Thursday, June 18, 2009

ALL'S FAIR IN LOVE & CHILD SUPPORT?


Overheard: Guy talking to his friend, "I know I don't pay child support, but that shouldn't be a reason for her to stop me from seeing my child!"

His friend: "I know man, she's just hatin' on you cause you got another girl now so she's taking it out on you and Jamaal is the one who's suffering."

Guy: "Yeah man, I can't believe she would do that to him and make him pay for her jealousy."

His friend: "She's wack!"

So.....really? I was at a park the other day and overheard two guys having a conversation that basically went like that. And having thought about it, I'm still not sure what I think about it. Is a woman wrong for not letting her child's father see him because he's not paying child support? Particularly if he's able to and just choosing not to?

Is being allowed to be a parent to your child a right or a privilege? I think I can see both sides of this issue. On the one hand, if you're the woman and you're having to take on the entire responsibility of paying to take care of your child, it's probably hard to justify to yourself that the father "deserves" to be a part of his child's life.

However, on the other hand, and ideally, what is in the best interest of the child is probably to be allowed to have both parents in his or her life, no matter what, because the child doesn't care about who is or isn't paying. They just know that they don't get to see daddy or mommy, if the situation is reversed, and that time can never be regained.

It's just tough though I'm sure in reality to get over personal issues, feeling, lack of support, etc in order to keep the child's best interest a priority.

At the end day, the numbers of single parent households is on the rise and the number of fatherless kids is also on the rise. If you choose to have a child, you are also choosing by default to be there for that child both financially and emotionally, regardless. I don't have all the answers, and it's a difficult predicament, but I'm sure Jamaal could tell you pretty easily what he'd want if it were simply up to him. And when it comes to figuring it all out, maybe that's a good place to start.

10 comments:

Eternal Lizdom said...

I'm personally opposed to letting the money be the deciding factor on visitation. And the courts tend to agree. Like you said- what would Jamaal choose? The check or the visit? The money or the time?

anonymousnupe said...

First of all, YOU GOT SOME GOOD EARS!!! How is it that you always seem to be in the right place at the right time to overhear conversations that provide prime grist for your blog? Hmmm.....

I think that Jamaal's father not paying child support is just a symptom of a larger issue with daddy. Why would the mother even want the father to be around and influence Jamaal with the same sense of responsibility--or lack thereof in this case--that daddy has? I'd venture to say that his unwillingness to support his child financially is simply one (MAJOR) indicator of his multi-flawed character, especially judging by the cavelier tone he took with his friend over the matter. Now if he had said something like, "Yeah, man, it's rough out here right now. I need to get more hours down at the job, or find something else part-time, too, so I can handle my business better..." then that would have been a different story.

Nupe out.

Jackie E. said...

Liz: It's a tough call. From Jamaal's perspective, it's easy. A no-brainer. But like Anonymousnupe said, perhaps it wouldn't be in the kid's best interest to have such an irresponsible father like that around. Who knows?

And Mr. 'Nupe: You are too funny, lol! I was sitting right by the basketball court having lunch and so there were a bunch of guys there playing pick-up and some just standing around chit-chatting rather freely. It definitely was NOT hard to hear what they had to say about that and a whole bunch of other stuff too (not appropriate for the blog:-). You trying to make me out to be a snoop? The other stuff I "hear" usually is from talk radio.

Chanel said...

I personally am in this same situation. He has never given me a dime for our child. But thats not the reason I wont allow him to see her. It's because since she was born he's only come home only twice a year to see her. And Ive sent her to him probably 4 times. He calls her only about 1x a month. And I'm very protective of her. She has never met any of my male friends. Children get attached to people easily & I don't want her to get hurt. He, on the other hand, feels the need to showboat her to all his female friends. And it's not good that the few times a year thathis daughter gets to see him, she has to split that time with a different female everytime. Like Nupe said, if he was trying that would be different & understandable.
Chanel

anonymousnupe said...

Sis., never would I even begin to impune your character by implying snoopage. Knowing the little bit I do concerning your character, that would definitely be antithetical behavior for you. You know I was just goin' for the levity, LOL!!

More blogging, please!!

Jim and Garret said...

Sheesh, you certainly have the same knack I have for seeing both sides. I hate arguing with myself over both sides! It's a shame that woman got pregnant to begin with. How can people get pregnant so easily without thought of the love as well as the financial needs? Children aren't pets! Ugh! I say it often and I'll say it again: License to fish, license to wed, license to hunt, how about a license to breed??????

Yeah, I know at this point it's a little late for that.

Jackie, you make me think too much.

Vanessa said...

I agree 100% that it's about the 'example' of 'flawed character' that these kinds of men set for kids. If my kid came home from school and told me he his two new best friends were the playground bully and the school drug dealer, you can bet that I would put a stop to him hanging out with such a bad influence. Same thing goes for fathers. I don't want my son to idolize an irresponsible man at all. And being a father is about a lot more than just the money. He has a responsibility to support his child, no matter what. But if he's a bad guy in other ways,that is cause to keep the kids from him, whether he pays or not.

Calvin Curry said...

People who have one or no kids always have dis notoin dat men can keep up with dis slave tax. Men r being demonized when it comes to dis issue. They say stop making babies but women r still having them. If u want to level the playing field give us one thing. A birth control pill for men would stop.all dis deadbeat stuff and definitely stop the soccer mom bull. If u can do data then people like u can talk. Until then shut up cause when a woman has a child she gets everything she needs. U just get a prison sentence. PLEASE!

Calvin Curry said...

Dats da problem. U don't regulate who da child see. I swear u women r sumthin. I guess if God came back u would want child support for Jesus.

Calvin Curry said...

Christianty is the only religion that demonize men for there children. Don't get me wrong its not da only one he pays support for but gets demonized. Its call being trifflin. Look it up Christians.