Why are democrats opposed to child support reform and custody reform?

Question

Over and over I've seen it - whenever a bill comes before state legislature concerning child support reform and/or child custody reform, for the most part the democrats are opposed to the reform. Why is that? In my home state of Georgia, for example, when a child support reform bill came up for a vote, every democrat voted against the bill, even when it was shown that the original child support formula was intended solely for unemployed mothers (it was based on the Wisconsin formula from around 1960), and it was based on fathers who never saw their children. Only the father's income was used to figure the amount. It didn't matter how much the mom made, or how much time the children spent with the father, the father's income was all that was taken into account. That had a terrible impact on all divorced dads, white and black, who lived in Georgia. The child support awards in Georgia were around twice what they were for every state around us.

So, when it's obvious that the laws creates situations unfair to the non-custodial parent, why is it that democrats are opposed to reform? And why would ANYONE be opposed to the presumption of joint custody when custody reform is being discussed? Provided, of course, that both parents are fit parents with no abuse, addiction, or any other serious flaw.

Popeye420 · Accepted Answer

Man, you're going to get blasted for this. All sorts of "momma's" are going to take that wrong.

Anywho, I agree with you. Our family law system is broken, especially here in California. To many "custodial" parent are using their children as a paycheck. "Custodial" parents have figured out that if you fight, and keep the "non-custodial" parent away from the child (restrict the time share) that child support increases. "Non-custodial" parents are easy to give up, they give up the fight, and in turn give up on their children. 

The bottom line is that it is the children that the politicians need to consider, and not in the monetary benefit either! It is no secrete that children benefit by having both parents "EQUALLY" involved in their lives. The problem is, who can the courts place blame, and who then can the courts order to take financial responsibility. The easiest target is the "non-custodial" parent, generally a father. 

Things have changed, fathers have proven to be more than capable of raising children on their own. More and more mothers are bailing out on their children and avoiding child support. The entire family law system needs to be re-evaluated.

I've had custody of my sons for over 2 years now, the mother does not pay support, offer school clothing help, or help to pay tuition to a private high school, or even insurance cost.....nothing! I paid anywhere from $900 per month to $1100 per month in child support, excluding the roughly additional $300 per month in medical and dental insurance and I still bought school clothing and supplies. My sons came to live with more by their own choice, the local child support office continued to collect the support knowing the change in custody. They took their time sending the modification paperwork as well, and when I finally had my hearing I was never asked if I wanted a child support order. It was not until I spoke with the court appointed child counsel that I was asked if I wanted child support.....my answer was no! I won't use my sons as a paycheck, they will be taught to be respectful and responsible and they have turned out to be wonderful youngmen.

? · Answer

Democrats oppose tort reform as proposed by the Republicans because it favors big business rather than the rights of the common man. Some times the little guy has no other redress than to sue in a court of law. Republicans wish to take that right away under the pretense that this would limit frivolous law suits. What they really want to do is to protect big business. I agree that courts have been hampered by uncalled for law suits but I think it has been greatly exaggerated in order to make changing the law more attractive.

livin life · Answer

Because not all fathers deserve joint custody, not all dads  are wanting joint custody...If he didn't want a child out of wedlock, he should have kept the rooster in the barn. Divorce is bitter way to solve problems between spouses, and maybe we need to work on keeping the marriage together with family counciling (when we apply for a divorce) ...I think its unfair that fathers must pay sometime ridiculous sums of money for child support, but that child does need mom home with them til atleast 5 years old...then re calculate the support when mom can get a job.

Anonymous · Answer

There is no reason for democrats to be ideologically opposed to child support or custody reform.

I know a lot of democrats, and I know none who are against reform.

Are you sure you have your facts right, because the world you are living in does not look like the one I live in.

EDIT: It is now apparent you are basing your little rant on a single piece of legislation that you have not bothered to identify.  Since your basic premise is not defended and is not defensible, I conclude that you are misrepresenting the legislation.  You can change my mind, but you will need FACTS, not the kind of crapola you have been posting so far.

Forget War Buy More · Answer

It's always more complex than that.  Do you mind linking to the bill and, since you made a blanket statement, reference things beyond one example?

Edit: Actually yes you can, if you know the name.  It's a public record.

Anonymous · Answer

Why bother posting when you cannot reach the same level of "neutrality" as Fox News at the very least?

Trending News

Why are democrats opposed to child support reform and custody reform?

6 Answers