has for the rest of his life.

Sutton is by all accounts a warm and decent person, and no matter what, he intends to marry [mother]. If he is allowed to pursue, unimpeded, his occupations in Texas, he will lift [mother] out of the ranks of the low-skilled and underpaid poor and into, approximately, the upper middle class — and, naturally, L.C. will be elevated with her....
Based on this logic, maybe we should just force poor parents to let their kids be adopted by rich parents. This Illinois dad not only loses his kid because of his ex-wife's new-found wealth, he will probably have to continue to pay child support.


Anonymous said...

I recommend you read Jonathan Swift's "A Modest Proposal". It rings as true today as it did when the english were oppressing the irish.

Anonymous said...

Under current Illinois statutes, it is predominantly the non-custodial parent who pays child support regardless of the custodial parent's current income; in this case, mother's earnings don't factor at all into the formula. If mother asks for child support from the Illinois court, which currently has jurisdiction over this case, father will likely see 20% or more of his earnings go to mother in Texas, again regardless of the likelihood mother and her "white knight' Sutton will be pulling an annual income of at least $130,000 while father struggles on $20,000.

Illinois has some of the most archaic and draconian child support statutes in the nation; it's unlikely to change any time soon due to this state's exploitation of Title IV D funds from the Federal government. Last report, Illinois is near bankrupt thanks to two corrupt governors and a host of other graft and racketeering.

Given what I know of this case, this appellate opinion stinks to the high heavens, and how offensive and patronizing of these judges to say "it has nothing to do with economics." Everything I've read about the appellate opinion points to a decision based on economic circumstances.

Did anyone ask the question, "with the 'presumed windfall' going to mother when she marries Sutton, wouldn't mother be better capable than father to support the airfare needed to fly the 1000 miles for visitation, and allow their child to remain in Paris, IL where there's a fit and loving parent able to care for the child, as well as involved extended family for the child, both hers and the

Or what about Sutton, a warm and decent man by the court's own account, simply offering to adopt the child after marrying mother? In the appellate court's opinion, this child is no different than Orphan Annie (Andy) - Sutton would be Daddy Warbucks (Oilbucks)!

Despite all the current research supporting equal parenting and a child's well-being greatly improved by the regular involvement of both parents post divorce or separation, men don't seem to count for much in the family courts except for child support, especially in this case; I'm including our man Sutton in this statement since he's Daddy Warbucks after all and is the primary breadwinner in this "future household."

If I were the father, I'd figure out a way to pull up stakes and move to Texas, and continue this fight for his right to be a parent - in Texas. If father does move to establish residency in Texas, he should also seek maintenance from the mother (e.g. alimony) after the Illinois court opined that the move was beneficial because it indeed improved the economic condition of the mother!

I'll bet mother saw Sutton coming and dumped poor Cody for greener pastures; furthermore, she and her advisers are probably staunch advocates for the "golden uterus" philosophy.

George said...

California law is similar, and would require the dad to pay 25% of his income to the mom in Texas, even tho the mom's new wealth was the reason for him not seeing his kid.

Anonymous said...

it sucks to be poor, especially in our legal system, especially when you are fighting someone with resources.

the law is almost always trumped by the access that money can buy.