Originally Posted by phrogger
Hang on a second, are you saying that women are not capable of providing for their children themselves and must be fully dependant on the man?
Not a bit, and I'd challenge you to find the text in which I do that. However, if it costs the woman, say, $4K/mo to house, feed, etc. self and kids (the number doesn't matter, let's not get twisted up about what's a reasonable level of penury for single parents and their kids), and she's making $3K and the daddy's sending $1K, she's just scraping by, and that's the case for many single-mother households. If he drops his c/s unilaterally to $500, and she can't make up the difference within some critical time period, down the ladder she and the kids go.
Given that custodial parents are in general doing far more work than the NCPs are already, I'm not sure why you think it's a good idea to suggest CPs do more work. I'm guessing that if you did a study of how much sleep NCPs get v. CPs, you'd see a difference of 1.5-4 hours a night in the NCP's favor.
|This mother in this story DID have an education, she has the chance of providing for her children, if she choose NOT to increase her income, that is her choice, just as it should be the fathers choice to decrease his income in order to provide more time with his children.
You've forgotten again that he doesn't live in a little universe all of his own.
When you marry and have children, you make certain promises to each other, implicitly or explicitly. For lack of better word, a contract. Some of those promises have to do with division of labor. These aren't light; they have to do with how the other person may live. If on divorcing you can't sort those out yourselves, the courts will do it for you, and set you a new contract.
You, phrogger, found it both possible and worthwhile to work more and let your guy off the hook. Fine. In that case, you both agreed to rewrite the contract, and you both found it beneficial. That's a perfectly reasonable way to modify a contract. But I can tell you that this is neither feasible nor reasonable for many, many single mothers or their children, and that's part of why the courts don't let it happen. The other reason is that because the women in general either will not or cannot make enough money to pick up the men's slack, they turn to the taxpayers. And they -- we -- aren't interested in subsidizing the guy's bliss.
Finally -- and I hope I don't come off too cynical, here -- but I have seen over the years a remarkable number of stories involving men's waxing and waning interest in being involved in their children's lives. I don't see why a policy of "pay less, see the kids more" shouldn't turn into a policy of "pay less, find a new girlfriend or develop an interest in skydiving or a sudden need to move to Baja, see the kids less." In that case what you end up doing is setting the mom the job of not just working more to take up the slack, but of being Documentation Queen, so that a year from the time she stops pleading with the guy to see the kids more, she can go back to court and say, "See, he lied, please put him back up to where he was for c/s." And what happens then? Why, for a month or so, he can be Superdad again. What we see in custody disputes is that a guy can jerk a woman around for a good long time that way. I don't think it'd be bright to do it with c/s, in law.
Bottom line: If both mom & dad see a contract change as beneficial, super. Do it. If it harms one party and he or she refuses, then no go, sorry. Welcome to the land of binding promises.