Preface
I have been itching to write an essay on this subject for quite some time but I was concerned about alienating people who are close to me. I have one friend who helped put together child support legislation in another state, another friend who receives child support payments, and a close relative who works for child support enforcement (I shall not say who he is because they like to remain incognito). Add to this that I’ve got a child who occasionally reads the blog and you can see how precarious this is. Just remember if we still disagree by the end of this posting, disagreement is not dissension and we are still down, much love. Without any further ado, here is my take:
My father left when I was a baby. When you’re married and you have three kids and you abandon that family, you are selfish in the destructive sense of the word (there is a positive type of selfishness out there but abandoning your family ain’t it.) I don’t mention this as an emotional appeal meant to tug at your heart. My point is that it’s people like my father that were the impetus for child support legislation in the first place, but I’m getting ahead of myself.
I start by asserting an axiom: divorce is bad for children. I know there are some exceptions to the rule like in the cases of violent and out of control monstrous parents, but as a general rule divorce is bad because it results in financial damage to both parents which then translates into financial damage to the child. How is this possible? Because now instead of two parents paying for one house, one light bill and one heat bill, etc., you now have two parents paying for two houses, two light bills and two heat bills. etc. What follows from this axiom is that splitting up families is bad (hmkay) and should, if at all possible, be avoided (hmkay).
Now I’m not one of those people who believe in a hands-on government. I believe that government should stay out of the realm of personal issues because in the absense of government people have to contend with life. Life rewards good decisions and punishes bad ones. If you work, you get to eat. If you don’t work, you have to beg, steal, or die. These options suck so we try to avoid them. Naturally then, in the absense of government intervention, most people will work. A similar thing happens in this instance. In the absense of government intervention, most marriages would remain intact because divorce is financially ruinous.
But then you get fathers who abandon their families effectively breaching the marriage contract (and marriage is after all a contract.) The children suffer. What to do what to do? In retrospect I will say that the courts should have been used to punish the party that broke the marriage contract. This because the implied contract when you marry someone is “I will be there for you and I will be there for us. I will also take care of our children.” But courts do not make a distinction about who breaks the marriage contract. They instead invoke the concept of quasi contract.
Some legal background: The quasi contract is when a court contrives a contract where none exists (that is why it is called quasi which is latin for “almost” or bullshit.) This is done under the theory that it is unjust for society to allow one party to benefit at the expense of another. The classic example is an unconscious man is taken to the hospital. The hospital can bill him even though he wasn’t awake and could not therefore consent to the contract. A quasi contract is then a contract that did not involve consent.
This is the key issue here because nobody in their right mind would enter into a contract where you offer the other party a monetary reward for breaking that contract. That’s an even worse idea than Chris Webber’s infamous time out with no time outs left. But that’s the unintended consequence of child support laws as they’re presently written: they contribute to the high divorce rate by making allowing people to take money away from their ex-spouses without their consent.
Consent, by the way, is the cornerstone of a free society. Working because you’re offered a wage? That’s consent. Working against your consent is slavery. Consensual sex? Woo hoo! Sex against your consent? You get the picture.
Punishing the party who breaks the marriage contract rather than invoking a quasi contract that rewards the person who breaches the contract would have accomplished two things: it would have held parties to their agreement AND it would have had the effect of using government to strengthen marriage (if you’re an active government intervention kind of person.) Remember: marriage good for children, divorce bad.
Instead an interesting thing happened. Courts were used to award money to custodial parents based on need. Never mind who divorced who, all you had to do was get separated and show need.
Ladies and gentlemen, the divorce rate in this country is now about 60%. Studies have also shown that in most cases divorces are filed for by the women, not the men. So the small percentage of marriages in which men abandoned their families has been addressed by the government. The divorce rate is now at an all time high. So now instead of 10% of children being raised in single parent homes, it’s now more than 50%. Thank you government!
For those of you who still maintain that child support is for the children, I say no, marriage is for the children. If you ask me which I would rather have as a child, that my mom could have hunted my father down and gotten a periodic check from Friend of the Court or if I would have rather had a father in the household who worked and was role model and taught me how to fight and play football, I would have rather had a father. As it was my mom taught me how to fight. That’s why everybody in school always wanted to fight me. See Dave, I’m not the only one who has gotten more than my share of ass whuppins.
An interesting thing about Michigan’s child support formula. It’s based on how much each parent makes. This brings to mind the famous slogan “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his need.” Oh, that sounds very nice! Let’s see, who said that? Oh yeah. Karl Marx! We all know how financially successful the nations that were set up on his principles were. Compare that with Ayn Rand’s assertion that need doesn’t entitle you to anything (this is the gist of her novel “Atlas Shrugged”, if you haven’t read it, make it your next read.) Regardless of the intent, using need as a guiding principle does not work for macro economies, why then would anyone think it will work for micros?
In summary, I’m right, the current system is wrong. If you disagree you are either misguided or maybe even a communist. Or mabye I’m wrong. Maybe divorce is really really good for children and I’m just spouting nonsense. But above all, and whoever you are reading this, we better still be friends at the end of this. Or I’ll stab you!
(I’m getting to like this stabbing motif)