Are Non-Custodial Parents Getting the Raw End of the Deal?

Benjamin Franklin may have said it best when he stated, "…in this world nothing is certain but death and taxes." Perhaps child support should be added to that quote! Quite often, we hear about "dead beat dads" and how much effort goes into locating them to force them into taking responsibility for their children. Luckily, this pursuit for justice has been more and more successful these days. It is unfortunate that the children of dead beat dads do not receive the love and attention from the father, but at least with the support money, they are more likely to be adequately provided for. On the other hand, there are many fathers that do take responsibility for their children. There is not enough attention paid to the issues regarding the lack of equality a non-custodial parent receives. The lack of fairness is not directed only at the monetary aspect, but to the emotional facet of it all.

Hypothetically, let's explore a scenario where I will exemplify the father as being the non-custodial parent. (But take into account that these issues also happen when the mother is the non-custodial parent.) Let's say the parents are divorced after being married only a year and the mother moved to a different state. They have joint custody but the child lives with the mother more than half of the year.

* The father pays $600.00 per month for child support. Because he cannot afford to pay it all in one lump sum per month, he sends a $300.00 check to his ex-wife every two weeks.

* He has never once missed a payment and sends extra money for things such as dance lessons or little league.

* The father only gets to see his child when he can afford to fly to the state she lives in. If the child is under age 6 or 7 (too young to fly alone) and he desires a visit in his home, he must fly to retrieve the child and fly them both to the state he lives in. Subsequently, he flies with the child back home and of course, flies himself home again. Due to the current gas and oil crisis, plane ticket costs have sky rocketed. If each ticket costs $450.00, this one visit would certainly cost him $2,700.00. Moreover, that's not even taking all other expenses into consideration.

* The father pays for the child to be on his health/dental insurance, pays for all co-pays, and all extras that insurance won't cover. (i.e. Filling cavities, vaccinations, co-pays for medications, etc.)

* The ex-wife always finds excuses and creates hassles whenever the father wants to see the child. Repeatedly, phone calls placed to either speak with his child and/or to the mother regarding the child are rarely returned. Paternal grandparents and other family members of the father receive the same results.

Unfortunately, hypothetical situations such as that one are extremely common. It is also well known that judges often rule in favor of the mother to be the primary parent. Even in cases when a father sues for custody because he believes (and willing to prove) that he can provide a better, more stable environment for the child, are mostly denied. If both can prove they are good parents on an equal determination, why does the primary custody go to the mother most of the time? Is a child really better off with the mother? I know some mothers that shouldn't own a pet rock but they have custody of the kids; even when the father is clearly willing and able to provide better care.

Newer tax laws now give a higher refund amount of money on tax returns for each child claimed. (A friend of mine with 4 kids told me that in addition to their income refund, he and his wife received $8,000 by each claiming 2 kids.) A divorced father is not entitled to A DIME of that money, nor can he even claim child support payments on his taxes! It makes no sense that a company can "write off" a lavish holiday party and "business dinners" as business expenses, but a loving, caring, and responsible father can't even claim a cent from all the money he pays out during the year.

Regarding that hypothetical scenario, wouldn't it at least be fair that since he pays over $7,000 a year and she receives a refund of say, $2,000 for claiming the child on her income tax, that he should be able to lower his monthly payments from $600.00 to $517.00? That would be calculated by subtracting $83.00 per month of the prorated amount from $1,000.00 (which is half of the $2,000 she gets from the government.) An alternative and even simpler solution would be to also allow the non-custodial parent to claim the child on his taxes. Secondly, if after the child starts school and day care is no longer needed, shouldn't the father get to reasonably lower the amount of his monthly support a little now?

If a mother claims a specific amount of child support is needed, she should be required to prove the necessities with receipts for at least a few months. Such receipts should be detailed as to what was purchased, i.e. groceries, day care if applicable, school supplies, clothing, etc. The amount of child support should also be re-evaluated whenever a life stage evolves, such as going from day care into full-time school. This could also assure the father that the child support is indeed being used for the child and not for the mothers' own personal use. It has been proven in many court cases that the parent receiving the child support payments was spending much of it for personal use; having nothing to do with the child. Imagine paying $600 or more per month for a child who is in first or second grade. The mother doesn't make much salary income and reminds you of that every chance she gets. But miraculously, she is able to take your kid, her child from a previous marriage, and her new boyfriend on a Disney vacation for a week. Kind of adds insult to injury, no? Don't laugh. It happens all the time.

Most fathers are not concerned about paying the money for the support of their child, per se. However, the tax benefits to the mother, cooperation from the mother for visitations, the fathers' monetary costs to visit a child in or out of state, and the regular child support payments seem to be unfair for being a joint custody situation. It is especially unmerited when a father would be more than willing and actually quite happy to take the child for extended periods of time or even full time, yet repeatedly denied. Visitation requests from the father must always be compliant to the convenience of the mother. Whether or not the mother and child live in the same area, many mothers are not willing to allow the child to live with the father part time, have the child for certain holidays, or often not even for longer than a few requested days. More often than said, it is due to ill feelings toward the father or for fear of not receiving the same amount of the current support payments. As a result, the father is often cheated out of certain life changes, decisions, and general involvement in the child's life. Fathers are relentlessly forced into being constituent of the mother's decisions and her amiability, lest being denied of future visitations and amicable cooperation.

If that is considered "joint custody," then it is in dire need of change. It seems as if the father pays the monetary support, yet reaps only a very small amount of the experiences.

Consider yourself as a non-custodial father in this situation. This is not only unfair for monetary reasons, but for the fact that the primary parent calls most of the shots (while getting paid to do so by you AND by the government.) And, it's also unjust due to the amount of quality time you are often denied (or unable to financially afford) to spend with the child as he or she grows up. It's all simply a slap in the face to a deserving parent who is a responsible, loving father and guilty only of missing out on the fair amount of time with his own child.

We know who is protecting the children and we know who is protecting the mothers.
My question is: who is looking out for the fathers?