by Mary Eckholm, columnist
reprinted with permission of the author and the Kanabec County Times Online

  Did you know that around the turn of the century in this country, when people with children got divorced, the father was automatically given sole custody of the children?

The reason was that fathers at that time were considered the legal providers for the family; the financial resources belonged to the father and as such, it was his job to keep his children with him and provide for them. Women were still “second class citizens” then.

More recently, of course, it has become the norm to consider the mother to be the most important emotional provider for the children, so the laws of divorce have changed to give the mother sole custody, while the father must still be the primary provider of financial support by paying “child support” to the custodial parent, i.e. the mother.

There has been a lot of attention given over the past 10 to 20 years about “dead beat dads.” Unfortunately, you don’t have to be a “dead beat dad” to be treated like one by the current Minnesota child support system.

Did you know that the system that is set up to collect child support from non-custodial parents does not have a procedure in place for refunding any overpayments of child support? Is that because it is assumed that a non-custodial parent would never pay more than they owe?

There is a Minnesota statute that requires at least a 20 percent AND $50 per month difference in child support in order to reduce the amount owed. In other words, the system can increase the amount of child support for any amount, but it cannot decrease the amount unless the amount of that decrease would be at least $50 AND a 20 percent difference.

(e.g. If you are required to pay $1,000 per month, but you are paying $1,100 per month, there can be no decrease to $1,000 because the decrease is not a 20 percent difference – although, for most people, wouldn’t you want the extra $100 per month in your own pocket? After the required $1,000, shouldn’t it become a personal choice of whether and how to spend the extra $100 per month – or any amount – on your child?)

The system assumes that the non-custodial parent, i.e. the father, is at fault for the divorce and would not willingly support his children without enforcement.

The system is biased in favor of the custodial parent, usually the mother. Even if it is the choice of the mother to leave the marriage (for any reason), it is the father who will pay — in depreciated time spent with his children and by his role being reduced to merely a paycheck.

The system completely ignores the fact that “hell hath no fury as a woman scorned” and presents itself as the perfect vehicle for a woman to seek her revenge upon her ex-husband. The court costs alone as well as the time expended on dealing with a bureaucratic entity are perks that allow the ex-wife to harass her ex-husband. If the situation was reversed and biased in the male’s favor, it would not be allowed to continue.

The current system propagates two stereotypes: the idea that women need to be dependent on men for their income and lifestyle; and that women are emotional, nurturing caregivers and men are not. Equality between the sexes means that both males and females are treated equally by the law and are equally responsible to themselves and their children.

If such a law existed that ordered married people to spend a specific amount of money per month on their children, even if that amount was beyond their means – and they were required to be accountable for that specific dollar amount each month – the law could not stand.

Bottom line: the system is not fair to fathers who are NOT “dead beat dads.” It is simply not necessary for the child support system to be involved in the lives of parents who do financially support their children.

Why is taxpayer money used to finance a system that enforces child support payments of non-custodial parents who are already in compliance in financially supporting their children?

In recent years, there has been a wave of information and fathers’ rights activist groups influencing this situation and working to change an unfair, misunderstood family court system.

The reality is that parenting is both a male and female responsibility and ultimately, the financial support of children is not the most important aspect of that responsibility. If it were, then only people who are rich enough would be allowed to procreate.