"ghostwriter" wrote in message
ups.com...

Gini wrote:
"ghostwriter" wrote
...............
The law and the courts decided a
long time ago that your child's rights trumped yours in the situation
of child-support.
==
Really? Then why don't the courts require the custodial parent to spend
the money on the kid? See, the courts actually decided the the
*mother's*
rights trump the kids' and the dads'.

Actually they decided before child support really existed that, absent
evidence of abuse, the decisions of a fit custodial parent are by
definition "in the child's best interest".

That happens to be one of the major pillars of western civilization.

You've advanced this argument before and it is just not based on the facts.

There have been numerous court decisions affirming the common law rights of
both parents to have legal authority over children until the parents have
done something to forfeit those rights. The divorce revolution, fueled by
no-fault divorce laws, has ignored that legal principle by allowing only one
parent to ask the state to step in to separate the father from the family.
This change has occurred over the last 30 years or so and is based on the
child's best interest being perceived as being independent of the parents.

No-fault divorce ignores the fitness of parents. Child support is the
financial motivator to breakup the family. The phrase "best interest of the
child" is a deceptive way of saying the government has the power to define
and establish the future of children over the objections of parents who have
done nothing to forfeit their rights.