Since when does financial ability determine best interest of the child in custody issues. It takes two people to create a child and two people should have to sacrifice not only time but a percentage of their income to support their dependent children.

I know. A certain person here has said that if you can't afford your child to give them to the other parent.

Just because money is tight, doesn't mean that you don't love that child.

If that was ADJ (Robin) that posted that, I want to actually agree with him.

Love has everything to do with supporting a child... and the act of relinquishing custody for financial reasons... is a good thing, if in the best interests of the child... and NOT an ego based possession thing. That's love... to want a bigger, better life for a child, and NOT about who gets to own the child.

It has nothing to do with owning the child. It has to do with which parent has better parenting skills. Which parent can maintain a stable clean wholesome safe living environment. Which parent will stay sober. Which parent can work with the educational and medical systems. Which parent can exclude toxic people from their life even if they are family. Which parent the child can interact with most effectively. Which parent is willing to set aside a standard of living to give the necessary time to care for the child when they are sick, need supervision, or just attention. Which parent has the emotional and physical strength to manage the child. Which parent can cope with the stress of custodial parenting best. And contrary to some opinions which parent WANTS the child. I can not even count the number of times I have pleaded with non-custodial parents to take their child and they won't even consider it. Never is the size or wealth of a home to be the decideing factor of the child's placement. I have seen extreamly career/financially successful adults that would melt down after three hours with their own kid.

Please re-read...."In the best interests of the child...."

I don't need to discuss policies... we're on the same page...and we both know staticians aren't at ground zero.

I do not think we are on the same page if anyone is convinced having the bigger better lifestyle is even miniscule important in determining who will provide the better home and parenting for a child. I will pick a warm loving parent living in cluttered subsidized houseing who can tell me the child's teachers names, knows the pediatrican phone number by heart and never missed a clinic appointment, knows the childs sleep routines, and can tell me what to do when they throw up before I will place a child with and angry executive that can tell me the stock ticker, exactly the interest rate on is vacation home, but can't tell me why they are sleeping in pajamas that are two sizes too small or the kid is in a private school alone for the holidays. Yes I get these are two extreams but it is RARELY that I see a non-custodial parent that rags about paying for their child that gave a damn. Their visitation was inconsistent, they were constantly moving up which was not reflected in their child's possessions or privileges, and they had a series of excuses and substitute relationships that were always more important than the First in Time First in Line family they usually abandoned or drove out with their my way or the highway attitude.

I have less money then my ex. It would never be in my child's best interest to give my child to him. It has nothing to do with my ego. His money does not equal a better psychologically or better emotional life for our child.

rotten parents aside, let's just assume that the mother has her own business and/or works in an executive position that requires lots of overtime with little notice

is it better that the children stay with her because she can afford them, even though they may be alone after school for hours, or the nanny might have to pick them up, or a sitter?

or is it better for the children, in this scenario, to live with their dad, whose hours are flexible enough that he can be with them the majority of the time, while the mother supplements his income with child support?


whoever has the most money should only be one of the considerations (if at all) when deciding who gets primary residence.

my ex would have a nanny no matter what.Brandon has adhd and the man cannot begin to cope.I agree with you though,a child shouldn't have to be in childcare a lot if it can be helped.

I consider myself lucky. The state of Michigan has a formula based on the income of both parents and I am satisfied with how much I am paying. I don't feel I am getting hosed, and my kids are getting the financial support they need. I am also quite close to my kids. I stay in touch with their Mom. I felt in my case they would do better with their Mother, and if the situation changed I would have them come live with me.

I try to keep financial and gender bias out of the decision process when ever possible. I have seen some parents that are calm, organized, and get top notch substitute care when they are at work and occasionally that is the parent that is more affluent. I have worked with a lot of military families that had to work out best interest when the parent went to combat or training and sometimes it was still in the best interest of the child to stay in the system they were settled and thriveing in rather than go to the other parent. Luckily more than once the parents worked out for the other to step in or even a grandparent but it is always disruptive to the child in a big way bounceing back and forth. In a perfect world I would make divorceing parents both provide a single home for their kids and make them do the moving to effect their parental responsibilities and or the divorce that they want but often the kids don't.