With the economy in the tank, a number of states are being forced to address the issue of child support when the NCP (non-custodial parent) has lost their income.
Back in the old days, it was easy to label any man who lost his job as a “Deadbeat Dad,” assume he was deliberately unemployed so that he could get out of child support, impute his income anyway, and keep the federal CS-matching pipeline open. Men who lost their jobs remained current on their child support by living in poverty, sleeping on couches and blow-up beds because they could no longer afford housing, and borrowing from parents, friends, and anyone else who would loan them money; just to keep themselves out of jail while supplementing the lifestyle of a freeloading ex — all “in the best interests of the children,” of course.
Now that job-loss is front page news; now that it’s somewhat politically incorrect to be so heartless; now that layoffs are happening to so many in the mainstream that the “deadbeat” label seems ludicrous, not to mention implausible… state legislators find themselves wringing their hands over how to continue to squeeze at least a little bit of blood from the proverbial stone.
Keep in mind that before the reality of the recession hit, a man who lost his job could petition for a modification of child support to match his new (lack of) income… but now that unemployment has more than doubled, court dockets are being bombarded, child support enforcement agencies are clogged with new cases - states are looking for ways to streamline the process while still optimizing their precious income source.
Many pundits are now clamoring for even MORE government oversight of the child support operation because — so the claim goes — if fathers don’t support their children, then the state will be forced to provide for them instead, via welfare and other entitlement programs.
It’s a false dichotomy.
There is another option. An option that restores children to BOTH parents. An option that teaches children the values of responsibility, hard work, and integrity. An option that instantly slices in half the odds that any child will be forced into poverty. An option that cuts wasteful government intrusion. An option so obvious, it still truly astounds me that nobody has brought it out in the mainstream.
Therefore, I present it here. It is simply this:
ANY parent, male or female, can be assumed to be competent to parent their children. ANY parent, male or female, can be assumed to be competent to provide for their children.
Therefore, in divorce, the de facto presumption — barring serious, proven, demonstrated endangerment or neglect — is that both parents shall have joint custody, both parents shall have 50/50 access, and both parents shall contribute 50% to the children’s support. Each parent will provide for and care for the children during the 50% of the time that the children are with them. No money will change hands, because neither parent will expect anyone else to meet their personal obligation and responsibility for their children. Any parent who would not step up to their obligation to provide for and care for their children during their 50% of the time would then be held in contempt of their order.
Now I know — I know — there will be parents who abuse this solution. They will play silly games; games with clothing, with children’s personal effects, with not taking kids to the doctor during their parenting time… etc. Guess what? The kind of parent who would do that to their child will do that to their child under any system, including the one that we currently use. While it’s true that there is nothing about the “True 50/50 Possession and Provision Plan” (TFPP) that prevents parents from being jerks with their kids, there is nothing about it that makes it any easier for parents to be jerks with their kids, either.
But, if states are looking to save themselves some money during these tough economic times, they could count up the cost of the office of child support enforcement, which would go away; and the cost of protracted custody battles, which would go away; and the immeasurable cost of supporting broken/damaged children who dropped out of school, began using drugs, broke the law, or had illegitimate children of their own as a result of the high-conflict divorce cartel that we currently employ.
If both parents are contributing equally to providing for their children, then the job loss of one parent would only have half the impact that it currently does. Indeed, even the probability of job loss is spread between two wage-earners, thus reducing risk. In addition, children learn that ALL adults are accountable for the choices that they make; ALL adults are responsible for the care of themselves and those they bring into the world; ALL adults are expected to work hard and produce something in this world. Who wouldn’t want to live in a society where children learned these values by example?
The TFPP plan makes perfect sense to me. Does it to you?
~jb
———-
About JB:
Collaborative Divorce Coach, Mediator, Family Mediator, Parent Coordinator, Communications Coach, Facilitator, Public Speaker, Instructor, Group Discussion Leader, Cognitive Psychology Aficionado, Life Management Training Assistant…. Absolutely passionate about protecting children from the ravages of divorce! Also — coaches, teaches, and consults in the online world Second Life as avatar Andi Martinsyde, at Reliable Divorce Consultants.
See all my blog posts at: thedivorcecoach-am.
