Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Look at custody laws in the state

Look at custody laws in the state

Oct 08, 2008 - 04:05:20 CDT

By JOE LEGGIO
Fargo

I am pleased that the North Dakota legislature is working to change custody laws. However, changing the long-time terminology regarding child custody is only a first step in changing the longtime inequity in state child custody laws. Recently, the director of the state Child Support Enforcement Agency appropriately won a national award. The NDCSEA is good at doing what it is designed to do, which is to collect child support. But child support is only one of a child’s basic rights; visitation is the other. The state must work to protect a child’s right to visitation with the non-custodial parent.

In an NDCSEA presentation titled “How We Did It,” one of the slides offensively depicts the current attitude in North Dakota — the slide shows a man face down with his hands on his head as one woman stands on him, and another pretends to abuse him. There are slides with extensive data about how child support collections have increased over the years. Yet there is no indication of the percentage of custodial parents who are fathers in North Dakota, nor is there data about the percentage of child support-paying parents who are fathers.

It appears that the proposed laws are not dramatically different than what is in place now. The new law encourages parents to work together on a parenting agreement. Currently, parents are encouraged to use mediators to do the same thing. The problem is that these parents have a difficult time working together, and that is what led to the divorce.

The courts neither have the time, nor the interest, to work out the details of agreements, so when a case goes to court, the Court defaults to a cookie-cutter approach that appears to favor mothers. Again, using politically correct and euphemistic language is a first step, but we still have a long way to go to protect both basic rights of the child.

News > Opinion

Printer friendly version Look at custody laws in the state

Comments

sarah wrote on Apr 22, 2009 7:51 PM:

" Here's my story, me and ex boyfriend share a daughter together( never married) she's 9, we split up when she was 3,she's always lived with me, never took him for child support, he verbally agreed to every other weekend. This past year we switched to 2 weeks his house, 2 wks mine, until he tried keeping her longer and tried not giving her back to me. Now he's acting funny, says he's going to try to get full custody of her, I decided to turn him in to friend of the court. Does he stand a chance of getting full custody of her, does it matter who goes for custody first. I can't get free legel aid till june, I need some advice.... "

BARB wrote on Oct 15, 2008 1:51 PM:

" TO 3 TEENAGEERS: My you sound like a very sensible woman who has her best interest of her children first- Good for You! I just wish all parents felt that way- your children must have such a sense of security and belonging with the way you and your ex set it up. Hats off to you! "

3 teenagers wrote on Oct 15, 2008 12:35 PM:

" Child support and custody are two seperate issues. My kids love their father and I have absolutely no doubt that he loves them. We decided long ago not to go in front of a judge to decide who can have them and who gets to "visit". They live with me and see him whenever they want, and he can drop by to get them or even visit with them at my house whenever he wants. This makes them happy, and that's all that matters. The fact that I don't receive the child support that I am supposed to from him has no bearing on my decision to let him do that. Once you have kids, you move to the back of the line as far as I am concerned, and money issues with the other parent, or hurt feelings, or simply being petty should get in the way of what is best fot the kids and what makes them happy. If both parents are loving and fit, and can be adults and make good decisions together for the kids they both love, it would be a perfect world. Unfortunately, it's the kids that suffer when it doesn't happen that way and they see that their parents just don't get along. "

summerbaby wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:32 AM:

" Soldier: I still agree with you. I just think you are being too simplistic in your approach. I agree things like medical expenses, tuition (to include the lunch/ milk tickets), school supplies, daycare, clothes, and shoes should be split 50/50. My ex lives hundreds of miles away, so I guess I could add food. What you are excluding are all the things that make being a kid fun. For example, playing on sports teams (which are not cheap), birthday parties, get togethers with friends at the pool or movies. All these things cost money and all these things contribute to the growth of the child. Yes...what you propose would cover the basics, but the extras also contribute a great deal to the person that child turns into. Its those expenses that I think would be very difficult to quantify. Speaking as the custodial parent, there would be no extras in my house if it weren't for the child support I receive (and yes, I work full time and then some). "

Grumpy Old Republican wrote on Oct 15, 2008 9:05 AM:

" Reading many of these posts just saddens me. It's all ME ME ME and HE DID... or SHE DID... As usual, the "adults" are more concerned with THEIR plight and THEIR feelings than anything to do with the children. Did I mention GROW UP? "

Barb wrote on Oct 14, 2008 11:12 PM:

" To Fed up Mom-- right on!! "

Fed up mom wrote on Oct 14, 2008 10:11 PM:

" You are sooo right caring about your childs school or education is nothing to care about as a parent, and that is how my daughters father thinks too, He does not give 2 cents about how or what she does. Only that his child support got lowered and he gets to see her. NOTHING ELSE! I do feel really sorry for all you fathers that care for your child and are getting bent over. But I am on the other side of the fence and see the pain in my childs eyes every time I send her out the door. And have been told by the courts that it is his right to see her, and say what ever he wants to as it is hear say I have not heard it.
But I am not one of the Moms that are raking the father over the coals, I have paid the ins for the last 10 years,and am getting bent over as his place of work has not giving him a raise in the last 10 years now would you stay at a job that long if you did not get a raise I sure would not have! And does not have or pay for her ins like the child support papers say and pay have of the medical or medication, yes I have asked for it and yeah I will bring it next time or when I drop her off and yet next time never comes. So rock on all you good DADS and nail the DEAD BEAT FATHERS as there is a differnce between DADS AND FATHERS,DADS CARE! "

Sunny B wrote on Oct 14, 2008 8:39 PM:

" To Fed Up Mom: The alienation of one parent to another is wrong! My husbands daughter is old enough to put it all together and knows exactly what her Mother is saying and what she has done for a long time . She is a very smart little girl . My husband even has it in the court papers about alienation. The father or mother should never put the other one down in front of the child at all. It's just not right. I am sorry that the father thinks that way. Not all fathers are like that. As for not attending any school functions- That does not make any father a bad father, by No means!! "

been there wrote on Oct 14, 2008 8:22 PM:

" The courts are not the answer. How about the dad's that pay everything and the mom's that turn the kids against the dad? and the 50/50 money wouldn't work for most divorced couples because one parent might buy expensive junk food, and the other parent would disagree and say pop and candy are unnecessary...or one parent might thing eating out every day is necessary and the other parent would want to save money and eat at home. I think BOTH incomes should be taken into consideration. In ND, the dads have barely any rights with the judges and some of them get stuck with more support and are left with 1/3 of their net income to live on for the next 18 years...if the mom makes more money, the dad should not have to pay 2/3 of his income for all the medical, health insurance and child suport. Now, for the dead beat dad's..I'm all for getting them...but lets try to be fair to the dad's that want to parent but can't afford to have visitation with his own kids because he is paying for everything!!! "

Fed up mom wrote on Oct 14, 2008 7:27 PM:

" I would like to know why fathers that get half of the paycheck paid under the table so they don't not have to pay as much child support think they have the same rights as fathers doing it the right way? AND not only that abuse the child to the point they are afraid of the world and still get rights to see the child? Yet the ONLY time they want any thing to do with the child is on THEIR weekends, nothing to do with school or concerts or holiday programs???? Is this a good FATHER that should get rights to their child???? I am all for fathers that give a crap! BUT not ones that call thier child nasty names and degrade their mothers in front of the child! They do not nhave any rights in my book! And to all of those that think the courts are in favor of the mothers think again they should have the CHILDS saftey come first and formost! NOT either of the parents, do a background check first and go from there! Just my thoughts I know I may be way off but it is what should come first and formost is the childs saftey! "

Soldier wrote on Oct 14, 2008 12:09 PM:

" To Summerbaby: You had asked what constitutes the childs needs? It is simple actually. Unpaid medical, dental, vision bills. School related items to include tuition if necessary, lunch and supplies. As far as splitting the cost of rent or mortgage, that could not be done. The only reason is because both parents have rent/mortgage, water, mdu bills. Cable TV is not a necessity. As far as food for the child, in cases other than joint custody something would need to be done. In joint custody food is a mute point because each parent would have the child 50% of the time and each feed the child during that time. Time to start supporting the child based upon needs instead of a fixed amount. One step at a time though. "

Fighting Mom wrote on Oct 13, 2008 8:15 PM:

" Since I have been going through this issue with my husbands ex for some time and I have talked to others in the same situation I heard of a wonderful idea. I heard of one family that fought and fought in the legal system. He wanted time with his kids she didn't want him to have time. The judge finally agreed on equal custody BUT they both had to pay child support into an account that was for the children. The only time money could be withdrew is if they both agreed it was in the best interest of the child. I thought it was a great solution. If it's about money then let the child support system do it's job. But if a parent truly wants to be a parent and has proven to be a good parent then they should be allowed equal time to their children. Point Blank simple. I agree that people should be adults. With my son and his father we are still friends, we get along for my son, we set our own visitation schedule. I wish all situations could be that way but the simple fact and truth is that it cannot be that way all the time. "

mom-of-teens wrote on Oct 13, 2008 7:55 PM:

" I agree that parents should equally contribute, but the problem isn't just the "vindictive" custodial parents who want power. Some noncustodial parents play the same game and job hop, stay under employed, and live off the system to low ball the child support amount. That happens just as much. Child support and child custody are seperate issues. You can't be denied visitation for not paying (legally anyway). If the problem for most people on this board is child support, than the solution should be sought in the child support system, not the custody system. Deadbeats like my ex would love to milk joint custody to not pay child support and then not OPT for equal time. I feel a nightmare coming on..... on the other hand if the initiative included equal time AND equal support, this would weed out the deadbeats from those who TRULY want parenting time and not just a discount coupon off their child support! "

BARB wrote on Oct 13, 2008 1:48 PM:

" TO GRUMPY OLD REPUBLICAN: I couldn't agree with you more! It's totally a revenge thing when the "custodial parent" goes back to court time after time. They are wasting the courts time and the Judge's time . Just think of the money that could have been saved and put away for the child's college fund! Instead it went for lawyer's fees. Ridiculous! I think it's so nice when the parents act their age and only think of the child and what is best for the child- "

both sides of the issue wrote on Oct 13, 2008 1:27 PM:

" I have two children that my ex-husband and I work out and agreeable situation for. It can be a good situation for both parents and the kids. It just takes two adults "acting" like adults to make it a good situation for the kids. With us both taking equal financial responsibility money becomes a non-issue. I still don't like him and he doesn't like me, but why do the kids have to suffer. My husband on the other hand.... pays over 30% of our income to his ex-wife and every 3 years we are back in court for more money.... the more he does to improve our lives, the more she makes in the end. She then has the kids call and ask for extra money all the time for extra this and extra that. I am the custodial parent in my situation.... I think that both parents income should be figured into the situation.... both parents should share the financial responsibility equally... this isn't a chance at revenge!! I am happy to see that a change is on the horizon, we do have a ways to go though! "

Grumpy Old Republican wrote on Oct 13, 2008 1:12 PM:

" I don't think it's state laws that need to change at all. It's the ME, ME, ME attitude and the vindictiveness of divorcing parents that needs to be slapped or beaten out of divorcing couples. I thank God that my ex and I did what we did many years ago. We set our hatred aside momentarily in the midst of our divorce and opted for 50/50 shared custody of the children, sharing all expenses associated with raising them, based on need and ability. If I make more, I can pay a bit more of the burden, and vice versa. We had this agreement put into the papers and the judge signed off instantly. The judge then proceeded to praise this agreement and our maturity for coming to the agreement for the next 10 minutes. To this day, we have kept that arrangement. No court involvement in our lives, no child support enforcement jackboots on our toes or our doorsteps, and potentially tens of thousands in lawyers' fees saved. When obstinate people divorce each other and use lawyers and courts to inflict their revenge on each other, I think they deserve every bit of the misery they bring upon themselves. Too bad the kids have to take the brunt of most if it in the majority of cases. Parents' selfishness ruins children's lives. Grow up, get over yourselves, put your kids first, and did I mention GROW UP? "

MamaMia wrote on Oct 13, 2008 8:43 AM:

" It's interesting how blinded people become when they are in the throes of post-divorce wrangling. You hear so many times, "She/He doesn't use the child support on my kids! She uses it on herself." If on herself/himself means helping to pay the rent with it, helping to put gas in the car to get the kids to school and her to work, paying insurance and taxes on the house, paying for utilities and food to put on the table that she (gasp!) eats, too ---you bet she/he is using it on other than buying clothes and movie tickets for the kids. What's your point? Oh, that's right. You don't have one. "

EVB wrote on Oct 11, 2008 7:23 AM:

" At a ND Senate hearing years ago, I shared that our state is behind the times as it relates to custodial laws and support issues. I believe in child support and joint parenting as these are my children. HOWEVER, current ND Law is clear - custodial parent and noncustodial parent. Payments are made by the noncustodial parent; regardless of the income of the custodial parent. To those who have never been divorced; I am happy for you and wish you the best in your relationship. Please do not judge. People change; I changed. Leave hindsight out of; that serves no good. If people want a parenting law; then chage exisiting law that promotes parenting and not continued conflict. Life is too short. Best of luck in promoting a better emotional environment for North Dakota's kids. "

FightingMom wrote on Oct 11, 2008 12:20 AM:

" I have been on both sides of the child custody and support battle. My ex fought and fought the support for years and visitation for the last yr and half. He had no real "bills" to pay because he lives with his gf, so his c.s. is at 200/mth for 2 kids, now he pays nothing. With the visitation, he "cried" to the judge and got 2 wknds a month, but yet doesn't see or keep them, his parents do. Has custody of one child but doesn't live with him. This is his way of getting out of paying c.s. They buy my kids so they want to be with them, which is very very sad...... "

Enough Already wrote on Oct 10, 2008 4:49 PM:

" To What The: so the choice is: 1) stay where you are-unhappy and parent from afar or 2) step backwards financially and see your children and be more involved in their lives. Choices. "

What the... wrote on Oct 10, 2008 3:37 PM:

" To: Mom of Teens and Enough Already - I don't believe the issue is money, although I know for a fact that "child support" many times is not used for the child. Many people use it "alimony or maintanence" for themselves, and as a parent that spends over $1,000/month on child support, and paid a big settlement, I don't think it's fair that she benifits further and the children suffer for it. It is not "ex spouse support", it's "child support". This is about what's in the child's best interest - emotionally, financially and from a health perspective. I, like many, believe the system is very imperfect, but it's a taboo subject, so nothing gets done about it. I have looked for work in my field in SD for several years, by the way. I can ill afford to take a step backwards, as my ex wouldn't give me a break on child support. Remember that "control" is huge with disputing parents, and in the end, it's the child that suffers. "

Soldier wrote on Oct 10, 2008 1:49 PM:

" The courts view it as I make more so I have to make up the difference to my exwife. Basically help her pay for her part in raising our child. Gotta love our legal system. I still believe that child support needs to be based upon the childs needs and not income. Regardless of how much someone makes, the childs needs are still the same. If North Dakota can get to a point to give each parent an equal chance in the court room, I would be ecstatic. "

ABOUT TIME wrote on Oct 10, 2008 1:03 PM:

" About time the courts are looking at custody laws. I am a mother that has custodial rights of my child but I have a step-son that my husband and I have to fight with constantly and she still revokes our court ordered scheduled visitation. It is not fair to the children. Especially when a parent wants to be part of the child's life and the other parent is so mean that it cannot happen without paying a ton of money to a lawyer! "

Enough Already wrote on Oct 10, 2008 1:03 PM:

" To Mom of Teens: You nailed part of it on the head. To soldier: why are you paying when they spend 50% of the time with you? Does your judge not look at such things? "

My Opinion wrote on Oct 10, 2008 12:43 PM:

" To Mom- of- Teens: I have to disagree with you on your opinion, and granted --it is your opinion and I respect that. My husband does care about his parenting time -- what is best for her. He has had to fight so many times in and out of court because she was trying to prove her "power" and tried denying his parenting time. My husband finally got the right Judge that put and end to all that garbage and saw the light of what she was doing-- Parenting time for him is good now, but hopefully the money is being spent on her--not her new vehicle or or clothes for herself and not the child. It's called "child support" "

mom-of-teens wrote on Oct 10, 2008 11:32 AM:

" So based on most of these comments, this whole thing really isn't ABOUT child custody at all, it's about child SUPPORT! Big difference. If this wasn't about dollar signs, then there probably wouldn't be such a big push for change the "custody" laws, huh?? "

Soldier wrote on Oct 10, 2008 11:22 AM:

" To Enough Already: It would be nice if we could keep parenting time and child support seperate. The problem is that there are way to many "custodial" parents out there that view child support as another check in the mail. It is free money for them. My ex is the exact same way. I have my child exactly 50% of the time. I pay for 50% of everything related to my child. That is not even counting the amount that the courts say I need to pay in child support. I look forward to the day that I can fight for full custody. My ex views me as a check in the mail and does everything possible to make sure my child support goes up every year. Time to change the laws when it comes to divorce and make everything equal. No parent should have to pay more than 50% for raising the child. Each parent has the exact same responsibility when it comes to their child regardless of their income. "

Enough Already wrote on Oct 10, 2008 8:22 AM:

" To What The: Your life situation sounds sad for both you and your children. I myself would move to the ends of the earth to live close to my children if need be, because in the end, it's all that matters-family. Why don't you move to SD and get your children back, once you have them, move back here if that's where you are from. I can't imagine how hard it is to parent from afar. We also need to keep child support and parenting time separate. "

kids and money wrote on Oct 10, 2008 4:25 AM:

" Tell me - if my child lives with me 24/7 - other parent sees kid once a week (doing nothing extra for clothes etc - income in main household is over 3k monthly - childsupport is less than 300 per month - what difference does it make where that 300 is allotted - as long as the childs need/wants are met? Who is anyone to say that child support can't be used for leisure activities at that parents whim - considering raising a child in this day an age costs well over that 300 that is given as "support" - that is crazy!! "

dlj wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:30 PM:

" What is not fair to the non custodial parent is the court system. For instance a non- custodial parent who makes $ 60,000 a year and has 4 children pays about $1200 a month. That is about 3700 take home. Subtract 1200 for the child support, 600 for rent or house payment, 350 for a car payment, and if they have to pay health insurance for the kids which happens quite often, along with other monthly bills ther is not much left. Now if the non custodial parent is being treated unfairly by the custodial parent and wants the courts to help with the situation it is pretty common for a lawyer to want 2,000 to 3,000 down. Where is the non custodial parent supposed to come up with that much money when the child support payment has them living from check to check. A court appointed attorney right. No here is the problem, the court system looks at the 60,000 a year a deems you make too much money to quualify for a appointed attorney. They do not take into consideration the almost 15,000 a year that you do not see of that 60,000. On the flipside the custodial parent can get a social worker or a state representative to represent them because the 15,000 they recieve a year is not counted as income. This is what needs to change. There are plenty of parents who take advantage of the system because they know the other parent cannot afford an attorney so there is nothing they can do and the children are usually the ones who get hurt the most. "

What the.... wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:14 PM:

" To My Opinion: The laws governing child custody attempt to ensure that a child's life isn't disrupted. In ND, a child's preference carries more weight, and if all other "factors" are in the requesting parent's favor, a change has a chance of being granted. But I can tell you there are parents who have requested a change from parents who have abused drugs and alcohol, who have exibited inappropriate behavior, and continue to make poor choices, and the court didn't allow it. My kids live in SD, where mothers are greatly favored over fathers, judges are elderly and old fashioned, and changing custody is very difficult. I have talked to attorneys and counselors - all advice is to "wait" under the guise of it takes care of itself in time, otherwise I have little chance. I watch my kids be unhappy and parent from afar. My issue is courts are so busy with divorces, they rarely consider what's in the child's best interest. It's more "get em in, get em out", "rubber stamp it" and hope it works. It's the old "well, if she/he isn't beating 'em or feeding 'em drugs and alcohol, they'll be fine". In my opinion, divorces occur because either one party or the other is immature, or one grows faster than the other. I don't believe the immature parent should have physical custody. Immature parents raise immature children, and are in no position to set a positive example, and all it does is propogate the social issues the courts deal with. Every attempt should be made to "break the cycle". PS In SD, child support is based on both parents income. "

snoller wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:08 PM:

" This is the toughest situation to make everyone happy. If a woman wins the custody, she should have to be reasonable with the man. If the man pays child support (whatever the amount is) he should get to see his child period. No matter what the judge says or does. If she does not let the man see his child, the support should go out the window. Clause 2, if the woman moves out of state, the parents should meet half way to take the child to the other parent, period. If that's not followed correctly on her side, child support goes out the window. "

Summerbaby wrote on Oct 9, 2008 3:05 PM:

" Soldier...I couldn't agree with you more, the care of a child should be split 50/50 between both parents. Now for the reality check...how do you decide what it costs to support a child? I live in a household that consists of me and my child only, so is 50% of my mortgage payment considered housing for that child? How about the MDU and water bills? Cable TV and telephone? How about the family grocery bill? Or extra things like movies and birthday party gifts? Its easy enough to split up things like school tuition and doctor visit copays and who buys the winter coat and boots this year, but how do you quantify the everyday things? According to the way you are figuring it, the child support my ex-husband pays would more than double (even considering I would still be responsible for my half of the childs support). I don't argue that there are improvements that could be made to the current system, I think at the end of your post you were alluding to some oversight as to what child support is used for. That would be a good place to start. "

Soldier wrote on Oct 9, 2008 12:45 PM:

" Personally, what I would like to see is that instead of child support payments being mandated and taken from a paycheck of a parent, it would make more sense for all costs related to the child to be split 50/50. That way everyone pays their fair share and the noncustodial parent will not have to wonder what the child support is being used for. "

Ann wrote on Oct 9, 2008 10:41 AM:

" Soldier, you're right about determining child support in cases of joint custody, that both parents then share in the financial obligations. However, most parents do not equally share custody in ND, as it is not as it is not generally considered optimal by the courts. And, let's face it - when 2 people are divorcing, they are typically not agreeable to each other, nor when it comes to making decisions regarding their children. To me it just makes sense that BOTH parents should share proportionately in the financial obligations of raising their children. And, I do realize that child custody and child support issues are separate, but let's face it - they both need to be overhauled here in ND. Also, before any of you jump in about the deadbeat dads, that's not who I'm talking about here. They deserve to have their wages garnished, licenses taken away, etc.... I'm talking about the great majority of non-custodial parents here in ND who do step up to the plate when it comes to providing for their children. "

Soldier wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:16 AM:

" To Ann: You are partially correct in your statement about child support. ND does generally look at only the noncustodial parents income. However, if the parents have joint legal physical custody the state will calculate how much each parent would pay in child support if the other had full custody and the person that would pay the higher amount will end up paying the difference. For example, if Mom's child support would be $300 per month and dad's would be $500 per month, than dad would end up payiing $200 per month. "

Enough Already wrote on Oct 9, 2008 9:15 AM:

" Ann: That table doesn't work because what about those male/female parents who skip from job to job like my ex. Just as soon as child support is garnished it's on to a new job....or living off welfare. Child support and custody/parenting plans are two separate issues. To What The: You can get your kids back! Why do you think you can't? Especially if they want to live with you. Courts do look at that as one of the determining factors. "

My Opinion wrote on Oct 9, 2008 8:53 AM:

" Changing the laws is all well and good; however, if the judges, mediators, and social workers don't get educated and don't follow the law then the law is mute. This happens all the time here in ND. In addition, while CSEA may be good at collecting from males, they let many females owing child support slide and slide and slide. Too often, judgements mmade by others (judges, mediators, social workers, CSEA employees) are not based on the law but on some untangible emotion or personal belief system that has no bearing on the child or families case. Without the proper education and training for these people on what the laws mean and how they need to be applied, all the bill drafting and debating is mute. More than just the laws need to change. "

Ann wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:34 PM:

" Rivman - It has been about 2 years since I did a lot of research into the current child support funding, so I don't remember exactly which sites I found all the information. If you try to look up "income shares" model on a search engine, you can get all kinds of information. They seem to say that there are anywhere from 33 to 37 states which use some form of the income shares model. Basically, what that method does is take into account how much each parent earns, and assume that each parent should be financially responsible for their children in relation to their salary. Hypothetically: If I earned $1500 a month and my ex husband earned $3000, and we had 2 children, if it was determined that it would require $1000 a month to support those children, it would be assumed that I would be responsible for 1/3 of that amount and my ex-husband for 2/3. Of course, even those states that use this model may have different methods of determining a dollar amount, with some states using net income, others using gross income, etc... How ND differs, is that we ONLY look at the non-custodial parent's income. So, if I make $3000 a month, and my ex makes $2000 a month, if the court determines that based on his salary his financial obligation to raise those 2 children is $1000, then my ex would be required to pay that entire amount. It is definitely time for a change in our system. "

Matt wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:03 PM:

" The article says the director of the NDCSEA gets an award for collecting child support and then goes on to say the State must work to protect a childs right to visitation with the non-custodial parent. What a bunch of double talk! Can't anybody be honest about this? Visitation is fee-based, otherwise why would an award be given for how good you are as a collection agency! "

What the... wrote on Oct 8, 2008 4:54 PM:

" As a divorced male with two children, I can tell you that all laws regarding parenting and child support must be revisited - and in all states. The entire system is skewed to the archiac thinking that only the female is best suited to raise the children. In my case, I have joint legal custody and a parenting plan, which we purposely had the judge adopt as part of the order based on her past behavior, and in 5 years, she has not followed one term of the agreements. Outside of when with me, I have not been "allowed" to participate in making decisions I am better suited to make for the kids - despite threats of legal action. Becasue she had "care and control", she received physical custody, but she is (without bitterness) very immature and ill suited to raise the kids. It's not in their best interest to be raised by her - but I have little recourse - even when they turn 12 or 13. There is no question the kids prefer to be with me, but she will not agree, as this will hurt her image. I believe the test should be which parent is best suited, through evaluating both parents, to maturily raise the children, and that the costs be shared. P.S. She spends the child support on herself and the kids benifit little from it. Why can't the court monitor where $ are spent. "

Rivman wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:58 PM:

" Ann, that is interesting, where did you find the info on the comparison to other states? "

SO TRUE wrote on Oct 8, 2008 1:27 PM:

" To Real Guy-- I couldn't have said it any better!! "

Real Guy wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:40 PM:

" If people exercised better judgment in who they married/chose to make babies with this would not be an issue. "

Sunshine wrote on Oct 8, 2008 12:35 PM:

" I like the new terminology-- No longer custodial visitation- now "Parenting" time which is said best because visitation is just wrong! I am all for the new custody scheduling and it's about time!! My husband finally got the right Judge and my how nice things are going now! Granted, it's s not going to happen overnight; but it's a great start! Going to court time after time is not the answer. The answer is: What is best for the child and parents should start realizing that. "

Beesh wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:52 AM:

" The Child Support ENFORCEMENT Agency will do anything to encourage and promote the mentality of divorce over counceling. The burden on the man because the average salary is higher for men. Than means more child support, which means a return of $3.50 for every dollar of child support returned to the state for WELFARE. Who usually gets welfare? The mother. Which starts the whole process all over again.

The social services agencies and NDCSEA do NOT want men in their children's lives, it takes too much money out of their pockets. Do a Google of R-KIDS and get the details. "

Cosmos wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:52 AM:

" Some imply and assume that both parties agree to the majority of custody settlements. However, they fail to mention that it costs thousands of dollars to wage a futile battle to overcome the pre-determined outcome in court. How many fathers in North Dakota are primary parents, and how did they manage to get custody? There are fathers who are no good for their children, and it is mostly these cases that prevent change. But there are mothers who use the biased system to harm children in other ways by dictating the relationship to the father. "

Ann wrote on Oct 8, 2008 11:38 AM:

" It is stated that the NDCSEA does a good job at collecting support, which is what it is designed to do. The problem, however, lies in how child support is determined in this state. North Dakota is one of only 10 or 11 states nationwide that chooses to set child support amount based ONLY on what the non-custodial parent earns, rather than taking into account that BOTH parents should have some financial responsibility in providing for their children. It is way past time that ND looks into some form of the Income Share model that the overwhelming majority of states use in determining child support. "

DanH wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:45 AM:

" First of all, it is NOT visitiation. It is PARENTING.

Please go through every line of every law and make that change.

Thank You. "

Enough Already wrote on Oct 8, 2008 10:39 AM:

" Those divorcing parents who can't decided on physical custody schedules are still going to need attornys and courts decisions. Just because the terminololy changes doesn't mean it will take away any of the back and forth bickering, which is why those parents divorced in the first because they can't get along. Ultimately, it's up to the judge anyway. "

Soldier wrote on Oct 8, 2008 9:36 AM:

" There is a lot of work that needs to be done on the existing child custody laws. This is a start and hopefully the changes won't stop here. With any luck the state will also look at child support as well. "

SRahn wrote on Oct 8, 2008 5:28 AM:

" "The courts neither have the time, nor the interest". A statement filled with honesty way past human beliefe. I was not the sole custody parent, yet I did have my daughter living with me for the last 3 1/2 years prior to her eighteenth birthday and the enforcement (NDCSEA) still enforced support payments upon me, even after notifying the casworker and the court during a summons to appear hearing. The total arrearage amount owed to date, is the exact amount owed to me for those 3 1/2 years; yet the agencie and Burleigh County Court fail to make this correction by law or notification of the child not residing within or with the custodial parent on two occasions-hearings??? So JOE LEGGIO be prepaired for such an occurance, have a good attorney and hopfully an honest judge in your experiences with this issue of visitation or otherwise. You Sir, have no rights just like myself and several others across North Dakota. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.