The New York Times peels back divorce proceedings to reveal the pain felt by the parents of the parties.
Mireya Navarro writes (excerpt):
And when children divorce, their parents’ lives are often dramatically changed, an impact that is receiving increasing attention in books, Internet forums and in the courts, where some grandparents find themselves when custodial battles cut them off from grandchildren.
Parents of divorcing children may find themselves incurring debt to help their children financially, or putting plans to travel, play golf and simply enjoy their families on hold. Or their lives are turned upside down when a son or daughter needs to move back home, or when they find themselves without recourse when their grandchildren are torn from them in custody battles.
After your child’s divorce, you may have little to no access to your grandchildren, especially if your child’s former spouse is given sole custody. Sadly, the Federal Government strongly encourages this situation, by paying courts who rule for sole custody more than they do for courts that rule for joint custody.
The Federal Government pays the court, or child support agency closely linked to the court, 66 cents for every dollar the court spends on child support collections (US Code Title 42, Section 655), and the federal government provides additional incentive payments (US Code Title 42 Section 658a) based on various child support collection criteria. It’s my understanding that these incentive payments, along with Grants to States for Access and Visitation (US Code Title 42 Section 669b) combine with fees fully pay most courts. Furthermore, when debtors are in arrears, they are normally charged a fee, all of which goes directly to the courts.
However, these same courts also have a duty to act as impartial arbiters when interpreting the laws upon which these payments are set.
The Federal Government mandates that a formula be used to establish the child support amount. However, these formulas generate much lower child support transfer payments when parents spend an equitable amount of time caring for their children after a divorce.
Is it any wonder that a judge presiding over a divorce may be swayed by all of future income to his or her court to believe that sole custody with the lower wage earner, which gives the highest income to the court is “in the best interests of the child(ren)”?
How many CS workers can explain in detail why joint custody, in which both parents give love and attention to their child, and provides the least dollars of transfer payments, and thus the least income to the court, is a terrible, terrible arrangement for the children?
Furthermore, these courts have a duty to set child support amounts impartially, by using the formula impartially. It’s not that hard to figure out how to game the system. Imagine trying to explain to a CS worker that you’re out of a job not because you chose to quit, but because you were downsized, and need a reduction in your child support payments, when that CS worker’s own salary may depend on finding a reason to find a way to skirt the law by saying no to you and those like you.
In Michigan, Dads and Moms of Michigan and others have worked to support Michigan House Bill HB 5464, which would instruct judges to prefer joint custody unless there is clear and convincing evidence that it won’t work.
If you’re in Michigan, please contact your Michigan House Rep and support HB 5464. If you’re in another state, ask to see if you have a presumption of joint custody, and if not, ask your legislators to support similar legislation.