For those who posit that American culuture has been feminized the following tends to support their argument.  From USA Today April 18, 2001 page 13A editiorial Fantasy of full-time fahtherhood falters by Bruce Kluger

    But in his new book, Father and Child Reunion: How to Bring the Dads We Need to the Children We Love, Warren Farrell reveals that, in the case of broken homes, the U.S. government spends 340 times as much money in its efforts to get fathers to pay child support as it does to ensure that those same fathers have continuing access to their children without interference from the mother.


IMO, this is an interesting comparison.  Unfortunately, I doubt many of us are surprised.

Different:

I wonder how much the gov't spends supporting women and children b/c the loser that calls himself a "man" won't own up to his responsibilities?

Frankly, it is not the gov't's responsibility to make sure that custody agreeements are honored.  That is the court's job.  And even more frankly, even if your ex doesn't live up to her end of the agreement that doesn't let you off the hook.  It is called child support b/c it is to support the child.

MOD, no argument from me.  What you say is what the state and federal governments argue.  That it is better to make the non-custodial parent pay the child support than for the state to spend dollars on welfare.  I couldn't agree more.  A divorce decree was signed by both parties and it should be honored by both parties.  That includes any failure of either party to honor the rules for possession or visitation.  I agree 100 %.  I haven't missed a support payment going on five years now.  I have the pay stubs, credit report, and cancelled checks to prove it. But all this assumes that it is good public policy to have governments running welfare/assistance/job training/health care/school and mobile meal programs.  Is it not a statement of our society what government programs are mandated and funded?  

If the court(s) have the power to set child support obligations and the power to set visitation/possession for the non-custodial parent than the court has the power to modify, adjust, remove and enforce such responsibilities.  At least that seems like a logical application of the court's authority to me.

This thread is not intended to be a rant, just one to get some discussion going.  When I read the editorial in USA Today it home with me that there is a distinct bias in family law.  One can argue that is good, bad or the facts of life but nonetheless the emphasis is there.

Also, it helps to remember that in America, we do like Americans.  Life is not so neat and orderly in other countries.  Again, not passing judgement good or bad.  Sometimes it helps to get out of the fish bowl and look around instead of always viewing the room from inside the bowl.

i'm going to add my two cents worth here. i usually keep out of most topics but in this case, i KNOW what i'm talking about. last year (5-26) i got married. with the package came a 12 year old daughter. ok, no big deal. i don't have any children so i'm learning about being a step parent.

now, does daddy pay child support in the amound of 75 a week, nope, and he does not pay anything else that was agreed upon either. now i'm not one blessed with a job that pays a ton of money but i make sure all my bills are payed.

since 'dead beat' does not pay, i have to work a second job. that means i go seven days a week. full time job m-f, and weekends for 20 hours.

and why does dad refuse to pay? well, we have not brought adria to see him. he lives in up state new york and we live in southern jersey. with the wife working 5 days a week and me 7, time for what? oh, yeah, the dead beat works 10 hours a week 'cause his girlfriend supports him.

what is our recourse, we have to go after his arse which means a court fight and plenty of legal time.

i think people need to get a permit to have kids!!!

i guess i'll just leave it here.

If either party to the divorce does not abide the decree it hurts the children.  Trite, but true.  My ex moved to Florida while we were married and living in Texas.  I get to compete for airline tickets with all the tourists wanting to see Mickey Mouse (the ex and boys are in the Orlando area) every time I want to see my sons.  Yes, it sucks big time.  But I suck it up.  The absolute cheapest it has ever cost for me to see them is $450 for a weekend.  That was back before oil went to the high 20s per barrel.  I'm supposed to have the kids each summer but the ex refuses more than three weeks possession.  So, like Maxwell said, if I want the visitation enforced, I will save my nickels and dimes and go to court when I have saved enough.

Yes, there are lots of dead beat dads.  Now that we have acknowledged that social ill and enforcement remedies are well established, what is the remedy for controlling single mothers who refuse or limit visitation?  Or do we just let the children grow up without dad?  One injustice is not tolerated while the other is largely ignored by the prevailing culture.  Again, I'm commenting on the social norm.

Family law is imperfect in its application at best and enforcement is expensive ON BOTH SIDES.