I May be Going to Debtor's Prison

[stevenleser]

168. Money is neither speech, nor support, nor being a parent. Also...

the state does not have the right to choose to give a parent to one parent over the other if both meet the standard of not being a threat to the child. Every single time it does, the choice is arbitrary and subjective.

If a parent is a threat to a child, just like if a married couple is a threat to the child, the child should be taken away from such parents and those parents should lose all rights AND obligations to that child.

If the parent is not a threat, then that parent deserves all the rights that the other parent does after divorce. That means equal time. If both parents have equal time with the child living with them, and of course paying for the childs needs as any parent does with a child living with them, then it follows that no one should pay anyone.

Taking care of a child living with you is being a parent and providing support.

"Non-custodial parent" is a made up status where the state claims you are still a parent and makes you pay money (from which the state of course takes its cut) even though you are really no longer a parent at that point. The state has taken away anything that resembles being a parent. The state and custodial parent basically are having it both ways. You take parenthood away from the 'Non custodial parent' but make them pay as if they are still a parent. And of course, the family court system and family lawyers happily make their money off both parents while all this is all being sorted out. Family practice is where lawyers who could not get real lawyer jobs go. Its welfare for weak lawyers.

Money is not speech, it is not support, and it is not being a parent.

The trend is toward fully equal custody. All of what I suggest here is going to be reality within 20 years and people will look back at the whole 'Non Custodial Parent' part of our history and wonder why more people didn't see the reality of the injustice of it sooner.