#since the terms of the deal were impossible to fulfill given the circumstances

[fragmentedblade]

The more I learn about them the more I think the heliobi are in the right

[wherethingscomebackx]

Top 25 Larry fics of 2019

It’s that time again!

You may be familiar with these lists:

Top 25 Larry fics of 2016

Top 25 Larry fics of 2017

Top 25 Larry fics of 2018

As always, I read a lot of fic and the majority of it is Larry. I like making lists and I like Larry so I thought I’d do some minimal research of the top 25 larry fics published/completed in 2019 in order of least to most kudos (with links). All of these fics are top notch so you should all check them out! 

25.) Foolishy Laying Our Hearts on the Table by @runaway-train-works (11k)

“You think Harry wants that?”

“Dunno. Maybe. Wanna make him happy.” Harry takes advantage of the red light he’s pulled up to turn and look properly at Louis’ face. He’s not even looking in Harry’s direction though, focused instead on something out of his side window, head drooped, mindlessly playing with the string of his hoodie between his fingers, lost in his own world somewhere. For some reason, it makes Harry’s spine straighten.

“Because he’s your best mate?” Harry questions carefully.

“He’s my boyfriend.”

He couldn’t have heard him right. “What?”

Louis releases a deep breath, still not turning around. Harry wonders who he thinks he’s talking to right now. “He’s so pretty. Want to kiss him all day long. And buy him a big house and give him presents and marry him.”

Or

The one where Harry is in love with his best friend Louis but doesn't think he stands a chance until some wisdom teeth and a rather unusual confession might just change his mind.

24.) Tainted Saints And Velvet Vices by @toomanydreamers (126k)

A self-fulfilling Hogwarts AU in which Louis is new to seventh year and Harry is the resident devil-may-care Slytherin set to make his entire experience a living misery. Due to less than favourable circumstances they're forced to forge an unwilling, tentative relationship for their own survival. Repressed emotions, decidedly unromantic ballroom dancing, Triwizard Tournament tasks, creative jinxes and twilight flying above the Forbidden Forest ensue.

23.) all we can do is keep breathing by @avocadolouie (310k)

“Harry, I-I’m so sorry…” Louis stutters out, trying to keep his voice level and even, to portray a depiction of strength, but with the way Harry is looking at him, staring at him like he has a personal passage way straight to Louis’ soul, it’s so hard, nearly impossible.

That simple opening phrase, that short introductory acknowledgement that is often rushed out so easily, painlessly, at a safe distance. Giving a doctor the ability to portray empathy without true emotion, without feeling the full brunt and sheer force of the underlying pain itself.

But Louis feels it, he feels the crushing agony laced behind the phrase, he feels the weight of the painful words slipping from his lips, the cause and effect that the three-word expression holds. The distantly empty “I’m so sorry” that doctors throw out in self-preservation, isn’t at all empty for him. Louis recognizes it, he understands it, he feels it.

--

a fated story of two broken and battered boys who barely survived the unimaginable and how the love of one little brave girl defies all the odds and somehow puts them back together.

22.) Raise a Glass to the Four of Us by @2tiedships2 (25k)

Louis stared at his luggage.

Well. Apparently not his luggage, because the clothing he was looking at currently was a: worth more than everything he currently possessed, b: not his size at all, and c: more suited for a fancy ass lawyer than a holiday in NYC with his best mates.

“Ooh, nice loafers,” Niall said as he pulled one out of the suitcase. “I love the rainbows.”

“Okay,” Liam began. “What do you want to do first? Eat, shop for new clothes, or spend hours on the phone with the airline?”

Louis continued to stare at the luggage.

21.) You Have to Retreat to Advance by @2tiedships2 (18k)

“What am I going to do, Perrie? I can’t go on this retreat by myself. My boss literally said he wants to meet my omega.” Harry paused. “Okay, not literally but he definitely expects me to be bringing him.”

“Don’t people go on these things by themselves?” Perrie asked.

Harry shrugged. “Of course but that’s not the point.”

“What’s the point?”

“My boss is expecting to meet my omega! I don’t have an omega!”

“Is this a paying gig?” Perrie asked.

“You mean paying an omega to spend the weekend with me? I’m sure the resort has nice amenities. Does that count?”

“I take that as a no,” Perrie said with an eye roll. “It’s okay, Louis might be willing to do it for free.”

“Who’s Louis?”

Or the one where Harry is expected to bring his longterm omega to the company's mountain retreat. Since he hadn't told anyone that they'd broken up months ago, he now has to find someone willing to play the part.

20.) A Darker Shade of Love by LittleSpoonStyles94 (750k)

Louis is a 30 year old multi-billionaire with a very dark past. He is violent and is a sadist with a taste for pain. Harry Styles is a 19 year old student who sets out to London after being kicked out by his homophobic father to follow his dreams. He wants to go to the best University to study but he needs a lot of money so he starts to work as a part time stripper at a gay club to support his studies and his life. The club he works at, Garland's, is part owned by Louis Tomlinson. When they meet, its life changing for the both of them.

19.) You Still Make Sense to Me by @amories (37k)

Harry, Louis, and their family navigate life together through the years.

18.) Like Water Over Fire (Like Water On Fire) by @mcssymon (119k)

“I’m sorry your highness, I think I misheard you, did you really say that you are hoping to meet your husband?” Oh god, Louis panicked. Was Prince Harry gay? Was he even allowed to be gay? Surely he wouldn’t be allowed to have a selection from a group of men, right?

Prince Harry looked partly like he wanted to laugh, but also very, very nervous about what he had just admitted, “Yes, sir, you heard correctly”

Or Prince Harry has 46 men and 13 weeks to find the husband of his dreams, Louis has a limited amount to time to live out a royal fantasy. They might just be exactly what the other needs.

17.) waiting for the tides to meet by @nauticalleeds (59k)

Louis lets out a deep breath, thinking about Harry’s soulmate. Thinking about how Harry’s soulmate is probably as beautiful as Harry, some person that Louis cannot compare to, and how the universe has chosen them to be Harry’s. Fuck the universe. “Fuck you,” he calls out to the universe. He’s aware of how crazy he sounds.

Maybe he is crazy, with how he’s falling for Harry. And fuck that, too.

Soulmate AU. Everyone is born with heterochromia — one eye is their own eye colour, while the other is the colour of their soulmate's. It's only when they meet their soulmate for the first time that their own eyes match properly. After a hazy night at a frat party, Louis wakes up to blue eyes and the shocking realization that he had met his soulmate, without any sober recollection. Seven years pass where Louis comes to terms with the fact that he'll never know who his soulmate is. Then one fated summer, a beautiful green-eyed photographer arrives at Louis' workplace, with promises of endless laughter and a familiar feeling in Louis' heart.

Featuring a lovely cup of OT5, a road trip down the coast, and a scene where Harry eats a whole head of lettuce. Don't ask why.

16.) Call Answered by @vondrostes (249k)

The day after his 27th birthday, Harry Styles attempts suicide. Louis is flown to his bedside to unravel the mystery of why he did it after a flash drive is found with a note attached, addressed to Louis. On it are a collection of 78 songs, all written for different dates from their past.

15.) Counterbalance by @louandhazaf (44k)

Harry Styles loves two things: teaching ballet and racing motorcycles. Those two worlds collide when his greatest rival on the track, Louis “Tommo” Tomlinson brings his tiny siblings to Harry’s class.

14.) Everywhere and Nowhere by @2tiedships2 (16k)

Niall took a seat and said, "Apparently Louis' downstairs neighbor is a fan of giving Louis creepy gifts. Maybe I should go introduce myself and tell him that Louis actually prefers food."

"What has he given you?" Liam asked.

Louis shrugged as it were no big deal. "There was a rabbit's foot keychain on the door a little after he left from introducing himself and there was a small teddy bear sitting by my door tonight. Obviously I can't prove it's from him, but they seem to have his scent. I could be wrong though."

"Wow," Liam said, looking deep in thought. "That's old school."

"What's old school?" Niall asked. "Giving creepy gifts?"

"I've never known an alpha to do it, to be honest, but he's courting you."

Louis couldn't contain his look of disbelief directed at Liam. "He's courting me. Like some sort of romantic shit they'd do in the 1800s or something?"

13.) Swallow The Knife by whoknows (76k)

“You came,” Louis says, still breathless, clinging to Harry, uncaring that his sweat is getting all over Harry’s presumably clean dad shirt, or that he’s making Harry hold up all of his weight.

“Of course I came,” Harry says. He shifts, one arm curled underneath Louis’ arse, the other spreading wide in the middle of Louis’ back. “If I ignored you every time you pissed me off we would have stopped being friends a long time ago.”

Louis already knows that, of course. It doesn’t do anything to stop the pleased squirm in his belly every time Harry proves it, though. They fight like nobody’s business, both of them too stubborn to pull their punches when they’re arguing, and it used to get them in trouble, but they always make up.

Adrenaline makes Louis loose-lipped, and they both know it. He tightens his arms around Harry’s neck, buries his face in his hair. “I missed you,” he confesses, quiet. “Doesn’t feel the same up there by myself.”

12.) and oh, all of your saturdays could end up in woe by ihavetoomuchfreetime (70k)

a fic in which louis' in a long-term relationship with an abusive asshole, niall, zayn and liam are so far but not really, and harry is that all too friendly guy who works in sainsbury's.

11.) thinking about the t-shirt you slept in by @absoloutenonsense (52k)

Harry's alpha fraternity donates to a local thrift shop (because of Liam's latent crush on a cute beta in his lecture). Louis' financial situation (and confusing omega instincts) lead him to make some interesting fashion purchases. Lots of pizza, feelings, and not-really-lying.

10.) Consequences by @allwaswell16 (78k)

Two years ago Harry let his powerful family come between him and the love of his life, something he deeply regrets. Louis has tried to move on from their devastating break up. Sometimes, he even thinks he has. It only takes one moment to freeze them back in time.

An amnesia au

9.) Strawberries & Cigarettes by @dimpled-halo (76k)

Harry looks up and immediately freezes. Next to Ms. Archie stands the boy from just the other day. The boy with the leather jacket and chipped black nails, that might or might not be sketched in the very book Harry has just placed on the table in front of him. The leather jacket is missing today, probably because they aren’t allowed as part of their required uniform attire, but Harry can still see the fading black nail polish on his nails, and eyeliner around his eyes. Harry’s mouth goes a little dry. This boy is so intriguing to him.

“Ye-yes, Ms. Archie?” Harry tries to play it cool, but he’s almost positive that his cheeks are burning red, and he’s relieved neither of them can tell how fast his heart is beating in his chest.

The boy seems to also recognize Harry, because his lips curve into a knowing smirk.

“Harry is at the top of his class. He’s your best bet at getting familiar with things around here.” She explains.

Louis nods, his smirk still very prominent on his face. “Thank you Ms. Archie. I’ll be sure to take advantage of young Harold here.”

*

Summary: Two stories, eleven years, and the two boys that never stopped loving each other.

8.) Pain makes people change by Deidei (113k)

An organization called Canis Lupus existed solely for changing humans imprisoned in their wolf form back to their human form. Some people after experiencing some traumatic event can only ‘’protect’’ themselves from the pain by forgetting everything. To do that, to feel safe, they shift into their wolf form.

Which they'll be stuck in forever should no one intervene.

Louis Tomlison went through a traumatic experience at the age of twelve in which he lost his mother, to make the pain go away he shifted into a wolf and fled. He survived in the wild as a wolf for five years until Canis Lupis caught him... Though he wasn't alone, he had a pup at his side.

7.) Pretty Please (With Sugar On Top) by @angelichl (113k)

Harry is a sugar baby omega who cons rich alphas for a living. Louis is a rich alpha with too much self-control.

6.) Enemies with benefits by ssii8 (267k)

Where Harry is captain of basketball team and Louis is captain of football team and they hate each other. But somehow this doesn't stop them from having sex.

And everything is perfect until they start to feel something more.

5.) Ready To Fall by whoknows (21k)

“Ninety and rising,” Nick says triumphantly, as though making Harry’s heartbeat pick up by thrusting an obscenely attractive person in front of his face is any kind of success. “Louis Tomlinson has just walked into our control room and suddenly our dear Harry Styles has lost all ability to speak. Could this be some kind of strange coincidence?”

“I hate you,” Harry hisses, forcing his eyes back into Nick’s direction, uncaring that the mic must have picked it up. “I thought we agreed that you were going to play fair.”

“I’m sure I have no idea what you’re talking about,” Nick denies, except he’s holding up a picture of Louis’ face now, sharp cheekbones prominent, soft lashes nearly sweeping against his cheeks as he looks down, and his fucking mouth –

“A hundred and two!” Nick crows, all but clapping his hands together in glee. “The highest it’s ever been!”

“To be fair, I did bend over the desk on purpose,” Louis’ voice comes crackling in the headphones. Harry practically breaks his neck whipping his head around at the sound of it, gaping at him through the glass panel. “You can’t really blame him for getting a little excited about that, can you?”

4.) Close to Nowhere by @angelichl (34k)

“I will kill you in your sleep,” Louis threatened as he quickly stepped out of his jeans.

“I don’t think that would work very well baby, seeing as you talk to dead people all the time.”

“I’ll kill you in your sleep and ignore your ghost. And don’t call me that.”

Louis and Harry are psychics who kind of hate each other. They go to Tennessee to investigate a haunting.

3.) Play Pretend, Find a Friend? by @angelichl (40k)

They had to pull back for air. Louis surveyed the guy’s face, in awe of his blown pupils and sharp jawline, the way their shared spit glistened on his lips.

“Hi,” he breathed. He blinked, and came back to himself a little bit, blushing at his own boldness. “Sorry. Is this okay?”

The stranger removed his right hand from the curve of Louis’ waist in order to cup his jaw, tilting it up to the angle he desired. He pressed their lips together, murmuring, “Definitely.” And then he kissed harder.

When Louis sees his ex-boyfriend kissing a random girl at a party, he acts out of blind jealousy. He kisses the first guy he can find. It turns into a thing.

INSPIRED BY CLOUDS.

2.) Let Me Feel Your Heartbeat by @angelichl (34k)

Harry is 98% sure Louis hates him. So he feels like his bewilderment is justified when the omega offers to help him through his rut.

1.) All My Colours by IceQueenRia (267k)

Green… yellow… red. Red! RED!!!

Some people were born Dominant and others submissive. Sixteen year old Louis Tomlinson was a submissive and was proud to be so… until he was forced to his knees for the first time. The man before him was every subs nightmare, an abusive Dom, the kind who didn’t believe in the colour ‘red’ unless it was in the form of blood.

There were others, but Louis was the ‘favourite’ and he was the one the Dom liked to ‘play with’ the most. In fact, when the rescue team arrived, Louis was the one currently providing ‘service’ to the Dom.

Or

Louis, Zayn and Niall are abused subs. Liam Payne is their devoted new Guidance Counsellor who just wants to make Niall smile and hear Zayn speak. As for Louis, he knows his guidance won’t be enough to help the boy heal. No, Louis Tomlinson needs something very special and very specific. He needs Harry Styles.

[mc-critical]

Do you think MC hurrem, before the bayezid and selim conflict of course, ever considered that the traditional fratricide could possibly happen amongst her sons? Mustafa hypothetically killing her sons if he became sultan is constantly used as a reason for why she had to get rid of him but how could multiple princes having the same mother resolve any potential conflict for the throne? Sorry idk if what i said makes sense

Don't worry at all, I understood you perfectly! ^^

No, I don't think MC Hürrem considered that possibility as strongly before the inevitable occured.

First off, her adaption to the harem was a slow and gradual process and she certainly didn't become aware of all the rules, all the sudden. (as when she was surprised that Mustafa was getting his own harem before the sanjack) She knew enough to set a goal in her mind from the first episode, but didn't get to see the full picture until she went through fulfilling that goal step by step and saw an obstacle that would be impossible to ignore. She was so focused on the path to survive, she brushed off the cost of said path in the first place.

It's true that in the beginning, there wasn't a reason for her to consider possible ongoing rivalry or fratricide between her sons. Nigar told her that she would rule the world if she gives the Sultan a child and when she becomes aware of the competition in the harem, what would make her prevail over them all, guided by her desire to make SS only hers and maintain power, for she would stop undergoing the same trauma and disrespect all over again? More children! We could argue that, throughout season 1, she views having more children as a privilege - not only does it secure more her position as a favorite, but it makes her gain advantage and power over her rival in this game. Notice how she boasts about the possibility alone in front of Mahidevran in both E06 and E11! ("It will be a boy. Then it will be a boy again. Then it will be a boy again and again..."; "I will give birth to many princes, but you won't even give birth to a girl.") These lines could be an attempt of assertion and a mask of vulnerability and insecurity, in a way, but this is far from the only thing going on. Not just the children, but the princes specifically are capilatized on, because bearing one is considered an honor in this harem and for every pregnancy, Hürrem expresses an almost firm confidence that it will be, without a doubt, a prince. The whole system in the show, sadly enough, encourages that whoever has more sons is more powerful and will get everyone else out of their way eventually, without shining a light on the more grim implications and what the mothers will possibly have to go through with their many sons, to the point it simply leaves them to find this out by themselves. It puts the princes in idealized superiority that is one of the first things Hürrem gets used to and that's why she was initially taken aback when Mihrimah was born instead of another prince she wanted so much. By that point, she had no time to consider eventual conflicts or fratricide because of her (initial) upper hand.

The higher stakes were kept under wraps in the series itself, too, because of its Cerebus Syndrome nature that lets you endear with the characters at first in lighter, more mainly interpersonal situations and then move to the wider scale of the historical themes, having them grow as people and political players and realize the bigger context along with the evolution of the narrative. That is coupled with the children's ages, for the small age, to me, was presented as a symbol of innocence. There's this prevailing trend in Hürrem's character during season 2 where she kept saying that Mustafa is too little for doing certain stuff (like going to a campaign, to a province, etc.) and that, I think, is telling enough of the amount of awareness she had for an eventual conflict between her sons. That was a general theme of the show, too, because both Mahidevran and Hürrem held no ill will against the other's children when they were small, as seen by them taking care of them during the janissary rebellion and Mahidevran saving Mehmet in E16. The children themselves weren't a priority of eradication for them back then and when they were little, they were something worth protecting as a mother's value, not tools to be moulded for the future battle for the throne. When their mothers find a common ground in this aspect, would a conflict between children of one and the same mother be possible? Only when they grow up, awareness comes to the surface, bacause by the time they're still small, they're harmless and innocent. (handicapped by SS's words to Mustafa in E46: "As you grow up, the innocence between us disappears, my Mustafa.") Even Hürrem set herself against Mustafa only by E38 and she didn't want his death until then. Knowing this, could she predict that something could go wrong between her own sons, no less? Doesn't she have other stuff to do until she reaches that point? Isn't she too busy in forging her own survival path and not think as much about her children before they grow up?

Then again, Hürrem has shown to be capable of anything to always remain in SS's good graces both because she is devoted to him and for her own goals. The princes play a part in this, because they have to gain the padişah's support first and foremost and that simply cannot be done through quarrels. Hürrem may have grown wise to this, with the many cases of her ordering the children to go away once a conflict of any kind ensues and especially, always telling them throughout season 3 not to fight with each other, not even because of her, and stressing that family is the most important thing. She may have wanted their childhoods to be as peaceful as possible, rendering them (except Mihrimah) oblivious to what she's gone through, which gave them a sense of naivety in the process. And while that naivety turned out to be a double-edged sword (as we saw with Mehmet fully believing Illyas and Cihangir believing in SS's promise that he won't sacrifice Mustafa), it could've been a way for Hürrem to make sure that her children in general would always seek a consensus and look good in front of the sultan. That didn't end up being the case. Despite of these possible measures of hers, I doubt she got fully aware of the possibility, precisely because of her set goals. Even though the dismissal of Selim and Bayezid's conflict became a main arc of Hürrem's in S04, there were also hints of this in S02, shown by E53: "Such a sun will rise that that sun will only rise for me and my children." Her fixation on Mustafa as the single pivotal moment of her life fight is a huge character flaw of hers almost right from the moment she began to see him as a threat and even from her first attempt, as we see by the quote above, she thinks that by eliminating him, it would be all over, assuringly discarding everything else afterwards. And Selim and Bayezid were already arguing by that episode and it only escalated further since then, because of her ignorance as a part of the whole issue.

It's even questionable whether she has ever thought that, maybe there is more work to be done after Mustafa, because Hürrem's fixation became more predominant as the series progressed, in conjunction with the evergrowing Selim and Bayezid conflict. It was already so prevalent by S04 that Hürrem went as far as to blame Mustafa for the first big scandal between them in E112 and Mihrimah had to remind her of their rivalry-slowly-turning-to-enmity's very existence in the first half of the season that is there in spite of who Hürrem thinks is the bigger problem. She didn't give it the significant attention it deserved when they were little and I, for one, believe that she had to investigate more when Selim set Bayezid's arrow up for failure around E91/92 and not scold only Bayezid, for it only heightened his resentment for Selim. She didn't think of it as something that big to deal with, it was probably a problem they would fix by themselves for good measure, because they're still children after all, aren't they? But a resentment of a child could only continue to live on, especially in such a time period, so if Hürrem, knowing how paranoid she could be and how much she tried to evade everything that could oppose her success, predicted the future mass of the conflict, wouldn't she do something more, wouldn't she nullify it? It's a given that she can't be next to them in every single minute of the day, but the possible outcome itself just screams for tiiiny bit more involvement on her part. The earlier you interfere, the earlier would stop the obstacle in its entirety. Hürrem is smart enough to know this, so the logical thing is that she didn't fully take all that into account. She couldn't, and possibly didn't, want to predict this as a mother.

The very realization of the actual massive power of Selim and Bayezid's enmity and her newfound inability to interfere almost at all to it came as such a surprise for her. She not only completely miscalculated, but it broke her heart into pieces. She didn't see coming any conflict of the like, because if she did, even before the whole fiasco happened, early into S01-2, she would never let it reach such extremes. And the realization hit her in such an unexpected way that she wanted to escape the shock that she had to choose and try to solve things as she has always had, doing things that should've been done such a long time ago. Would she be so helpless when she finally came to terms with the following fratricide, if she saw it coming before the conflict even started?

In summary: Hürrem didn't think of something like this at all early on and when it happened, she did see the roots, but could never, not even in her dreams, imagine the devastating results.

Though yeah, could a conflict between sons of the same mother fully be resolved in circumstances like these? I very much doubt it. Even if the mother removed the tension between them, there are other factors we shouldn't forget (I refer to SS's reign in particular): they are sons of the same mother, but they're still candidates for the throne, hence they're rivals and both the people and the padişah will have to pick a favourite. No matter how impartial a sultan seems to be, he does end up picking sides eventually - whether it's about the province one is sent in, when they're sent in it, how often does he visit them, what in them does he approve or disprove of or how competent they are in his eyes. It's inevitable for them to live in absolute peace in an environment that would sooner or later cause them to fight until one's absolute and total failure.

[fiti-vation]

Is Eating Healthy Really More Expensive & Time Consuming? (A heartfelt post)

Hey guys,

I noticed that a pressing debate has taken place under one of my posts (Healthy Lunch Recipe Ideas); some people have been debating about healthy eating and I’m happy to see many people share their point of view! That being said, while I am happy to see many thoughts being shared, it is important for me to emphasize that I never want the comment section under any of my posts to become a battleground for nasty arguments.

As someone who studied in criminology and completed numerous undergrad law courses, I have always been open to intelligent debate, as long as it is conducted with respect and diplomacy. Always remember it is rain that grows flowers, not thunder, so don’t raise your voice, but improve your argument instead.

When I post content on my blog, it is never intended to create tyranny, but always to educate. Simply put, my blog is an educative space. The comment section under my posts is not a place for radical ideologies, shaming or pointing fingers at others. Someone who truly advocates for healthy eating on a budget will never shame or point fingers at those who can’t. On that note, here’s my 2 cents on the entire debacle.

Before I start, I’d like to stress that everything written below is from my perspective as a Canadian! I live in the National Capital Region, so there are many places where one can get nutritious food at affordable prices. Canada has for the most part some good places where healthy foods can be purchased while on a budget. Obviously, for people who live in the Territories (Yukon, Nunavut and NWT) that’s a different story…

P.S. I will be counter-arguing many of the points stressed by @nerdgul • Time • Availability • Seasoning

SO, WHAT DO I REALLY THINK ABOUT HEALTHY EATING ON A BUDGET?

Before I begin to present my counterarguments, it is important as always for me to stress the importance of healthy eating. For those of you who have been following me for years, you know how much I advocate for taking good care of our body.  Our body is our temple. It is a gift, and it is the only one we will be given in this life. I believe that fitness needs to come from within you. You need to respect your body. Only then will you have the zeal to maintain it. No one should ever downplay the importance of eating healthy simply because of their financial/socio-economic situation.

The body is amazing, and if you’re not healthy and do not take care of it, it will affect many aspects of your life. The body can heal itself of anything if it is given the tools that it needs and the conditions it requires for natural healing to occur. If we take responsibility for our health, we will develop a desire to accomplish our exercise and fitness goals. The body is your temple. Keep it pure and clean for the soul to reside in.

Minimizing the importance of healthy eating is so prevalent in North American society that obesity, which is linked to many chronic diseases, has become a pervasive and critical issue that many people turn a blind eye to. In Canada and US alone not to mention the other parts of the world, we have far too many people suffering from obesity, diabetes, cancer, heart disease, hypertension and stroke. Studies after studies have shown that we can reduce the risk of these diseases, and maintain our good health by eating properly, getting enough regular exercise, avoiding stress and breathing clean, fresh air. While it may not always be possible to avoid stress and breath clean air, it is indeed possible to control what we eat by choosing the right kind of foods.

The idea that healthy food costs more than junk food is something I hear far too often. People generally believe that ‘healthy’ equals ‘expensive, but as I’ve come to find out over the years from personal experience this is not completely true. One part of the problem is that many people confuse “healthy” with other labels that do increase costs, like “organic” or “gluten-free.” However, unless you have a diagnosed medical condition, you can have a nutritious diet without worrying about those extra labels. I personally don’t buy organic or gluten free food, I just buy heathy food periodt. They key is to eat more whole foods and fewer processed ones.  The other part of the problem is where one shops.

My definition of healthy eating, as stated in Body, Mind, & Mouth...Life's Eating Connection is: "Eating food that is enjoyable to you, in the quantity that is good for you." This means the fruit and vegetables you find enjoyable can be eaten in a larger quantity than the chocolate cake you find enjoyable that should be eaten in a much smaller quantity. It means that you don't deprive yourself, but you learn to make choices congruent with your desired results. It also means your grocery cart is full of the food that nourishes you, and less or none of the food with no nourishment. In the grand scheme, it cost you less.

My food philosophy is: Embrace gorgeous greens, beans, legumes, nuts, seeds, grains, sea veggies, fruits and vegetables galore. It is good to eat foods that keep your body alive, but it is better to eat food that keep your body healthy; it is best to regard your body as a temple and eat appropriate food. The point is you have to invest in your health - it is your biggest asset in life!! Feed your body only best quality food, you deserve it! You eat better, you perform better, you feel better, you look better. It all ties together.

Now that I am done rambling about healthy eating here are my counterarguments.

Money – Responsibility

As someone who has been on both sides of the socio-economic spectrum, I can say with certainty that eating healthy while on a budget isn’t impossible. I have experienced poverty, homelessness and financial stability. That being said, when I experienced financial instability, it never stopped me from eating healthy.

Over my 25 years of existence of this earth, I have never let my socio-economic situation define who I am and what I can accomplish. When I hear people say that they can’t eat healthy because of their financial situation (e.g. my family is on welfare), it strikes a chord in me. To me, asserting that poor people cannot eat healthy simply because of their financial status perpetuates and reinforces the stigma and representation of the unhealthy lower-class individual. It insinuates that eating healthy is only for rich people – this couldn’t be further from the truth.

The circumstances of our lives, especially when they seem stressful or intense, do have an impact on us, for sure. However, all too often, we give away our power to these circumstances and situations. At some point, you have to take control of your existence. You cannot keep on blaming your parents or your circumstances forever. You are totally responsible for your life.

Like discipline, responsibility is one of those words you have probably heard so many times from authority figures that you've developed a bit of an allergy to it. Still, it's one of the most important things to grow and to feel good about your life. Without it as a foundation nothing else really works. Not taking responsibility may be less demanding, less painful and mean less time spent in the unknown. It's more comfortable. You can just take it easy and blame problems in your life. But there is always a price to pay. When you don't take responsibility for your life you give away your personal power.

Disciplining yourself to do what you know is right and important, although difficult, is the high road to pride, self-esteem and personal satisfaction.

The fact of not having the financial means does not necessarily mean that one cannot eat healthy. Everyone can rise above their circumstances.

Note, I’m not referring to homeless people here, but to people who either live on financial assistance or a modest salary. Also, keep in mind that again I am sharing my 2 cents as a Canadian. I perfectly understand that in terms of social benefits, Canada and the US cannot be compared (I’m assuming that @nerdgul, you are American).

At the beginning of my last year in high school, my mother developed a mental illness. Eventually, she ended up not working anymore and we started living on social assistance. If you’ve been following me since I started my blog, you know that at that time I was obese type 2. Fast forward, when I graduated high school and entered college, that’s when I really turned my life around and took responsibility for it. Despite being almost broke, buried under college assignments and dealing with personal life issues at home (taking care of my mentally ill mother), I managed to lose 70 pounds on my own, going from 220 pounds to 150 pounds – by exercising and starting to eat healthy while on a budget.

I didn’t have the time, but I made the time. I didn’t have the knowledge, but I did what I knew. I didn’t have the support, but I learned to support myself. I didn’t have the confidence, but the confidence came with results. I had a lot going against me, but I had enough going for me. I had plenty of excuses, but I chose not to use any of them.

When I look at my old pictures, all I can see is what I used to be, but am no longer. I think what I can see is what I am not… It's not my story anymore: whenever I speak about the past now, I feel as if I were talking about something that has nothing to do with me. All that remains in the present are the voice, the presence, and the importance of fulfilling my mission. I don't regret difficulties I experienced; I think they helped me to become the person I am today, I feel the way a warrior must feel after years of training; he doesn't remember the details of everything he learned, but he knows how to strike when the time is right.

I wasn’t in the best shape of my life, but I wanted to prove to myself I could do something that seems insurmountable and inspire others by showing them no matter where they are in their fitness goals, they can do it, too. “You just do it. You force yourself to get up. You force yourself to put one foot before the other, and God damn it; you refuse to let it get to you. You fight. You cry. You curse. Then you go about the business of living. That’s how I’ve done it. There’s no other way.

One thing that college and university have taught me is how to be resourceful. RESOURCEFUL! One more time for those in the background: RE·SOURCE·FUL! Resourceful in terms of money, time and sources! Having the ability to find quick and clever ways to overcome difficulties will get you far in life! Not having much is not a reason that should prevent someone from realizing greatness. As a post-secondary student, I learned to make the most of the little money I have, I never let my lack of money prevent me from being healthy. Obstacles don't have to stop you. Obstacles don't have to stop you. If you run into a wall, don't turn around and give up. Figure out how to climb it, go through it, or work around it.

There are so many great places where food can be purchased at affordable price. Stores such as Dollarama, Dollar It, Dollar Three, Walmart and Giant Tiger (a.k.a GT Boutique) have so much to offer. As of late I’ve most of my grocery shopping at GT.  Y’all postsecondary students in Canada need to stop sleeping on GT boutique!

10 Healthy Things You Can Buy at the Dollar Store [X]

What's VEGAN at Dollar Tree? Frozen Foods Edition - ON A BUDGET [X]

What's VEGAN at Dollar Tree? Frozen Foods Edition - ON A BUDGET [X]

Never Pay For Food Again In NYC [X]

Why Do We Waste Perfectly Good Food In The U.S.? [X]

I purchase most of my fruits and veggies at Giant Tiger. As you can see in the images below:

Mangoes are ¢79 each (60 cents USD) – Third pic

A bag of 5 avocadoes $1.99 on sales ($1.51 USD)/Regular price $3.97 ($3 USD) – First pic

A bag of apple $1.97 ($1.49 USD) – First pic

A bag of oranges $2.97 ($2.24 USD) – First pic

A pack of 4 bell peppers $1.97 ($1.49 USD) – First pic

Cantaloupe $2.47 each ($1.86 USD) – First pic

Cucumbers ¢97 each (73.17 cents USD) – Second pic

Mushrooms $1 (75 cents USD) – Fouth pic

Pasta ¢79 (¢60 USD) – Fifth pic

Here’s a list of stuff that I regularly purchase at these stores.

When it comes to meat I always check for specials. When the meat is on sale I stack up my freezer. In the image below you can see I grabbed on some chicken at $1.91 CAD and $5.55 CAD + Pork ribs $4.72 CAD. 

Essentials

Since many cooking commodities such as herbs, spices, flour and oil can be purchased in dollar stores, it seems a little misleading to say that these products are expensive. It’s $1 per seasoning at Dollar Tree [X]. That being said, they sell flour at many dollar stores, Walmart, Target, Giant Tiger.

Availability

Unless you live in a remote area, Dollar stores, Walmart, Target stores, and many similar stores are everywhere. That being said, there are numerous blogs and websites that give great advices on how to eat healthy while living in a remote area. While it may be difficult to have access to affordable, healthy and nutritious food in remote regions, it still isn’t impossible.

In consideration of the foregoing, it should be emphasized that very few people in North America live in remote areas. Today, the most urbanized regions include Northern America (with 82% of its population living in urban areas in 2018), Latin America and the Caribbean (81%), Europe (74%) and Oceania (68%). The level of urbanization in Asia is now approximating 50%. In contrast, Africa remains mostly rural, with 43% of its population living in urban areas [X].

Time

Time, don’t we all wish we had more of it. As I have indicated above, one of the most important things that college and university taught me is how to be resourceful!  As a varsity athlete I work out 4 HOURS per day, go to class, work, and still manage to make time to prepare healthy meals. It’s not about having time, it’s about making time. Many things aren't equal, but everyone gets the same 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We make time for what we truly want.

Prior to being on social assistance - before developing her mental illness, my mother worked 12 hours a day as a cleaning lady; from 8 am to 4 pm, then from 5 pm to 9 pm. Despite her 12-hour shift, she still found time to cook. Now that I’m older and thinking about it, that wild…

There’s a difference between interest and commitment. When you’re interested in doing something, you do it only when circumstance permit. When you’re committed to something, you accept no excuses, only results.

Healthy eating doesn’t have to be fancy. There are so many healthy recipes out there that require very little time to prepare. Sometimes I end up preparing my lunch right before leaving for work. These below are all meals that I prepared right BEFORE leaving for work in like 15-20 min.

It's not the will to win that matters - everyone has that. It's the will to prepare to win that matters. The will to win is worthless if you do not have the will to prepare. By failing to prepare you are preparing to fail...

Here’s a chicken salad I made in 30 min.

I bought a whole cooked chicken for $6 which I boned and then seasoned

Boiled some pasta for 10 min – then put in the freezer for 15 min

Cut some broccoli and cherry tomatoes

Mixed the pasta with the broccoli and cherry tomatoes and some extra seasoning + Mayo

P.S. Here are a few more of my recipes:

Tuna Alfredo Pasta

Cranberry Tuna Salad

Creamy Garlic Shrimp Alfredo Pasta

As a final word

Although, I have much more to say, this post is definitely longer than I expected, so I will stop here. That being said, before closing this post, I would like to emphasize here that we all have our own struggles and by no means I am trying to invalidate the struggles of others with this post.

If someone is tired after working 5 hours and you worked for 7, it doesn’t mean that they’re not allowed to be tired. It doesn’t mean they can’t feel what they’re feeling just because you’ve had it worse.

It is true that there’s a lot more to the price of being healthy than just money, but in the end it all comes down to responsibility. Our background and circumstances may have influenced who we are, but we are responsible for who we become. Nobody chooses to be broke; nobody wants to be broke, and nobody likes to be broke, but again —our financial status doesn’t have to define us. Your financial situation does not have to dictate how you live your life – rise above adversity. As stated in one of my previous posts, the moment you leave your future in the hands of things outside of your control, is the moment you place it in the hands of circumstance. And, circumstance doesn’t much care about your success. Circumstances are beyond human control, but our conduct is in our own power. Your present circumstances don't determine where you can go; they merely determine where you start.

Obstacles don't have to stop you. If you run into a wall, don't turn around and give up. Figure out how to climb it, go through it, or work around it. If you do not have money, time and resources to eat healthy, do not give up, figure out ways to change your lifestyle. You can’t change the direction of the wind, but you can adjust your sails to always reach your destination.

I am a firm believer in the law of attraction.

“Watch your thoughts, they become words; watch your words, they become actions; watch your actions, they become habits; watch your habits, they become character; watch your character, for it becomes your destiny.”

If you constantly say that you cannot eat healthily because you do not have money, time and resources, it will become a habit. You won’t make an effort to eat healthy because you think you can’t – you will have this misconception in your head that eating healthy is out of your reach. But if you start to change your mind and think more optimistically, you will change your actions. If you start telling yourself “you know what I don’t have much but let me see what I can do with the little that I have”, you will improve your eating habits. Will it be easy? Absolutely not.  The path to a healthy lifestyle is never easy, but the road to it is always rewarding.

Thinking that you can’t eat healthy because you don’t have money, time and resources is a detrimental way of thinking. It's not what happens to you, but how you react to it that matters. Everyone is a victim of circumstances they accept. If you decide not to eat healthy because you don’t have money, time and resources – well you have let your circumstances win. Never let your circumstances prevent you from achieving greatness.

A positive attitude gives you power over your circumstances instead of your circumstances having power over you. Your mind is the most powerful force you will ever face. It will tell you lies— it will tell you: you can’t do that – you’re not meant for that; you’re not good enough for that, you can’t go on anymore – you don’t have the energy. You must thank it for its opinion and carry on. The only locked doors that exist are in YOUR own mind. The doors in reality are open and all you have to do is walk through…

Don’t be that person who thinks that because they cannot eat healthy, they are not going to eat healthy.

[yamaguccikun]

Omega Endeavor AU

Written because I was reading a bunch of Endeavor redeems himself fics and decided to try my hand at writing him in a similar but still different to canon way, like he's still kind of an ass because I believe that's just his way and he definitely still wants to be the best but he's... Not as bad?? Hopefully I did well with this. If you need any further explanation about anything then feel free to message me or leave an ask at your discretion~

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Todoroki Enji presented as omega just a bit after the beginning stages of puberty. With his father off on a business trip to seal some deal with whatever company he was in negotiations with at the moment his cautious mother was quick to buy him the safest scent blockers proven to work on the market. For a few years he never felt any reason to be ashamed of his status but dutifully kept quiet about it at his mother's insistence, never joining in with his peers while they bragged about whatever mundane skills they learned that week. He had no interest in stereotypical omegan hobbies and was far from an ideal omegan body type with his quickly increasing height and broadening shoulders. Of course he was very aware that the entire notion of petite curvaceous omegas was a completely artificial concept pushed forward heavily by the adult reading and film industry as a way to validate and profit from the emotional fragility of top and low ranking alphas alike. But really it wasn't like his speaking out would do much to change things. At least not yet. So he would clench his teeth and bare it until he could graduate from UA and get hired into a good agency.

His father eventually found out because of course he did, Enji never expected the man to remain oblivious forever. That didn't stop him from being angry at himself for just how exactly he was found out. It was the day of his graduation from UA and he was ecstatic, vibrating and in the verge of spontaneous combustion the entire day. So excited in fact, that he had been sloppy in his morning routine, blockers hastily applied without a single as thought to whether they would shift or fall off throughout the day and his father didn't hesitate to notice it during an overjoyed hug, the sweet scent of omega.

Things truly went to hell after that, his father was an influential and close minded enough person that he made it impossible for Enji to be hired to any and all hero agencies. The only explanation he received came in the form of a reproaching comment that the man was done humoring Enji and it was time that he fulfill his duty to marry a good alpha and bear healthy pups.

Rei really was not at fault for anything, had in fact tried with some success to stop the whole thing but was ultimately too soft spoken and not opinionated enough to deal with a man like his father, so by the time he was married to her three year later he was already well on his way to hating himself, his body, and everyone who wanted but couldn't stop this from happening. He was full of only anger on his wedding night when he was force fed some black market drugs that pulled him into an artificial heat and his now wife fed ones that would incite rut. He could never bring himself to truly hate her even as he went through almost two days of painful labor to pups he didn't want. As he stared down blankly at four squirming balls of newly born flesh he felt one of the worst feelings that had ever formed within him, something he had only read shaky descriptions of in well hidden blogs or difficult to find omegan autobiographies. His omega was rejecting the pups, feeding off of his disgust for the entire situation and forming none of the bonds that made omegas so notoriously overprotective.

Only some months after was when that his wife left. She said she could handle, could understand, his aversion to showing her any form of affection given their circumstances but that every day she was forced to watch as he stared at her pups with dead eyes and refused them even as they begged and whined to be cared for was too much. He was far from surprised really. Their bond was quickly dissolved and their divorce finalized almost in the same week. It was just his luck that his father's years of raging about and drowning himself in hard liquor and cigars caught up to him just a month before the birth of the pups.

Enji knew he should have been more saddened than he was, and some deep, desperate part inside of him cried out to him to go and prove to the female alpha that he was good enough, but a larger part of him was relieved. He'd finally be free to do what he had always wanted to do. Become a top ranked hero.

Of course his father's handy work was still at play but he wasn't above pulling his own strings with the help of his family name until he had dug up enough dirt that he could force an agency to hire him. It wasn't long until Endeavor was a well known name and as years past so did his popularity grow until he saw himself become the No. 2 Hero in Japan.

It was only a short time after he had adjusted to his place that he was introduced to that particular alpha. The one that didn't incessantly try to offer him a drink him after every joint mission. Who complimented his hard work, not his sugary scent. Who seemed to understand that he didn't become a hero because or in spite of his secondary gender but because he wanted to be a hero and that said gender had never even come to mind as he worked himself tirelessly reach that goal. The infuriatingly endearing alpha who softened him with his megawatt smiles without even meaning to, winning him over with his honesty where others tried to buy his affections with scathing insults pathetically disguised as compliments and shiny nicknacks he had no need for and made of point of burning as swiftly as he received them.

Oh but he was far from the first omega hero, because for as backwards as society can be about secondary genders no one could deny the tendency for powerful quirks to be bestowed to omegas. That's not to say that alphas or betas had weak quirks but the odds were that if a child had signs of an exceptionally powerful quirk that they would probably present as omega. This fact alone made it possible for omegas to become heroes as powerful quirks were always in demand. So no, he wasn't the first omega to become a hero but he was the first to break past the top 10 in rankings.

It was two years before the strange alpha hesitantly, almost nervously, asked him to accompany him on a date. Enji blinked once before smiling one of his own close lipped things that equated to one of the blonde alpha's most blinding. And so they went on that date followed by plenty more. However as much as Enji cared for and was smitten over his.. significant other (Enji refused to use such an infantile a term as boyfriend and they'd still not crossed the line to lovers just yet) he noticed that Toshinori had slowly become something not himself after the first encounter, nothing too completely off from the usual but just a bit more dull, more distant in his smile than he had grown used to from the larger man. When Enji's irritation finally came to a peak he snapped at his partner, saying in not so kind words that he needed to stop acting and he he truly didn't want to be with him then he'd have to speak up about it.

Luckily for him Toshinori had long since grown used to his abrasive, sometimes bordering on abusive, attitude and brushed it off with a small exhale of empty amusement and a promise that he'd explain everything that weekend. So as the very weekend rolled around Enji was told the story of a villain and his brother and a mentor who was like a mother. He was told the truth of his partner's gender, that for some reason he had only presented as alpha when he first gone into his All Might form and his no less muscled but still smaller normal state was very firmly a late presenting beta. Enji took the news with as much grace as he could and as things settled back down for the couple they went on plenty of outings, now in both of Yagi's forms.

They decided together, but it was brought up first by Enji, that pups weren't an option. He had suffered through it once before and the thought of going through it again made the contents of his stomach roll around in ways that were far from pleasant. Toshinori agreed readily enough however when he remembered that their positions and 1st and 2nd heroes would only place that much bigger a spotlight and target on any children they would potentially have. In return Toshinori had suggested that they not bond as alpha and omega as there was no way of knowing what would happen when he shifted back and forth from his All Might persona. They did however have a quiet wedding hidden away from the press in one of the many Todoroki estates.

More time past as it usually does and the couple lost themselves in each other and in their lives as heroes. One day Toshinori came home to recount the story of bumping into a most peculiar boy who had gushed and cried over meeting his idol, had desperately wondered if he could become a hero when he had no quirk only to be crushed as Toshi displayed his usual lack of brain to mouth filter and promptly said no. Of course Enji took it upon himself to give the No. 1 hero a scolding of epic proportions that burned both metaphorically and literally.

The very next day one Midoriya Inko was certain that her son was about to keel over any second as what they had planned to be a quiet weekend of video watching and comfort food eating was crashed by a nervously shuffling All Might who was closely followed by an intensely unamused Endeavor. The starstruck glimmer in Izuku's eyes only increased as he was informed over tea that due to All Might having the tact of a bull thundering through a china shop with a beached whale tied to it's back that the hero was planning to make it up to him by taking it upon himself to train the boy to become a hero in his own right. And Endeavor for all his lack of anything even remotely close to child rearing skills would possibly maybe help on occasion but would mostly just give suggestions here and there.

The boy flourished under their tutelage and it was only two years later that Enji noticed that glimmer in Toshinori's eyes. The one that formed just before he did something so completely moronic that his omega husband skipped through several stages of heart failure and went straight to catatonic with worry. A look that hadn't form since the year before when he went off on a fight that had almost cost him half his body had Endeavor not shown up with backup just in time to prevent disaster because there was no way in any universe that Enji could let himself sit around while his husband got himself killed. He really shouldn't have been surprised when he came home from patrol the next week to see a flustered Toshinori who promptly explained how he reacts did try his hardest but he was just so proud of Izuku that he broke down and told him the truth of his quirk and wanted to make the boy his successor. The man enjoyed helping others now just as much as he always had but he'd held the position of Top Hero since before Enji was even in the business hand he'd had enough of his time in the spotlight. Was even wondering if he could go into teaching the next generation of heroes.

Four years later Midoriya Izuku stood at the gates of UA by recommendation of both top heroes Endeavor and All Might.

But before that happened another significant event occered. It was during his time watching Toshi interact with Izuku, as he had seen the boy grow from easily startled to confident in his own skin he began to wonder about another person in his life who was perhaps too soft hearted for their own good. Where was she now? Was she happy? Did she meet someone new? Enji was never cold-hearted enough to completely separate himself from her life without a backwards glance. He knew she had kept his family name though for her safety she was on records as a distant cousin he had never met. And he had, for a time, exchanged messages with her over email and even sent money to provide for the children. But that was before he had been thoroughly entrenched in the life of a well known pro hero. It had been some years since they had spoken at all, though he did still send the occasional care package. Now he wondered what would happen if he tried to regain contact with her.

But Enji had not chosen the name Endeavor for no reason so shortly after his musing session he did just that. He contacted Rei and went about reconnecting, it was definitely strained but he had been able to finally admit his faults in his relationship with her and she was a sympathetic woman so it quickly warmed up into a pleasant friendship. They weren't the first person the other would think to contact in an emergency but they were better now than when they were supposedly husband and wife and that was good enough for them. When he finally did meet the pu.. no, they were no longer pups but mature teens and young adults of varying ages. (A common phenomena that occurred when omegas gave birth to more than two pups at a time was that they each tended to age at different rates, no exact reason was ever found but it was not surprising at all to see that though all four of Rei's children had been born on the same day that little Touya looked to be almost out of high school while Shoto still had plenty of baby fat to shed off) The second time he met them he brought along Toshinori as All Might to introduce to Rei and the kids and the fifth time Izuku was brought along seeing as he was apparently in dire need of friends his age. Enji was self aware enough to know that he really would never really be a good father to them, a fact that was only cemented with the complete lack of recognition or memory of him beyond their shared name, but he could become a really good, maybe even great, uncle.

Todoroki Enji lived his life, suffered through it for a short bit of it but thoroughly enjoyed the aftermath. The family he built up for himself was far from ordinary but he failed to see any alternative as better than what he had. And if Toshinori ended up unofficially adopting a student or two throughout his years as a UA teacher and if they were subjected to Enji's rough edged style of fussy worrying and support then no one was saying a word. Because what kind of idiot messes with an omegas pups? Especially when said omega is the current No.1 Hero in Japan?

[dentistnewwestlong-blog]

Teeth Whitening in West Long Branch

Teeth Whitening in West Long Branch - Is it Right For You

Our goal is to provide the highest quality of dental care in a modern, clean, relaxed environment. From our front desk staff to our dental assistants, every member of the dentistry team is dedicated to ensuring the total comfort and satisfaction of each of our patients. We do our best to educate our patients about maintaining and caring for their teeth. We use the latest techniques and equipment to deliver pain-free dentistry in a secure, comfortable, efficient fashion.

Emergency Dentist West Long Branch

People with broken teeth or broken jaw due to an accident are attended to immediately by the emergency dentist. If you are not aware of any hospitals which have the dentist facility, then you need to browse the net to identify names and addresses of emergency dentists who stay close to your residence. Patients who suffer from knocked teeth need to see an emergency-dentist who would take care of the problem. The person should wash the knocked teeth and do not keep touching the tooth root. Immediately fix an appointment with the dentist.

We are proud to specialize in Cosmetic Dentistry.

Aphthous Ulcer treatment (canker sore)

Frenectomy (tongue-tie release) without anesthesia or sutures

Root canals and apicoectomies

Crown lengthening, gingivectomy, and other gum corrections

The emergency dentist would then look out for any fractures and then do the needful. For major repairs to the teeth, a permanent crown is the best option. If a tooth has become loose or has gone out of place from its usual alignment, then the problem can be fixed without any issues. An emergency dentist can also handle gum infections etc.

Kids additionally need for their teeth to be taken care of them. The moment youngsters create their teeth, moms and dads need to think about making their youngsters to youngsters' dental practitioners to analyze their teeth and likewise carry out appropriate care to them. Hence it is necessary to discover the proper Dentist New in West Long Branch to explore the requirements of your kids. But also for cases that you can not find the ideal professional for your children, after that, there are also other sorts of dentists that you can seek advice from to look after the demands of your youngsters.

Advantages of Picking A Dentist

What makes this sure dentist the next best candidate who can take a look of the oral health and wellness of your kids is that they supply a broad array of services to individuals with varying age. Therefore, they can offer assistance to young to senior citizen individuals when it involves their dental demands. Because this dentist has an excellent experience taking care of different people, they can adapt to the personalities of their individuals as well as additionally be able to offer the appropriate dental like their clients.

These dentists can merely resolve the needs of their young individuals similar to what the majority of youngster dental experts do. They also carry out basic tasks like fluoride therapies, teeth cleaning up and even extraction as well as other procedures which are done by professionals who concentrate on child dentistry.

Teeth Whitening has been readily available for some years, but recently it has jumped to the top of the cosmetic treatments list. An increasing number of patients are asking their dentists regarding teeth whitening, and many are asking if there are side effects or if it can reason damage to teeth. On the other hand, a research study shows that there is an increase of over 300% in demand for contemporary whitening techniques, so it is somewhat feasible some people jump right in without asking any inquiries in all. Well below are the response to several of the investigations are invited and some basic realities that anybody that is thinking about Teeth Whitening in West Long Branch must recognize.

Teeth Whitening West Long Branch

Teeth Whitening - does it work?

Dental practitioners would certainly never suggest a treatment unless they were persuaded that it was secure as well as reliable. Professional teeth whitening, carried out by a dentist, absolutely falls into this category as well as there can be little doubt that it does the job. What's, even more, the outcomes can be a complete makeover as the appeal of the treatment most likely to show. If your dentist executes the teeth whitening procedure, you can have a smile to be proud of in merely a few hrs.

If you are just one of the many individuals who hide their smile since you repent of your incomplete teeth, you are not alone. One of the benefits of cosmetic dentistry is that there have been numerous technical developments that have made a stunning smile more sensible as well as budget-friendly for typical Americans. Which means, you no more have to repent of your smile, however, instead can be pleased with your beautiful teeth.

Having a beautiful smile can provide you the confidence to fulfill new individuals, get a job, obtain a raising, speak with an unfamiliar person, start a company, try for a group, etc. Confidence can benefit you in many methods, as well as it is outstanding how much your physical look can assist increase your degrees of self-confidence. If you deal with low confidence, or if you stress what individuals consider you due to your teeth, one substantial benefit of Cosmetic Dentistry in West Long Branch is the capability to have a confident, attractive smile that will get you places.

At one time, if a person shed a tooth because of trauma, old age, or any other reason, that space in the mouth was either left empty, or a denture or false tooth was put in its place. Times have transformed. Dental implants entail setting a metal pole at the jawline and placing a molded fabricated tooth or crown where the former tooth was. Because the implant is fused with existing teeth, it should last a lifetime and maintain your gumline healthily and balanced.

Dental Implants in West Long Branch is a long-term solution to replace missing out on teeth and amongst one of the expensive cosmetic dentistry therapies. They are titanium synthetic tooth root substitutes that are placed right into the bone outlets of the missing teeth and are the great alternative to bridges and also detachable dentures. They are surgically implanted directly into the jawbone by a dental or maxillofacial cosmetic surgeon. If bone loss happened as a result of gum illness, the specialist would possibly need to graft a bone first to protect the dental implant.

The good news is you can always go to your Family Dentist in West Long Branch. Family dental experts are mainly well acquainted with you as well as your troubles. They recognize how to extract the correct info from you and given that they are aware of your case history and routines, they are best put to offer your needs.

With a family dentist around, you no longer require to be afraid. Family dental practitioners can provide you a one-of-a-kind dental experience that is anxiety free. Lots of clients even take into consideration checking out a family dentist relaxing. Family dental experts can make you feel comfortable. Additionally, with a family dentist, you can continuously be ensured of obtaining treated on time, whenever.

When you are stuck with an emergency circumstance, after that, you require to get in touch with an emergency dentist. Some situations wherein you would have to get in touch with an Emergency Dentist are an injury to teeth during your day-to-day chores and so on. The primary action is you need to go to your family physician that would certainly recommend that you see the dentist.

Family Dentist West Long Branch

A dentist would be able to address your trouble since his dental facility would be well geared up with the most up to date equipment and also devices. There are circumstances when your youngster experiences severe teeth discomfort as well as it is almost impossible for you to wait till the early morning. People who recognize that their Invisalign has gone from its common location or is stopping working from working properly need to go to the emergency-dentist. People typically go to an Emergency Dentist in West Long Branch when they suffer from agonizing discomfort as well as when the pain is excruciating as well as when therapy cannot be delayed.

Dental practitioners are a lot in demand that it is difficult to repair an appointment with them at once which is convenient for you. With a family dentist, this is not a problem. You continuously know when your family dentist is available. You can provide a telephone call as well as a drop in. You find out about their certifications, their experience - simply put, their credentials. You were most likely to them with self-confidence, considering that you know that they put your convenience first.

Advancing innovation has altered the very face of dentistry. You always have new strategies to offer you a healthier and also new lovely smile. More modern tools are being designed to make the most of performance as well as lessen pain. With all this technological advancement, dentistry is still all about human communication and also touch. With a family dentist, you can feel genuine empathy and empathy in your sees. An additional feature of Best Dentist in West Long Branch is the truth that you are always sure about them.

Visit The Website for getting more information related to Teeth Whitening in West Long Branch.

[davidanderson7162]

Popularity of Pet Dog Resting Solutions

With every passing day, pet resting is becoming significantly preferred. Taking into consideration the demand and also need in the sector, an increasing number of sitters are coming near provide the needed services. This occupation is just indicated for those that are true pet fans. You should have the ability to comprehend an animal as well as its regular behaviors and also the style of consuming to join this career.Last Minute Dog Sitter Near Me

As an owner, you would be able to appreciate from the following time you intend a holiday. You would certainly not have to fret about your pet alone in the house due to the fact that someone really caring and professional would certainly be making sure. The animal caretakers obtain complete fulfillment from their work. They are committed in whatever they do. Prior to you work with a caretaker to get family pet sitting services, you should specify regarding his work. You ought to instruct him on the different requirements as well as requirements of the family pet. As soon as, you are entirely certain that he recognized all the direction then just must you turn over the fees. A caretaker will ease your worries mainly Professional Dog Sitting Services.

It does not matter, which type of pet dog you have a specialist would be able to manage when he has all the instructions. To make points much easier, present the sitter a couple of days earlier to your pet prior to you leave. Pet resting solutions are given by various companies. You can choose that solution, which has a great reputation. Ask your friends and family if they can advise any individual suitable. Check the contract of the canine sitting solutions to ensure that you recognize all the specifications of the caretaker.

Once again, if it is tough for you to handle job and care for your pet dog after that you can work with the canine strolling services for your pet. Walking your canine is not only vital but additionally beneficial. This everyday workout will certainly maintain your pet healthy and fit. If you get your pet dog for walking after that you can work with solutions provided by the canine strolling companies. Via the aid of this service, you can make sure that your family pet obtains the needed workout Professional Dog Sitting Services.

If you want to make your life less complex and also problem totally free after that you can choose the day-to-day canine walking solutions. This service will certainly ensure that you are devoid of all fears and also troubles daily. These firms have experienced as well as specialist individuals functioning who will take your family pet on a regular basis for strolls whether you are away on vacation or for job Florence KY

. Dog Sitting Angels

Angels constantly pertain to the rescue when you are in a limited circumstance. Los Angeles currently has angels that concentrate on canine sitting services. Dog caretakers will child sit your canines whilst you focus your time on various other tasks. If you were thinking about leaving your dog when you vanish on your trip, yet were not exactly sure regarding the concept, you can go on and also appreciate your holiday. Leave the pet dog with your dog sitter. The pet caretaker will certainly care for your pet such that the pet dog could not also notice your lack.

The business that are dedicated to caring for your pets are spread out around Los Angeles. It is impossible not to locate the services of a pet sitter. If you are not sure where you can locate them, the internet will certainly be the best place to browse. You can also browse from the classifieds of the regional paper. You might be fortunate to find a long-term dog walker. This would be a wonderful benefit for your pet, which will certainly not have to maintain adjusting to suit the strangers that come to look after him Professional Dog Sitting Services

The pet dog pedestrian involves your home to take care of the dog. There is no requirement to take the pet to a family pet daycare as the day care will involve you. If you are not around, then your pet dog can remain at home rather than at the boarding kennels. The pet will not need to be worried by the separation from you and also in addition to from home. If need be, the dog sitter can remain at your house. Your pet dog will never ever be alone Florence KY

. Pet dog caretakers are angels at assisting to keep day-to-day routines. The canine will not need to constantly maintain altering his feeding times in addition to the time for his walk. A sitter will make sure that the canine is fed upon time and water is offered. The caretaker will certainly tidy up after your pet such that you will certainly not find any type of play around the house Professional Dog Sitting Services.

Dog caretakers can additionally serve as residence sitters. Whilst coming to see the pet dog, he can carry out other tasks that will certainly make you appear as if you go to house. This might include absorbing the mail and also newspapers. Sitters can come in the evening for their last see along with to switch on lights, close home windows and drapes. When they return the next early morning, they will switch off the lights and also open the home windows Florence KY

. Pet Strolling Services.

Regardless of whether as a household buddy, friend or as a way of safety several houses have a canine and also all owners must appreciate the relevance of taking care of their canine effectively. Our 'mans buddy' needs to not just be fed correctly but to maintain them healthy and fit normal, daily exercise is likewise required Florence KY

. Walking your canine is not only valuable as well as essential to him but is likewise great for the owner. Routine exercise will maintain you healthy and balanced and also fit and also strolling is additionally a wonderful method which to satisfy brand-new people, additionally out on walks with their pet dogs Professional Dog Sitting Services.

In modern times, a great deal of individuals find it tough to manage job commitments, socializing and also being able to stroll their pet on a routine, daily basis. To cater for such people, many canine strolling services have been established. These firms make use of knowledgeable pedestrians to walk your animal on a daily basis, whilst you are either at the workplace or away from house. This solution enables your canine to receive the day-to-day workout he so substantially requires Florence KY

. Before you utilize the services of a dog walking firm make certain the trainer is capable of regulating your animal, particularly if it is of a huge breed. When possible organize a conference between yourselves, your pet dog and also the walker assigned to you. This is necessary to see if they actually proceed with each other as well as offers you the opportunity to clarify exactly what you want from their service Florence KY

. Pet Resting - What You Need To Know

Family pet possession is growing at a really fast price in the United States. Couples are having fewer youngsters and obtaining pet dogs as well as treating them like their own kids. 63 percent of all households have pet dogs. The populace of family pets in the USA ... 73 million pets ... 90 million felines ... 16 million birds, fish, hamsters and also other pets integrated Florence KY

. Pet dog proprietors have always been faced with the issue of what to do with their pet dogs while they needed to be away. The selection was always going to the veterinarian or boarding in a kennel ... resorting to next-door neighbors, friends or family members. These options were not constantly great for all pet dogs. Pet dog sitting has actually given the sector a new alternative Professional Dog Sitting Services.

Today pet resting experts can take care of your family pet in your house, while you are away. This has actually taken the anxiety of leaving your pet behind ... and why dog resting has turned into one of the fastest growing markets. Canine sitting is the answer for numerous animal proprietors. Your canine can remain at home in his own environment ... maintain current diet ... as well as proceed regular workout program. Owners do not need to go through the injury of delivering their loved ones to dissatisfied places and fear of ailments from other animals Florence KY

. An experienced dog sitter will have the ability to find emergency situations and also prospective clinical issues. Dog sitting care companies permit owners to leave home understanding their family pets will get the love as well as treatment they are entitled to. There are fringe benefits for working with a dog caretaker ... someone is looking after your house ... accumulating your mail ... a family pet sitter will feed as well as play with your animals ... water your plants ... generate the paper ... take out the garbage ... and provide your house a lived-in appearance by turning lights on and also off.

Do your research and ensure you get the best professional for your task. You are asking an individual to take responsibility for a number of your most precious prizes Cincinnati.

To discover a caretaker, ask your vet, favorite pet dog store or pet-owning pals for a reference. If you can not obtain a referral, check the locator lines of significant expert family pet resting organizations Cincinnati.

Just how to Select a Pet Dog Sitting Solution

If you ever find yourself seeking a pet caretaker due to the fact that you need to go out of community or have actually a trip prepared, you desire just the very best look after your pet and you want a dependable sitter that will certainly treat your family pet as carefully as you do. You already have thoughts of sadness since you have to leave, therefore, you want to have a person that will certainly look after your animal the same way that you do. There are pet resting solutions that deal with your family pet equally as you would and make sure they remain secure Professional Dog Sitting Services.

Trust fund is necessary

You want a solution that will not just take exceptional care of your canine, however likewise one you can trust with your possessions also. As a result of this, you are going to intend to carry out a meeting and also identify if the solution is ideal for you as well as if they have truthful employees. There are some vital concerns to ask when talking to a possible pet dog sitting solution Cincinnati.

Since accidents or unfavorable things can take place, you require to figure out if they have a specific vet service that they utilize as well as if they are always on call. You ought to likewise offer the service you choose with your vets name and also any papers you have concerning your canines wellness. This is vital in instance of an emergency. They must also know that they could contact your personal vet also Cincinnati.

You additionally need to know how they deal with securing your house and your canine to prevent any crashes or possible break ins. To put it simply, just how do they see to it your residence is secure as what you have it when they get here and leave? They should not just be interested in your pet dog's safety and security yet additionally your residence given that they are getting in the house when you are gone. This is very important when considering a pet caretaker Professional Dog Sitting Services.

An additional thing to inquire about is their plans for a back up pet caretaker if the one that looks after your residence as well as dog is prevented from reaching your residence due to unanticipated scenarios such as weather or illness. You do not intend to come home to a residence that has crashes and feasible break ins due to the fact that no person shoed approximately take care of your canine. This might additionally impact your canine's wellness as well as not in a good way if they are ignored Cincinnati.

Dog Strolling and also Pet Dog Resting Services for Holidays

Holidays are simply nearby, are you traveling or staying home? Are you checking out household or organizing a holiday feast as well as heading out of your mind (or not, if you enjoy to amuse as well as are better coordinator than me)? And also the most vital concern of all, just how is your animal looked after throughout all that?

From Wikipedia: "A pet dog is a pet kept for friendship and pleasure or a household pet. The most prominent family pets are kept in mind for their dedicated or playful characteristics, for their eye-catching appearance, or for their track. Pet dogs additionally normally seem to give their proprietors with non-trivial wellness advantages; maintaining pet dogs has actually been revealed to help ease anxiety to those who such as having pets around. Walking a pet dog can offer both the proprietor and also the canine with exercise, fresh air, as well as social communication."

That insert was from Wikipedia but for the proud animal owners like us word pet dog indicates love and family, we simple adore those little (or huge in many cases) animals that stay in our homes as well as our hearts and also taking excellent treatment of them is not an alternative, it is a crucial. Which brings us back to the topic, what to do with your pet or pet cat, or any type of other animal in your house, throughout the vacations?

If you are taking a trip, there are just 2 available options, take your animal with you or leave it behind. The very best one is to take it with you certainly, so you do not need to fret of your animal staying behind (only concerning your pet eating person hosting's favored footwear, however that is totally different subject). If that is not an option in your situation that indicates your "kid" is remaining and also you much better consider great as well as acceptable service quickly Cincinnati. There are pet facilities to deal with your dogs for a lengthy period of time offered, you are usually required to come there beforehand and see how your dog/cat will certainly carry out in new atmosphere and engage with various other animals around. Absolutely nothing incorrect with these, they are terrific, I feel in one's bones that after among my dog's remain in such center we wound up with flees on our canine as well as in our house that took loooong time to obtain rid off. Because than, we prefer to have someone take care of our pet either at our or their house. If you never used that person prior to please request references as well as call these people. That is really important, you intend to ensure that your family pet will certainly be properly taken care of Cincinnati. You can also consult your neighbors, if any person would love to "check" having and also dealing with the pet while you are gone would certainly be fantastic, that choice is most likely more affordable and you currently understand you can rely on these individuals to do an excellent task Professional Dog Sitting Services.

[kuriquinn]

Metamorphosis

Summary:  It’s been four years since Sarada quietly, haltingly confessed to Sasuke and Sakura over dinner that she – he – was not a girl. [Day 13 – Prompt: “It’s A Boy” ]

Disclaimer: This story utilises characters, situations and premises that are copyright Masashi Kishimoto, Shueisha, Shonen Jump and Viz media. No infringement on their respective copyrights pertaining to episodes, novelisations, comics or short stories is intended by KuriQuinn in any way, shape or form. This fan-oriented story is written solely for the author's own amusement and the entertainment of the readers. It is not for profit. Any resemblance to real organizations, institutions, products or persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

All plot and Original Characters except for those introduced in the canon books, manga, video games, novelizations and anime, are the sole creation of KuriQuinn. (© KuriQuinn 2016- )

Rating: T

General Warnings: I can’t believe I need to have a warning for this, but we live in a time where people can be horrid little monsters. There are LGBTQ themes in this story. There is a transgender character, and the story deals with some of concerns and difficulties that families, especially parents, of a transgender child deal with. If you are uncomfortable with this subject matter in anyway, you are welcome to click the “back” button and wait around for my next prompt. Nasty comments about my choice in subject matter will be ignored, and possibly mocked.

Trigger Warning: For those of you who actually are LGBTQ, this story may bring up some strong emotions. The person who proofread this for me had some difficulty reading this chapter as it hit on some of his own experiences and challenges coming out as transgender. He made sure I knew how important it was to tag this appropriately. Though he said this story was well-written, as someone who had dealt with the scenario personally, he didn’t like it. So if you have experienced something in your life where you are caused distress by reading about parents trying to come to terms with their transgender child do not read this story. I don’t want to cause mental anguish or reopen wounds that some of you might not have had a chance to heal yet.

Author’s Note: The minute I saw this prompt I knew this was the story I was going to write. There aren’t enough fics out there dealing with transgender kids coming out, and even fewer about what the parents (even the most supportive ones) go through behind closed doors. I’ve done my best to be delicate with the subject without sacrificing any of my usual style choices. Obviously, not every experience is the same from individual to individual, but I made every effort. And just to head off any comments about my own personal stand on the matter: I support transgender individuals and their rights. I believe that it is your mind and your soul that determines who you are, not your genitals. And while I am not perfect, and I still occasionally slip up with pronouns and accidentally say things which show my privilege as a cisgender woman, I stand by the transgender community. Especially in this time, when hatred and outrage are directed at across the entire world. The views expressed in this story are not all necessarily mine – in fact, there are several ideas that were difficult for me to put to paper, because I very much don’t agree with them. But based on my research, for good or ill, they are sentiments that have been expressed by parents when a child comes out. I only hope I have managed to treat the subject matter with respect and possibly given you, my readers, something to think on. I’m hoping to showcase that even the people we care deeply for (whether real or imaginary) can do some things we don’t necessarily like or agree with. Doing the right thing is not always as easy, and some people find it harder than others, but in the end it is worth it. No one should weight their personal discomforts or prejudices against another person’s happiness and right to thrive.

Beta Reader: Sakura’s Unicorn

Sasuke stares up at the large, draping banner in his living room which proclaims, ‘Happy Birthday!’. Bunches of blue helium balloons meander along the ceiling, nearly obscuring the clock that ticks closer and closer to the inevitable. He has to consciously rein in the desire to set it all on fire.

He hates parties. Always has, always will. Even knowing that this is for his kid isn’t much of an incentive to relax; he finds that hard to do even under normal circumstances. Naruto would say that that’s because he’s got a pole shoved up his ass, but then, Naruto’s judgement is questionable. It’s been questionable since childhood, the JSDF, their tour of duty in Iraq, and then their stint on the Okayama Bomb Squad seven years ago which resulted in both of them losing an arm.

Then again, his questionable judgement is also the reason Sasuke is even alive to have a kid— whom he’s throwing a ridiculous, superhero-themed birthday party for—in the first place, so he gets a pass.

This time.

The entire foyer is decorated with streamers and decals of the latest comic craze to hit television. Little cape-clad figures proudly proclaiming, “It’s a Boy!” are interspersed along the wall. Honestly, it’s utterly kitschy and targeted for a much younger demographic than an eleven-year-old, but then, today isn’t an ordinary birthday.

It’s been four years since Sarada quietly, haltingly confessed to Sasuke and Sakura over dinner that she—he—was not a girl. It was an announcement that, Sasuke maintains, caused him considerable confusion and, if he’s not lying, a little resentment.

He comes from a traditional background. His ancestors were samurai of note and, in their small community of Konoha, the Uchiha name means a lot—an old, founding family with traditions and taboos and expectations. These “LGBTQ issues” that his wife and child keep talking about falls very naturally under the umbrella of what Sasuke was brought up to categorise as “don’t ask, don’t tell.”

It’s an unspoken rule that men and women among the Uchiha may take lovers of the same sex if they wish as long as they fulfil their duties to the clan: namely, get married and produce children. Hell, his own brother’s been in a twenty-year relationship with a male masseuse, but Itachi still had the prudence to get married and produce two kids first.

The point is, it’s not talked about.

It is how everything has always been done. And in just the same way, among his family, members of the Uchiha play the role they are assigned by birth. A man has his place, as does a woman. The idea of operating outside of those very separate spheres, let alone the idea of a man being born into the body of a woman, is nonsensical to him.

To say Sasuke had instant reservations would be putting it lightly.

If he were a man of a different temperament—a man like his father—his first instinct would be to point out the impossibility of the situation, and if that failed, attempt to find some counsel to get his child over it. A very, very small part of him continues to be tempted to do just that.

The other part—the one who has travelled the world and been exposed to many different lifestyles, the one who has struggled with his own demons (both addiction and the trauma of active combat), the one who married one of the most open-minded women in existence—that part tells him to keep his fucking mouth shut and go along with it for the sake of his family.

If it weren’t for Sakura, he doesn’t think he could manage it.

His wife reacted to the announcement with the same sympathy and openness he’s seen her display at every major milestone—like the time Sarada shamefacedly admitted to needing glasses, or when their Uchiha cousins throw around insults about “commoner blood.” In every case, Sakura is always the calm and comforting one, the one ending her assurances with, “We love you, no matter what.”

In her usual whirlwind manner, after hearing Sarada’s announcement, she made it her personal mission to ensure their child’s needs were met completely. Because of the nature of her job, she was already very knowledgeable about it all, to the point of being matter-of-fact.

“The important thing here is to show that we support him from the beginning, no matter what,” she insisted.

Suddenly, the house was filled with every book written on the subject, and every other day, she was on the phone with some expert or other. For four years, she organised psychological and psychiatric consultations, fought for an official diagnosis of gender identity disorder, had them attend individual and family counselling sessions as well as meetings with a sexologist, and schooled Sasuke in the usage of proper pronouns.

And woe betide anyone—friends or even family members—who questioned her decision to support Sarada. There’s a reason that Sasuke’s family, with the exception of Itachi, will be conspicuously absent from today’s festivities.

It’s another one of Sakura’s ideas, a formal show of support, as Sarada has decided the time is right to live as a boy from now on.

They’ve told a select few people, with Sarada’s permission, over the years—the respective grandparents, Naruto and Kakashi and their families, Sarada’s teachers and best friend ChōChō—but today is the official “coming out.” Sakura was seconds from taking out an ad in the damned newspaper before Sasuke and Sarada stopped her.

He wonders if there’s such a thing as being too supportive.

“How are you doing with all this?”

Sasuke glances to one side, notices Kakashi eyeing him knowingly. His former bomb squad captain and mentor is always observant. Today is one of those days Sasuke wishes he wasn’t.

“Fine,” he replies neutrally, taking a sip of tea. He isn’t actually thirsty, but he just needs something to occupy his hand and mouth.

“And Sarada?”

“Fine.”

Kakashi sighs in annoyance. “Is there any point in asking how Sakura’s doing?”

They both glance through the door to the kitchen, where Sasuke’s wife is fighting with Ino about pretzel-to-chip ratios (“Don’t you dare fuck up my child’s birthday party, Pig!” “You’re the one who can’t manage proper place settings for shit, Forehead!”).

“She’s in her element,” he replies simply.

“Man, I’ve got so much respect for you guys,” Naruto says with a low whistle, and then takes a chug of his beer. “I don’t even know what I’d do if it were my kid.”

Sasuke rolls his eyes. “You’d be doing the same thing I’m doing, moron. Only with more panicking and oversharing.”

“Very funny,” Naruto replies with a scowl, but then his face relaxes into earnestness. “I’m not so sure. I mean, yeah, in theory, I’d like to say I would, but in reality… It’s just weird. I mean, one day, you have Sarada and the next day…well, the next day, you have him.”

“It’s a little more complicated than that,” Sasuke replies shortly.

Any further rumination on the topic is cut off when the doorbell rings.

“I’ve got it!” Sakura sings, flying from the kitchen to greet their first guests.

“Shouldn’t Sarada get the door?” he inquires. “It’s his party, after all.”

“He’s busy. ChōChō said something about a surprise,” his wife answers, hauling open the door and exclaiming her delight at the first guests.

Sasuke sighs, squares his shoulders, and prepares for the longest afternoon of his life.

うちは

The atmosphere at the beginning of the party is pleasant, but there is a definite undercurrent of curiosity and uncertainty beneath the requisite excitement.

When Hinata arrives with Boruto and Himawari, the latter chirps a sunny hello to Sasuke and bounds upstairs to find Sarada. As in all things, Naruto’s youngest is utterly unaffected by the whole matter. To her, life is simple: yesterday, it was sunny; today, it’s overcast.

Sarada was a girl, now he’s a boy.

In contrast, Boruto skulks in, glowers at everyone, and sits in the farthest corner with his handheld gaming device. Naruto scowls at him, and when Sasuke raises an eyebrow, he shrugs, and confides in a low voice, “He’s having some trouble adjusting. Sarada’s his best friend. Even knowing this was coming…I don’t think he actually thought it would.”

Neither of them mention the fact that Naruto’s son has always had a crush on Sarada, and that this complication might be a major part of his resentment.

Besides, Sasuke has more to concern himself with, not the least of which is the minor heart-attack he has when his daugh—his son—makes a grand entrance about half an hour later, ChōChō and Himawari beaming smugly on either side.

Sarada has shorn off his long hair and bangs, leaving nothing but spiky black bristles. The horn-rimmed glasses he’s sported since childhood have been replaced with a thick, squared rim. And even though Sasuke hasn’t seen Sarada in anything resembling a dress since the age of three, the sight of loose-fitting khaki shorts and a dark blue polo are a bit jarring.

It’s like looking at himself when he was eleven.

“Oh, darling!” Sakura swoops in, tackle-hugging Sarada from behind and pressing a kiss against his temple.

“Mom, you’re choking me!” their beleaguered offspring complains, but Sasuke can tell it’s just an act. Sarada is pleased by the contact.

“Doesn’t he look great?” Sakura exclaims as they watch Sarada head over to a group of friends and cheer about the pile of waiting presents.

“Sh—He cut his hair,” Sasuke points out through gritted teeth. “Why does he need to cut his hair?”

“It’s his way of asserting his masculinity.”

“There’s nothing masculine or feminine about hair,” he protests. “None of the men in my family have cut their hair, unless they were in the service. Itachi’s is practically down to his ass, and he’s got flee-on-sight warrants in three different jurisdictions.”

Sakura’s face is set in that particular way—the “if you don’t shut up I will grab you by the short-and-curlies and twist” look he only sees when he’s doing something socially unacceptable.  

In a quieter voice, Sasuke adds, “Isn’t this the sort of thing that requires parental consent?”

“It is, and we’ll discuss it with him later, after his friends have gone home,” his wife says crisply, returning to the kitchen before Ino sets it on fire.

Naruto gives him a knowing look and Sasuke snaps, “What?”

“Nothing. I just find it interesting that you’re getting upset about ancient Uchiha hair traditions. Are you sure there isn’t anything you want to talk about?”

“You’re the one who feels the need to emote everywhere. Go do that somewhere else.”

His best friend sighs and meanders away, knowing better than to push. Kakashi exhales a weary laugh and says, “For what it’s worth, I think he improved on your look. Your hair always reminded me of the back-end of a duck.”

Which Sasuke doesn’t even dignify with an answer. Instead, he wanders over to the dining room table, which has been lovingly decorated with every type of junk-food offering and warehouse-sized plate of fruit imaginable, and resentfully begins picking through it.

Across the room, Sarada is having a blast.

He takes great glee in opening presents, laughing uproariously over stereotypically boy gifts. Occasionally, he shoots a glance up at his father, showing off a video game or football gear, and rolling his eyes which makes Sasuke’s heart lift a little. Just because he’s a boy doesn’t mean Sarada fits a particular mould—it’s a relief to know he’ll still probably want Sasuke to show him proper kendo form, instead of attending some brutish sports rally.

Throughout the party, Sarada’s friends are curious but open, most of them already knowing the specifics, while some still ask questions. When anything gets too close to inappropriate – such as whether Sarada intends to get surgery—Sakura is there to swoop in with small, yet pointed reminders.

“That’s a rather personal question, Yodo. If he wanted you to know that, he would tell you.”

In his corner, Boruto pretends not to listen in, but the scowl on his face isn’t as pronounced. The parents are more quiet in their curiosity; these are all old family friends, and more than one of them owes Sakura in some way. No one will say anything unkind here, and once Itachi shows up with Shisui in tow, no one will dare think it, either.

But it still makes Sasuke nervous, having to stand there and answer questions or hear comments about matters that he doesn’t truly understand himself. If his wife wasn’t so busy playing the hostess, she could be making infantile conversation, instead of him.

Somehow, the time does pass, and they eventually get to the point in festivities when Sakura and her mother carry in a huge chocolate cake, and the din becomes overwhelming. It’s amusing how a bunch of kids who insist they be treated like adults turn feral when sweets are introduced into the equation.

Sarada waits until everyone has finished a horrifying rendition of the birthday song to stand up and call for silence.

“I just wanted to say thank you to all of you for coming by today,” he says. “And for all the cool gifts. And I really want to thank my Mom and Dad for doing this because it’s been awesome.” He beams at them, and Sasuke feels Sakura appear beside him, leaning into his side. “I also wanted to share something with you guys because it is my birthday. It’s a pretty huge deal for me, and you all mean a lot to me, so I wanted you to be the first to know.”

He shifts nervously.

“So…when I was little, I asked my Mom why they called me Sarada. It’s kind of a weird name.”

“Yeah, they basically called you salad,” Boruto grumbles.

“Fuck you, Bolt.”

“Language!” Sakura snaps, her voice like a whip-crack. Every kid in the vicinity, and some parents, wince.

“Sorry, Mom,” Sarada says, ducking his head penitently before continuing on. “Anyway, Mom told me how she and Dad came up with the name. It’s made up of parts of their names, and my Uncle Itachi’s—who, if you guys don’t know, is brilliant and could probably make James Bond cry like a girl.”

Over in the corner, stuffing his face with dango, Itachi waves a stick in acknowledgement of the compliment.

“And the thing is… even though it’s a cool name, and I’m honoured to be named after these three people, it never really felt like my name. I knew I was going to have to leave it behind someday,” he continues solemnly. “It’s been a hard decision. I never really brought it up with my parents because, well, they’ve been so focussed on helping me through all of the other stuff. It never seemed like the right time. Besides, it’s been hard finding something that fit. And I didn’t want to completely forget what went in to naming me the first time, so I decided on something that still keeps alive the spirit of what my parents thought of.” He takes a deep breath. “From now on, I would prefer if you all called me Sachiro.”

It’s the first time either Sasuke or Sakura have heard the new name, even if it has been discussed.

The cheers and clapping from the guests wash over Sasuke, who flashes back to that day eleven years ago, when he and Sakura were debating names. They hadn’t been able to agree on anything in the months leading up to the birth, and now it mattered, and neither of them could think of something fitting.

He recalls how she looked, flushed and exhausted from giving birth, but so obviously happy. Her tentative suggestion of naming the baby after them both, and Itachi, who was the only reason the Uchiha family had accepted Sakura as Sasuke’s wife. How, at that moment, he couldn’t think of anything that was more appropriate.  

The music and chatter seems to start up again tenfold, and Sasuke finds himself staring down into eyes that are the exact colour as his own.

“That’s okay, right, Dad?” his child asks quietly, and a little uncertain. “It’s a good name?”

Sasuke’s chest constricts a little, and he nods slowly. “Aa.”

Sara –Sachiro beams up at him. It’s the same brilliant, joyful smile of Sakura’s that Sasuke fell in love with, the same smile he’s seen when he read stories, visited the park, taught her—taught him—to swim and climb trees. Toothless, or beneath a scratched nose, or covered in mud.

A smile, he realises, that’s grown rarer over the years.

Sarada was always a little sullen, a little quiet and reserved. Sasuke always thought that sh—he—was just similar to the way Sasuke was as a kid. But right now, the way this boy beams and laughs and just exudes joy, Sasuke sees more of Sakura for the first time in almost a decade. There’s a joie de vivre there, a confidence and sense of self Sasuke has barely felt.

And the idea that he could be responsible for that smile or certainty disappearing, that’s the thing that convinces him, finally, that all of this is right. Whatever he personally feels, it’s no longer about just going along with it and humouring the situation as if it’s something that’s been done to him. It’s about his child’s happiness and frame of mind.

The realisation isn’t a happy one, per se, but it’s solid enough that Sasuke thinks he will make peace with it, eventually.

“Mom?” Sar—Sachiro is asking, bringing Sasuke back to the moment. “What do you think? It’s still got yours and Dad’s and Uncle Itachi’s name in it. I mean, the ending is a little different, but I thought—”

“It’s beautiful, sweetheart,” Sakura says, reaching out and brushing a hand over newly-shorn hair. There’s a warble of emotion in her voice as she says it, but when Sasuke glances down at her to check, she’s already pulled away. “I’m going to get plates for the cake, all right?”

Sachiro nods, grins one last time at them, and hurries back to his friends.

Sakura crosses the room, and Sasuke is concerned to notice a stiffness in her back that wasn’t there before. She makes a beeline for the kitchen, pausing only when intercepted by Tsunade, who she greets with a wide—and false—smile and accepts a nondescript plastic bag. As she continues to the kitchen, Sasuke sees her fist clenched around the handle, knuckles white and shaking.

He isn’t the only one to notice, either. Naruto watches Sakura disappear into the kitchen and shoots a questioning glance at Sasuke. They’ve all known each other since they were toddlers which means he knows as well as Sasuke when something is wrong. Without words, he communicates to his friend to keep an eye on things, and follows his wife.

うちは

He finds her standing over the sink, fingers clenching the metal, her shoulders shaking.

“Sakura?”

There’s a sharp inhale and she straightens up, throwing a glance over her shoulder. “Oh. Darling, you’re here. Did you need something?”

“What’s wrong?” he asks.

“Nothing! Nothing. I’m just…cutting more onions for the dip.”

It’s an utterly different story from before, made all the more unbelievable by the fact that there are no onions anywhere in the house.

“Sakura…”

“Tsunade stopped by from the hospital,” she goes on, making a vague gesture toward the kitchen table. The plastic bag Sasuke saw earlier has been casually tossed there. “She knew we were so busy with everything, so she filled the prescription for the… for the blockers.”

Sasuke tenses, staring at the package with renewed understanding. They’ve had discussions in the past weeks, as Sarada grew closer and closer to making the official, full-time transition. There were mentions of intervening before the onset of puberty, recommendations from the psychiatrist to get started now while they wait for official permission to start him on testosterone injections, but—

Looking at the nondescript plastic bag, Sasuke can’t help a resurgence of his apprehension.

He knows it’s only a temporary measure; in theory, it’s like a pause button, a chance for Sachiro to be absolutely sure before any actual commitments are made. There are still many more milestones in the future; this one isn’t even the most important. But it still unnerves him. Judging from Sakura’s shakiness, she’s affected too, even though she tries to chat like normal.

“We can give them to h-him tonight, or…or maybe giftwrap them and add it to the present pile? It would be a nice surprise, I think…don’t you think?”

She sounds like she really wants his opinion on this, and he opens his mouth to agree, to disagree, to do something, but it feels like his tongue is glued to the roof of his mouth. He’s only just had his personal revelation on the subject. Before this, he’s kept himself out of any major decisions, and she’s aware of this. Why the hell does she want him involved in this one? She’s the one who’s been so keen on pursuing all of this, why—

There’s a sudden choking sob.

Before he can really parse what he’s seeing, Sakura’s face seems to crumple, her bright eyes and trembling smile imploding into a look of horror.

“What are we doing?” she whispers, and shaking fingertips go to her lips. “Oh, Sasuke, what are we doing? What if this is wrong? What if…” She emits a staggered sob. “People understand here, but what if she…what if he wants to go somewhere else. For college. For work. People can hurt him—you’ve read the stories in the paper. What if that happens to our…”

She trails off in a moan, and tears are now leaking from the corners of her eyes, her voice getting higher and more panicked in pitch.

“We’re rushing this—I feel like we’re rushing this—”

“Sakura…” he begins, reaching for her, but she evades his touch, pacing now.

“Sh-she said she needed this, and everything she asked for, everything she asked us to do, I did, but maybe we should have talked more first—four years isn’t that long, maybe…maybe it’s a mistake, maybe we’re not doing the right thing—”

“Sakura—”

“Why couldn’t she just be gay?” she whispers suddenly, rounding on him with wild eyes. In her panic, she is no longer able to use the correct pronouns. “This would…this would just be so much easier if she just liked girls, because then she…then we wouldn’t…”

“Didn’t you tell me it isn’t the same thing?” he asks, tentative and uncertain.

“I know it’s not!” she snaps, and then presses her fist against her mouth, stifling the uncontrollable sobs that now rack her body. “Did I do something wrong?”

“You did not do anything wrong,” he informs her, taking her by the shoulder now and squeezing in reassurance.

But his wife doesn’t seem to notice. Instead, she looks off into the distance.

“And the name,” she continues in a whisper. “I knew there would be a point when we…but…but Sarada was our miracle. She was our little g-girl and I’ll never get to say her n-name anymore. And she...didn’t even ask and I…I mean, is it…is it wrong that I should want a say in m-my own child’s name?”

Sasuke exhales, drawing Sakura into his arms and holding her close. “No.”

“I h-had a daughter, Sasuke,” she sobs into his shoulder. “I g-gave birth to a girl, and she was beautiful and w-wonderful and…and do you remember that first year? With the ladybug dress, and the s-strappy shoes?”

“I do.”

“And the way she would pretend her mattress was a magic carpet and ride it down the stairs, and I…I know we said we did this for her—him. We’re doing this for him, so he can be healthier and happier. And I’m trying my hardest to let h-him be who he is, but why…why does it feel like I’m killing her?”

The question is so raw, so wracked with pain, that for a split second, Sasuke wants to call everything off. His wife is hurting, and the event going on in the other room is causing it, and since he was seventeen years old, his life has revolved around ensuring the Sakura does not hurt.

But since he was twenty-two, his life has also revolved around ensuring his child does not hurt either.

He knows that if he walks in there now, telling everyone to return home—or even just calls Sa – Sachiro in and points out that his mother, the one who has been a pillar of support since the beginning, is having second thoughts, it will break him.

And his…his son is the kind of person who will accept a lifetime of misery if he thinks it will save someone he cares about a little pain. If it’s someone Sachiro loves with the same fierce devotion as he does Sakura, he’ll quietly go back into the closet and never say another word about it until his dying day.

And from the articles that Sasuke has read over his wife’s shoulder, that’s something that could come much sooner than later.

The idea is chilling.

Which is why it only takes another split second for Sasuke to pull out his phone and send a text to Kakashi and Naruto, both of whom are as protective of his child as he is and order them to keep everything running smoothly. Then he leads a still-shaking Sakura up the stairs to their room.

Shutting the door, he steers her to their bed and sits her down, then silently takes the place beside her. For a long while, he simply allows her to cry, holding her until she gets past the wordless, grief-filled sobs.

When he senses her coming back to herself, he takes up the conversation as if there was no break.

“You are not killing anyone,” he tells her quietly but firmly.

“But she’s still going to be gone,” Sakura says dully. “It’s almost worse.”

“You don’t mean that.”

She swallows. “No. I don’t. But I… Sometimes, I still feel like our daughter is…dead. And we’re supposed to replace her with this…this stranger.”

It is the first time Sasuke has heard his wife utter any of this, the first time he’s heard her insinuate that she is just as uncertain of this whole situation as he is, that she has doubts. And it’s the first time that he finds himself in the position where he has to be the one with the answers.

He has no idea what to do, but it’s clear silence is not the answer in this case.

Stick to the facts, he decides. He’s better at logic than emotion.

“That child downstairs is still our child,” he tells her firmly. “The child you carried inside you. Everything you love about that child is still there, whether we have a boy or a girl. And our son is happy which means we’re doing the right thing.”

Sakura sniffs. “You’re just saying that,” she mutters. “I know you haven’t been completely on board about this.”

“I haven’t,” he agrees. “I’m still not sure that I completely understand. But I do know that Sar—Sachiro is happy. And he’s safe. And protected. And accepted by his friends, our neighbours, and most of the town. And that’s because of you. He wouldn’t have even this much anywhere else. And if he were growing up the way I did, he wouldn’t have any of it. He would be miserable.”

“I know,” she whispers. “I know that, Sasuke. In my heart I know it, but every so often, right when I’m least expecting it, there’s just this moment. And I just feel it all—all over again. I can’t say anything, especially not to S-Sachiro. It would crush him. And if anyone else thought I wasn’t supporting him, maybe they’d stop supporting him, and—”

“Then you tell me,” Sasuke interrupts her.

She glances at him in surprise. “What?”

“You’re supposed to tell me these things,” he continues, dogged. “I can only guess you haven’t because you thought, if you wavered, I’d put a stop to this whole thing.”

“I-I didn’t mean to…”

“You might’ve been right,” he concedes. “But that was before. I’m also the only person in this whole situation who’s going through the same thing as you. From now on, you tell me when you’re feeling like this. It’s not healthy for you to keep it inside. Isn’t that what you say to me?”

“Sasuke…”

“Did you…want me to set up a meeting?” he suggests, tentatively because this next bit is definitely not his strong suit. “With the therapist?”

She sniffs, rubbing at her eyes. “Yeah. Yes. But I’ll make the appointment.”

“Do you want me to go with you?”

“You hate talking to therapists,” she points out.

“If you want me there, I’ll be there.”

“…I want you there.”

“Then that’s settled.”

They are silent for a while, just sitting quietly together, her ear pressed against his heart and his fingers stroking her hair in comfort. For just a few precious minutes, they can be two parents struggling with a change that has been a long time coming, but which neither has been truly prepared for.

Eventually, Sakura breaks the silence. “We should go back downstairs before we’re missed.”

“Hm.”

“If Sar—Sachiro comes looking for us, we’ll have some explaining to do.”

“You could take your top off. That would forestall any questions.”

“Sasuke!”

She smacks him a little more than lightly on the shoulder, but there’s a hint of her smile from earlier back on her face. He considers it a win.

“Do you think this will all turn out all right?” she asks, tentative. “He’ll be okay?”

“I don’t know. But I believe his chances are better if he’s secure in the knowledge that he has our support.”

“Yeah…” Sakura inhales a deep, shaky breath and squares her shoulders. “All right. Let’s go back down,” she says with only a little less of her usual certainty. She catches sight of herself in the bedroom mirror and frowns. “Everyone will know I was crying. I look horrible.”

“Don’t fish for compliments,” he tells her because they both know that he always finds her beautiful. He takes her by the hand and leads her from the room.  “Besides, we can always say you were cutting onions.”

終わり

Apologies if I got anything horribly wrong, this was a difficult piece to write and I did my best to do so with the proper respect. 

Comments and constructive criticism are always welcome, but if you feel like keeping me caffeinated out of the goodness of your heart, it certainly would be appreciated! I’m also starting to post original works to my patreon.

I’m only able to keep writing as I do thanks to the support of readers like you, so every bit helps!

栗

[sasusakufestival]

Metamorphosis

Summary:  It’s been four years since Sarada quietly, haltingly confessed to Sasuke and Sakura over dinner that she – he – was not a girl. [Day 13 – Prompt: “It’s A Boy” ]

Disclaimer: This story utilizes characters, situations and premises that are copyright Masashi Kishimoto, Shueisha, Shonen Jump and Viz Media. No infringement on their respective copyrights pertaining to episodes, novelizations, comics or short stories is intended by the author in any way, shape or form. This fan oriented story is written solely for the author’s own amusement and the entertainment of the readers. It is not for profit. Any resemblance to real organizations, institutions, products or persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental. All fiction, plot and Original Characters with the exception of those introduced in the books, manga, video games, novelizations and anime, are the sole creation of KuriQuinn and using them without permission is considered rude, in bad-taste and will reflect seriously on your credibility as a writer. Seriously, just don’t do it.

General Warnings: I can’t believe I need to have a warning for this, but we live in a time where people can be horrid little monsters. There are LGBTQ themes in this story. There is a transgender character, and the story deals with some of concerns and difficulties that families, especially parents, of a transgender child deal with. If you are uncomfortable with this subject matter in anyway, you are welcome to click the “back” button and wait around for my next prompt. Nasty comments about my choice in subject matter will be ignored, and possibly mocked.

Trigger Warning: For those of you who actually are LGBTQ, this story may bring up some strong emotions. My best friend/surrogate brother/braintwin had some difficulty reading this chapter for me and as it hit on some of his own experiences and challenges coming out as transgender. He made sure I knew how important it was to tag this appropriately. Though he said this story was well-written, as someone who had dealt with the scenario personally, he didn’t like it. So if you have experienced something in your life where you are caused distress by reading about parents trying to come to terms with their transgender child do not read this story. I don’t want to cause mental anguish or reopen wounds that some of you might not have had a chance to heal yet.

Author’s Note: The minute I saw this prompt I knew this was the story I was going to write. There aren’t enough fics out there dealing with transgender kids coming out, and even fewer about what the parents (even the most supportive ones) go through behind closed doors. I’ve done my best to be delicate with the subject without sacrificing any of my usual style choices. Obviously, not every experience is the same from individual to individual, but I made every effort. And just to head off any comments about my own personal stand on the matter: I support transgender individuals and their rights. I believe that it is your mind and your soul that determines who you are, not your genitals. And while I am not perfect, and I still occasionally slip up with pronouns and accidentally say things which show my privilege as a cisgender woman, I stand by the transgender community. Especially in this time, when hatred and outrage are directed at across the entire world. The views expressed in this story are not all necessarily mine – in fact, there are several ideas that were difficult for me to put to paper, because I very much don’t agree with them. But based on my research, for good or ill, they are sentiments that have been expressed by parents when a child comes out. I only hope I have managed to treat the subject matter with respect and possibly given you, my readers, something to think on. You may not like Sasuke in this story. You may not like Sakura. That’s okay. I’m hoping to showcase that even the people we care deeply for (whether real or imaginary) can do some things we don’t necessarily like or agree with. Doing the right thing is not always as easy, and some people find it harder than others, but in the end it is worth it. No one should weight their personal discomforts or prejudices against another person’s happiness and right to thrive.

 ______________________________________________

Sasuke stares up at the large, draping banner in his living room while bunches of blue helium balloons meander along the ceiling, nearly obscuring the clock that ticks closer and closer to the inevitable. He has to consciously rein in the desire to set it all on fire.

He hates parties. Always has, always will. Even knowing that this is for his kid isn’t much of an incentive to relax, because he finds that hard to do under normal circumstances.

Naruto would say that that’s because he’s got a pole shoved up his ass, but then, Naruto’s judgement is questionable. It’s been that way since childhood, JSDF, Iraq and then the stint in the Okayama bomb squad seven years ago which resulted in them both losing an arm.

Then again, his questionable judgement is also the reason Sasuke was even alive to having a kid and throw ridiculous, superhero themed birthday parties in the first place, so he gets a pass.

This time.

The entire foyer has been decorated with streamers and decals of the latest comic craze to hit television. Interspersed along the wall are little cape-clad figures proudly proclaiming, “It’s a Boy!”.

Honestly, it’s utterly kitschy and targeted for a much younger demographic than an eleven-year-old, but then, today isn’t an ordinary birthday.

It’s been four years since Sarada quietly, haltingly confessed to Sasuke and Sakura over dinner that she – he – was not a girl. It was an announcement which, Sasuke maintains, caused him considerable confusion and, if he’s not lying, a little resentment.

He comes from a traditional background. His ancestors were samurai of note, and the Uchiha name means a lot in their small community of Konoha. An old, founding family with traditions and taboos and expectations. The idea of these “LGBTQ issues” that his wife and child keep talking about falls very naturally under the umbrella of what Sasuke was brought up to categorise as “don’t ask, don’t tell”.

Men and women among the Uchiha may take lovers of the same sex if they wish, as long as they fulfil their duties to the clan: namely get married and produce children. Hell, his own brother has been in a twenty-year relationship with a male masseuse, but Itachi still had the wherewithal to get married and produce two kids first.

The point is, it’s not talked about.

It is how everything has always been done. And in just the same way, among his family, members of the Uchiha play the role they are assigned by birth. A man has his place, as does a woman. The idea of operating outside of those very separate spheres, let alone the idea of a man being born into the body of a woman, is nonsensical to him.

To say Sasuke had instant reservations would be putting it lightly.

If he were a man of a different temperament – a man like his father – his first instinct would be to point out to his child the impossibility of the situation, and if that failed, attempt to find some counsel to get over it. A very, very small part of him continues to be tempted to do just that. The other part – the one that has travelled the world and been exposed to many different lifestyles, the one who has struggled with his own demons, both addiction and the trauma of active combat, the one who married one of the most open-minded women in existence –

That part tells him to keep his fucking mouth shut and go along with it for the sake of his family.

If it weren’t for Sakura, he doesn’t think he could manage it.

His wife reacted to the announcement with the same sympathy and open-mindedness he’s seen her display at every major milestone, like the time Sarada shamefacedly admitted to perhaps needing glasses or when some of their Uchiha cousins throw around insults about “commoner blood”. In every case, Sakura is always the calm and comforting one, the one ending her assurances with, “We love you no matter what.”

In her usual whirlwind manner, after hearing Sarada’s announcement, she made it her personal mission to ensure their child’s needs were met completely. Because of the nature of her job, she was already very knowledgeable about it all, to the point of being matter-of-fact.

“No matter what, the important thing here is to show that we support him from the beginning,” she insisted.

Suddenly the house was filled with every book possibly written on the subject, and every other day she was on the phone with some expert or other. For four years, she organised psychological and psychiatric consultations, fought for an official diagnosis of gender identity disorder, had them attend individual and family counselling sessions, schooled Sasuke in using the proper pronouns, had them all meet with a sexologist –   

And woe betide anyone – friends or even family members – who questioned her decision to support Sarada. There’s a reason that Sasuke’s family, with the exception of Itachi, will be conspicuously absent from today’s festivities.

It’s another one of Sakura’s ideas, a formal show of support, as Sarada has decided the time is right to live as a boy from now on.

They have told a select few people, with Sarada’s permission, over the years – the respective grandparents, Naruto and Kakashi and their families, Sarada’s teachers and her best friend ChoCho – but today is the official “coming out”. Sakura was seconds from taking out an ad in the damned newspaper before Sasuke and Sarada stopped her.

He wonders if there’s such a thing as being too supportive.

“How are you doing with all this?”

Sasuke glances to one side, notices Kakashi eyeing him knowingly. His former bomb squad captain and mentor is always observant. Today is one of those days Sasuke wishes he wasn’t.

“Fine,” he replies neutrally, taking a sip of tea. He isn’t actually thirsty, but he just needs something to occupy his hand and mouth.

“And Sarada?”

“Fine.”

Kakashi sighs in annoyance. “Is there any point to asking how Sakura’s doing?”

They both glance through the door to the kitchen, where Sasuke’s wife is fighting with Ino about pretzel-to-chip ratios (“Don’t you dare fuck up my child’s birthday party, Pig!” “You’re the one who can’t manage proper place-settings for shit!).

“She’s in her element,” he replies simply.

“Man, I’ve got so much respect for you guys,” Naruto says with a low whistle, and then takes a chug of his own beer. “I don’t even know what I’d do if it were my kid.”

Sasuke rolls his eyes. “You’d be doing the same thing I’m doing, moron. Only more panicking and oversharing.”

“Very funny,” Naruto replies with a scowl, but then his face relaxes into earnestness. “I’m not so sure. I mean, yeah, in theory I’d like to say I would, but in reality… It’s just weird. I mean, one day, you have Sarada, and the next day…well, the next day you have him.”

“It’s a little more complicated than that,” Sasuke replies shortly.

Any further rumination on the topic is cut off when the doorbell rings.

“I’ve got it!” Sakura sings, flying from the kitchen to greet their first guests.

“Shouldn’t Sarada get the door?” he inquires. “It’s his party, after all.”

“He’s busy. ChoCho said something about a surprise,” his wife answers, hauling open the door and exclaiming her delight at the first guests.

Sasuke sighs, squares his shoulders, and prepares for the longest afternoon of his life.

うちは

The atmosphere in the beginning of the party is pleasant, but there is a definite undercurrent of curiosity and uncertainty beneath the requisite excitement.

When Hinata arrives with Boruto and Himawari, the latter chirps a sunny hello to Sasuke and bounds upstairs to find Sarada. As in all things, she is utterly unaffected by the whole mater. To her, life is simple: yesterday it was sunny, today it’s overcast.

Sarada was a girl, now he is a boy.

In contrast, Boruto skulks in, glowers at everyone, and goes to sit in the farthest corner with his handheld gaming device. Naruto scowls at him, and when Sasuke raised an eyebrow, he shrugs, and confides in a low voice, “He’s having some trouble adjusting. Sarada’s his best friend. Even knowing this was coming…I don’t think he actually thought it would.”

Neither of them mention the fact that Naruto’s son has always had a crush on Sarada, and that this complication might be a major part of his resentment.

Besides, Sasuke has more to concern himself with, not least of all the minor heart-attack he has when his d – his son – makes a grand entrance about half an hour later, with ChoCho and Himawari beaming smugly on either side.

Sarada has shorn off his long hair and bangs, leaving nothing but spiky black bristles. The horn-rimmed glasses he has sported since childhood have been replaced with a thick, squared rim. And even though Sasuke hasn’t seen Sarada in anything resembling a dress since the age of three, the sight of loose-fitting khaki shorts and dark blue polo are a bit jarring.

It’s like looking at himself when he was eleven.

“Oh, darling!” Sakura swoops over, tackle-hugging Sarada from behind and pressing a kiss against his temple.

“Mom, you’re choking me!” their beleaguered offspring complains, but Sasuke can tell it’s just an act. He’s pleased by the contact.

“Doesn’t he look great?” Sakura exclaims as they watch Sarada head over to a group of friends and cheer about the pile of waiting presents.

“Sh – He cut his hair,” Sasuke points out through gritted teeth. “Why does he need to cut his hair?”

“It’s his way of asserting his masculinity.”

“There’s nothing masculine or feminine about hair,” he protests. “None of the men in my family have cut their hair unless they were in service. Itachi’s is practically down to his ass, and he’s got flee on-sight-warrants in three different jurisdictions.”

Sakura’s face is set in that particular way – the “if you don’t shut up I will grab you by the short-and-curlies-and-twist” look he only sees when he’s doing something socially unacceptable. 

In a quieter voice, Sasuke adds, “Isn’t this the sort of thing that requires parental consent?”

“It is, and we’ll discuss it with him later after his friends have gone home,” his wife says crisply, returning to the kitchen before Ino sets it on fire.

Naruto gives him a knowing look, and Sasuke snaps, “What?”

“Nothing. I just find it interesting that you’re getting upset about ancient Uchiha hair traditions. Are you sure there isn’t anything you want to talk about?”

“You’re the one who feels the need to emote everywhere. So go do that somewhere else.”

His best friend sighs at that, and meanders away, knowing better than to push. Kakashi exhales a weary laugh and says, “For what it’s worth, I think he improved on your look. Your hair always reminded me of the back-end of a duck.”

Which Sasuke doesn’t even dignify with an answer. Instead, he wanders over to the dining room table, which has been lovingly decorated with every type of junk-food offering and warehouse-sized plate of fruit imaginable, and resentfully begins picking through it.

Across the room, Sarada is having a blast.

He takes great glee in opening presents, laughing uproariously over stereotypically boy gifts. Occasionally he shoots a glance up at his father, showing off a video game or football gear, and rolling his eyes, which makes Sasuke’s heart life a little. Just because he’s a boy doesn’t mean Sarada fits a particular mould – it’s a relief to know he’ll still probably want Sasuke to show him proper kendo form instead of attending some brutish sports rally.

Throughout the party, Sarada’s friends are curious but open, most of them already knowing the specifics, while some still ask questions. When anything gets too close to inappropriate – such as whether Sarada intends to get surgery – Sakura is there to swoop in with small, yet pointed reminders.

“That’s a rather personal question, Shinki. If he wanted you to know that, he would tell you.”

In his corner, Boruto pretends not to listen in, but the scowl on his face isn’t as pronounced. The parents are more quiet in their curiosity – these are all old family friends, and more than one of them owes Sakura in some way. No one will say anything unkind here, and once Itachi shows up with Shisui in tow, no one will dare think it either.

But it still makes Sasuke nervous, having to stand there and answer questions or hear comments about matters that he doesn’t truly understand himself. If his wife wasn’t so busy playing the hostess, she could be making infantile conversation instead of him.

Somehow, the time does pass, and they eventually get to the point in festivities when Sakura and her mother carry in a huge chocolate cake, and the din becomes overwhelming. It’s amusing how a bunch of kids that insist they be treated like adults turn feral when sweets are introduced to the equation.

Sarada waits until everyone has finished a horrifying rendition of the birthday song, and then stands up and calls for silence.

“I just wanted to say thank you to all of you for coming by today,” he says. “And for all the cool gifts. And I really want to thank my Mom and Dad for doing this, because it’s been awesome.” He beams at them, and Sasuke feels Sakura appear beside him, leaning into his side. “I also wanted to share something with you guys, because it is my birthday. It’s a pretty huge deal for me, and you all mean a lot to me, so I wanted you to be the first to know.”

He shifts nervously.

“So…when I was little, I asked my Mom why they called me ‘Sarada’. It’s kind of weird name.”

“Yeah, they basically called you “salad”,” Boruto grumbles.

“Fuck you, Bolt.”

“Language!” Sakura snaps, her voice like a whip-crack. Every kid in the vicinity, and some parents, wince.

“Sorry, Mom,” Sarada says, ducking his head penitently before continuing on. “Anyway, Mom told me how she and Dad came up with the name. That it’s made up of parts of their names, and my Uncle Itachi – who, if you guys don’t know, is brilliant and could probably make James Bond cry like a girl.”

Over in the corner, stuffing his face with dango, Itachi waves a stick in acknowledgement of the compliment.

“And the thing is… even though it’s a cool name, and I’m honoured to be named after these three people, it never really felt like my name. I knew I was going to have to leave it behind someday,” he continues solemnly. “It’s been a hard decision. I never really brought it up with my parents because, well, they’ve been so focussed on helping me through all of the other stuff. It never seemed like the right time. Besides, it’s has been hard finding something that fit. And I didn’t want to completely forget what went in to naming me the first time, so I decided on something that still keeps the spirit of what my parents thought of alive.” He takes a deep breath. “From now on, I would prefer if you all called me Sachiro.”

It’s the first time either he or Sakura have heard the new name, even if it has been discussed.

The cheers and clapping from the guests wash over Sasuke, who flashes back to that day, eleven years ago, when he and Sakura were debating names. They hadn’t been able to agree on anything in the months leading up to the birth, and now it mattered, and neither of them could think of something fitting.

How she looked, flushed and exhausted from giving birth, but so obviously happy. Her tentative suggestion of naming the baby after them both, and Itachi, who was the only reason the Uchiha family had accepted Sakura as Sasuke’s wife. How at that moment, he couldn’t think of anything that was more appropriate. 

The music and chatter seems to start up again tenfold, and Sasuke finds himself staring down into eyes that are the exact colour of his own.

“That’s okay, right, Dad?” his child ask quietly, and a little uncertain. “It’s a good name?”

Sasuke’s chest constricts a little, and he nods slowly. “Hm.”

Sara – Sachiro – beams up at him. It’s the same brilliant, joyful smile of Sakura’s that Sasuke fell in love with, the same smile he has seen when he read stories, visited the park, taught her – taught him – to swim and climb trees. Toothless, or beneath a scratched nose, or covered in mud.

A smile, he realises not, that grew rarer over the years.

Sarada has always been a little sullen, a little quiet and reserved. Sasuke always thought that she – he –was just similar to the way he was when he was a kid. But right now, the way this boy beams and laughs and just exudes joy, Sasuke sees more of Sakura for the first time in almost a decade. There’s a joie de vivre there, a confidence and sense of self Sasuke has barely felt.

And the idea that he could be responsible for that smile or certainty disappearing, that’s the thing that convinces him, finally, that all of this is right. Whatever he personally feels, it’s no longer about just going along with it and humouring the situation, as if it’s something that has been done to him. It’s about his child’s happiness and frame of mind.

The realisation isn’t a happy one, per se, but it’s solid enough that Sasuke thinks he will make peace with it, eventually.

“Mom?” Sa – Sachiro is asking, bringing Sasuke back to the moment. “What do you think? It’s still got yours and Dad’s and Uncle Itachi’s name in it. I mean, the ending is a little different, but I thought –”

“It’s beautiful, sweetheart,” Sakura says, reaching out and brushing a hand over newly shorn hair. There’s a warble of emotion in her voice as she says it, but when Sasuke glances down at her to check, she’s already pulled away. “I’m going to go get plates for the cake, alright?”

Sachiro nods, grins one last time at them, and hurries back to his friends.

Sakura crosses the room, and Sasuke is concerned to notice a stiffness in her back that wasn’t there before. She makes a beeline for the kitchen, pausing only when intercepted by Tsunade, who she greets with a wide – And false, he notices smile – and accepts a nondescript plastic bag. As she continues to the kitchen, Sasuke sees her fist clenched around the handle, knuckles white and shaking.

He isn’t the only one to notice, either. Naruto watches Sakura disappear into the kitchen and shoots a questioning glance at Sasuke. They’ve all known each other since they were toddlers, which means he knows as well as Sasuke when something is wrong. Without words, Sasuke communicates to his friend to keep an eye on things, and follows his wife.

うちは

He finds her standing over the sink, fingers clenching the metal, her shoulders shaking.

“Sakura?”

There’s a sharp inhale and she straightens up, throwing a glance over her shoulder. “Oh, Sasuke, you’re here – did you need something?”

“What’s wrong?” he asks.

“Nothing! Nothing, I’m just…cutting more onions for the dip.”

It’s an utterly different story from before, made all the more unbelievable by the fact that there are no onions anywhere in the house.

“Sakura…”

“Tsunade stopped by from the hospital,” she goes on, and makes a vague gesture to the kitchen table. The plastic bag Sasuke saw earlier has been casually tossed there. “She knew we were so busy with everything, so she filled the prescription for the… for the blockers.”

Sasuke tenses, staring at the package with renewed understanding. They’ve had discussions in the past weeks, as Sarada grew closer and closer to making the official, full-time transition. There were mentions of intervening before the onset of puberty, recommendations from the psychiatrist to get started now while they wait for official permission to start him on testosterone injections, but –

Looking at the nondescript plastic bag, Sasuke can’t help a resurgence of his apprehension.

He knows it’s only a temporary measure – in theory, it’s like a pause button, a chance for Sachiro to be absolutely sure before any actual commitments are made. There are still many more milestones in the future, this one isn’t even the most important.

But it still unnerves him; judging from Sakura’s shakiness, she is affected too, even though she tries to chat like normal.

“We can give them to h-him tonight, or…or maybe gift-wrap them, and add it to the present pile? It would be a nice surprise, I think…don’t you think?”

She sounds like she really wants his opinion on this, and he opens his mouth to agree, to disagree, to do something, but it feels like his tongue is glued to the roof of his mouth. He has only just had his personal revelation on the subject matter. Before this he’s kept himself out of any major decisions, and she’s aware of this. Why the hell does she want him involved in this one? She’s the one who has been so keen on pursuing all of this, why –

There’s a sudden choking sob.

Before he can really parse what he’s seeing, Sakura’s face seems to crumple, her bright eyes and trembling smile imploding into a look of horror.

“What are we doing?” she whispers, and shaking fingertips go to her lips. “Oh, Sasuke, what are we doing? What if this is wrong? What if…?” She emits a staggered sob. “People understand here, but what if she…what if he wants to go somewhere else. For college. For work. People can hurt him – you’ve read the stories in the paper, what if that happens to our…”

She trails off in a moan, and tears are now leaking from the corners of her eyes, her voice getting higher and more panicked in pitch.

“We’re rushing this – I feel like we’re rushing this –”

“Sakura…” he begins, reaching for her, but she evades his touch, pacing now.

“Sh-she said she needed this, and everything she asked for, everything she asked us to do, I did, but maybe we should have talked more first – four years isn’t that long, maybe…maybe it’s a mistake, maybe we’re not doing the right thing –”

“Sakura –”

“Why couldn’t she just be gay?” she cries suddenly, rounding on him with wild eyes. In her panic, she is no longer able to use the correct pronouns. “This would…this would just be so much easier if she just liked girls, because then she…then we wouldn’t…”

“Didn’t you tell me it isn’t the same thing?” he asks, tentative and uncertain.

“I know it’s not!” she snaps, and then presses her fist against her mouth, stifling the uncontrollable sobs that now rack her body. “Did I do something wrong?”

 “You did not do anything wrong,” he informs her, taking her by the shoulder now and squeezing in reassurance.

But his wife doesn’t seem to notice, instead looks off into the distance.

“And the name,” she continues in a whisper. “I knew there would be a point when we…but…but Sarada was our miracle. She was our little g-girl and I’ll never get to say her n-name anymore, and she…didn’t even ask and I…I mean, is it…is it wrong that I should want a say in m-my own child’s name?”

Sasuke exhales, drawing Sakura into his arms and holding her close. “No.”

“I h-had a daughter, Sasuke,” she sobs into his shoulder. “I g-gave birth to a girl, and she was beautiful and w-wonderful and…and do you remember that first year? With the ladybug dress, and the s-strappy shoes?”

“I do.”

“And the way she would pretend her mattress was a magic carpet and ride it down the stairs, and I…I know we said we did this for her – him. We’re doing this for him, so he can be healthier, and happier and I’m trying my hardest to let h-him be who he is, but why…why does it feel like I’m killing her?”

The question is so raw, so wrecked with pain, that for a split second Sasuke wants to call everything off. His wife is hurting, and the event going on in the other room is causing it, and since he was seventeen, his life has revolved around ensuring the Sakura does not hurt.

But since he was twenty-two, his life has also revolved around ensuring his child does not hurt.

He knows that if he walks in there now, telling everyone to return home – or even just calls Sa – Sachiro in and points out that his mother – the one who has been a pillar of support since the beginning – is having second thoughts, it will break him. And his…his son is the kind of person that will accept a lifetime of misery if he thinks it will save someone he cares about a little pain.

If it’s someone Sachiro loves with the same fierce devotion as he does Sakura, he’ll quietly go back into the closet and never say another word about it until his dying day.

And from the articles that Sasuke has read over his wife’s shoulder, that’s something that could come much sooner than later.

The idea is chilling.

Which is why it only takes another split second for Sasuke to pull out his phone and send a text to Kakashi and Naruto – both of whom are as protective of his child as he is – and orders them to keep everything running smoothly. Then, he leads a still shaking Sakura up the stairs and back to their room.

Shutting the door, he leads her to their bed and sits her down, then silently takes the place beside her. For a long while, he simply allows her to cry, holding her until she gets past the wordless, grief-filled sobs.

When he senses her coming back to herself, he takes up the conversation as if there was no break.

“You are not killing anyone,” he tells her, quietly but firmly.

“But she’s still going to be gone,” Sakura says dully. “It’s almost worse.”

“You don’t mean that.”

She swallows. “No. I don’t. But I…sometimes, I still feel like our daughter is…dead. And we’re supposed to replace her with this…this stranger.”

It is the first time Sasuke has heard his wife utter any of this. The first time he has heard her insinuate that she is just as uncertain of this whole situation as he is, that she has doubts. And it’s the first time that he finds himself in the position where he has to be the one with the answers.

He has no idea what to do, but it’s clear silence is not the answer in this case.

Stick to the facts, he decides. He’s better at logic than emotion.

“That child downstairs is still our child,” he tells her firmly. “The child you carried inside you. Everything you love about that child is still there, whether we have a boy or a girl. And our son is happy, which means we are doing the right thing.”

Sakura sniffs.

“You’re just saying that,” she mutters. “I know you haven’t been completely on board about this.”

“I haven’t,” he agrees. “I’m still not sure that I completely understand. But I do know that Sa – Sachiro is happy. And he’s safe. And protected. And accepted by his friends, our neighbours and most of the town, and that is because of you. He would not have even this much anywhere else. And if he were growing up the way I did, he wouldn’t have any of it. He would be miserable.”

“I know,” she whispers. “I know that, Sasuke, in my heart I know it, but every so often, right when I’m least expecting it, there’s just this moment. And I just feel it all, all over again. And I can’t say anything, especially not to S-Sachiro. It would crush him. And if anyone else thought I wasn’t supporting him, then maybe they’d stop supporting him, and –”

“Then you tell me,” Sasuke interrupts her.

She glances at him in surprise. “What?”

“You’re supposed to tell me these things,” he continues, dogged. “I can only guess you haven’t for that exact reason. You thought if you wavered, I’d put a stop to this whole thing.”

“I-I didn’t mean to…”

“You might have been right,” he concedes. “But that was before. I’m also the only person in this whole situation that is going through the same thing as you. From now on, you tell me when you’re feeling like this. It’s not healthy for you to keep it inside – isn’t that what you used to say to me?”

“Sasuke…”

“Did you…want to me to set up a meeting?” he suggests, tentatively, because this next bit is definitely not his strong point. “With the therapist?”

She sniffs, rubbing at her eyes. “Yeah. Yes. But I’ll make the appointment.”

“Do you want me to go with you?”

“You hate talking to therapists,” she points out.

“If you want me there, I’ll be there.”

“…I want you there.”

“Then that’s settled.”

They are silent for a while, just sitting quietly together, her ear pressed against his heart and his fingers stroking her hair in comfort. For just a few precious minutes, they can be two parents struggling with a change that has been a long time coming, but which neither has been truly prepared for.

Eventually, Sakura breaks the silence. “We should go back downstairs before we’re missed.”

“Hm.”

“If Sa- Sachiro comes looking for us, we’ll have some explaining to do.”

“You should take your top off. That would forestall any questions.”

“Sasuke!”

She smacks him a little more than lightly in the shoulder, but there is a hint of her smile from her earlier back on her face. He considers it a win.

“Do you think this will all turn out?” she asks, tentative. “He’ll be okay, right?”

“I don’t know. But I believe his chances are better, secure in the knowledge that he has our support.”

“Yeah…”

Sakura inhales a deep, shaky breath and squares her shoulders.

“Alright. Let’s go back down,” she says, with only a little less of her usual certainty. She catches sight of herself in the bedroom mirror, and frowns. “Everyone will know I was crying. I look horrible.”

“Don’t fish for compliments,” he tells her, because they both know he always finds her beautiful. He takes her by the hand and leads her from the room.  “Besides, we can always say you were cutting onions.”

_____________________________________________

終わり

Apologies if I got anything horribly wrong, this was a difficult piece to write.  As usual, as part of the SasuSakuFestival, please go to the ssfest page and vote, like and/or reblog, it would be majorly appreciated!

クリ

[blackwidow1601-blog]

17 Again

       ‘17 Again’ is a 2009 American Comedy Film directed by Burr Steers. The film was led by Mathew Perry, the 37-year-old Mike who becomes his 17-year-old-self (Zac Efron) after a chance of accident. The film was released in the United States on April 17, 2009.

        It is a film that tells the story of Mike O’Donnell which use to be a basketball star during his days in high school. He gave up everything including his college scholarship for his girlfriend which by that time is carrying a baby. He married his girlfriend then and live happily along with his kids. As he grows older, everything seems to turn out differently. He barely loses himself while striving hard to fulfill the needs of his family. He also lost his eagerness to do things that he once loved and keep on regretting his decisions in the past. Actually, he and his wife are not in good terms. As a matter of fact, they were about to settle their permanent separation as husband and wife. His kids weren’t his custody as the court discusses this matter so he does not witness how his kids grow as an individual over the time.

      Fortunately, he has been given the opportunity to go back to his teenage years again. He barely cannot accept that it actually happens to him but he eventually realizes that it has a purpose. When he was able to go to school where his kids enrolled in, he sees how his kids are struggling with their life as teen. He was very disappointed when he knew that his son was being bullied by the varsity’s team captain which his daughter was dating in to. As a father he cannot let these things happen. He promised to himself that he will use this opportunity to protect them at all cost. He knew that his fate wanted to help him found his purpose again.

       As he still wonders for it as a teenager, he has been put into similar situation again when he was 17 which leads him on to deciding the same way he dis. When his wife arrived to his son’s basketball game, he followed her outside which finally transforms him back. Then he understands that he does not necessarily need to push away everyone in his life to find himself back. All this time he thought that his life was a dump because of his reckless decisions he did in the past. One thing he realize is that he made the best decision ever since.

      After watching the film, I have learned that if we continue to hold on to our past, we will not be able to discover new things every day. It is not really that bad if we reflect on our decisions that we make in the past, then is not okay if we continue to regret everything just because we haven’t achieved the life we expected and wanted. In life we have to be optimistic in each decision that we make as we cannot be critical at all times. Though it may not have resulted to something we wanted, still we have to look for the positive side of it and learn from it.

       Through with this film also, I have appreciated my parents a lot. I now understand that it is really hard for them to see that they cannot be able to be with us as we grow up because they have to work to support our finances. Practically speaking, they need to work day and night to provide us the best life we deserve but some of us didn’t appreciate their efforts. For them, the best reward we could give to them is to prosperously grow as an individual who succeeds in our desired paths. They might be harsh for instilling discipline to us but it is the best way they can do to help us reach our goals and teach us to be tough despite of circumstances in life may come along.

      The film also taught that we should dedicate ourselves in everything that we do. we have to work hard on it because no one would do it for us. We have to be self-reliant though it seems impossible to work on our own. This mantra is applicable to us every time especially if time comes that we have to work and deal with different attitudes of our workmates. We must expect that we will meet two different kind of people at work. The one who is sincere to work with us and help us accomplish things easily and the other one who is fake as plastic who causes nuisance every time. We must be vigilant in order for us to achieve our purpose and meaning in life.

[michaeljames1221]

Divorce Lawyer American Fork Utah

The law of divorce has changed a lot since the first divorce laws were passed in this country. If you are seeking a divorce consult with an experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer. Utah divorce law is complex. The lawyer can help you navigate the complex maze of Utah divorce laws.

During the first half of the nineteenth century, contests about political, religious, and economic roles of husbands and wives were prevalent throughout the North and West. Debates about limiting suffrage to male property owners emerged early in the century. Civic responsibility came to be shared among a larger class; property restrictions on male voting waned. As men moved out of the home to work, women gained recognition as teachers of domestic, cultural, and religious values.

In many areas of the country, and in parts of Utah, both spouses acquired new roles. Husbands and fathers, while retaining their position as political governors, became breadwinners. Wives and mothers, while continuing their household chores, became teachers and moral beacons. Faith also became more democratic. Salvation for many became an individual decision to be made rather than an outcome to be imposed by God. Women, deprived of political and economic power, often were attracted to this devotional message and integrated its teachings into their family life. Since salvation required good deeds on earth, maintenance of an observant family became an essential good deed for women. Throughout, however, patriarchal families remained central, as a place for faithful religious observance, a site for inculcation of cultural values, and a training ground for adult exercise of civic responsibility.

Modification of marital property rules throughout the nation during the first decades of the nineteenth century, like changes in political and religious structures, left the essential features of the patriarchal family intact. Upon marriage, common law rules used in much of the nation during the Revolutionary War era gave a husband ownership of almost all of the personal property of his wife as soon as he reduced it to his possession. In addition, he also gained management rights over her real property for the life of the marriage. Upon the birth of a child, control over the wife’s real property was extended to the lifetime of the husband. While early nineteenth-century reforms allowed some deserted women to regain their property or their economic independence and married women’s property acts precluded attachment of a wife’s property by creditors of her husband, men retained control over the central economic features of intact families. Family formation rituals also changed after the Revolutionary War. Arranged marriages virtually disappeared. Romance emerged as a basis for mate selection. But such “freedom” did not reduce the impetus to marry. Family remained as a solid source of status and cultural location. The attractions of power remained for men; the promise of economic security attracted women; the legitimation of sexual behavior attracted both. In stark contrast with the present day, when images of rock-solid, politically attuned, churchgoing families often seem little more than nostalgic symbols called to duty by desperate politicians, early nineteenth-century adults expected to marry, raise a family, develop a family economy, and stay together ‘til death did they part.

While the headlines focus on child support, the damage to the family far exceeds the monetary hurt. Living with one parent in and of itself places a child at risk for a host of negative experiences. When the child whose parents split up is not even seeing the other parent, the consequences can be more severe (as will be discussed). In neighborhoods with a high rate of father absence, there are higher rates of poverty, public assistance families, and high school dropouts. Fatherlessness (and to a lesser extent, motherlessness) cuts across all races and economic classes.

An experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer can assist you in your custody battle. In a custody battle, a frequently litigated change of circumstance is the presence of a live-in companion of the custodial parent. As mentioned earlier, courts approach this matter in very different ways, but the critical issue should always be the effect that the relationship has on the children. In a highly publicized Rhode Island case, a court ordered a custodial parent to refrain from allowing any unrelated males from making overnight visits while the children were in the house. And yet in another state a court ruled that a mother could not be prevented from permitting overnight visits by unrelated males unless there was evidence that it directly affected the welfare of the children. Indeed, there is no single guiding principle for this issue except that courts are supposed to be looking out for the interests of the children rather than using these cases to impose their own morality. But what is “best” for the children is often a subjective consideration, and custody has been lost on the basis of a court’s decision that the children would be better off in the other parent’s household.

Fathers who don’t pay child support

If your ex-spouse is not paying the child support as ordered by the court, speak to an experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer. There are many categories of fathers who don’t pay child support. One category outlines what has been termed the “overextended parent.” There are a number of variations of this type of man. The first is a man who was so eager to get out of his marriage or felt so guilty about leaving the marriage that he agreed to undertake an unreasonable level of child support that he was then unable to fulfill. This type of man is often described as relatively immature and naive, with little idea about what it takes to support two households. Once he falls behind on his support payments, it becomes virtually impossible for him to catch up. Thus the delinquency stems from his inability to meet the obligation, and often he eventually gives up even trying.

The second variation largely includes men who start out paying the prescribed amount, but within a couple of years — often after comparing notes with other divorced fathers — they come to believe that their burden exceeds that which others are obliged to pay. This type of man is likely to become angry, but rather than go back to court to seek a modification of his payments, he unilaterally reduces the payment on his own. This type of man does not perceive himself as a delinquent because some payment is still made, but it is inadequate to meet the needs of the children.

A third type of man who becomes an overextended parent is the noncustodial father who remarries, giving rise to a second family. When he has insufficient financial resources to meet the demands of both families, it is invariably his current family that gets taken care of and his noncustodial children that suffer.

As an aside, it has been observed that many men who have sufficient resources are often more diligent about making support payments when they remarry and have a second family. While this may be counter-intuitive, the reason may be that men who remarry are family oriented and consequently more concerned about the welfare of their children.

Finally, the fourth variation of the overextended father is one who becomes ill or unemployed; instead of going to court and having his payments reduced or temporarily suspended, he ignores the situation, engages in denial to avoid dealing with his payment problem, and merely drifts into delinquency without assuming any responsibility for his plight. When the problem inevitably catches up with him, he is the one who feels victimized by the system and adopts a hostile, rather than conciliatory, posture. The second category of men who fail to comply with their child support obligations are those who seek revenge against their ex-wives. This type of man carries with him many grudges, grievances and unresolved feelings concerning his marriage and family situation. Withholding child support payments is one of his few means of expressing anger. By controlling the money he exercises power and control over his ex-spouse, continuing the hostilities that resulted in the divorce but that apparently were not resolved by it.

Since disagreement over money is a major source of conflict in many marriages, particularly those that fail, withholding money is a way of keeping those past disputes alive. Where there was a high level of conflict between the parents prior to their separation, there is likely to be a high level of unresolved conflict subsequent to the divorce. In such high-conflict cases, withholding child support payments is not an unusual way for feelings of revenge to be expressed. Also, men who feel that they have been unfairly treated by the court may believe that the financial settlement is unjust and that withholding child support payments is warranted.

These men feel discriminated against by the legal system, hostile toward the world, and believe their ex-spouses are responsible for the injustice. Little regard is given to the effect that this vengeful behavior has on the children.

The third category of deadbeat dads are those men who do not make child support payments because of the emotional pain that is wrapped up in the divorce process. There appear to be two types of situations that provide these men with a rationale for withholding child support. The first is the man’s intense emotional reaction to his marriage falling apart and his becoming an absentee parent. His feeling shut out of the family is intensely painful to him, and one way of coping with his emotional distress is by distancing himself from the children.

The very process of establishing distance, which may be both physical and emotional, protects him from pain but also causes him to become alienated from the family. What then emerges is the rationale that since he is no longer part of the family, he need not assume any of the financial responsibility for it. Thus, to cope with the pain of losing custody of his children, he pushes them away and ignores their needs.

The second type of situation within this category occurs when there is a dispute over visitation. Here an otherwise caring father is denied the amount of visitation that he wants with his children and withholds support as a way of forcing his ex-spouse to acquiesce to his visitation requests. Interestingly, most problems involving denial of visitation stem from conflicts around money and payments of child support. Visitation thus becomes the ball on the economic playing field. Despite the fact that in most cases child support is specifically not conditioned upon a right of visitation, the emotional pain experienced by the noncustodial parent often causes him to seek revenge by hurting the very children with whom he wants to visit. Often this leads to a cycle of nonpayment and denied visitation that is so detrimental to the best interests of the very children who are the subjects of the support and visitation.

The fourth and largest category of deadbeat dads are those fathers who simply behave in an irresponsible manner with respect to their children. This type of man may disappear, not because he is overburdened per se and not because he is angry or vengeful toward the mother of his children. Many simply have no interest in parenting. Their role models have either been extremely poor or nonexistent and, not having themselves been treated well as children, they feel no responsibility to care for their own children. They rarely think about the children and may not even think of themselves as the parent.

For this type of man, children have little meaning in his life and he feels little obligation on their behalf. He certainly would not go out of his way or change his established pattern of behavior, nor would he consider working harder to make more money in order to provide for the children. This category includes the father who participated in bringing a child into the world but who has little or no sense of what it takes to rear that child. This kind of man often feels as though he was trapped by the woman and therefore believes that he is entitled to abdicate responsibility for the child.

Finally, there is a small category of men who are said to be going through what has been termed the “New Life Syndrome.” This type of man is egocentric and self-absorbed. While many deadbeat dads also tend to be self-centered, most seem to have some rationale for their behavior other than merely their own self-interest. This type of deadbeat is different: he needs no justification for his delinquency other than his own desires. He puts himself first; he feels entitled to have his needs met above all others, including his children; and he offers no excuses for his behavior. A significant factor is the father’s perception of how much control he has in determining how his child support payments are used on behalf of the children. For example, if he believes that his child support payments are being used by his ex-spouse on herself, he is less likely to continue making payments. Some men who feel that they have little say in the children’s upbringing believe it is ample excuse for not meeting financial responsibilities.

When there is joint child custody, a factor often related to compliance with child support obligations is the length of time that the children live with the father. When children stay with the father for periods of weeks or even months at a time (such as on holidays or school vacations), there is a tendency for payments to be withheld or reduced at those times because the father perceives himself as already supporting the children.

Extended visits are frequently viewed by fathers quite differently than shorter stays, because of the length of time and cost involved. Yet this may be inevitable when father and children live geographically distant from one another. The children have to travel far to visit their father, and therefore the visits tend to be less frequent but longer.

Often this changes, however, as children get older. Adolescents become reluctant to leave their friends for extended periods, resulting in their visits with fathers becoming less frequent. The reduced time together is likely to diminish the emotional connection between father and children, and the resulting alienation serves to diminish the father’s commitment to meeting his child support obligations. While this is not universally true, the level of contact between a father and his children is generally considered to be a significant factor in child support payments being made. Men who see their children irregularly are more likely to abdicate their financial responsibilities to them.

The remarriage of either or both spouses often creates another obstacle to continued child support payments. If the mother remarries and the ex-husband continues to maintain hostility against her, he may feel betrayed and angry at her new relationship. Her remarriage gives him an excuse to terminate payments upon the rationale that her new husband will provide for the children and his support is no longer necessary. This is a typical reaction when it is the ex-wife who remarries. When it is the ex-husband who remarries, there seem to be two possible paths. When economic resources are limited, a father is often faced with the difficult task of trying to maintain a good standard of living for his new family while at the same time struggling to keep up with his child support payments, which his new wife will often pressure him to reduce, or even stop. On the other hand, fathers who have an adequate income when they remarry frequently continue to make their child support payments, particularly if they are able to maintain a relationship with the children.

A very important consideration that affects full and timely child support obligations being met is the prior and existing relationship between the children’s mother and father. Factors include: the length of the marriage, the quality of the relationship during the divorce process, and the continuing level of attachment and interaction between the parents. Marriages that lasted a long time appear to result in a greater financial and emotional investment on the part of both parents. This interdependency between the parents may foster or facilitate an enduring attachment between them, which thereby reinforces their commitment to cooperate in the upbringing of their children. By the same token, parents who relate to each other in a relatively non-hostile manner during the divorce process also increase the likelihood that support will be paid. A poor quality of relationship between the ex-spouses often gives rise to the father expressing his negative feelings through noncompliance with support obligations. Thus, to the extent that a good relationship between former spouses can be maintained, it will reinforce the mutual commitment to their children and is likely to lead to greater compliance with child support obligations.

Another element that is likely to influence the continuity of child support is whether the obligation was arrived at by agreement or by court order. An agreement generally gives both parties an opportunity to exercise some control over the amount and frequency of the payments. This reduces the likelihood that the father will feel that he has been treated unjustly by the legal system. A feeling of being victimized often provides an excuse for not fulfilling financial responsibilities to the children.

Perhaps the single most important component is the degree of likelihood that the order will be enforced. Many fathers will not voluntarily pay child support to their ex-wives unless they are confronted by an authority that is willing and able to track them down and employ enforcement mechanisms.

Compliance rates are significantly higher when there is a court-monitored system for collecting child support and where there is a certainty of recourse (e.g., fines and/or jail) for noncompliance. In the absence of a perceived direct relationship between non-payment of child support and punishment, many fathers simply will not pay. The burden of collecting child support still falls primarily upon the mother, whose responsibility for pursuing payments that are in default often seems overwhelming and unmanageable. Many women become discouraged with having to deal with a slow and generally unresponsive legal system, trying to locate the whereabouts of an ex-husband, and finding the time, energy, emotional strength, and financial resources to carry a legal action forward.

The Single Mother Who Doesn’t Receive Support

The burden of collecting child support still falls upon the parent, and how she responds to a deadbeat dad has a significant impact on the likelihood of her obtaining child support payments. Indeed, the attitudes and responses of many custodial mothers contribute to the problem. Those who do not pursue child support in an effective and timely fashion reinforce, to both themselves and the deadbeat dad, that they are either unwilling or unable to stand up for the rights of their children. There are several types of women whose reactions or inaction contributes to the problems they encounter in receiving child support payments.

One type of woman is inappropriately passive and believes that someone will come along and take care of her. These women are often young and may never have had the responsibility of living on their own. When their relationship or marriage ends, they naively believe that the children’s father will continue to provide financial support. It is a rude awakening indeed when he does not, and often for the first time she finds herself on her own. She must assume sole support of her children or figure out a way to get the father to pay his share.

Many such women attempt to engage a lawyer, but soon realize such a route is complicated and expensive. Others find the responsibility for pursuing a legal remedy when payments are in default to be overwhelming and unmanageable. They find that they must deal with a slow and generally unresponsive legal system. But for so many women, finding the time, energy, emotional strength and financial resources to carry the legal action forward is more than they can muster.

Passive women also fail to follow through with the federally funded agencies that are available to provide assistance. While the services provided by these agencies are generally free of charge, they require monitoring and persistence, since the case workers are generally overburdened and the process is typical of large bureaucracies. A woman who relies on federal or state services must be prepared to pursue the case workers on a regular basis and insist that all available avenues of recourse be exhausted.

A second type of woman who may encounter difficulty in working through a bureaucratic government agency is the woman who is anxious and angry. She frequently deals with her frustrations poorly by flooding the child support agency with highly emotional calls and letters and by irritating the case workers who are overwhelmed with cases but who are nonetheless trying to help.

While the long-held maxim that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” may be true in many instances, this type of woman tends to be so overemotional and overbearing in her efforts to gain assistance that she actually works against herself as she alienates the very people who can help her. Many such women will abandon their efforts to pursue child support when they realize how difficult and frustrating the process can be.

Finally, there are still other women who have never taken steps to get a child support order. Some are women whose children were born out of wedlock; because they never married they erroneously believe that their children are not entitled to child support. Others fail to secure an award because they feel disgraced, do not want to get involved with the legal system, or would rather rely on their family for support. In the latter group are those who choose not to have any relationship between father and child and decline support in order to prevent such a relationship. This includes women who never even tell the father that he has a child. And there are single mothers who through their naiveté, passivity, inappropriate behavior, and feeling of lack of entitlement inadvertently contribute to their children’s problems. Most single mothers, however, are deeply concerned about their children’s welfare and would willingly, if not gladly, at least do what is needed in the best interest of the children.

What a Woman Can do to Facilitate Compliance

In recent years state and federal governments have instituted significant new methods for locating delinquent fathers and making them meet their child support obligations. It is clear, however, to anyone who has been involved in child support collection that practical solutions are much more effective than agency or judicial proceedings. Adversarial confrontations drain everyone involved of precious and scarce time, energy, and money. They may even have negative effects on the children by maintaining a high level of post divorce turmoil. Understanding the delinquent father’s motivation can sometimes be helpful in gaining his compliance.

When there is a good relationship between ex-spouses, there tends to be greater compliance with child support payments. Assuming the custodial parent’s goal is to ensure the best interests of the children, and that compliance with child support obligations promotes that goal, the first task is to establish and maintain as good a relationship as possible. This may mean consciously putting aside grudges and lingering feelings of anger toward an exspouse. This is often not easy, since divorce is usually acrimonious and leaves a legacy of bitterness and disappointment. Yet it is this very lingering conflict during the post divorce stage that is often used by the noncustodial father to rationalize his failure to make payments. A woman seeking to ensure compliance with support obligations should attempt to work through or set aside negative or hostile feelings in order to minimize conflict with her ex-husband. This is also likely to improve his relationship with the children, which will also increase the likelihood of paying support.

It is important to reiterate here that an agreement reached voluntarily by both parties is more likely to work than is one that is ordered by the court without participation and agreement of the parties. While it is important to formalize any private agreement by presenting it in court, a mutually negotiated and voluntary agreement is more likely to be honored by the parties. Once again, this requires the parties to be able to set aside negative feelings, focus the negotiation on the welfare of the children rather than continuing pre-divorce conflicts, and to arrive at a child support agreement that both parties feel has tried to accommodate their needs.

While it may be important to settle such practical matters as how and when child support payments will be made (e.g., by check through the mail, by deposit made into a bank account, by electronic funds transfer, etc.), an important concern of fathers is that they be able to exercise a degree of control over their obligation. Sometimes those who feel little control will use this as a rationale for nonpayment. For example, if the children are older and it is important to the father to demonstrate to them that he contributes to their support in a significant way, he might make payments directly to their school, to extracurricular activities, or even purchase necessities himself.

Many noncustodial fathers also feel a loss of control over the decision-making process concerning both how their children will be raised and how the money that they pay will be used. Fathers frequently feel that their money goes into a “black hole” controlled by their ex-wife, who they often suspect uses it for herself and not the children. Whether these fears and suspicions are real or fabricated to avoid payment, often the result is that the children do not receive the support that is due. An instrument that has emerged to deal with this, as well as to negotiate a voluntary agreement, is mediation. Mediators are usually professionals trained in the art of negotiated settlements.

A mediator can be hired by the parties or suggested by the court to devise a workable agreement. The mediator is not aligned with either party, but is engaged to facilitate accord. All parties have an opportunity to express themselves and to voice their needs and concerns. The process is intended to allay fears, deal with defensiveness and rationalization, create problem solving, and consider the needs of all the parties, particularly the best interests of the children. Child support agreements that are voluntarily established through mediation have higher rates of observance than those that are ordered by the court. Women who are concerned about compliance should make every effort to negotiate their own settlement and should be aware of the positive results obtained through mediation.

Another issue closely related to maintaining child support is the degree of emotional connection between a father and his children. If conditions become such that fathers lose their sense of closeness or connectedness with their children, the likelihood of their keeping up their support is diminished. This can occur as time goes by and the father sees less and less of his children because they get older and develop their own relationships. It can also occur if the father or children move far away from one another. It also happens to some men when they remarry and develop new allegiances and responsibilities. Regardless of the reason for the estrangement, the deterioration of the emotional connection between a father and his children significantly affects his commitment to their financial support. It is very important that the father be assisted in maintaining his relationship with his children. Regular visits are important. Having the father participate in decision making around important child issues is crucial. Both reinforce the bond between a father and his children.

Even if regular visitation or paternal participation is not feasible (or perhaps desirable), other steps can be taken to keep the father informed, and thus involved, with his children, albeit on a more superficial level. It is important to make every effort to keep him in touch with the children’s development, their accomplishments, and their needs. Pictures can be sent regularly. The children themselves can send notes and memorabilia related to their interests and accomplishments. Every effort that keeps him in contact with his children will enhance the likelihood of their getting the child support to which they are entitled.

Federal courts typically do not claim jurisdiction over matters of divorce, alimony, or child custody. Implications of this limitation are that custody decisions are not appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and general national trends are discernible primarily at the state level of appeal through an examination of case law.

In 1970, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws adopted the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act. The American Bar Association ratified it in 1974. Consistent with no-fault legislation and the move toward gender equality in matters of divorce, the UMDA adopted the best interest of the child (BIOC) standard for child custody decision making. Five criteria were suggested for use with the BIOC standard: (a) the wishes of the child’s parent or parents as to his/her custody; (b) the wishes of the child as to his/her custodian; (c) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with his/her parent or parents, his/her siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest; (d) the child’s adjustment to his or her home, school, and community; and (e) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved. Conduct of the proposed custodian that does not affect his/her relationship to the child was not to be considered. The UMDA represented a national commentary on child custody standards, and, since 1970, all 50 states have translated aspects of the BIOC standard into either statutes or case law.

On the international level of policy making, the United States is one of 30 countries that has adopted the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction. This convention is used when a child has been wrongfully taken away from his or her place of “habitual residence” against the wishes of the custodial parent. The convention is used by the state and federal courts to return the child to the place of habitual residence where substantive issues of custody can be heard. The Hague Convention cannot be used to evaluate issues of best interest, only the issue of wrongful removal from the habitual residence.

The BIOC standard is a substantive guideline for custody decision making that focuses on the life situation of a particular child and involves the consideration of a list of relevant factors in determining with whom the child should be placed.

Many states require the use of a specified subset of these factors to decide contested custody cases and ask judges to consider all relevant factors without systematic (i.e., across all cases) preference to any one factor. It is the purest application of the BIOC standard and, because of the open-ended consideration of factors, the most complex decision-making standard. It is favored by some because it respects the individual situation of each child, allows the child due process in terms of having a variety of factors considered, and because many of the other proposed rules have been judged as inequitable or unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. However, the unweighted BIOC standard also has been criticized as too individualistic and indeterminant (relying on judges’ personal values and normative beliefs rather than societal ones), resulting in heavy demands on judicial and court resources and increased litigation. Thus, the unweighted BIOC standard seems to have merit when evaluated using some child-based values, but is problematic when evaluated using criteria focusing on logistics and selected societal values and normative role patterns (e.g., children should be placed with the person who provided the most frequent and consistent care).

Consequently, several intermediate rules have been championed, with the differing rules being favored by some and disdained by others. These rules include the tender years doctrine (equated by some with the maternal presumption), the psychological parent preference, the primary caretaker preference, the preference for joint custody, the child wishes rule, and the approximation rule. Potentially, each of these intermediate rules can be used to define the BIOC and, when used as such, carry preferential or presumptive weight in the decision-making process.

Tender Years Presumption

This presumption orders the court to assume that the best interests of the child are met when the child remains with the mother. It surfaced in the 19th century, and the definition of tender years expanded from infancy to the teen years during the 20th century. Determination of maternal fault for the marital breakdown and/or evidence of maternal unfitness were required to overrule the presumption.

During the 1970s, the tender years presumption was deemed unsuitable in determining the BIOC in most states. Political, legal, and social norms highlighted the importance of gender neutrality, and many states decided the tender years presumption violated the Equal Protection Amendment of the Constitution and/or was not good public policy.

Child Support

Regardless of financial resources, parents have a legal duty during and after marriage to support children below the age of majority (i.e., legal age), including those born outside of wedlock. Post-divorce support of children is intended to maintain the marital standard of living. Amount of support required is based on current needs; therefore, it is modifiable if there has been a change in circumstances that warrants reconsideration. Utah has laws that hold mothers and fathers equally responsible for child support. Likewise, most recent court decisions have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment or state equal rights amendments to require gender-neutral support statutes. However, gender neutral statutes that essentially eliminate the father’s primary duty to support have received some criticism. Not only does level of living improve for men and get worse for women after divorce. Because the custodial parent bears the primary responsibility for the care of children, earning potential often must be sacrificed, whereas the noncustodial parent gains earning potential as a result of not having responsibility for the day-to-day care of children. Because the majority of custodial parents are women, and women generally earn less than men, it is the woman who will, proportionately, contribute most to the financial support of children.

It is ironic that, in the face of an established parental duty to support, the early courts looked to the custodial parent’s financial stability rather than considering the noncustodial parent’s duty to support. Today some courts are unwilling to increase child support if the increase would improve the custodial parent’s standard of living along with the child’s. At the same time, even though a court may be reluctant to award enough support for a mother to stay home or obtain excellent care for children, the same court may question whether a working mother should get and/or retain custody.

Modification of Support

There are a number of circumstances under which modifications are made. Examples include a reduction in the income of the supporting parent (however, this is rarely effective even if the supporting parent has been incarcerated or either a formal or informal agreement to a reduction. Ordinarily only modifications of future obligations are allowed, but when a parent has requested that the obligation be reduced and has not been able to pay at the current level, retroactive modifications have been made. The problem is that some noncustodial parents have made reduced payments expecting that if the custodial parent seeks enforcement of the original support obligation, it would be possible to get a retroactive reduction. Although it is clearly possible in some cases, retroactive reduction of arrearages in child support are prohibited by federal law if the custodial parent receives funds from Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

Termination of Support

There are several reasons why support may be terminated before a child reaches the age of majority. In some states if the supporting parent dies, support is terminated, but in some, death does not result in automatic termination; inheritance and life insurance are used to continue support. Another reason for terminating support is the emancipation of the minor child; that is, the child is accorded legal status before reaching the age of majority. Examples include marriage, entry into military service, leaving the parent’s home and refusing to follow parent’s wishes, or becoming economically independent through employment. Adoption by a parent who replaces the supporting parent is also a possible reason for termination of a support obligation.

It is also possible for support obligations to be terminated if visitation by the supporting, noncustodial parent is denied. It is commonly thought that the reason why men refuse to pay child support is that they are denied opportunity to visit their children. Although studies have found no correlation between child support compliance and complaints about visitation, some courts have interpreted visitation and support decrees as mutually dependent contracts. Indeed, when visitation privileges or joint custody were awarded to fathers, almost 80 percent of mothers were awarded child support, but when neither visitation privileges nor joint custody were awarded to fathers, only about 30 percent of mothers were awarded child support. In cases in which a child has refused to see the custodial parent, courts have terminated support. Also, in extreme cases, such as concealment of the child by the mother, some courts have refused to make fathers pay unpaid support, maintaining that concealment is a waiver of support even though the child or spouse has been abused by the father. Rules that link child support and visitation and those that do not are inherently biased. When support and visitation are linked, the child and custodial parent’s need for financial support may be subordinated to the noncustodial parent’s need for a relationship with the child. On the other hand, when the rules are not connected, the noncustodial parent’s financial support may be considered more important than the nurturance received from either the custodial or the noncustodial parent. This is a problem because the law is more apt to recognize a tangible contribution such as money than it is to recognize an intangible contribution such as nurturance. Under some partially connecting rules, a noncustodial parent may withhold support payments if the custodial parent interferes with his or her visitation rights, but the custodial parent must have court permission to interfere with the visitation rights of the noncustodial parent even if child support has not been paid. In other words, this partially connecting rule seems to place the noncustodial parent’s right to visit above the child’s right to support.

Child Support Enforcement

The problems most common to child support are those associated with enforcement. Courts have used various civil and criminal remedies to enforce the payment of child support obligations, including contempt of court, income withholding in cases of arrearages, criminal prosecution, income tax refund offsets, guarantees for nonpayment such as bonds and liens, and termination of parental rights. Since the mid-1970s, the federal government has been actively involved in enforcement efforts.

There are two sides to federal involvement in child support enforcement. Both have grown out of efforts to obtain child support from fathers of children who receive AFDC benefits. The Child Support Enforcement Act (Pub. Law No. 93–647) was passed in 1975 and included establishment of state child support agencies, state and federal parent locator services, and the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement operated by the department of Health and Human Services. This law and its amendments put in place a number of strategies for finding fathers and forcing them to pay child support.

On the negative side of federal involvement, mothers of children who receive AFDC must identify the father of the child, a requirement that only affects poor, unmarried mothers. This legislation gives the government an unconstitutional right to intrude in the lives of poor, unmarried mothers. The United States Supreme Court agreed in Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), indicating that the interest of the state in preserving its fiscal resources did not justify an invasion of the constitutional rights of poor women. Later, when the issue was unannounced home visits by social service personnel to insure that there was no father in the home, the Court took a different position. The visits had been objected to as a violation of Fourth Amendment protection from unlawful search (a part of the logic of the right of privacy), but were upheld by the majority opinion of the Court (Wyman v. James, 1971) with dissents from Justices Douglas, Marshall, and Brennan, who pointed out the jeopardy to constitutional rights brought on by acceptance of welfare benefits. To date, this violation of the rights of poor, unmarried mothers to privacy and familial autonomy is a problem that has not been resolved either by statute or Court interpretation. On the positive side, for a mother who wants to find a father and enforce his payment of child support, resources have been improved. This is especially true in cases in which parents no longer live in the same state.

Although all states including Utah now have laws to deal with problems of enforcement of support obligations when one parent moves out of the state, getting these laws in place has been a long and frustrating problem for both parents and courts. Initially, when a parent moved out of the jurisdiction of a court, the laws that were used to exercise jurisdiction were those that had been developed to apply to commercial activities. Some courts have been unwilling to extend a long-arm statute that applied to commercial activities to a child support case because, obviously, they address different issues. In Shaffer the Court would not exercise jurisdiction (i.e., exercise authority to hear the case) over the nonresident parent who had support obligations because the nature of the ties between that parent, the state, and the precedent for litigation (commercial activities) were not related.

In Kulko, the Court agreed that the use of commercial long-arm statutes was not appropriate in child support cases. In this case, the mother moved from New York (the marital domicile of the couple) to California, where she later obtained custody of her two children. She subsequently filed a motion to modify child support. The only contacts the child’s father had with the state of California were (1) a three-day stay years before at the time the couple was married, (2) the act of buying one child’s airline ticket to move in with her mother, and (3) the fact that his children were located in that state. The Supreme Court, citing Shaffer (1977), ruled that this was insufficient to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction over the father by the state of California. The Court not only noted that from these acts alone the defendant would not have foreseen being summoned to a California court in order to defend himself, but also noted that his actions neither amounted to personal benefits derived from activities within the state nor caused an effect in California that amounted to criminal activities. Thus, the Court concluded that it would not be fair to require the father to defend himself in California. The Court further stated that the mother could have sought relief through the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), which would not require the father to leave the state of New York and would satisfy her needs.

The URESA and later the Revised URESA (RURESA) were designed as models to provide for interstate enforcement of a child support obligation. The drafters of RURESA sought to reduce the possibility of unnecessary or inappropriate modifications of support decrees by requiring that, among other things, motions to modify be reviewed by the court that delivered the initial support decision. In the Federal Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984, Congress required all states to have some form of the RURESA. Although state reciprocal enforcement acts have resulted in improvements over past attempts to use long-arm statutes designed for commercial activities, there are still some problems. In this as well as other parenting issues, courts may find themselves juggling a concern for the best interest of the child with often unacknowledged biases that arise from assumptions about relationships between husbands and wives.

Custody

Men face some biases in courts, especially in terms of child custody. Even with the move away from the maternal preference for custody, many courts still view the best interest of children to be with a mother who is “naturally” better able to nurture them. However, considered case by case, stereotyped gender-based expectations for men appear to be balanced by an inclination for male judges to understand and sympathize with the situation of another male—something that is most unlikely to happen in the response of a male judge to a woman. It would be unwise for a single mother seeking custody to count on the maternal preference. For example, if a woman does not work and stays at home where she can maximize her nurturing function, she and her child usually must live in poverty because it is rare for a court to award enough child and spousal support to relieve her of the need to work. On the other hand, if she seeks employment, the bias of the court shifts to favor the male, especially if he has remarried and the child could live with the father and a mother figure. In other words, the maternal presumption is easily overcome or inapplicable if the mother is employed outside the home. For women seeking custody, the maternal preference is balanced by traditional stereotypes and myths about women and poverty.

The law of domestic relations as it relates to child custody and child support has changed significantly throughout the last century. It was developed from state statutory and common law. In creating statutes and deciding cases, legislatures and courts have reviewed other state laws and have considered decisions in other state courts as precedent for their own actions. These efforts have culminated into what is now viewed as a national tradition of the law of domestic relations.

There are still differences between and among jurisdictions, but there are also national trends that cut across jurisdictions.

Although the “best interests of the child” has been adopted in the United States as the standard by which custody determinations are made, remnants of the Roman and English common law view of children as chattel were influential on the development of the law, especially as it relates to child support. For example, the notion that children were property of the father gave the father certain rights and responsibilities, including the right to services and custody of his children, which led to the responsibility or duty to support his children. Child support has not always, however, been considered a legally enforceable duty of the parent or right of the child. Whereas child custody has been considered in terms of the best interests of the child, child support has been considered in terms of contract law or in terms of a community’s interest in keeping citizens from becoming a public charge. Even the child support enforcement program that was initiated in 1950 was motivated primarily out of a desire to keep families from becoming dependents of the state. As would be expected, laws of custody and laws of support although related, affect single parents differently.

Most state statutes give courts considerable discretion in making custody determinations. Many would-be custody battles are settled by agreement of the parties before the case reaches the courtroom, but the court, not the parties, decides whether the agreement is in the child’s best interests. Even if the court accepts an agreement made by divorcing parents, it is free to reopen the case if a change in circumstances warrants reconsideration. This rule may be viewed as one which greatly limits parental power. However, the propensity of courts to rubberstamp these agreements may exacerbate a situation in which one parent has little bargaining power. For example, the parent most emotionally involved with the child (usually the mother) may be willing to accept less child support and other monetary or property awards as a result of threats from the other parent (usually the father) to sue for sole custody.

With extensive judicial discretion, it is difficult to avoid interjecting personal values and opinions in custody and visitation decisions. These decisions require judgments regarding the characteristics of all persons involved in the case as well as consideration of the facts. As a rule, any circumstance relevant to the best interests of the child is admissible—even past behaviors of parents. Adding to the difficulty of courts to be fair, state statutes that enumerate circumstances relevant to the child’s best interests generally do not include the weight to be given to each factor in making the custody determination.

Because of the continuing inclination to view mother-custody as best for children, fathers can be at a disadvantage in obtaining custody and visitation. Two-thirds of fathers who request it rre awarded custody by courts. However at times the courts are seen as being insensitive to noncustodial fathers who wish to continue a relationship with their children and to those fathers who are frustrated in their efforts to relate to their children.

Putative Fathers

A series of Supreme Court cases in the 1970s and 1980s defined the unwed, or putative, father’s relationship with his child as the basis of a liberty interest. A liberty interest is not exactly a right but it is similar in that it has been granted constitutional protection. This liberty interest is thought to arise from belief in the importance of the family unit; it is primarily a function of relationship rather than biological kinship. The importance of a putative father’s relationship with his child as compared to the importance of biological kinship is addressed in what is known as the Stanley line of cases: Stanley (1972), Quillion (1978), Caban (1979), and Lehr (1983). In this line of cases, the United States Supreme Court held that (1) biological kinship provides an opportunity for the putative father to develop a relationship with his child; (2) the nature of the relationship between the putative father and his child may give rise to a liberty interest in the relationship; and (3) the liberty interest gives rise to the constitutionally protected right to assert paternity. Although the unwed father may be denied the right to gain custody, to visit, or to stop an adoption proceeding, especially if the mother is married to another man, an illegitimate child is entitled to support from the biological father. Thus, the state or the mother (whether or not married to another man) may bring an action to obtain support for a child. <

Mobility of the Single Custodial Parent

The standards applied to cases involving the relocation of a parent outside the jurisdiction in which a custody decree exists varies by jurisdiction. Requirements in different states range from allowing the custodial parent to move for any reason so long as the noncustodial parent does not prove that the move is adverse to the child’s best interest to requiring the custodial parent to show exceptional circumstances in order to obtain permission to move. In many states, only a challenge by the noncustodial parent will require the custodial parent to provide a reason for moving. Indeed, many times the custodial parent’s desire/need to move to another state is pitted against the desire to retain custody. This may be particularly true for women because courts tend to be more demanding of sacrifice for the sake of children from mothers and question a woman’s pursuit of a career. In the past, if dissatisfied with a custody decision, a parent could move with a child to another state and bring an action for custody. Although not condoned, “forum shopping,” as this practice has been called, was possible because jurisdiction rules have not been applied in custody cases as they have in other cases. However, parents are finding this practice less viable today.

To address problems of jurisdiction in custody cases, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) was designed as a model to shift the focus from jurisdiction over the parent to the needs of the child. The purposes were to reduce chaos created by interstate jurisdictional competition and to promote cooperation between jurisdictions, as well as to promote the stable environment that most consider to be in a child’s best interests. Through the concept of continuing jurisdiction, the act forbids the modification of a child custody decree in one state when the original decree was issued in another state that still has jurisdiction over the case. The model act is said to have partially laid aside the confusion created by the Halvey case, in which the Supreme Court held that in order to protect the best interests of the child, a court in one state could modify a custody decree from another state. Although most states have adopted the principles in the UCCJA, the issues are complicated, and there are still many problems. For an excellent review of the application of and problems with UCCJA.

Sexual Behavior of Custodial Parents

As has been seen, courts tend to be biased in favor of traditional assumptions about family life and the roles of men and women. Such biases may be best illustrated in disputes involving the sexual behavior of parents. It should be noted at the outset that jeopardy to custody because of a nonmarital sexual relationship is a greater problem for women than for men.

Whether the parent is involved in a nonmarital heterosexual or homosexual relationship, the court may grant custody on the condition that the parent not live with certain persons or even that the parent terminate certain relationships. The court may require that a juvenile authority supervise the parent’s behavior, may require a change of the parent’s conduct, or may prohibit the parent from participating in overnight stays with certain persons—all of which is done in order to insulate the child from behavior considered inappropriate by the court. Although courts at all levels may let their views of appropriate behaviors influence custody decisions, these biases appear to be most prevalent at the trial court level.

Homosexual parents have a more difficult time than heterosexual parents. Where actual harm to the child is presumed, courts will generally prohibit the custodial parent from overnight visitation with lovers. Among other things, this indicates that courts are reluctant to expand the definition of family in visitation and custody disputes to reflect trends in the makeup of the American family. A New York court refused visitation rights to a lesbian ex-partner with the biological mother of the child because the statute in question only applied to biological parents. The biological mother had been artificially inseminated, and the lesbian ex-partner had acted as the child’s parent during the relationship; after the relationship was terminated, she had provided financial support for the child. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, stating that the ex-partner had no standing to bring a petition for visitation.

It is common for courts to worry that a homosexual parent will influence a child’s sexual orientation even though the evidence clearly indicates this is not a problem. Courts may be concerned that others will harass a child whose parent is homosexual or may conclude that a homosexual parent is unacceptable because the behavior is in violation of sodomy statutes. The degree of limitation on personal behavior/freedom of parents varies according to the court’s beliefs about and knowledge of sexuality. However now with same sex marriages being legal in Utah and many other states, things are being to change for the better.

Cohabitation

Cohabitation is another situation in which presumed sexual behavior can cause difficulty with custody decisions. A disgruntled spouse may use the traditional assumptions of the court to manipulate and control the behavior of the other spouse. For example, in one case, in response to the mother’s motion for modification of custody, the father also filed a petition to modify custody. He did not seek custody of his children, but sought to have the mother cease relations with her boyfriend. The custodial parent (mother) had sought modification of a custody decree in order to establish specific times at which the noncustodial parent (father) could visit their children. Apparently, the father had not only refused to pay the amount of child support stipulated in the divorce decree, he had also crashed his car into the mother’s boyfriend’s car and had threatened the family. The trial court, without specific findings of harm to the children, stated that overnight visitations by the mother’s boyfriend were not conducive to the children’s well-being, but that if the mother were to marry the boyfriend there would be no issue. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island upheld the trial court’s decision to modify the custody provision, which, in effect, restrained the mother from having overnight visits with her boyfriend. Not only did this court extend the definition of cohabitation to include sexual relations, but also, in effect, it allowed an exspouse to control the sexual behavior of the custodial parent. This decision forced the custodial parent to choose between two constitutional rights, freedom of association and personal privacy from unwarranted governmental intrusion. Although the United States Supreme Court has expressly provided that the government cannot force an individual to choose between two constitutionally guaranteed rights, in custody cases, it is the child’s best interests, not the parents interests, that are the issue.

Religious Practices

When religious practices of parents are thought to jeopardize the mental health or physical safety of a child, they can be a determining factor in a custody decision. In one case (Hadeen), the mother’s religious practices included fasting and spanking until the will of a child is broken. The trial court awarded custody to the father, but, on appeal, the court specifically considered whether the religious practices of the mother constituted reasonable likelihood that the child would be impaired. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for further consideration by the trial court in order to ensure that the trial court had not put too much weight on the religious factor. Justice Dore, dissenting, disagreed with the reversal, stating that the facts of the case indicated that the children were in jeopardy. One compelling incident reported in testimony was of the mother spanking one child for two hours while her other children held the child down.

In addition to noting that religion is a thorny issue in custody disputes, it is important to recognize that the religious interests of parents are more often seen as commensurate with the best interests of children—even when children are directly affected and hurt—than are the relationship interests of parents, even if children are neither directly affected nor hurt. In Hadeen, the court appeared to be more concerned with protecting Mrs. Hadeen’s right to freedom of religious practices than with protecting the best interests of the children. In this case the attention clearly wasn’t focused on the children. Taken together, the case seems to say that it is not really the effect on children but the values of courts that ultimately determine the outcome. It appears to be more acceptable to discipline a child in a manner that constitutes child abuse than to have relationships with members of the same or opposite sex, regardless of whether the nature of the relationship is known by the children or whether the relationship can be shown to be harmful to the children.

Joint Custody

Joint custody arrangements have become increasingly popular. Joint legal custody, as opposed to joint physical custody, generally connotes a situation in which the parents share equal responsibilities in child rearing; it is generally not tied to the amount of time that a child is in the presence of one or the other parent. The joint custody arrangement has its roots in concern for the best interests of the child; however, there are still many arguments for and against joint custody. Joint custody is necessarily a complex arrangement, and partly because of the individual circumstances in each case, there is little agreement on the best policies to be followed.

It is interesting that despite the fact that the success of joint custody arrangements is predicated on the willingness of parents to work together, some courts allow joint custody over the objection of a parent. Some courts feel so strongly about the importance of both parents being involved with the child(ren) that spousal attitudes toward each other can influence custody decisions. Insistence that both parents have access to a child may be warranted in most cases, but where there is a history of family violence or harassment, a parent’s objection to an award of joint custody should not prejudice the court. Although there are cases in which a court has ruled that a parent’s good faith objection to joint custody should not prejudice a request for sole custody, one can imagine a situation in which a battered spouse has no specific proof to present to the court in support of a request for sole custody.

Additionally, joint custody arrangements may result in reduction in the allowance or in no allowance for child support. It is not only unfair but also illogical to place equal financial responsibility on parents who are not equivalent in terms of financial resources.

Child custody laws in Utah are complex. Hire the services of an expert – an experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer to help you navigate the complex maze of American Fork Utah child custody laws.

American Fork Utah Divorce Lawyer

When you need legal help in American Fork Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC (801) 676-5506 for your Free Consultation. We can help you with divorce, child custody, child support, postnups, prenups, adoptions, guardianships, and more.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Criminal Defense Lawyer Riverton Utah

Divorce Cases With Child Custody In Utah

Variances And Conditional Use Permits

Juvenile Criminal Offenses In Utah

Tax Aspects Of Bankruptcy

Family Lawyer Bountiful Utah

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/divorce-lawyer-american-fork-utah/

from Criminal Defense Lawyer West Jordan Utah https://criminaldefenselawyerwestjordanutah.wordpress.com/2020/01/23/divorce-lawyer-american-fork-utah/

[aretia]

Divorce Lawyer American Fork Utah

The law of divorce has changed a lot since the first divorce laws were passed in this country. If you are seeking a divorce consult with an experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer. Utah divorce law is complex. The lawyer can help you navigate the complex maze of Utah divorce laws.

During the first half of the nineteenth century, contests about political, religious, and economic roles of husbands and wives were prevalent throughout the North and West. Debates about limiting suffrage to male property owners emerged early in the century. Civic responsibility came to be shared among a larger class; property restrictions on male voting waned. As men moved out of the home to work, women gained recognition as teachers of domestic, cultural, and religious values.

In many areas of the country, and in parts of Utah, both spouses acquired new roles. Husbands and fathers, while retaining their position as political governors, became breadwinners. Wives and mothers, while continuing their household chores, became teachers and moral beacons. Faith also became more democratic. Salvation for many became an individual decision to be made rather than an outcome to be imposed by God. Women, deprived of political and economic power, often were attracted to this devotional message and integrated its teachings into their family life. Since salvation required good deeds on earth, maintenance of an observant family became an essential good deed for women. Throughout, however, patriarchal families remained central, as a place for faithful religious observance, a site for inculcation of cultural values, and a training ground for adult exercise of civic responsibility.

Modification of marital property rules throughout the nation during the first decades of the nineteenth century, like changes in political and religious structures, left the essential features of the patriarchal family intact. Upon marriage, common law rules used in much of the nation during the Revolutionary War era gave a husband ownership of almost all of the personal property of his wife as soon as he reduced it to his possession. In addition, he also gained management rights over her real property for the life of the marriage. Upon the birth of a child, control over the wife’s real property was extended to the lifetime of the husband. While early nineteenth-century reforms allowed some deserted women to regain their property or their economic independence and married women’s property acts precluded attachment of a wife’s property by creditors of her husband, men retained control over the central economic features of intact families. Family formation rituals also changed after the Revolutionary War. Arranged marriages virtually disappeared. Romance emerged as a basis for mate selection. But such “freedom” did not reduce the impetus to marry. Family remained as a solid source of status and cultural location. The attractions of power remained for men; the promise of economic security attracted women; the legitimation of sexual behavior attracted both. In stark contrast with the present day, when images of rock-solid, politically attuned, churchgoing families often seem little more than nostalgic symbols called to duty by desperate politicians, early nineteenth-century adults expected to marry, raise a family, develop a family economy, and stay together ‘til death did they part.

While the headlines focus on child support, the damage to the family far exceeds the monetary hurt. Living with one parent in and of itself places a child at risk for a host of negative experiences. When the child whose parents split up is not even seeing the other parent, the consequences can be more severe (as will be discussed). In neighborhoods with a high rate of father absence, there are higher rates of poverty, public assistance families, and high school dropouts. Fatherlessness (and to a lesser extent, motherlessness) cuts across all races and economic classes.

An experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer can assist you in your custody battle. In a custody battle, a frequently litigated change of circumstance is the presence of a live-in companion of the custodial parent. As mentioned earlier, courts approach this matter in very different ways, but the critical issue should always be the effect that the relationship has on the children. In a highly publicized Rhode Island case, a court ordered a custodial parent to refrain from allowing any unrelated males from making overnight visits while the children were in the house. And yet in another state a court ruled that a mother could not be prevented from permitting overnight visits by unrelated males unless there was evidence that it directly affected the welfare of the children. Indeed, there is no single guiding principle for this issue except that courts are supposed to be looking out for the interests of the children rather than using these cases to impose their own morality. But what is “best” for the children is often a subjective consideration, and custody has been lost on the basis of a court’s decision that the children would be better off in the other parent’s household.

Fathers who don’t pay child support

If your ex-spouse is not paying the child support as ordered by the court, speak to an experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer. There are many categories of fathers who don’t pay child support. One category outlines what has been termed the “overextended parent.” There are a number of variations of this type of man. The first is a man who was so eager to get out of his marriage or felt so guilty about leaving the marriage that he agreed to undertake an unreasonable level of child support that he was then unable to fulfill. This type of man is often described as relatively immature and naive, with little idea about what it takes to support two households. Once he falls behind on his support payments, it becomes virtually impossible for him to catch up. Thus the delinquency stems from his inability to meet the obligation, and often he eventually gives up even trying.

The second variation largely includes men who start out paying the prescribed amount, but within a couple of years — often after comparing notes with other divorced fathers — they come to believe that their burden exceeds that which others are obliged to pay. This type of man is likely to become angry, but rather than go back to court to seek a modification of his payments, he unilaterally reduces the payment on his own. This type of man does not perceive himself as a delinquent because some payment is still made, but it is inadequate to meet the needs of the children.

A third type of man who becomes an overextended parent is the noncustodial father who remarries, giving rise to a second family. When he has insufficient financial resources to meet the demands of both families, it is invariably his current family that gets taken care of and his noncustodial children that suffer.

As an aside, it has been observed that many men who have sufficient resources are often more diligent about making support payments when they remarry and have a second family. While this may be counter-intuitive, the reason may be that men who remarry are family oriented and consequently more concerned about the welfare of their children.

Finally, the fourth variation of the overextended father is one who becomes ill or unemployed; instead of going to court and having his payments reduced or temporarily suspended, he ignores the situation, engages in denial to avoid dealing with his payment problem, and merely drifts into delinquency without assuming any responsibility for his plight. When the problem inevitably catches up with him, he is the one who feels victimized by the system and adopts a hostile, rather than conciliatory, posture. The second category of men who fail to comply with their child support obligations are those who seek revenge against their ex-wives. This type of man carries with him many grudges, grievances and unresolved feelings concerning his marriage and family situation. Withholding child support payments is one of his few means of expressing anger. By controlling the money he exercises power and control over his ex-spouse, continuing the hostilities that resulted in the divorce but that apparently were not resolved by it.

Since disagreement over money is a major source of conflict in many marriages, particularly those that fail, withholding money is a way of keeping those past disputes alive. Where there was a high level of conflict between the parents prior to their separation, there is likely to be a high level of unresolved conflict subsequent to the divorce. In such high-conflict cases, withholding child support payments is not an unusual way for feelings of revenge to be expressed. Also, men who feel that they have been unfairly treated by the court may believe that the financial settlement is unjust and that withholding child support payments is warranted.

These men feel discriminated against by the legal system, hostile toward the world, and believe their ex-spouses are responsible for the injustice. Little regard is given to the effect that this vengeful behavior has on the children.

The third category of deadbeat dads are those men who do not make child support payments because of the emotional pain that is wrapped up in the divorce process. There appear to be two types of situations that provide these men with a rationale for withholding child support. The first is the man’s intense emotional reaction to his marriage falling apart and his becoming an absentee parent. His feeling shut out of the family is intensely painful to him, and one way of coping with his emotional distress is by distancing himself from the children.

The very process of establishing distance, which may be both physical and emotional, protects him from pain but also causes him to become alienated from the family. What then emerges is the rationale that since he is no longer part of the family, he need not assume any of the financial responsibility for it. Thus, to cope with the pain of losing custody of his children, he pushes them away and ignores their needs.

The second type of situation within this category occurs when there is a dispute over visitation. Here an otherwise caring father is denied the amount of visitation that he wants with his children and withholds support as a way of forcing his ex-spouse to acquiesce to his visitation requests. Interestingly, most problems involving denial of visitation stem from conflicts around money and payments of child support. Visitation thus becomes the ball on the economic playing field. Despite the fact that in most cases child support is specifically not conditioned upon a right of visitation, the emotional pain experienced by the noncustodial parent often causes him to seek revenge by hurting the very children with whom he wants to visit. Often this leads to a cycle of nonpayment and denied visitation that is so detrimental to the best interests of the very children who are the subjects of the support and visitation.

The fourth and largest category of deadbeat dads are those fathers who simply behave in an irresponsible manner with respect to their children. This type of man may disappear, not because he is overburdened per se and not because he is angry or vengeful toward the mother of his children. Many simply have no interest in parenting. Their role models have either been extremely poor or nonexistent and, not having themselves been treated well as children, they feel no responsibility to care for their own children. They rarely think about the children and may not even think of themselves as the parent.

For this type of man, children have little meaning in his life and he feels little obligation on their behalf. He certainly would not go out of his way or change his established pattern of behavior, nor would he consider working harder to make more money in order to provide for the children. This category includes the father who participated in bringing a child into the world but who has little or no sense of what it takes to rear that child. This kind of man often feels as though he was trapped by the woman and therefore believes that he is entitled to abdicate responsibility for the child.

Finally, there is a small category of men who are said to be going through what has been termed the “New Life Syndrome.” This type of man is egocentric and self-absorbed. While many deadbeat dads also tend to be self-centered, most seem to have some rationale for their behavior other than merely their own self-interest. This type of deadbeat is different: he needs no justification for his delinquency other than his own desires. He puts himself first; he feels entitled to have his needs met above all others, including his children; and he offers no excuses for his behavior. A significant factor is the father’s perception of how much control he has in determining how his child support payments are used on behalf of the children. For example, if he believes that his child support payments are being used by his ex-spouse on herself, he is less likely to continue making payments. Some men who feel that they have little say in the children’s upbringing believe it is ample excuse for not meeting financial responsibilities.

When there is joint child custody, a factor often related to compliance with child support obligations is the length of time that the children live with the father. When children stay with the father for periods of weeks or even months at a time (such as on holidays or school vacations), there is a tendency for payments to be withheld or reduced at those times because the father perceives himself as already supporting the children.

Extended visits are frequently viewed by fathers quite differently than shorter stays, because of the length of time and cost involved. Yet this may be inevitable when father and children live geographically distant from one another. The children have to travel far to visit their father, and therefore the visits tend to be less frequent but longer.

Often this changes, however, as children get older. Adolescents become reluctant to leave their friends for extended periods, resulting in their visits with fathers becoming less frequent. The reduced time together is likely to diminish the emotional connection between father and children, and the resulting alienation serves to diminish the father’s commitment to meeting his child support obligations. While this is not universally true, the level of contact between a father and his children is generally considered to be a significant factor in child support payments being made. Men who see their children irregularly are more likely to abdicate their financial responsibilities to them.

The remarriage of either or both spouses often creates another obstacle to continued child support payments. If the mother remarries and the ex-husband continues to maintain hostility against her, he may feel betrayed and angry at her new relationship. Her remarriage gives him an excuse to terminate payments upon the rationale that her new husband will provide for the children and his support is no longer necessary. This is a typical reaction when it is the ex-wife who remarries. When it is the ex-husband who remarries, there seem to be two possible paths. When economic resources are limited, a father is often faced with the difficult task of trying to maintain a good standard of living for his new family while at the same time struggling to keep up with his child support payments, which his new wife will often pressure him to reduce, or even stop. On the other hand, fathers who have an adequate income when they remarry frequently continue to make their child support payments, particularly if they are able to maintain a relationship with the children.

A very important consideration that affects full and timely child support obligations being met is the prior and existing relationship between the children’s mother and father. Factors include: the length of the marriage, the quality of the relationship during the divorce process, and the continuing level of attachment and interaction between the parents. Marriages that lasted a long time appear to result in a greater financial and emotional investment on the part of both parents. This interdependency between the parents may foster or facilitate an enduring attachment between them, which thereby reinforces their commitment to cooperate in the upbringing of their children. By the same token, parents who relate to each other in a relatively non-hostile manner during the divorce process also increase the likelihood that support will be paid. A poor quality of relationship between the ex-spouses often gives rise to the father expressing his negative feelings through noncompliance with support obligations. Thus, to the extent that a good relationship between former spouses can be maintained, it will reinforce the mutual commitment to their children and is likely to lead to greater compliance with child support obligations.

Another element that is likely to influence the continuity of child support is whether the obligation was arrived at by agreement or by court order. An agreement generally gives both parties an opportunity to exercise some control over the amount and frequency of the payments. This reduces the likelihood that the father will feel that he has been treated unjustly by the legal system. A feeling of being victimized often provides an excuse for not fulfilling financial responsibilities to the children.

Perhaps the single most important component is the degree of likelihood that the order will be enforced. Many fathers will not voluntarily pay child support to their ex-wives unless they are confronted by an authority that is willing and able to track them down and employ enforcement mechanisms.

Compliance rates are significantly higher when there is a court-monitored system for collecting child support and where there is a certainty of recourse (e.g., fines and/or jail) for noncompliance. In the absence of a perceived direct relationship between non-payment of child support and punishment, many fathers simply will not pay. The burden of collecting child support still falls primarily upon the mother, whose responsibility for pursuing payments that are in default often seems overwhelming and unmanageable. Many women become discouraged with having to deal with a slow and generally unresponsive legal system, trying to locate the whereabouts of an ex-husband, and finding the time, energy, emotional strength, and financial resources to carry a legal action forward.

The Single Mother Who Doesn’t Receive Support

The burden of collecting child support still falls upon the parent, and how she responds to a deadbeat dad has a significant impact on the likelihood of her obtaining child support payments. Indeed, the attitudes and responses of many custodial mothers contribute to the problem. Those who do not pursue child support in an effective and timely fashion reinforce, to both themselves and the deadbeat dad, that they are either unwilling or unable to stand up for the rights of their children. There are several types of women whose reactions or inaction contributes to the problems they encounter in receiving child support payments.

One type of woman is inappropriately passive and believes that someone will come along and take care of her. These women are often young and may never have had the responsibility of living on their own. When their relationship or marriage ends, they naively believe that the children’s father will continue to provide financial support. It is a rude awakening indeed when he does not, and often for the first time she finds herself on her own. She must assume sole support of her children or figure out a way to get the father to pay his share.

Many such women attempt to engage a lawyer, but soon realize such a route is complicated and expensive. Others find the responsibility for pursuing a legal remedy when payments are in default to be overwhelming and unmanageable. They find that they must deal with a slow and generally unresponsive legal system. But for so many women, finding the time, energy, emotional strength and financial resources to carry the legal action forward is more than they can muster.

Passive women also fail to follow through with the federally funded agencies that are available to provide assistance. While the services provided by these agencies are generally free of charge, they require monitoring and persistence, since the case workers are generally overburdened and the process is typical of large bureaucracies. A woman who relies on federal or state services must be prepared to pursue the case workers on a regular basis and insist that all available avenues of recourse be exhausted.

A second type of woman who may encounter difficulty in working through a bureaucratic government agency is the woman who is anxious and angry. She frequently deals with her frustrations poorly by flooding the child support agency with highly emotional calls and letters and by irritating the case workers who are overwhelmed with cases but who are nonetheless trying to help.

While the long-held maxim that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” may be true in many instances, this type of woman tends to be so overemotional and overbearing in her efforts to gain assistance that she actually works against herself as she alienates the very people who can help her. Many such women will abandon their efforts to pursue child support when they realize how difficult and frustrating the process can be.

Finally, there are still other women who have never taken steps to get a child support order. Some are women whose children were born out of wedlock; because they never married they erroneously believe that their children are not entitled to child support. Others fail to secure an award because they feel disgraced, do not want to get involved with the legal system, or would rather rely on their family for support. In the latter group are those who choose not to have any relationship between father and child and decline support in order to prevent such a relationship. This includes women who never even tell the father that he has a child. And there are single mothers who through their naiveté, passivity, inappropriate behavior, and feeling of lack of entitlement inadvertently contribute to their children’s problems. Most single mothers, however, are deeply concerned about their children’s welfare and would willingly, if not gladly, at least do what is needed in the best interest of the children.

What a Woman Can do to Facilitate Compliance

In recent years state and federal governments have instituted significant new methods for locating delinquent fathers and making them meet their child support obligations. It is clear, however, to anyone who has been involved in child support collection that practical solutions are much more effective than agency or judicial proceedings. Adversarial confrontations drain everyone involved of precious and scarce time, energy, and money. They may even have negative effects on the children by maintaining a high level of post divorce turmoil. Understanding the delinquent father’s motivation can sometimes be helpful in gaining his compliance.

When there is a good relationship between ex-spouses, there tends to be greater compliance with child support payments. Assuming the custodial parent’s goal is to ensure the best interests of the children, and that compliance with child support obligations promotes that goal, the first task is to establish and maintain as good a relationship as possible. This may mean consciously putting aside grudges and lingering feelings of anger toward an exspouse. This is often not easy, since divorce is usually acrimonious and leaves a legacy of bitterness and disappointment. Yet it is this very lingering conflict during the post divorce stage that is often used by the noncustodial father to rationalize his failure to make payments. A woman seeking to ensure compliance with support obligations should attempt to work through or set aside negative or hostile feelings in order to minimize conflict with her ex-husband. This is also likely to improve his relationship with the children, which will also increase the likelihood of paying support.

It is important to reiterate here that an agreement reached voluntarily by both parties is more likely to work than is one that is ordered by the court without participation and agreement of the parties. While it is important to formalize any private agreement by presenting it in court, a mutually negotiated and voluntary agreement is more likely to be honored by the parties. Once again, this requires the parties to be able to set aside negative feelings, focus the negotiation on the welfare of the children rather than continuing pre-divorce conflicts, and to arrive at a child support agreement that both parties feel has tried to accommodate their needs.

While it may be important to settle such practical matters as how and when child support payments will be made (e.g., by check through the mail, by deposit made into a bank account, by electronic funds transfer, etc.), an important concern of fathers is that they be able to exercise a degree of control over their obligation. Sometimes those who feel little control will use this as a rationale for nonpayment. For example, if the children are older and it is important to the father to demonstrate to them that he contributes to their support in a significant way, he might make payments directly to their school, to extracurricular activities, or even purchase necessities himself.

Many noncustodial fathers also feel a loss of control over the decision-making process concerning both how their children will be raised and how the money that they pay will be used. Fathers frequently feel that their money goes into a “black hole” controlled by their ex-wife, who they often suspect uses it for herself and not the children. Whether these fears and suspicions are real or fabricated to avoid payment, often the result is that the children do not receive the support that is due. An instrument that has emerged to deal with this, as well as to negotiate a voluntary agreement, is mediation. Mediators are usually professionals trained in the art of negotiated settlements.

A mediator can be hired by the parties or suggested by the court to devise a workable agreement. The mediator is not aligned with either party, but is engaged to facilitate accord. All parties have an opportunity to express themselves and to voice their needs and concerns. The process is intended to allay fears, deal with defensiveness and rationalization, create problem solving, and consider the needs of all the parties, particularly the best interests of the children. Child support agreements that are voluntarily established through mediation have higher rates of observance than those that are ordered by the court. Women who are concerned about compliance should make every effort to negotiate their own settlement and should be aware of the positive results obtained through mediation.

Another issue closely related to maintaining child support is the degree of emotional connection between a father and his children. If conditions become such that fathers lose their sense of closeness or connectedness with their children, the likelihood of their keeping up their support is diminished. This can occur as time goes by and the father sees less and less of his children because they get older and develop their own relationships. It can also occur if the father or children move far away from one another. It also happens to some men when they remarry and develop new allegiances and responsibilities. Regardless of the reason for the estrangement, the deterioration of the emotional connection between a father and his children significantly affects his commitment to their financial support. It is very important that the father be assisted in maintaining his relationship with his children. Regular visits are important. Having the father participate in decision making around important child issues is crucial. Both reinforce the bond between a father and his children.

Even if regular visitation or paternal participation is not feasible (or perhaps desirable), other steps can be taken to keep the father informed, and thus involved, with his children, albeit on a more superficial level. It is important to make every effort to keep him in touch with the children’s development, their accomplishments, and their needs. Pictures can be sent regularly. The children themselves can send notes and memorabilia related to their interests and accomplishments. Every effort that keeps him in contact with his children will enhance the likelihood of their getting the child support to which they are entitled.

Federal courts typically do not claim jurisdiction over matters of divorce, alimony, or child custody. Implications of this limitation are that custody decisions are not appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and general national trends are discernible primarily at the state level of appeal through an examination of case law.

In 1970, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws adopted the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act. The American Bar Association ratified it in 1974. Consistent with no-fault legislation and the move toward gender equality in matters of divorce, the UMDA adopted the best interest of the child (BIOC) standard for child custody decision making. Five criteria were suggested for use with the BIOC standard: (a) the wishes of the child’s parent or parents as to his/her custody; (b) the wishes of the child as to his/her custodian; (c) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with his/her parent or parents, his/her siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest; (d) the child’s adjustment to his or her home, school, and community; and (e) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved. Conduct of the proposed custodian that does not affect his/her relationship to the child was not to be considered. The UMDA represented a national commentary on child custody standards, and, since 1970, all 50 states have translated aspects of the BIOC standard into either statutes or case law.

On the international level of policy making, the United States is one of 30 countries that has adopted the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction. This convention is used when a child has been wrongfully taken away from his or her place of “habitual residence” against the wishes of the custodial parent. The convention is used by the state and federal courts to return the child to the place of habitual residence where substantive issues of custody can be heard. The Hague Convention cannot be used to evaluate issues of best interest, only the issue of wrongful removal from the habitual residence.

The BIOC standard is a substantive guideline for custody decision making that focuses on the life situation of a particular child and involves the consideration of a list of relevant factors in determining with whom the child should be placed.

Many states require the use of a specified subset of these factors to decide contested custody cases and ask judges to consider all relevant factors without systematic (i.e., across all cases) preference to any one factor. It is the purest application of the BIOC standard and, because of the open-ended consideration of factors, the most complex decision-making standard. It is favored by some because it respects the individual situation of each child, allows the child due process in terms of having a variety of factors considered, and because many of the other proposed rules have been judged as inequitable or unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. However, the unweighted BIOC standard also has been criticized as too individualistic and indeterminant (relying on judges’ personal values and normative beliefs rather than societal ones), resulting in heavy demands on judicial and court resources and increased litigation. Thus, the unweighted BIOC standard seems to have merit when evaluated using some child-based values, but is problematic when evaluated using criteria focusing on logistics and selected societal values and normative role patterns (e.g., children should be placed with the person who provided the most frequent and consistent care).

Consequently, several intermediate rules have been championed, with the differing rules being favored by some and disdained by others. These rules include the tender years doctrine (equated by some with the maternal presumption), the psychological parent preference, the primary caretaker preference, the preference for joint custody, the child wishes rule, and the approximation rule. Potentially, each of these intermediate rules can be used to define the BIOC and, when used as such, carry preferential or presumptive weight in the decision-making process.

Tender Years Presumption

This presumption orders the court to assume that the best interests of the child are met when the child remains with the mother. It surfaced in the 19th century, and the definition of tender years expanded from infancy to the teen years during the 20th century. Determination of maternal fault for the marital breakdown and/or evidence of maternal unfitness were required to overrule the presumption.

During the 1970s, the tender years presumption was deemed unsuitable in determining the BIOC in most states. Political, legal, and social norms highlighted the importance of gender neutrality, and many states decided the tender years presumption violated the Equal Protection Amendment of the Constitution and/or was not good public policy.

Child Support

Regardless of financial resources, parents have a legal duty during and after marriage to support children below the age of majority (i.e., legal age), including those born outside of wedlock. Post-divorce support of children is intended to maintain the marital standard of living. Amount of support required is based on current needs; therefore, it is modifiable if there has been a change in circumstances that warrants reconsideration. Utah has laws that hold mothers and fathers equally responsible for child support. Likewise, most recent court decisions have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment or state equal rights amendments to require gender-neutral support statutes. However, gender neutral statutes that essentially eliminate the father’s primary duty to support have received some criticism. Not only does level of living improve for men and get worse for women after divorce. Because the custodial parent bears the primary responsibility for the care of children, earning potential often must be sacrificed, whereas the noncustodial parent gains earning potential as a result of not having responsibility for the day-to-day care of children. Because the majority of custodial parents are women, and women generally earn less than men, it is the woman who will, proportionately, contribute most to the financial support of children.

It is ironic that, in the face of an established parental duty to support, the early courts looked to the custodial parent’s financial stability rather than considering the noncustodial parent’s duty to support. Today some courts are unwilling to increase child support if the increase would improve the custodial parent’s standard of living along with the child’s. At the same time, even though a court may be reluctant to award enough support for a mother to stay home or obtain excellent care for children, the same court may question whether a working mother should get and/or retain custody.

Modification of Support

There are a number of circumstances under which modifications are made. Examples include a reduction in the income of the supporting parent (however, this is rarely effective even if the supporting parent has been incarcerated or either a formal or informal agreement to a reduction. Ordinarily only modifications of future obligations are allowed, but when a parent has requested that the obligation be reduced and has not been able to pay at the current level, retroactive modifications have been made. The problem is that some noncustodial parents have made reduced payments expecting that if the custodial parent seeks enforcement of the original support obligation, it would be possible to get a retroactive reduction. Although it is clearly possible in some cases, retroactive reduction of arrearages in child support are prohibited by federal law if the custodial parent receives funds from Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

Termination of Support

There are several reasons why support may be terminated before a child reaches the age of majority. In some states if the supporting parent dies, support is terminated, but in some, death does not result in automatic termination; inheritance and life insurance are used to continue support. Another reason for terminating support is the emancipation of the minor child; that is, the child is accorded legal status before reaching the age of majority. Examples include marriage, entry into military service, leaving the parent’s home and refusing to follow parent’s wishes, or becoming economically independent through employment. Adoption by a parent who replaces the supporting parent is also a possible reason for termination of a support obligation.

It is also possible for support obligations to be terminated if visitation by the supporting, noncustodial parent is denied. It is commonly thought that the reason why men refuse to pay child support is that they are denied opportunity to visit their children. Although studies have found no correlation between child support compliance and complaints about visitation, some courts have interpreted visitation and support decrees as mutually dependent contracts. Indeed, when visitation privileges or joint custody were awarded to fathers, almost 80 percent of mothers were awarded child support, but when neither visitation privileges nor joint custody were awarded to fathers, only about 30 percent of mothers were awarded child support. In cases in which a child has refused to see the custodial parent, courts have terminated support. Also, in extreme cases, such as concealment of the child by the mother, some courts have refused to make fathers pay unpaid support, maintaining that concealment is a waiver of support even though the child or spouse has been abused by the father. Rules that link child support and visitation and those that do not are inherently biased. When support and visitation are linked, the child and custodial parent’s need for financial support may be subordinated to the noncustodial parent’s need for a relationship with the child. On the other hand, when the rules are not connected, the noncustodial parent’s financial support may be considered more important than the nurturance received from either the custodial or the noncustodial parent. This is a problem because the law is more apt to recognize a tangible contribution such as money than it is to recognize an intangible contribution such as nurturance. Under some partially connecting rules, a noncustodial parent may withhold support payments if the custodial parent interferes with his or her visitation rights, but the custodial parent must have court permission to interfere with the visitation rights of the noncustodial parent even if child support has not been paid. In other words, this partially connecting rule seems to place the noncustodial parent’s right to visit above the child’s right to support.

Child Support Enforcement

The problems most common to child support are those associated with enforcement. Courts have used various civil and criminal remedies to enforce the payment of child support obligations, including contempt of court, income withholding in cases of arrearages, criminal prosecution, income tax refund offsets, guarantees for nonpayment such as bonds and liens, and termination of parental rights. Since the mid-1970s, the federal government has been actively involved in enforcement efforts.

There are two sides to federal involvement in child support enforcement. Both have grown out of efforts to obtain child support from fathers of children who receive AFDC benefits. The Child Support Enforcement Act (Pub. Law No. 93–647) was passed in 1975 and included establishment of state child support agencies, state and federal parent locator services, and the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement operated by the department of Health and Human Services. This law and its amendments put in place a number of strategies for finding fathers and forcing them to pay child support.

On the negative side of federal involvement, mothers of children who receive AFDC must identify the father of the child, a requirement that only affects poor, unmarried mothers. This legislation gives the government an unconstitutional right to intrude in the lives of poor, unmarried mothers. The United States Supreme Court agreed in Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), indicating that the interest of the state in preserving its fiscal resources did not justify an invasion of the constitutional rights of poor women. Later, when the issue was unannounced home visits by social service personnel to insure that there was no father in the home, the Court took a different position. The visits had been objected to as a violation of Fourth Amendment protection from unlawful search (a part of the logic of the right of privacy), but were upheld by the majority opinion of the Court (Wyman v. James, 1971) with dissents from Justices Douglas, Marshall, and Brennan, who pointed out the jeopardy to constitutional rights brought on by acceptance of welfare benefits. To date, this violation of the rights of poor, unmarried mothers to privacy and familial autonomy is a problem that has not been resolved either by statute or Court interpretation. On the positive side, for a mother who wants to find a father and enforce his payment of child support, resources have been improved. This is especially true in cases in which parents no longer live in the same state.

Although all states including Utah now have laws to deal with problems of enforcement of support obligations when one parent moves out of the state, getting these laws in place has been a long and frustrating problem for both parents and courts. Initially, when a parent moved out of the jurisdiction of a court, the laws that were used to exercise jurisdiction were those that had been developed to apply to commercial activities. Some courts have been unwilling to extend a long-arm statute that applied to commercial activities to a child support case because, obviously, they address different issues. In Shaffer the Court would not exercise jurisdiction (i.e., exercise authority to hear the case) over the nonresident parent who had support obligations because the nature of the ties between that parent, the state, and the precedent for litigation (commercial activities) were not related.

In Kulko, the Court agreed that the use of commercial long-arm statutes was not appropriate in child support cases. In this case, the mother moved from New York (the marital domicile of the couple) to California, where she later obtained custody of her two children. She subsequently filed a motion to modify child support. The only contacts the child’s father had with the state of California were (1) a three-day stay years before at the time the couple was married, (2) the act of buying one child’s airline ticket to move in with her mother, and (3) the fact that his children were located in that state. The Supreme Court, citing Shaffer (1977), ruled that this was insufficient to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction over the father by the state of California. The Court not only noted that from these acts alone the defendant would not have foreseen being summoned to a California court in order to defend himself, but also noted that his actions neither amounted to personal benefits derived from activities within the state nor caused an effect in California that amounted to criminal activities. Thus, the Court concluded that it would not be fair to require the father to defend himself in California. The Court further stated that the mother could have sought relief through the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), which would not require the father to leave the state of New York and would satisfy her needs.

The URESA and later the Revised URESA (RURESA) were designed as models to provide for interstate enforcement of a child support obligation. The drafters of RURESA sought to reduce the possibility of unnecessary or inappropriate modifications of support decrees by requiring that, among other things, motions to modify be reviewed by the court that delivered the initial support decision. In the Federal Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984, Congress required all states to have some form of the RURESA. Although state reciprocal enforcement acts have resulted in improvements over past attempts to use long-arm statutes designed for commercial activities, there are still some problems. In this as well as other parenting issues, courts may find themselves juggling a concern for the best interest of the child with often unacknowledged biases that arise from assumptions about relationships between husbands and wives.

Custody

Men face some biases in courts, especially in terms of child custody. Even with the move away from the maternal preference for custody, many courts still view the best interest of children to be with a mother who is “naturally” better able to nurture them. However, considered case by case, stereotyped gender-based expectations for men appear to be balanced by an inclination for male judges to understand and sympathize with the situation of another male—something that is most unlikely to happen in the response of a male judge to a woman. It would be unwise for a single mother seeking custody to count on the maternal preference. For example, if a woman does not work and stays at home where she can maximize her nurturing function, she and her child usually must live in poverty because it is rare for a court to award enough child and spousal support to relieve her of the need to work. On the other hand, if she seeks employment, the bias of the court shifts to favor the male, especially if he has remarried and the child could live with the father and a mother figure. In other words, the maternal presumption is easily overcome or inapplicable if the mother is employed outside the home. For women seeking custody, the maternal preference is balanced by traditional stereotypes and myths about women and poverty.

The law of domestic relations as it relates to child custody and child support has changed significantly throughout the last century. It was developed from state statutory and common law. In creating statutes and deciding cases, legislatures and courts have reviewed other state laws and have considered decisions in other state courts as precedent for their own actions. These efforts have culminated into what is now viewed as a national tradition of the law of domestic relations.

There are still differences between and among jurisdictions, but there are also national trends that cut across jurisdictions.

Although the “best interests of the child” has been adopted in the United States as the standard by which custody determinations are made, remnants of the Roman and English common law view of children as chattel were influential on the development of the law, especially as it relates to child support. For example, the notion that children were property of the father gave the father certain rights and responsibilities, including the right to services and custody of his children, which led to the responsibility or duty to support his children. Child support has not always, however, been considered a legally enforceable duty of the parent or right of the child. Whereas child custody has been considered in terms of the best interests of the child, child support has been considered in terms of contract law or in terms of a community’s interest in keeping citizens from becoming a public charge. Even the child support enforcement program that was initiated in 1950 was motivated primarily out of a desire to keep families from becoming dependents of the state. As would be expected, laws of custody and laws of support although related, affect single parents differently.

Most state statutes give courts considerable discretion in making custody determinations. Many would-be custody battles are settled by agreement of the parties before the case reaches the courtroom, but the court, not the parties, decides whether the agreement is in the child’s best interests. Even if the court accepts an agreement made by divorcing parents, it is free to reopen the case if a change in circumstances warrants reconsideration. This rule may be viewed as one which greatly limits parental power. However, the propensity of courts to rubberstamp these agreements may exacerbate a situation in which one parent has little bargaining power. For example, the parent most emotionally involved with the child (usually the mother) may be willing to accept less child support and other monetary or property awards as a result of threats from the other parent (usually the father) to sue for sole custody.

With extensive judicial discretion, it is difficult to avoid interjecting personal values and opinions in custody and visitation decisions. These decisions require judgments regarding the characteristics of all persons involved in the case as well as consideration of the facts. As a rule, any circumstance relevant to the best interests of the child is admissible—even past behaviors of parents. Adding to the difficulty of courts to be fair, state statutes that enumerate circumstances relevant to the child’s best interests generally do not include the weight to be given to each factor in making the custody determination.

Because of the continuing inclination to view mother-custody as best for children, fathers can be at a disadvantage in obtaining custody and visitation. Two-thirds of fathers who request it rre awarded custody by courts. However at times the courts are seen as being insensitive to noncustodial fathers who wish to continue a relationship with their children and to those fathers who are frustrated in their efforts to relate to their children.

Putative Fathers

A series of Supreme Court cases in the 1970s and 1980s defined the unwed, or putative, father’s relationship with his child as the basis of a liberty interest. A liberty interest is not exactly a right but it is similar in that it has been granted constitutional protection. This liberty interest is thought to arise from belief in the importance of the family unit; it is primarily a function of relationship rather than biological kinship. The importance of a putative father’s relationship with his child as compared to the importance of biological kinship is addressed in what is known as the Stanley line of cases: Stanley (1972), Quillion (1978), Caban (1979), and Lehr (1983). In this line of cases, the United States Supreme Court held that (1) biological kinship provides an opportunity for the putative father to develop a relationship with his child; (2) the nature of the relationship between the putative father and his child may give rise to a liberty interest in the relationship; and (3) the liberty interest gives rise to the constitutionally protected right to assert paternity. Although the unwed father may be denied the right to gain custody, to visit, or to stop an adoption proceeding, especially if the mother is married to another man, an illegitimate child is entitled to support from the biological father. Thus, the state or the mother (whether or not married to another man) may bring an action to obtain support for a child. <

Mobility of the Single Custodial Parent

The standards applied to cases involving the relocation of a parent outside the jurisdiction in which a custody decree exists varies by jurisdiction. Requirements in different states range from allowing the custodial parent to move for any reason so long as the noncustodial parent does not prove that the move is adverse to the child’s best interest to requiring the custodial parent to show exceptional circumstances in order to obtain permission to move. In many states, only a challenge by the noncustodial parent will require the custodial parent to provide a reason for moving. Indeed, many times the custodial parent’s desire/need to move to another state is pitted against the desire to retain custody. This may be particularly true for women because courts tend to be more demanding of sacrifice for the sake of children from mothers and question a woman’s pursuit of a career. In the past, if dissatisfied with a custody decision, a parent could move with a child to another state and bring an action for custody. Although not condoned, “forum shopping,” as this practice has been called, was possible because jurisdiction rules have not been applied in custody cases as they have in other cases. However, parents are finding this practice less viable today.

To address problems of jurisdiction in custody cases, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) was designed as a model to shift the focus from jurisdiction over the parent to the needs of the child. The purposes were to reduce chaos created by interstate jurisdictional competition and to promote cooperation between jurisdictions, as well as to promote the stable environment that most consider to be in a child’s best interests. Through the concept of continuing jurisdiction, the act forbids the modification of a child custody decree in one state when the original decree was issued in another state that still has jurisdiction over the case. The model act is said to have partially laid aside the confusion created by the Halvey case, in which the Supreme Court held that in order to protect the best interests of the child, a court in one state could modify a custody decree from another state. Although most states have adopted the principles in the UCCJA, the issues are complicated, and there are still many problems. For an excellent review of the application of and problems with UCCJA.

Sexual Behavior of Custodial Parents

As has been seen, courts tend to be biased in favor of traditional assumptions about family life and the roles of men and women. Such biases may be best illustrated in disputes involving the sexual behavior of parents. It should be noted at the outset that jeopardy to custody because of a nonmarital sexual relationship is a greater problem for women than for men.

Whether the parent is involved in a nonmarital heterosexual or homosexual relationship, the court may grant custody on the condition that the parent not live with certain persons or even that the parent terminate certain relationships. The court may require that a juvenile authority supervise the parent’s behavior, may require a change of the parent’s conduct, or may prohibit the parent from participating in overnight stays with certain persons—all of which is done in order to insulate the child from behavior considered inappropriate by the court. Although courts at all levels may let their views of appropriate behaviors influence custody decisions, these biases appear to be most prevalent at the trial court level.

Homosexual parents have a more difficult time than heterosexual parents. Where actual harm to the child is presumed, courts will generally prohibit the custodial parent from overnight visitation with lovers. Among other things, this indicates that courts are reluctant to expand the definition of family in visitation and custody disputes to reflect trends in the makeup of the American family. A New York court refused visitation rights to a lesbian ex-partner with the biological mother of the child because the statute in question only applied to biological parents. The biological mother had been artificially inseminated, and the lesbian ex-partner had acted as the child’s parent during the relationship; after the relationship was terminated, she had provided financial support for the child. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, stating that the ex-partner had no standing to bring a petition for visitation.

It is common for courts to worry that a homosexual parent will influence a child’s sexual orientation even though the evidence clearly indicates this is not a problem. Courts may be concerned that others will harass a child whose parent is homosexual or may conclude that a homosexual parent is unacceptable because the behavior is in violation of sodomy statutes. The degree of limitation on personal behavior/freedom of parents varies according to the court’s beliefs about and knowledge of sexuality. However now with same sex marriages being legal in Utah and many other states, things are being to change for the better.

Cohabitation

Cohabitation is another situation in which presumed sexual behavior can cause difficulty with custody decisions. A disgruntled spouse may use the traditional assumptions of the court to manipulate and control the behavior of the other spouse. For example, in one case, in response to the mother’s motion for modification of custody, the father also filed a petition to modify custody. He did not seek custody of his children, but sought to have the mother cease relations with her boyfriend. The custodial parent (mother) had sought modification of a custody decree in order to establish specific times at which the noncustodial parent (father) could visit their children. Apparently, the father had not only refused to pay the amount of child support stipulated in the divorce decree, he had also crashed his car into the mother’s boyfriend’s car and had threatened the family. The trial court, without specific findings of harm to the children, stated that overnight visitations by the mother’s boyfriend were not conducive to the children’s well-being, but that if the mother were to marry the boyfriend there would be no issue. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island upheld the trial court’s decision to modify the custody provision, which, in effect, restrained the mother from having overnight visits with her boyfriend. Not only did this court extend the definition of cohabitation to include sexual relations, but also, in effect, it allowed an exspouse to control the sexual behavior of the custodial parent. This decision forced the custodial parent to choose between two constitutional rights, freedom of association and personal privacy from unwarranted governmental intrusion. Although the United States Supreme Court has expressly provided that the government cannot force an individual to choose between two constitutionally guaranteed rights, in custody cases, it is the child’s best interests, not the parents interests, that are the issue.

Religious Practices

When religious practices of parents are thought to jeopardize the mental health or physical safety of a child, they can be a determining factor in a custody decision. In one case (Hadeen), the mother’s religious practices included fasting and spanking until the will of a child is broken. The trial court awarded custody to the father, but, on appeal, the court specifically considered whether the religious practices of the mother constituted reasonable likelihood that the child would be impaired. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for further consideration by the trial court in order to ensure that the trial court had not put too much weight on the religious factor. Justice Dore, dissenting, disagreed with the reversal, stating that the facts of the case indicated that the children were in jeopardy. One compelling incident reported in testimony was of the mother spanking one child for two hours while her other children held the child down.

In addition to noting that religion is a thorny issue in custody disputes, it is important to recognize that the religious interests of parents are more often seen as commensurate with the best interests of children—even when children are directly affected and hurt—than are the relationship interests of parents, even if children are neither directly affected nor hurt. In Hadeen, the court appeared to be more concerned with protecting Mrs. Hadeen’s right to freedom of religious practices than with protecting the best interests of the children. In this case the attention clearly wasn’t focused on the children. Taken together, the case seems to say that it is not really the effect on children but the values of courts that ultimately determine the outcome. It appears to be more acceptable to discipline a child in a manner that constitutes child abuse than to have relationships with members of the same or opposite sex, regardless of whether the nature of the relationship is known by the children or whether the relationship can be shown to be harmful to the children.

Joint Custody

Joint custody arrangements have become increasingly popular. Joint legal custody, as opposed to joint physical custody, generally connotes a situation in which the parents share equal responsibilities in child rearing; it is generally not tied to the amount of time that a child is in the presence of one or the other parent. The joint custody arrangement has its roots in concern for the best interests of the child; however, there are still many arguments for and against joint custody. Joint custody is necessarily a complex arrangement, and partly because of the individual circumstances in each case, there is little agreement on the best policies to be followed.

It is interesting that despite the fact that the success of joint custody arrangements is predicated on the willingness of parents to work together, some courts allow joint custody over the objection of a parent. Some courts feel so strongly about the importance of both parents being involved with the child(ren) that spousal attitudes toward each other can influence custody decisions. Insistence that both parents have access to a child may be warranted in most cases, but where there is a history of family violence or harassment, a parent’s objection to an award of joint custody should not prejudice the court. Although there are cases in which a court has ruled that a parent’s good faith objection to joint custody should not prejudice a request for sole custody, one can imagine a situation in which a battered spouse has no specific proof to present to the court in support of a request for sole custody.

Additionally, joint custody arrangements may result in reduction in the allowance or in no allowance for child support. It is not only unfair but also illogical to place equal financial responsibility on parents who are not equivalent in terms of financial resources.

Child custody laws in Utah are complex. Hire the services of an expert – an experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer to help you navigate the complex maze of American Fork Utah child custody laws.

American Fork Utah Divorce Lawyer

When you need legal help in American Fork Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC (801) 676-5506 for your Free Consultation. We can help you with divorce, child custody, child support, postnups, prenups, adoptions, guardianships, and more.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Criminal Defense Lawyer Riverton Utah

Divorce Cases With Child Custody In Utah

Variances And Conditional Use Permits

Juvenile Criminal Offenses In Utah

Tax Aspects Of Bankruptcy

Family Lawyer Bountiful Utah

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/divorce-lawyer-american-fork-utah/

[melissawalker01]

Divorce Lawyer American Fork Utah

The law of divorce has changed a lot since the first divorce laws were passed in this country. If you are seeking a divorce consult with an experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer. Utah divorce law is complex. The lawyer can help you navigate the complex maze of Utah divorce laws.

During the first half of the nineteenth century, contests about political, religious, and economic roles of husbands and wives were prevalent throughout the North and West. Debates about limiting suffrage to male property owners emerged early in the century. Civic responsibility came to be shared among a larger class; property restrictions on male voting waned. As men moved out of the home to work, women gained recognition as teachers of domestic, cultural, and religious values.

In many areas of the country, and in parts of Utah, both spouses acquired new roles. Husbands and fathers, while retaining their position as political governors, became breadwinners. Wives and mothers, while continuing their household chores, became teachers and moral beacons. Faith also became more democratic. Salvation for many became an individual decision to be made rather than an outcome to be imposed by God. Women, deprived of political and economic power, often were attracted to this devotional message and integrated its teachings into their family life. Since salvation required good deeds on earth, maintenance of an observant family became an essential good deed for women. Throughout, however, patriarchal families remained central, as a place for faithful religious observance, a site for inculcation of cultural values, and a training ground for adult exercise of civic responsibility.

Modification of marital property rules throughout the nation during the first decades of the nineteenth century, like changes in political and religious structures, left the essential features of the patriarchal family intact. Upon marriage, common law rules used in much of the nation during the Revolutionary War era gave a husband ownership of almost all of the personal property of his wife as soon as he reduced it to his possession. In addition, he also gained management rights over her real property for the life of the marriage. Upon the birth of a child, control over the wife’s real property was extended to the lifetime of the husband. While early nineteenth-century reforms allowed some deserted women to regain their property or their economic independence and married women’s property acts precluded attachment of a wife’s property by creditors of her husband, men retained control over the central economic features of intact families. Family formation rituals also changed after the Revolutionary War. Arranged marriages virtually disappeared. Romance emerged as a basis for mate selection. But such “freedom” did not reduce the impetus to marry. Family remained as a solid source of status and cultural location. The attractions of power remained for men; the promise of economic security attracted women; the legitimation of sexual behavior attracted both. In stark contrast with the present day, when images of rock-solid, politically attuned, churchgoing families often seem little more than nostalgic symbols called to duty by desperate politicians, early nineteenth-century adults expected to marry, raise a family, develop a family economy, and stay together ‘til death did they part.

While the headlines focus on child support, the damage to the family far exceeds the monetary hurt. Living with one parent in and of itself places a child at risk for a host of negative experiences. When the child whose parents split up is not even seeing the other parent, the consequences can be more severe (as will be discussed). In neighborhoods with a high rate of father absence, there are higher rates of poverty, public assistance families, and high school dropouts. Fatherlessness (and to a lesser extent, motherlessness) cuts across all races and economic classes.

An experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer can assist you in your custody battle. In a custody battle, a frequently litigated change of circumstance is the presence of a live-in companion of the custodial parent. As mentioned earlier, courts approach this matter in very different ways, but the critical issue should always be the effect that the relationship has on the children. In a highly publicized Rhode Island case, a court ordered a custodial parent to refrain from allowing any unrelated males from making overnight visits while the children were in the house. And yet in another state a court ruled that a mother could not be prevented from permitting overnight visits by unrelated males unless there was evidence that it directly affected the welfare of the children. Indeed, there is no single guiding principle for this issue except that courts are supposed to be looking out for the interests of the children rather than using these cases to impose their own morality. But what is “best” for the children is often a subjective consideration, and custody has been lost on the basis of a court’s decision that the children would be better off in the other parent’s household.

Fathers who don’t pay child support

If your ex-spouse is not paying the child support as ordered by the court, speak to an experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer. There are many categories of fathers who don’t pay child support. One category outlines what has been termed the “overextended parent.” There are a number of variations of this type of man. The first is a man who was so eager to get out of his marriage or felt so guilty about leaving the marriage that he agreed to undertake an unreasonable level of child support that he was then unable to fulfill. This type of man is often described as relatively immature and naive, with little idea about what it takes to support two households. Once he falls behind on his support payments, it becomes virtually impossible for him to catch up. Thus the delinquency stems from his inability to meet the obligation, and often he eventually gives up even trying.

The second variation largely includes men who start out paying the prescribed amount, but within a couple of years — often after comparing notes with other divorced fathers — they come to believe that their burden exceeds that which others are obliged to pay. This type of man is likely to become angry, but rather than go back to court to seek a modification of his payments, he unilaterally reduces the payment on his own. This type of man does not perceive himself as a delinquent because some payment is still made, but it is inadequate to meet the needs of the children.

A third type of man who becomes an overextended parent is the noncustodial father who remarries, giving rise to a second family. When he has insufficient financial resources to meet the demands of both families, it is invariably his current family that gets taken care of and his noncustodial children that suffer.

As an aside, it has been observed that many men who have sufficient resources are often more diligent about making support payments when they remarry and have a second family. While this may be counter-intuitive, the reason may be that men who remarry are family oriented and consequently more concerned about the welfare of their children.

Finally, the fourth variation of the overextended father is one who becomes ill or unemployed; instead of going to court and having his payments reduced or temporarily suspended, he ignores the situation, engages in denial to avoid dealing with his payment problem, and merely drifts into delinquency without assuming any responsibility for his plight. When the problem inevitably catches up with him, he is the one who feels victimized by the system and adopts a hostile, rather than conciliatory, posture. The second category of men who fail to comply with their child support obligations are those who seek revenge against their ex-wives. This type of man carries with him many grudges, grievances and unresolved feelings concerning his marriage and family situation. Withholding child support payments is one of his few means of expressing anger. By controlling the money he exercises power and control over his ex-spouse, continuing the hostilities that resulted in the divorce but that apparently were not resolved by it.

Since disagreement over money is a major source of conflict in many marriages, particularly those that fail, withholding money is a way of keeping those past disputes alive. Where there was a high level of conflict between the parents prior to their separation, there is likely to be a high level of unresolved conflict subsequent to the divorce. In such high-conflict cases, withholding child support payments is not an unusual way for feelings of revenge to be expressed. Also, men who feel that they have been unfairly treated by the court may believe that the financial settlement is unjust and that withholding child support payments is warranted.

These men feel discriminated against by the legal system, hostile toward the world, and believe their ex-spouses are responsible for the injustice. Little regard is given to the effect that this vengeful behavior has on the children.

The third category of deadbeat dads are those men who do not make child support payments because of the emotional pain that is wrapped up in the divorce process. There appear to be two types of situations that provide these men with a rationale for withholding child support. The first is the man’s intense emotional reaction to his marriage falling apart and his becoming an absentee parent. His feeling shut out of the family is intensely painful to him, and one way of coping with his emotional distress is by distancing himself from the children.

The very process of establishing distance, which may be both physical and emotional, protects him from pain but also causes him to become alienated from the family. What then emerges is the rationale that since he is no longer part of the family, he need not assume any of the financial responsibility for it. Thus, to cope with the pain of losing custody of his children, he pushes them away and ignores their needs.

The second type of situation within this category occurs when there is a dispute over visitation. Here an otherwise caring father is denied the amount of visitation that he wants with his children and withholds support as a way of forcing his ex-spouse to acquiesce to his visitation requests. Interestingly, most problems involving denial of visitation stem from conflicts around money and payments of child support. Visitation thus becomes the ball on the economic playing field. Despite the fact that in most cases child support is specifically not conditioned upon a right of visitation, the emotional pain experienced by the noncustodial parent often causes him to seek revenge by hurting the very children with whom he wants to visit. Often this leads to a cycle of nonpayment and denied visitation that is so detrimental to the best interests of the very children who are the subjects of the support and visitation.

The fourth and largest category of deadbeat dads are those fathers who simply behave in an irresponsible manner with respect to their children. This type of man may disappear, not because he is overburdened per se and not because he is angry or vengeful toward the mother of his children. Many simply have no interest in parenting. Their role models have either been extremely poor or nonexistent and, not having themselves been treated well as children, they feel no responsibility to care for their own children. They rarely think about the children and may not even think of themselves as the parent.

For this type of man, children have little meaning in his life and he feels little obligation on their behalf. He certainly would not go out of his way or change his established pattern of behavior, nor would he consider working harder to make more money in order to provide for the children. This category includes the father who participated in bringing a child into the world but who has little or no sense of what it takes to rear that child. This kind of man often feels as though he was trapped by the woman and therefore believes that he is entitled to abdicate responsibility for the child.

Finally, there is a small category of men who are said to be going through what has been termed the “New Life Syndrome.” This type of man is egocentric and self-absorbed. While many deadbeat dads also tend to be self-centered, most seem to have some rationale for their behavior other than merely their own self-interest. This type of deadbeat is different: he needs no justification for his delinquency other than his own desires. He puts himself first; he feels entitled to have his needs met above all others, including his children; and he offers no excuses for his behavior. A significant factor is the father’s perception of how much control he has in determining how his child support payments are used on behalf of the children. For example, if he believes that his child support payments are being used by his ex-spouse on herself, he is less likely to continue making payments. Some men who feel that they have little say in the children’s upbringing believe it is ample excuse for not meeting financial responsibilities.

When there is joint child custody, a factor often related to compliance with child support obligations is the length of time that the children live with the father. When children stay with the father for periods of weeks or even months at a time (such as on holidays or school vacations), there is a tendency for payments to be withheld or reduced at those times because the father perceives himself as already supporting the children.

Extended visits are frequently viewed by fathers quite differently than shorter stays, because of the length of time and cost involved. Yet this may be inevitable when father and children live geographically distant from one another. The children have to travel far to visit their father, and therefore the visits tend to be less frequent but longer.

Often this changes, however, as children get older. Adolescents become reluctant to leave their friends for extended periods, resulting in their visits with fathers becoming less frequent. The reduced time together is likely to diminish the emotional connection between father and children, and the resulting alienation serves to diminish the father’s commitment to meeting his child support obligations. While this is not universally true, the level of contact between a father and his children is generally considered to be a significant factor in child support payments being made. Men who see their children irregularly are more likely to abdicate their financial responsibilities to them.

The remarriage of either or both spouses often creates another obstacle to continued child support payments. If the mother remarries and the ex-husband continues to maintain hostility against her, he may feel betrayed and angry at her new relationship. Her remarriage gives him an excuse to terminate payments upon the rationale that her new husband will provide for the children and his support is no longer necessary. This is a typical reaction when it is the ex-wife who remarries. When it is the ex-husband who remarries, there seem to be two possible paths. When economic resources are limited, a father is often faced with the difficult task of trying to maintain a good standard of living for his new family while at the same time struggling to keep up with his child support payments, which his new wife will often pressure him to reduce, or even stop. On the other hand, fathers who have an adequate income when they remarry frequently continue to make their child support payments, particularly if they are able to maintain a relationship with the children.

A very important consideration that affects full and timely child support obligations being met is the prior and existing relationship between the children’s mother and father. Factors include: the length of the marriage, the quality of the relationship during the divorce process, and the continuing level of attachment and interaction between the parents. Marriages that lasted a long time appear to result in a greater financial and emotional investment on the part of both parents. This interdependency between the parents may foster or facilitate an enduring attachment between them, which thereby reinforces their commitment to cooperate in the upbringing of their children. By the same token, parents who relate to each other in a relatively non-hostile manner during the divorce process also increase the likelihood that support will be paid. A poor quality of relationship between the ex-spouses often gives rise to the father expressing his negative feelings through noncompliance with support obligations. Thus, to the extent that a good relationship between former spouses can be maintained, it will reinforce the mutual commitment to their children and is likely to lead to greater compliance with child support obligations.

Another element that is likely to influence the continuity of child support is whether the obligation was arrived at by agreement or by court order. An agreement generally gives both parties an opportunity to exercise some control over the amount and frequency of the payments. This reduces the likelihood that the father will feel that he has been treated unjustly by the legal system. A feeling of being victimized often provides an excuse for not fulfilling financial responsibilities to the children.

Perhaps the single most important component is the degree of likelihood that the order will be enforced. Many fathers will not voluntarily pay child support to their ex-wives unless they are confronted by an authority that is willing and able to track them down and employ enforcement mechanisms.

Compliance rates are significantly higher when there is a court-monitored system for collecting child support and where there is a certainty of recourse (e.g., fines and/or jail) for noncompliance. In the absence of a perceived direct relationship between non-payment of child support and punishment, many fathers simply will not pay. The burden of collecting child support still falls primarily upon the mother, whose responsibility for pursuing payments that are in default often seems overwhelming and unmanageable. Many women become discouraged with having to deal with a slow and generally unresponsive legal system, trying to locate the whereabouts of an ex-husband, and finding the time, energy, emotional strength, and financial resources to carry a legal action forward.

The Single Mother Who Doesn’t Receive Support

The burden of collecting child support still falls upon the parent, and how she responds to a deadbeat dad has a significant impact on the likelihood of her obtaining child support payments. Indeed, the attitudes and responses of many custodial mothers contribute to the problem. Those who do not pursue child support in an effective and timely fashion reinforce, to both themselves and the deadbeat dad, that they are either unwilling or unable to stand up for the rights of their children. There are several types of women whose reactions or inaction contributes to the problems they encounter in receiving child support payments.

One type of woman is inappropriately passive and believes that someone will come along and take care of her. These women are often young and may never have had the responsibility of living on their own. When their relationship or marriage ends, they naively believe that the children’s father will continue to provide financial support. It is a rude awakening indeed when he does not, and often for the first time she finds herself on her own. She must assume sole support of her children or figure out a way to get the father to pay his share.

Many such women attempt to engage a lawyer, but soon realize such a route is complicated and expensive. Others find the responsibility for pursuing a legal remedy when payments are in default to be overwhelming and unmanageable. They find that they must deal with a slow and generally unresponsive legal system. But for so many women, finding the time, energy, emotional strength and financial resources to carry the legal action forward is more than they can muster.

Passive women also fail to follow through with the federally funded agencies that are available to provide assistance. While the services provided by these agencies are generally free of charge, they require monitoring and persistence, since the case workers are generally overburdened and the process is typical of large bureaucracies. A woman who relies on federal or state services must be prepared to pursue the case workers on a regular basis and insist that all available avenues of recourse be exhausted.

A second type of woman who may encounter difficulty in working through a bureaucratic government agency is the woman who is anxious and angry. She frequently deals with her frustrations poorly by flooding the child support agency with highly emotional calls and letters and by irritating the case workers who are overwhelmed with cases but who are nonetheless trying to help.

While the long-held maxim that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” may be true in many instances, this type of woman tends to be so overemotional and overbearing in her efforts to gain assistance that she actually works against herself as she alienates the very people who can help her. Many such women will abandon their efforts to pursue child support when they realize how difficult and frustrating the process can be.

Finally, there are still other women who have never taken steps to get a child support order. Some are women whose children were born out of wedlock; because they never married they erroneously believe that their children are not entitled to child support. Others fail to secure an award because they feel disgraced, do not want to get involved with the legal system, or would rather rely on their family for support. In the latter group are those who choose not to have any relationship between father and child and decline support in order to prevent such a relationship. This includes women who never even tell the father that he has a child. And there are single mothers who through their naiveté, passivity, inappropriate behavior, and feeling of lack of entitlement inadvertently contribute to their children’s problems. Most single mothers, however, are deeply concerned about their children’s welfare and would willingly, if not gladly, at least do what is needed in the best interest of the children.

What a Woman Can do to Facilitate Compliance

In recent years state and federal governments have instituted significant new methods for locating delinquent fathers and making them meet their child support obligations. It is clear, however, to anyone who has been involved in child support collection that practical solutions are much more effective than agency or judicial proceedings. Adversarial confrontations drain everyone involved of precious and scarce time, energy, and money. They may even have negative effects on the children by maintaining a high level of post divorce turmoil. Understanding the delinquent father’s motivation can sometimes be helpful in gaining his compliance.

When there is a good relationship between ex-spouses, there tends to be greater compliance with child support payments. Assuming the custodial parent’s goal is to ensure the best interests of the children, and that compliance with child support obligations promotes that goal, the first task is to establish and maintain as good a relationship as possible. This may mean consciously putting aside grudges and lingering feelings of anger toward an exspouse. This is often not easy, since divorce is usually acrimonious and leaves a legacy of bitterness and disappointment. Yet it is this very lingering conflict during the post divorce stage that is often used by the noncustodial father to rationalize his failure to make payments. A woman seeking to ensure compliance with support obligations should attempt to work through or set aside negative or hostile feelings in order to minimize conflict with her ex-husband. This is also likely to improve his relationship with the children, which will also increase the likelihood of paying support.

It is important to reiterate here that an agreement reached voluntarily by both parties is more likely to work than is one that is ordered by the court without participation and agreement of the parties. While it is important to formalize any private agreement by presenting it in court, a mutually negotiated and voluntary agreement is more likely to be honored by the parties. Once again, this requires the parties to be able to set aside negative feelings, focus the negotiation on the welfare of the children rather than continuing pre-divorce conflicts, and to arrive at a child support agreement that both parties feel has tried to accommodate their needs.

While it may be important to settle such practical matters as how and when child support payments will be made (e.g., by check through the mail, by deposit made into a bank account, by electronic funds transfer, etc.), an important concern of fathers is that they be able to exercise a degree of control over their obligation. Sometimes those who feel little control will use this as a rationale for nonpayment. For example, if the children are older and it is important to the father to demonstrate to them that he contributes to their support in a significant way, he might make payments directly to their school, to extracurricular activities, or even purchase necessities himself.

Many noncustodial fathers also feel a loss of control over the decision-making process concerning both how their children will be raised and how the money that they pay will be used. Fathers frequently feel that their money goes into a “black hole” controlled by their ex-wife, who they often suspect uses it for herself and not the children. Whether these fears and suspicions are real or fabricated to avoid payment, often the result is that the children do not receive the support that is due. An instrument that has emerged to deal with this, as well as to negotiate a voluntary agreement, is mediation. Mediators are usually professionals trained in the art of negotiated settlements.

A mediator can be hired by the parties or suggested by the court to devise a workable agreement. The mediator is not aligned with either party, but is engaged to facilitate accord. All parties have an opportunity to express themselves and to voice their needs and concerns. The process is intended to allay fears, deal with defensiveness and rationalization, create problem solving, and consider the needs of all the parties, particularly the best interests of the children. Child support agreements that are voluntarily established through mediation have higher rates of observance than those that are ordered by the court. Women who are concerned about compliance should make every effort to negotiate their own settlement and should be aware of the positive results obtained through mediation.

Another issue closely related to maintaining child support is the degree of emotional connection between a father and his children. If conditions become such that fathers lose their sense of closeness or connectedness with their children, the likelihood of their keeping up their support is diminished. This can occur as time goes by and the father sees less and less of his children because they get older and develop their own relationships. It can also occur if the father or children move far away from one another. It also happens to some men when they remarry and develop new allegiances and responsibilities. Regardless of the reason for the estrangement, the deterioration of the emotional connection between a father and his children significantly affects his commitment to their financial support. It is very important that the father be assisted in maintaining his relationship with his children. Regular visits are important. Having the father participate in decision making around important child issues is crucial. Both reinforce the bond between a father and his children.

Even if regular visitation or paternal participation is not feasible (or perhaps desirable), other steps can be taken to keep the father informed, and thus involved, with his children, albeit on a more superficial level. It is important to make every effort to keep him in touch with the children’s development, their accomplishments, and their needs. Pictures can be sent regularly. The children themselves can send notes and memorabilia related to their interests and accomplishments. Every effort that keeps him in contact with his children will enhance the likelihood of their getting the child support to which they are entitled.

Federal courts typically do not claim jurisdiction over matters of divorce, alimony, or child custody. Implications of this limitation are that custody decisions are not appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and general national trends are discernible primarily at the state level of appeal through an examination of case law.

In 1970, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws adopted the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act. The American Bar Association ratified it in 1974. Consistent with no-fault legislation and the move toward gender equality in matters of divorce, the UMDA adopted the best interest of the child (BIOC) standard for child custody decision making. Five criteria were suggested for use with the BIOC standard: (a) the wishes of the child’s parent or parents as to his/her custody; (b) the wishes of the child as to his/her custodian; © the interaction and interrelationship of the child with his/her parent or parents, his/her siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest; (d) the child’s adjustment to his or her home, school, and community; and (e) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved. Conduct of the proposed custodian that does not affect his/her relationship to the child was not to be considered. The UMDA represented a national commentary on child custody standards, and, since 1970, all 50 states have translated aspects of the BIOC standard into either statutes or case law.

On the international level of policy making, the United States is one of 30 countries that has adopted the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction. This convention is used when a child has been wrongfully taken away from his or her place of “habitual residence” against the wishes of the custodial parent. The convention is used by the state and federal courts to return the child to the place of habitual residence where substantive issues of custody can be heard. The Hague Convention cannot be used to evaluate issues of best interest, only the issue of wrongful removal from the habitual residence.

The BIOC standard is a substantive guideline for custody decision making that focuses on the life situation of a particular child and involves the consideration of a list of relevant factors in determining with whom the child should be placed.

Many states require the use of a specified subset of these factors to decide contested custody cases and ask judges to consider all relevant factors without systematic (i.e., across all cases) preference to any one factor. It is the purest application of the BIOC standard and, because of the open-ended consideration of factors, the most complex decision-making standard. It is favored by some because it respects the individual situation of each child, allows the child due process in terms of having a variety of factors considered, and because many of the other proposed rules have been judged as inequitable or unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. However, the unweighted BIOC standard also has been criticized as too individualistic and indeterminant (relying on judges’ personal values and normative beliefs rather than societal ones), resulting in heavy demands on judicial and court resources and increased litigation. Thus, the unweighted BIOC standard seems to have merit when evaluated using some child-based values, but is problematic when evaluated using criteria focusing on logistics and selected societal values and normative role patterns (e.g., children should be placed with the person who provided the most frequent and consistent care).

Consequently, several intermediate rules have been championed, with the differing rules being favored by some and disdained by others. These rules include the tender years doctrine (equated by some with the maternal presumption), the psychological parent preference, the primary caretaker preference, the preference for joint custody, the child wishes rule, and the approximation rule. Potentially, each of these intermediate rules can be used to define the BIOC and, when used as such, carry preferential or presumptive weight in the decision-making process.

Tender Years Presumption

This presumption orders the court to assume that the best interests of the child are met when the child remains with the mother. It surfaced in the 19th century, and the definition of tender years expanded from infancy to the teen years during the 20th century. Determination of maternal fault for the marital breakdown and/or evidence of maternal unfitness were required to overrule the presumption.

During the 1970s, the tender years presumption was deemed unsuitable in determining the BIOC in most states. Political, legal, and social norms highlighted the importance of gender neutrality, and many states decided the tender years presumption violated the Equal Protection Amendment of the Constitution and/or was not good public policy.

Child Support

Regardless of financial resources, parents have a legal duty during and after marriage to support children below the age of majority (i.e., legal age), including those born outside of wedlock. Post-divorce support of children is intended to maintain the marital standard of living. Amount of support required is based on current needs; therefore, it is modifiable if there has been a change in circumstances that warrants reconsideration. Utah has laws that hold mothers and fathers equally responsible for child support. Likewise, most recent court decisions have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment or state equal rights amendments to require gender-neutral support statutes. However, gender neutral statutes that essentially eliminate the father’s primary duty to support have received some criticism. Not only does level of living improve for men and get worse for women after divorce. Because the custodial parent bears the primary responsibility for the care of children, earning potential often must be sacrificed, whereas the noncustodial parent gains earning potential as a result of not having responsibility for the day-to-day care of children. Because the majority of custodial parents are women, and women generally earn less than men, it is the woman who will, proportionately, contribute most to the financial support of children.

It is ironic that, in the face of an established parental duty to support, the early courts looked to the custodial parent’s financial stability rather than considering the noncustodial parent’s duty to support. Today some courts are unwilling to increase child support if the increase would improve the custodial parent’s standard of living along with the child’s. At the same time, even though a court may be reluctant to award enough support for a mother to stay home or obtain excellent care for children, the same court may question whether a working mother should get and/or retain custody.

Modification of Support

There are a number of circumstances under which modifications are made. Examples include a reduction in the income of the supporting parent (however, this is rarely effective even if the supporting parent has been incarcerated or either a formal or informal agreement to a reduction. Ordinarily only modifications of future obligations are allowed, but when a parent has requested that the obligation be reduced and has not been able to pay at the current level, retroactive modifications have been made. The problem is that some noncustodial parents have made reduced payments expecting that if the custodial parent seeks enforcement of the original support obligation, it would be possible to get a retroactive reduction. Although it is clearly possible in some cases, retroactive reduction of arrearages in child support are prohibited by federal law if the custodial parent receives funds from Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

Termination of Support

There are several reasons why support may be terminated before a child reaches the age of majority. In some states if the supporting parent dies, support is terminated, but in some, death does not result in automatic termination; inheritance and life insurance are used to continue support. Another reason for terminating support is the emancipation of the minor child; that is, the child is accorded legal status before reaching the age of majority. Examples include marriage, entry into military service, leaving the parent’s home and refusing to follow parent’s wishes, or becoming economically independent through employment. Adoption by a parent who replaces the supporting parent is also a possible reason for termination of a support obligation.

It is also possible for support obligations to be terminated if visitation by the supporting, noncustodial parent is denied. It is commonly thought that the reason why men refuse to pay child support is that they are denied opportunity to visit their children. Although studies have found no correlation between child support compliance and complaints about visitation, some courts have interpreted visitation and support decrees as mutually dependent contracts. Indeed, when visitation privileges or joint custody were awarded to fathers, almost 80 percent of mothers were awarded child support, but when neither visitation privileges nor joint custody were awarded to fathers, only about 30 percent of mothers were awarded child support. In cases in which a child has refused to see the custodial parent, courts have terminated support. Also, in extreme cases, such as concealment of the child by the mother, some courts have refused to make fathers pay unpaid support, maintaining that concealment is a waiver of support even though the child or spouse has been abused by the father. Rules that link child support and visitation and those that do not are inherently biased. When support and visitation are linked, the child and custodial parent’s need for financial support may be subordinated to the noncustodial parent’s need for a relationship with the child. On the other hand, when the rules are not connected, the noncustodial parent’s financial support may be considered more important than the nurturance received from either the custodial or the noncustodial parent. This is a problem because the law is more apt to recognize a tangible contribution such as money than it is to recognize an intangible contribution such as nurturance. Under some partially connecting rules, a noncustodial parent may withhold support payments if the custodial parent interferes with his or her visitation rights, but the custodial parent must have court permission to interfere with the visitation rights of the noncustodial parent even if child support has not been paid. In other words, this partially connecting rule seems to place the noncustodial parent’s right to visit above the child’s right to support.

Child Support Enforcement

The problems most common to child support are those associated with enforcement. Courts have used various civil and criminal remedies to enforce the payment of child support obligations, including contempt of court, income withholding in cases of arrearages, criminal prosecution, income tax refund offsets, guarantees for nonpayment such as bonds and liens, and termination of parental rights. Since the mid-1970s, the federal government has been actively involved in enforcement efforts.

There are two sides to federal involvement in child support enforcement. Both have grown out of efforts to obtain child support from fathers of children who receive AFDC benefits. The Child Support Enforcement Act (Pub. Law No. 93–647) was passed in 1975 and included establishment of state child support agencies, state and federal parent locator services, and the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement operated by the department of Health and Human Services. This law and its amendments put in place a number of strategies for finding fathers and forcing them to pay child support.

On the negative side of federal involvement, mothers of children who receive AFDC must identify the father of the child, a requirement that only affects poor, unmarried mothers. This legislation gives the government an unconstitutional right to intrude in the lives of poor, unmarried mothers. The United States Supreme Court agreed in Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), indicating that the interest of the state in preserving its fiscal resources did not justify an invasion of the constitutional rights of poor women. Later, when the issue was unannounced home visits by social service personnel to insure that there was no father in the home, the Court took a different position. The visits had been objected to as a violation of Fourth Amendment protection from unlawful search (a part of the logic of the right of privacy), but were upheld by the majority opinion of the Court (Wyman v. James, 1971) with dissents from Justices Douglas, Marshall, and Brennan, who pointed out the jeopardy to constitutional rights brought on by acceptance of welfare benefits. To date, this violation of the rights of poor, unmarried mothers to privacy and familial autonomy is a problem that has not been resolved either by statute or Court interpretation. On the positive side, for a mother who wants to find a father and enforce his payment of child support, resources have been improved. This is especially true in cases in which parents no longer live in the same state.

Although all states including Utah now have laws to deal with problems of enforcement of support obligations when one parent moves out of the state, getting these laws in place has been a long and frustrating problem for both parents and courts. Initially, when a parent moved out of the jurisdiction of a court, the laws that were used to exercise jurisdiction were those that had been developed to apply to commercial activities. Some courts have been unwilling to extend a long-arm statute that applied to commercial activities to a child support case because, obviously, they address different issues. In Shaffer the Court would not exercise jurisdiction (i.e., exercise authority to hear the case) over the nonresident parent who had support obligations because the nature of the ties between that parent, the state, and the precedent for litigation (commercial activities) were not related.

In Kulko, the Court agreed that the use of commercial long-arm statutes was not appropriate in child support cases. In this case, the mother moved from New York (the marital domicile of the couple) to California, where she later obtained custody of her two children. She subsequently filed a motion to modify child support. The only contacts the child’s father had with the state of California were (1) a three-day stay years before at the time the couple was married, (2) the act of buying one child’s airline ticket to move in with her mother, and (3) the fact that his children were located in that state. The Supreme Court, citing Shaffer (1977), ruled that this was insufficient to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction over the father by the state of California. The Court not only noted that from these acts alone the defendant would not have foreseen being summoned to a California court in order to defend himself, but also noted that his actions neither amounted to personal benefits derived from activities within the state nor caused an effect in California that amounted to criminal activities. Thus, the Court concluded that it would not be fair to require the father to defend himself in California. The Court further stated that the mother could have sought relief through the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), which would not require the father to leave the state of New York and would satisfy her needs.

The URESA and later the Revised URESA (RURESA) were designed as models to provide for interstate enforcement of a child support obligation. The drafters of RURESA sought to reduce the possibility of unnecessary or inappropriate modifications of support decrees by requiring that, among other things, motions to modify be reviewed by the court that delivered the initial support decision. In the Federal Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984, Congress required all states to have some form of the RURESA. Although state reciprocal enforcement acts have resulted in improvements over past attempts to use long-arm statutes designed for commercial activities, there are still some problems. In this as well as other parenting issues, courts may find themselves juggling a concern for the best interest of the child with often unacknowledged biases that arise from assumptions about relationships between husbands and wives.

Custody

Men face some biases in courts, especially in terms of child custody. Even with the move away from the maternal preference for custody, many courts still view the best interest of children to be with a mother who is “naturally” better able to nurture them. However, considered case by case, stereotyped gender-based expectations for men appear to be balanced by an inclination for male judges to understand and sympathize with the situation of another male—something that is most unlikely to happen in the response of a male judge to a woman. It would be unwise for a single mother seeking custody to count on the maternal preference. For example, if a woman does not work and stays at home where she can maximize her nurturing function, she and her child usually must live in poverty because it is rare for a court to award enough child and spousal support to relieve her of the need to work. On the other hand, if she seeks employment, the bias of the court shifts to favor the male, especially if he has remarried and the child could live with the father and a mother figure. In other words, the maternal presumption is easily overcome or inapplicable if the mother is employed outside the home. For women seeking custody, the maternal preference is balanced by traditional stereotypes and myths about women and poverty.

The law of domestic relations as it relates to child custody and child support has changed significantly throughout the last century. It was developed from state statutory and common law. In creating statutes and deciding cases, legislatures and courts have reviewed other state laws and have considered decisions in other state courts as precedent for their own actions. These efforts have culminated into what is now viewed as a national tradition of the law of domestic relations.

There are still differences between and among jurisdictions, but there are also national trends that cut across jurisdictions.

Although the “best interests of the child” has been adopted in the United States as the standard by which custody determinations are made, remnants of the Roman and English common law view of children as chattel were influential on the development of the law, especially as it relates to child support. For example, the notion that children were property of the father gave the father certain rights and responsibilities, including the right to services and custody of his children, which led to the responsibility or duty to support his children. Child support has not always, however, been considered a legally enforceable duty of the parent or right of the child. Whereas child custody has been considered in terms of the best interests of the child, child support has been considered in terms of contract law or in terms of a community’s interest in keeping citizens from becoming a public charge. Even the child support enforcement program that was initiated in 1950 was motivated primarily out of a desire to keep families from becoming dependents of the state. As would be expected, laws of custody and laws of support although related, affect single parents differently.

Most state statutes give courts considerable discretion in making custody determinations. Many would-be custody battles are settled by agreement of the parties before the case reaches the courtroom, but the court, not the parties, decides whether the agreement is in the child’s best interests. Even if the court accepts an agreement made by divorcing parents, it is free to reopen the case if a change in circumstances warrants reconsideration. This rule may be viewed as one which greatly limits parental power. However, the propensity of courts to rubberstamp these agreements may exacerbate a situation in which one parent has little bargaining power. For example, the parent most emotionally involved with the child (usually the mother) may be willing to accept less child support and other monetary or property awards as a result of threats from the other parent (usually the father) to sue for sole custody.

With extensive judicial discretion, it is difficult to avoid interjecting personal values and opinions in custody and visitation decisions. These decisions require judgments regarding the characteristics of all persons involved in the case as well as consideration of the facts. As a rule, any circumstance relevant to the best interests of the child is admissible—even past behaviors of parents. Adding to the difficulty of courts to be fair, state statutes that enumerate circumstances relevant to the child’s best interests generally do not include the weight to be given to each factor in making the custody determination.

Because of the continuing inclination to view mother-custody as best for children, fathers can be at a disadvantage in obtaining custody and visitation. Two-thirds of fathers who request it rre awarded custody by courts. However at times the courts are seen as being insensitive to noncustodial fathers who wish to continue a relationship with their children and to those fathers who are frustrated in their efforts to relate to their children.

Putative Fathers

A series of Supreme Court cases in the 1970s and 1980s defined the unwed, or putative, father’s relationship with his child as the basis of a liberty interest. A liberty interest is not exactly a right but it is similar in that it has been granted constitutional protection. This liberty interest is thought to arise from belief in the importance of the family unit; it is primarily a function of relationship rather than biological kinship. The importance of a putative father’s relationship with his child as compared to the importance of biological kinship is addressed in what is known as the Stanley line of cases: Stanley (1972), Quillion (1978), Caban (1979), and Lehr (1983). In this line of cases, the United States Supreme Court held that (1) biological kinship provides an opportunity for the putative father to develop a relationship with his child; (2) the nature of the relationship between the putative father and his child may give rise to a liberty interest in the relationship; and (3) the liberty interest gives rise to the constitutionally protected right to assert paternity. Although the unwed father may be denied the right to gain custody, to visit, or to stop an adoption proceeding, especially if the mother is married to another man, an illegitimate child is entitled to support from the biological father. Thus, the state or the mother (whether or not married to another man) may bring an action to obtain support for a child. <

Mobility of the Single Custodial Parent

The standards applied to cases involving the relocation of a parent outside the jurisdiction in which a custody decree exists varies by jurisdiction. Requirements in different states range from allowing the custodial parent to move for any reason so long as the noncustodial parent does not prove that the move is adverse to the child’s best interest to requiring the custodial parent to show exceptional circumstances in order to obtain permission to move. In many states, only a challenge by the noncustodial parent will require the custodial parent to provide a reason for moving. Indeed, many times the custodial parent’s desire/need to move to another state is pitted against the desire to retain custody. This may be particularly true for women because courts tend to be more demanding of sacrifice for the sake of children from mothers and question a woman’s pursuit of a career. In the past, if dissatisfied with a custody decision, a parent could move with a child to another state and bring an action for custody. Although not condoned, “forum shopping,” as this practice has been called, was possible because jurisdiction rules have not been applied in custody cases as they have in other cases. However, parents are finding this practice less viable today.

To address problems of jurisdiction in custody cases, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) was designed as a model to shift the focus from jurisdiction over the parent to the needs of the child. The purposes were to reduce chaos created by interstate jurisdictional competition and to promote cooperation between jurisdictions, as well as to promote the stable environment that most consider to be in a child’s best interests. Through the concept of continuing jurisdiction, the act forbids the modification of a child custody decree in one state when the original decree was issued in another state that still has jurisdiction over the case. The model act is said to have partially laid aside the confusion created by the Halvey case, in which the Supreme Court held that in order to protect the best interests of the child, a court in one state could modify a custody decree from another state. Although most states have adopted the principles in the UCCJA, the issues are complicated, and there are still many problems. For an excellent review of the application of and problems with UCCJA.

Sexual Behavior of Custodial Parents

As has been seen, courts tend to be biased in favor of traditional assumptions about family life and the roles of men and women. Such biases may be best illustrated in disputes involving the sexual behavior of parents. It should be noted at the outset that jeopardy to custody because of a nonmarital sexual relationship is a greater problem for women than for men.

Whether the parent is involved in a nonmarital heterosexual or homosexual relationship, the court may grant custody on the condition that the parent not live with certain persons or even that the parent terminate certain relationships. The court may require that a juvenile authority supervise the parent’s behavior, may require a change of the parent’s conduct, or may prohibit the parent from participating in overnight stays with certain persons—all of which is done in order to insulate the child from behavior considered inappropriate by the court. Although courts at all levels may let their views of appropriate behaviors influence custody decisions, these biases appear to be most prevalent at the trial court level.

Homosexual parents have a more difficult time than heterosexual parents. Where actual harm to the child is presumed, courts will generally prohibit the custodial parent from overnight visitation with lovers. Among other things, this indicates that courts are reluctant to expand the definition of family in visitation and custody disputes to reflect trends in the makeup of the American family. A New York court refused visitation rights to a lesbian ex-partner with the biological mother of the child because the statute in question only applied to biological parents. The biological mother had been artificially inseminated, and the lesbian ex-partner had acted as the child’s parent during the relationship; after the relationship was terminated, she had provided financial support for the child. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, stating that the ex-partner had no standing to bring a petition for visitation.

It is common for courts to worry that a homosexual parent will influence a child’s sexual orientation even though the evidence clearly indicates this is not a problem. Courts may be concerned that others will harass a child whose parent is homosexual or may conclude that a homosexual parent is unacceptable because the behavior is in violation of sodomy statutes. The degree of limitation on personal behavior/freedom of parents varies according to the court’s beliefs about and knowledge of sexuality. However now with same sex marriages being legal in Utah and many other states, things are being to change for the better.

Cohabitation

Cohabitation is another situation in which presumed sexual behavior can cause difficulty with custody decisions. A disgruntled spouse may use the traditional assumptions of the court to manipulate and control the behavior of the other spouse. For example, in one case, in response to the mother’s motion for modification of custody, the father also filed a petition to modify custody. He did not seek custody of his children, but sought to have the mother cease relations with her boyfriend. The custodial parent (mother) had sought modification of a custody decree in order to establish specific times at which the noncustodial parent (father) could visit their children. Apparently, the father had not only refused to pay the amount of child support stipulated in the divorce decree, he had also crashed his car into the mother’s boyfriend’s car and had threatened the family. The trial court, without specific findings of harm to the children, stated that overnight visitations by the mother’s boyfriend were not conducive to the children’s well-being, but that if the mother were to marry the boyfriend there would be no issue. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island upheld the trial court’s decision to modify the custody provision, which, in effect, restrained the mother from having overnight visits with her boyfriend. Not only did this court extend the definition of cohabitation to include sexual relations, but also, in effect, it allowed an exspouse to control the sexual behavior of the custodial parent. This decision forced the custodial parent to choose between two constitutional rights, freedom of association and personal privacy from unwarranted governmental intrusion. Although the United States Supreme Court has expressly provided that the government cannot force an individual to choose between two constitutionally guaranteed rights, in custody cases, it is the child’s best interests, not the parents interests, that are the issue.

Religious Practices

When religious practices of parents are thought to jeopardize the mental health or physical safety of a child, they can be a determining factor in a custody decision. In one case (Hadeen), the mother’s religious practices included fasting and spanking until the will of a child is broken. The trial court awarded custody to the father, but, on appeal, the court specifically considered whether the religious practices of the mother constituted reasonable likelihood that the child would be impaired. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for further consideration by the trial court in order to ensure that the trial court had not put too much weight on the religious factor. Justice Dore, dissenting, disagreed with the reversal, stating that the facts of the case indicated that the children were in jeopardy. One compelling incident reported in testimony was of the mother spanking one child for two hours while her other children held the child down.

In addition to noting that religion is a thorny issue in custody disputes, it is important to recognize that the religious interests of parents are more often seen as commensurate with the best interests of children—even when children are directly affected and hurt—than are the relationship interests of parents, even if children are neither directly affected nor hurt. In Hadeen, the court appeared to be more concerned with protecting Mrs. Hadeen’s right to freedom of religious practices than with protecting the best interests of the children. In this case the attention clearly wasn’t focused on the children. Taken together, the case seems to say that it is not really the effect on children but the values of courts that ultimately determine the outcome. It appears to be more acceptable to discipline a child in a manner that constitutes child abuse than to have relationships with members of the same or opposite sex, regardless of whether the nature of the relationship is known by the children or whether the relationship can be shown to be harmful to the children.

Joint Custody

Joint custody arrangements have become increasingly popular. Joint legal custody, as opposed to joint physical custody, generally connotes a situation in which the parents share equal responsibilities in child rearing; it is generally not tied to the amount of time that a child is in the presence of one or the other parent. The joint custody arrangement has its roots in concern for the best interests of the child; however, there are still many arguments for and against joint custody. Joint custody is necessarily a complex arrangement, and partly because of the individual circumstances in each case, there is little agreement on the best policies to be followed.

It is interesting that despite the fact that the success of joint custody arrangements is predicated on the willingness of parents to work together, some courts allow joint custody over the objection of a parent. Some courts feel so strongly about the importance of both parents being involved with the child(ren) that spousal attitudes toward each other can influence custody decisions. Insistence that both parents have access to a child may be warranted in most cases, but where there is a history of family violence or harassment, a parent’s objection to an award of joint custody should not prejudice the court. Although there are cases in which a court has ruled that a parent’s good faith objection to joint custody should not prejudice a request for sole custody, one can imagine a situation in which a battered spouse has no specific proof to present to the court in support of a request for sole custody.

Additionally, joint custody arrangements may result in reduction in the allowance or in no allowance for child support. It is not only unfair but also illogical to place equal financial responsibility on parents who are not equivalent in terms of financial resources.

Child custody laws in Utah are complex. Hire the services of an expert – an experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer to help you navigate the complex maze of American Fork Utah child custody laws.

American Fork Utah Divorce Lawyer

When you need legal help in American Fork Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC (801) 676-5506 for your Free Consultation. We can help you with divorce, child custody, child support, postnups, prenups, adoptions, guardianships, and more.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Criminal Defense Lawyer Riverton Utah

Divorce Cases With Child Custody In Utah

Variances And Conditional Use Permits

Juvenile Criminal Offenses In Utah

Tax Aspects Of Bankruptcy

Family Lawyer Bountiful Utah

from Michael Anderson https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/divorce-lawyer-american-fork-utah/ from Divorce Lawyer Nelson Farms Utah https://divorcelawyernelsonfarmsutah.tumblr.com/post/190419423275

[asafeatherwould]

Divorce Lawyer American Fork Utah

The law of divorce has changed a lot since the first divorce laws were passed in this country. If you are seeking a divorce consult with an experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer. Utah divorce law is complex. The lawyer can help you navigate the complex maze of Utah divorce laws.

During the first half of the nineteenth century, contests about political, religious, and economic roles of husbands and wives were prevalent throughout the North and West. Debates about limiting suffrage to male property owners emerged early in the century. Civic responsibility came to be shared among a larger class; property restrictions on male voting waned. As men moved out of the home to work, women gained recognition as teachers of domestic, cultural, and religious values.

In many areas of the country, and in parts of Utah, both spouses acquired new roles. Husbands and fathers, while retaining their position as political governors, became breadwinners. Wives and mothers, while continuing their household chores, became teachers and moral beacons. Faith also became more democratic. Salvation for many became an individual decision to be made rather than an outcome to be imposed by God. Women, deprived of political and economic power, often were attracted to this devotional message and integrated its teachings into their family life. Since salvation required good deeds on earth, maintenance of an observant family became an essential good deed for women. Throughout, however, patriarchal families remained central, as a place for faithful religious observance, a site for inculcation of cultural values, and a training ground for adult exercise of civic responsibility.

Modification of marital property rules throughout the nation during the first decades of the nineteenth century, like changes in political and religious structures, left the essential features of the patriarchal family intact. Upon marriage, common law rules used in much of the nation during the Revolutionary War era gave a husband ownership of almost all of the personal property of his wife as soon as he reduced it to his possession. In addition, he also gained management rights over her real property for the life of the marriage. Upon the birth of a child, control over the wife’s real property was extended to the lifetime of the husband. While early nineteenth-century reforms allowed some deserted women to regain their property or their economic independence and married women’s property acts precluded attachment of a wife’s property by creditors of her husband, men retained control over the central economic features of intact families. Family formation rituals also changed after the Revolutionary War. Arranged marriages virtually disappeared. Romance emerged as a basis for mate selection. But such “freedom” did not reduce the impetus to marry. Family remained as a solid source of status and cultural location. The attractions of power remained for men; the promise of economic security attracted women; the legitimation of sexual behavior attracted both. In stark contrast with the present day, when images of rock-solid, politically attuned, churchgoing families often seem little more than nostalgic symbols called to duty by desperate politicians, early nineteenth-century adults expected to marry, raise a family, develop a family economy, and stay together ‘til death did they part.

While the headlines focus on child support, the damage to the family far exceeds the monetary hurt. Living with one parent in and of itself places a child at risk for a host of negative experiences. When the child whose parents split up is not even seeing the other parent, the consequences can be more severe (as will be discussed). In neighborhoods with a high rate of father absence, there are higher rates of poverty, public assistance families, and high school dropouts. Fatherlessness (and to a lesser extent, motherlessness) cuts across all races and economic classes.

An experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer can assist you in your custody battle. In a custody battle, a frequently litigated change of circumstance is the presence of a live-in companion of the custodial parent. As mentioned earlier, courts approach this matter in very different ways, but the critical issue should always be the effect that the relationship has on the children. In a highly publicized Rhode Island case, a court ordered a custodial parent to refrain from allowing any unrelated males from making overnight visits while the children were in the house. And yet in another state a court ruled that a mother could not be prevented from permitting overnight visits by unrelated males unless there was evidence that it directly affected the welfare of the children. Indeed, there is no single guiding principle for this issue except that courts are supposed to be looking out for the interests of the children rather than using these cases to impose their own morality. But what is “best” for the children is often a subjective consideration, and custody has been lost on the basis of a court’s decision that the children would be better off in the other parent’s household.

Fathers who don’t pay child support

If your ex-spouse is not paying the child support as ordered by the court, speak to an experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer. There are many categories of fathers who don’t pay child support. One category outlines what has been termed the “overextended parent.” There are a number of variations of this type of man. The first is a man who was so eager to get out of his marriage or felt so guilty about leaving the marriage that he agreed to undertake an unreasonable level of child support that he was then unable to fulfill. This type of man is often described as relatively immature and naive, with little idea about what it takes to support two households. Once he falls behind on his support payments, it becomes virtually impossible for him to catch up. Thus the delinquency stems from his inability to meet the obligation, and often he eventually gives up even trying.

The second variation largely includes men who start out paying the prescribed amount, but within a couple of years — often after comparing notes with other divorced fathers — they come to believe that their burden exceeds that which others are obliged to pay. This type of man is likely to become angry, but rather than go back to court to seek a modification of his payments, he unilaterally reduces the payment on his own. This type of man does not perceive himself as a delinquent because some payment is still made, but it is inadequate to meet the needs of the children.

A third type of man who becomes an overextended parent is the noncustodial father who remarries, giving rise to a second family. When he has insufficient financial resources to meet the demands of both families, it is invariably his current family that gets taken care of and his noncustodial children that suffer.

As an aside, it has been observed that many men who have sufficient resources are often more diligent about making support payments when they remarry and have a second family. While this may be counter-intuitive, the reason may be that men who remarry are family oriented and consequently more concerned about the welfare of their children.

Finally, the fourth variation of the overextended father is one who becomes ill or unemployed; instead of going to court and having his payments reduced or temporarily suspended, he ignores the situation, engages in denial to avoid dealing with his payment problem, and merely drifts into delinquency without assuming any responsibility for his plight. When the problem inevitably catches up with him, he is the one who feels victimized by the system and adopts a hostile, rather than conciliatory, posture. The second category of men who fail to comply with their child support obligations are those who seek revenge against their ex-wives. This type of man carries with him many grudges, grievances and unresolved feelings concerning his marriage and family situation. Withholding child support payments is one of his few means of expressing anger. By controlling the money he exercises power and control over his ex-spouse, continuing the hostilities that resulted in the divorce but that apparently were not resolved by it.

Since disagreement over money is a major source of conflict in many marriages, particularly those that fail, withholding money is a way of keeping those past disputes alive. Where there was a high level of conflict between the parents prior to their separation, there is likely to be a high level of unresolved conflict subsequent to the divorce. In such high-conflict cases, withholding child support payments is not an unusual way for feelings of revenge to be expressed. Also, men who feel that they have been unfairly treated by the court may believe that the financial settlement is unjust and that withholding child support payments is warranted.

These men feel discriminated against by the legal system, hostile toward the world, and believe their ex-spouses are responsible for the injustice. Little regard is given to the effect that this vengeful behavior has on the children.

The third category of deadbeat dads are those men who do not make child support payments because of the emotional pain that is wrapped up in the divorce process. There appear to be two types of situations that provide these men with a rationale for withholding child support. The first is the man’s intense emotional reaction to his marriage falling apart and his becoming an absentee parent. His feeling shut out of the family is intensely painful to him, and one way of coping with his emotional distress is by distancing himself from the children.

The very process of establishing distance, which may be both physical and emotional, protects him from pain but also causes him to become alienated from the family. What then emerges is the rationale that since he is no longer part of the family, he need not assume any of the financial responsibility for it. Thus, to cope with the pain of losing custody of his children, he pushes them away and ignores their needs.

The second type of situation within this category occurs when there is a dispute over visitation. Here an otherwise caring father is denied the amount of visitation that he wants with his children and withholds support as a way of forcing his ex-spouse to acquiesce to his visitation requests. Interestingly, most problems involving denial of visitation stem from conflicts around money and payments of child support. Visitation thus becomes the ball on the economic playing field. Despite the fact that in most cases child support is specifically not conditioned upon a right of visitation, the emotional pain experienced by the noncustodial parent often causes him to seek revenge by hurting the very children with whom he wants to visit. Often this leads to a cycle of nonpayment and denied visitation that is so detrimental to the best interests of the very children who are the subjects of the support and visitation.

The fourth and largest category of deadbeat dads are those fathers who simply behave in an irresponsible manner with respect to their children. This type of man may disappear, not because he is overburdened per se and not because he is angry or vengeful toward the mother of his children. Many simply have no interest in parenting. Their role models have either been extremely poor or nonexistent and, not having themselves been treated well as children, they feel no responsibility to care for their own children. They rarely think about the children and may not even think of themselves as the parent.

For this type of man, children have little meaning in his life and he feels little obligation on their behalf. He certainly would not go out of his way or change his established pattern of behavior, nor would he consider working harder to make more money in order to provide for the children. This category includes the father who participated in bringing a child into the world but who has little or no sense of what it takes to rear that child. This kind of man often feels as though he was trapped by the woman and therefore believes that he is entitled to abdicate responsibility for the child.

Finally, there is a small category of men who are said to be going through what has been termed the “New Life Syndrome.” This type of man is egocentric and self-absorbed. While many deadbeat dads also tend to be self-centered, most seem to have some rationale for their behavior other than merely their own self-interest. This type of deadbeat is different: he needs no justification for his delinquency other than his own desires. He puts himself first; he feels entitled to have his needs met above all others, including his children; and he offers no excuses for his behavior. A significant factor is the father’s perception of how much control he has in determining how his child support payments are used on behalf of the children. For example, if he believes that his child support payments are being used by his ex-spouse on herself, he is less likely to continue making payments. Some men who feel that they have little say in the children’s upbringing believe it is ample excuse for not meeting financial responsibilities.

When there is joint child custody, a factor often related to compliance with child support obligations is the length of time that the children live with the father. When children stay with the father for periods of weeks or even months at a time (such as on holidays or school vacations), there is a tendency for payments to be withheld or reduced at those times because the father perceives himself as already supporting the children.

Extended visits are frequently viewed by fathers quite differently than shorter stays, because of the length of time and cost involved. Yet this may be inevitable when father and children live geographically distant from one another. The children have to travel far to visit their father, and therefore the visits tend to be less frequent but longer.

Often this changes, however, as children get older. Adolescents become reluctant to leave their friends for extended periods, resulting in their visits with fathers becoming less frequent. The reduced time together is likely to diminish the emotional connection between father and children, and the resulting alienation serves to diminish the father’s commitment to meeting his child support obligations. While this is not universally true, the level of contact between a father and his children is generally considered to be a significant factor in child support payments being made. Men who see their children irregularly are more likely to abdicate their financial responsibilities to them.

The remarriage of either or both spouses often creates another obstacle to continued child support payments. If the mother remarries and the ex-husband continues to maintain hostility against her, he may feel betrayed and angry at her new relationship. Her remarriage gives him an excuse to terminate payments upon the rationale that her new husband will provide for the children and his support is no longer necessary. This is a typical reaction when it is the ex-wife who remarries. When it is the ex-husband who remarries, there seem to be two possible paths. When economic resources are limited, a father is often faced with the difficult task of trying to maintain a good standard of living for his new family while at the same time struggling to keep up with his child support payments, which his new wife will often pressure him to reduce, or even stop. On the other hand, fathers who have an adequate income when they remarry frequently continue to make their child support payments, particularly if they are able to maintain a relationship with the children.

A very important consideration that affects full and timely child support obligations being met is the prior and existing relationship between the children’s mother and father. Factors include: the length of the marriage, the quality of the relationship during the divorce process, and the continuing level of attachment and interaction between the parents. Marriages that lasted a long time appear to result in a greater financial and emotional investment on the part of both parents. This interdependency between the parents may foster or facilitate an enduring attachment between them, which thereby reinforces their commitment to cooperate in the upbringing of their children. By the same token, parents who relate to each other in a relatively non-hostile manner during the divorce process also increase the likelihood that support will be paid. A poor quality of relationship between the ex-spouses often gives rise to the father expressing his negative feelings through noncompliance with support obligations. Thus, to the extent that a good relationship between former spouses can be maintained, it will reinforce the mutual commitment to their children and is likely to lead to greater compliance with child support obligations.

Another element that is likely to influence the continuity of child support is whether the obligation was arrived at by agreement or by court order. An agreement generally gives both parties an opportunity to exercise some control over the amount and frequency of the payments. This reduces the likelihood that the father will feel that he has been treated unjustly by the legal system. A feeling of being victimized often provides an excuse for not fulfilling financial responsibilities to the children.

Perhaps the single most important component is the degree of likelihood that the order will be enforced. Many fathers will not voluntarily pay child support to their ex-wives unless they are confronted by an authority that is willing and able to track them down and employ enforcement mechanisms.

Compliance rates are significantly higher when there is a court-monitored system for collecting child support and where there is a certainty of recourse (e.g., fines and/or jail) for noncompliance. In the absence of a perceived direct relationship between non-payment of child support and punishment, many fathers simply will not pay. The burden of collecting child support still falls primarily upon the mother, whose responsibility for pursuing payments that are in default often seems overwhelming and unmanageable. Many women become discouraged with having to deal with a slow and generally unresponsive legal system, trying to locate the whereabouts of an ex-husband, and finding the time, energy, emotional strength, and financial resources to carry a legal action forward.

The Single Mother Who Doesn’t Receive Support

The burden of collecting child support still falls upon the parent, and how she responds to a deadbeat dad has a significant impact on the likelihood of her obtaining child support payments. Indeed, the attitudes and responses of many custodial mothers contribute to the problem. Those who do not pursue child support in an effective and timely fashion reinforce, to both themselves and the deadbeat dad, that they are either unwilling or unable to stand up for the rights of their children. There are several types of women whose reactions or inaction contributes to the problems they encounter in receiving child support payments.

One type of woman is inappropriately passive and believes that someone will come along and take care of her. These women are often young and may never have had the responsibility of living on their own. When their relationship or marriage ends, they naively believe that the children’s father will continue to provide financial support. It is a rude awakening indeed when he does not, and often for the first time she finds herself on her own. She must assume sole support of her children or figure out a way to get the father to pay his share.

Many such women attempt to engage a lawyer, but soon realize such a route is complicated and expensive. Others find the responsibility for pursuing a legal remedy when payments are in default to be overwhelming and unmanageable. They find that they must deal with a slow and generally unresponsive legal system. But for so many women, finding the time, energy, emotional strength and financial resources to carry the legal action forward is more than they can muster.

Passive women also fail to follow through with the federally funded agencies that are available to provide assistance. While the services provided by these agencies are generally free of charge, they require monitoring and persistence, since the case workers are generally overburdened and the process is typical of large bureaucracies. A woman who relies on federal or state services must be prepared to pursue the case workers on a regular basis and insist that all available avenues of recourse be exhausted.

A second type of woman who may encounter difficulty in working through a bureaucratic government agency is the woman who is anxious and angry. She frequently deals with her frustrations poorly by flooding the child support agency with highly emotional calls and letters and by irritating the case workers who are overwhelmed with cases but who are nonetheless trying to help.

While the long-held maxim that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” may be true in many instances, this type of woman tends to be so overemotional and overbearing in her efforts to gain assistance that she actually works against herself as she alienates the very people who can help her. Many such women will abandon their efforts to pursue child support when they realize how difficult and frustrating the process can be.

Finally, there are still other women who have never taken steps to get a child support order. Some are women whose children were born out of wedlock; because they never married they erroneously believe that their children are not entitled to child support. Others fail to secure an award because they feel disgraced, do not want to get involved with the legal system, or would rather rely on their family for support. In the latter group are those who choose not to have any relationship between father and child and decline support in order to prevent such a relationship. This includes women who never even tell the father that he has a child. And there are single mothers who through their naiveté, passivity, inappropriate behavior, and feeling of lack of entitlement inadvertently contribute to their children’s problems. Most single mothers, however, are deeply concerned about their children’s welfare and would willingly, if not gladly, at least do what is needed in the best interest of the children.

What a Woman Can do to Facilitate Compliance

In recent years state and federal governments have instituted significant new methods for locating delinquent fathers and making them meet their child support obligations. It is clear, however, to anyone who has been involved in child support collection that practical solutions are much more effective than agency or judicial proceedings. Adversarial confrontations drain everyone involved of precious and scarce time, energy, and money. They may even have negative effects on the children by maintaining a high level of post divorce turmoil. Understanding the delinquent father’s motivation can sometimes be helpful in gaining his compliance.

When there is a good relationship between ex-spouses, there tends to be greater compliance with child support payments. Assuming the custodial parent’s goal is to ensure the best interests of the children, and that compliance with child support obligations promotes that goal, the first task is to establish and maintain as good a relationship as possible. This may mean consciously putting aside grudges and lingering feelings of anger toward an exspouse. This is often not easy, since divorce is usually acrimonious and leaves a legacy of bitterness and disappointment. Yet it is this very lingering conflict during the post divorce stage that is often used by the noncustodial father to rationalize his failure to make payments. A woman seeking to ensure compliance with support obligations should attempt to work through or set aside negative or hostile feelings in order to minimize conflict with her ex-husband. This is also likely to improve his relationship with the children, which will also increase the likelihood of paying support.

It is important to reiterate here that an agreement reached voluntarily by both parties is more likely to work than is one that is ordered by the court without participation and agreement of the parties. While it is important to formalize any private agreement by presenting it in court, a mutually negotiated and voluntary agreement is more likely to be honored by the parties. Once again, this requires the parties to be able to set aside negative feelings, focus the negotiation on the welfare of the children rather than continuing pre-divorce conflicts, and to arrive at a child support agreement that both parties feel has tried to accommodate their needs.

While it may be important to settle such practical matters as how and when child support payments will be made (e.g., by check through the mail, by deposit made into a bank account, by electronic funds transfer, etc.), an important concern of fathers is that they be able to exercise a degree of control over their obligation. Sometimes those who feel little control will use this as a rationale for nonpayment. For example, if the children are older and it is important to the father to demonstrate to them that he contributes to their support in a significant way, he might make payments directly to their school, to extracurricular activities, or even purchase necessities himself.

Many noncustodial fathers also feel a loss of control over the decision-making process concerning both how their children will be raised and how the money that they pay will be used. Fathers frequently feel that their money goes into a “black hole” controlled by their ex-wife, who they often suspect uses it for herself and not the children. Whether these fears and suspicions are real or fabricated to avoid payment, often the result is that the children do not receive the support that is due. An instrument that has emerged to deal with this, as well as to negotiate a voluntary agreement, is mediation. Mediators are usually professionals trained in the art of negotiated settlements.

A mediator can be hired by the parties or suggested by the court to devise a workable agreement. The mediator is not aligned with either party, but is engaged to facilitate accord. All parties have an opportunity to express themselves and to voice their needs and concerns. The process is intended to allay fears, deal with defensiveness and rationalization, create problem solving, and consider the needs of all the parties, particularly the best interests of the children. Child support agreements that are voluntarily established through mediation have higher rates of observance than those that are ordered by the court. Women who are concerned about compliance should make every effort to negotiate their own settlement and should be aware of the positive results obtained through mediation.

Another issue closely related to maintaining child support is the degree of emotional connection between a father and his children. If conditions become such that fathers lose their sense of closeness or connectedness with their children, the likelihood of their keeping up their support is diminished. This can occur as time goes by and the father sees less and less of his children because they get older and develop their own relationships. It can also occur if the father or children move far away from one another. It also happens to some men when they remarry and develop new allegiances and responsibilities. Regardless of the reason for the estrangement, the deterioration of the emotional connection between a father and his children significantly affects his commitment to their financial support. It is very important that the father be assisted in maintaining his relationship with his children. Regular visits are important. Having the father participate in decision making around important child issues is crucial. Both reinforce the bond between a father and his children.

Even if regular visitation or paternal participation is not feasible (or perhaps desirable), other steps can be taken to keep the father informed, and thus involved, with his children, albeit on a more superficial level. It is important to make every effort to keep him in touch with the children’s development, their accomplishments, and their needs. Pictures can be sent regularly. The children themselves can send notes and memorabilia related to their interests and accomplishments. Every effort that keeps him in contact with his children will enhance the likelihood of their getting the child support to which they are entitled.

Federal courts typically do not claim jurisdiction over matters of divorce, alimony, or child custody. Implications of this limitation are that custody decisions are not appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and general national trends are discernible primarily at the state level of appeal through an examination of case law.

In 1970, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws adopted the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act. The American Bar Association ratified it in 1974. Consistent with no-fault legislation and the move toward gender equality in matters of divorce, the UMDA adopted the best interest of the child (BIOC) standard for child custody decision making. Five criteria were suggested for use with the BIOC standard: (a) the wishes of the child’s parent or parents as to his/her custody; (b) the wishes of the child as to his/her custodian; (c) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with his/her parent or parents, his/her siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest; (d) the child’s adjustment to his or her home, school, and community; and (e) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved. Conduct of the proposed custodian that does not affect his/her relationship to the child was not to be considered. The UMDA represented a national commentary on child custody standards, and, since 1970, all 50 states have translated aspects of the BIOC standard into either statutes or case law.

On the international level of policy making, the United States is one of 30 countries that has adopted the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction. This convention is used when a child has been wrongfully taken away from his or her place of “habitual residence” against the wishes of the custodial parent. The convention is used by the state and federal courts to return the child to the place of habitual residence where substantive issues of custody can be heard. The Hague Convention cannot be used to evaluate issues of best interest, only the issue of wrongful removal from the habitual residence.

The BIOC standard is a substantive guideline for custody decision making that focuses on the life situation of a particular child and involves the consideration of a list of relevant factors in determining with whom the child should be placed.

Many states require the use of a specified subset of these factors to decide contested custody cases and ask judges to consider all relevant factors without systematic (i.e., across all cases) preference to any one factor. It is the purest application of the BIOC standard and, because of the open-ended consideration of factors, the most complex decision-making standard. It is favored by some because it respects the individual situation of each child, allows the child due process in terms of having a variety of factors considered, and because many of the other proposed rules have been judged as inequitable or unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. However, the unweighted BIOC standard also has been criticized as too individualistic and indeterminant (relying on judges’ personal values and normative beliefs rather than societal ones), resulting in heavy demands on judicial and court resources and increased litigation. Thus, the unweighted BIOC standard seems to have merit when evaluated using some child-based values, but is problematic when evaluated using criteria focusing on logistics and selected societal values and normative role patterns (e.g., children should be placed with the person who provided the most frequent and consistent care).

Consequently, several intermediate rules have been championed, with the differing rules being favored by some and disdained by others. These rules include the tender years doctrine (equated by some with the maternal presumption), the psychological parent preference, the primary caretaker preference, the preference for joint custody, the child wishes rule, and the approximation rule. Potentially, each of these intermediate rules can be used to define the BIOC and, when used as such, carry preferential or presumptive weight in the decision-making process.

Tender Years Presumption

This presumption orders the court to assume that the best interests of the child are met when the child remains with the mother. It surfaced in the 19th century, and the definition of tender years expanded from infancy to the teen years during the 20th century. Determination of maternal fault for the marital breakdown and/or evidence of maternal unfitness were required to overrule the presumption.

During the 1970s, the tender years presumption was deemed unsuitable in determining the BIOC in most states. Political, legal, and social norms highlighted the importance of gender neutrality, and many states decided the tender years presumption violated the Equal Protection Amendment of the Constitution and/or was not good public policy.

Child Support

Regardless of financial resources, parents have a legal duty during and after marriage to support children below the age of majority (i.e., legal age), including those born outside of wedlock. Post-divorce support of children is intended to maintain the marital standard of living. Amount of support required is based on current needs; therefore, it is modifiable if there has been a change in circumstances that warrants reconsideration. Utah has laws that hold mothers and fathers equally responsible for child support. Likewise, most recent court decisions have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment or state equal rights amendments to require gender-neutral support statutes. However, gender neutral statutes that essentially eliminate the father’s primary duty to support have received some criticism. Not only does level of living improve for men and get worse for women after divorce. Because the custodial parent bears the primary responsibility for the care of children, earning potential often must be sacrificed, whereas the noncustodial parent gains earning potential as a result of not having responsibility for the day-to-day care of children. Because the majority of custodial parents are women, and women generally earn less than men, it is the woman who will, proportionately, contribute most to the financial support of children.

It is ironic that, in the face of an established parental duty to support, the early courts looked to the custodial parent’s financial stability rather than considering the noncustodial parent’s duty to support. Today some courts are unwilling to increase child support if the increase would improve the custodial parent’s standard of living along with the child’s. At the same time, even though a court may be reluctant to award enough support for a mother to stay home or obtain excellent care for children, the same court may question whether a working mother should get and/or retain custody.

Modification of Support

There are a number of circumstances under which modifications are made. Examples include a reduction in the income of the supporting parent (however, this is rarely effective even if the supporting parent has been incarcerated or either a formal or informal agreement to a reduction. Ordinarily only modifications of future obligations are allowed, but when a parent has requested that the obligation be reduced and has not been able to pay at the current level, retroactive modifications have been made. The problem is that some noncustodial parents have made reduced payments expecting that if the custodial parent seeks enforcement of the original support obligation, it would be possible to get a retroactive reduction. Although it is clearly possible in some cases, retroactive reduction of arrearages in child support are prohibited by federal law if the custodial parent receives funds from Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

Termination of Support

There are several reasons why support may be terminated before a child reaches the age of majority. In some states if the supporting parent dies, support is terminated, but in some, death does not result in automatic termination; inheritance and life insurance are used to continue support. Another reason for terminating support is the emancipation of the minor child; that is, the child is accorded legal status before reaching the age of majority. Examples include marriage, entry into military service, leaving the parent’s home and refusing to follow parent’s wishes, or becoming economically independent through employment. Adoption by a parent who replaces the supporting parent is also a possible reason for termination of a support obligation.

It is also possible for support obligations to be terminated if visitation by the supporting, noncustodial parent is denied. It is commonly thought that the reason why men refuse to pay child support is that they are denied opportunity to visit their children. Although studies have found no correlation between child support compliance and complaints about visitation, some courts have interpreted visitation and support decrees as mutually dependent contracts. Indeed, when visitation privileges or joint custody were awarded to fathers, almost 80 percent of mothers were awarded child support, but when neither visitation privileges nor joint custody were awarded to fathers, only about 30 percent of mothers were awarded child support. In cases in which a child has refused to see the custodial parent, courts have terminated support. Also, in extreme cases, such as concealment of the child by the mother, some courts have refused to make fathers pay unpaid support, maintaining that concealment is a waiver of support even though the child or spouse has been abused by the father. Rules that link child support and visitation and those that do not are inherently biased. When support and visitation are linked, the child and custodial parent’s need for financial support may be subordinated to the noncustodial parent’s need for a relationship with the child. On the other hand, when the rules are not connected, the noncustodial parent’s financial support may be considered more important than the nurturance received from either the custodial or the noncustodial parent. This is a problem because the law is more apt to recognize a tangible contribution such as money than it is to recognize an intangible contribution such as nurturance. Under some partially connecting rules, a noncustodial parent may withhold support payments if the custodial parent interferes with his or her visitation rights, but the custodial parent must have court permission to interfere with the visitation rights of the noncustodial parent even if child support has not been paid. In other words, this partially connecting rule seems to place the noncustodial parent’s right to visit above the child’s right to support.

Child Support Enforcement

The problems most common to child support are those associated with enforcement. Courts have used various civil and criminal remedies to enforce the payment of child support obligations, including contempt of court, income withholding in cases of arrearages, criminal prosecution, income tax refund offsets, guarantees for nonpayment such as bonds and liens, and termination of parental rights. Since the mid-1970s, the federal government has been actively involved in enforcement efforts.

There are two sides to federal involvement in child support enforcement. Both have grown out of efforts to obtain child support from fathers of children who receive AFDC benefits. The Child Support Enforcement Act (Pub. Law No. 93–647) was passed in 1975 and included establishment of state child support agencies, state and federal parent locator services, and the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement operated by the department of Health and Human Services. This law and its amendments put in place a number of strategies for finding fathers and forcing them to pay child support.

On the negative side of federal involvement, mothers of children who receive AFDC must identify the father of the child, a requirement that only affects poor, unmarried mothers. This legislation gives the government an unconstitutional right to intrude in the lives of poor, unmarried mothers. The United States Supreme Court agreed in Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), indicating that the interest of the state in preserving its fiscal resources did not justify an invasion of the constitutional rights of poor women. Later, when the issue was unannounced home visits by social service personnel to insure that there was no father in the home, the Court took a different position. The visits had been objected to as a violation of Fourth Amendment protection from unlawful search (a part of the logic of the right of privacy), but were upheld by the majority opinion of the Court (Wyman v. James, 1971) with dissents from Justices Douglas, Marshall, and Brennan, who pointed out the jeopardy to constitutional rights brought on by acceptance of welfare benefits. To date, this violation of the rights of poor, unmarried mothers to privacy and familial autonomy is a problem that has not been resolved either by statute or Court interpretation. On the positive side, for a mother who wants to find a father and enforce his payment of child support, resources have been improved. This is especially true in cases in which parents no longer live in the same state.

Although all states including Utah now have laws to deal with problems of enforcement of support obligations when one parent moves out of the state, getting these laws in place has been a long and frustrating problem for both parents and courts. Initially, when a parent moved out of the jurisdiction of a court, the laws that were used to exercise jurisdiction were those that had been developed to apply to commercial activities. Some courts have been unwilling to extend a long-arm statute that applied to commercial activities to a child support case because, obviously, they address different issues. In Shaffer the Court would not exercise jurisdiction (i.e., exercise authority to hear the case) over the nonresident parent who had support obligations because the nature of the ties between that parent, the state, and the precedent for litigation (commercial activities) were not related.

In Kulko, the Court agreed that the use of commercial long-arm statutes was not appropriate in child support cases. In this case, the mother moved from New York (the marital domicile of the couple) to California, where she later obtained custody of her two children. She subsequently filed a motion to modify child support. The only contacts the child’s father had with the state of California were (1) a three-day stay years before at the time the couple was married, (2) the act of buying one child’s airline ticket to move in with her mother, and (3) the fact that his children were located in that state. The Supreme Court, citing Shaffer (1977), ruled that this was insufficient to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction over the father by the state of California. The Court not only noted that from these acts alone the defendant would not have foreseen being summoned to a California court in order to defend himself, but also noted that his actions neither amounted to personal benefits derived from activities within the state nor caused an effect in California that amounted to criminal activities. Thus, the Court concluded that it would not be fair to require the father to defend himself in California. The Court further stated that the mother could have sought relief through the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), which would not require the father to leave the state of New York and would satisfy her needs.

The URESA and later the Revised URESA (RURESA) were designed as models to provide for interstate enforcement of a child support obligation. The drafters of RURESA sought to reduce the possibility of unnecessary or inappropriate modifications of support decrees by requiring that, among other things, motions to modify be reviewed by the court that delivered the initial support decision. In the Federal Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984, Congress required all states to have some form of the RURESA. Although state reciprocal enforcement acts have resulted in improvements over past attempts to use long-arm statutes designed for commercial activities, there are still some problems. In this as well as other parenting issues, courts may find themselves juggling a concern for the best interest of the child with often unacknowledged biases that arise from assumptions about relationships between husbands and wives.

Custody

Men face some biases in courts, especially in terms of child custody. Even with the move away from the maternal preference for custody, many courts still view the best interest of children to be with a mother who is “naturally” better able to nurture them. However, considered case by case, stereotyped gender-based expectations for men appear to be balanced by an inclination for male judges to understand and sympathize with the situation of another male—something that is most unlikely to happen in the response of a male judge to a woman. It would be unwise for a single mother seeking custody to count on the maternal preference. For example, if a woman does not work and stays at home where she can maximize her nurturing function, she and her child usually must live in poverty because it is rare for a court to award enough child and spousal support to relieve her of the need to work. On the other hand, if she seeks employment, the bias of the court shifts to favor the male, especially if he has remarried and the child could live with the father and a mother figure. In other words, the maternal presumption is easily overcome or inapplicable if the mother is employed outside the home. For women seeking custody, the maternal preference is balanced by traditional stereotypes and myths about women and poverty.

The law of domestic relations as it relates to child custody and child support has changed significantly throughout the last century. It was developed from state statutory and common law. In creating statutes and deciding cases, legislatures and courts have reviewed other state laws and have considered decisions in other state courts as precedent for their own actions. These efforts have culminated into what is now viewed as a national tradition of the law of domestic relations.

There are still differences between and among jurisdictions, but there are also national trends that cut across jurisdictions.

Although the “best interests of the child” has been adopted in the United States as the standard by which custody determinations are made, remnants of the Roman and English common law view of children as chattel were influential on the development of the law, especially as it relates to child support. For example, the notion that children were property of the father gave the father certain rights and responsibilities, including the right to services and custody of his children, which led to the responsibility or duty to support his children. Child support has not always, however, been considered a legally enforceable duty of the parent or right of the child. Whereas child custody has been considered in terms of the best interests of the child, child support has been considered in terms of contract law or in terms of a community’s interest in keeping citizens from becoming a public charge. Even the child support enforcement program that was initiated in 1950 was motivated primarily out of a desire to keep families from becoming dependents of the state. As would be expected, laws of custody and laws of support although related, affect single parents differently.

Most state statutes give courts considerable discretion in making custody determinations. Many would-be custody battles are settled by agreement of the parties before the case reaches the courtroom, but the court, not the parties, decides whether the agreement is in the child’s best interests. Even if the court accepts an agreement made by divorcing parents, it is free to reopen the case if a change in circumstances warrants reconsideration. This rule may be viewed as one which greatly limits parental power. However, the propensity of courts to rubberstamp these agreements may exacerbate a situation in which one parent has little bargaining power. For example, the parent most emotionally involved with the child (usually the mother) may be willing to accept less child support and other monetary or property awards as a result of threats from the other parent (usually the father) to sue for sole custody.

With extensive judicial discretion, it is difficult to avoid interjecting personal values and opinions in custody and visitation decisions. These decisions require judgments regarding the characteristics of all persons involved in the case as well as consideration of the facts. As a rule, any circumstance relevant to the best interests of the child is admissible—even past behaviors of parents. Adding to the difficulty of courts to be fair, state statutes that enumerate circumstances relevant to the child’s best interests generally do not include the weight to be given to each factor in making the custody determination.

Because of the continuing inclination to view mother-custody as best for children, fathers can be at a disadvantage in obtaining custody and visitation. Two-thirds of fathers who request it rre awarded custody by courts. However at times the courts are seen as being insensitive to noncustodial fathers who wish to continue a relationship with their children and to those fathers who are frustrated in their efforts to relate to their children.

Putative Fathers

A series of Supreme Court cases in the 1970s and 1980s defined the unwed, or putative, father’s relationship with his child as the basis of a liberty interest. A liberty interest is not exactly a right but it is similar in that it has been granted constitutional protection. This liberty interest is thought to arise from belief in the importance of the family unit; it is primarily a function of relationship rather than biological kinship. The importance of a putative father’s relationship with his child as compared to the importance of biological kinship is addressed in what is known as the Stanley line of cases: Stanley (1972), Quillion (1978), Caban (1979), and Lehr (1983). In this line of cases, the United States Supreme Court held that (1) biological kinship provides an opportunity for the putative father to develop a relationship with his child; (2) the nature of the relationship between the putative father and his child may give rise to a liberty interest in the relationship; and (3) the liberty interest gives rise to the constitutionally protected right to assert paternity. Although the unwed father may be denied the right to gain custody, to visit, or to stop an adoption proceeding, especially if the mother is married to another man, an illegitimate child is entitled to support from the biological father. Thus, the state or the mother (whether or not married to another man) may bring an action to obtain support for a child. <

Mobility of the Single Custodial Parent

The standards applied to cases involving the relocation of a parent outside the jurisdiction in which a custody decree exists varies by jurisdiction. Requirements in different states range from allowing the custodial parent to move for any reason so long as the noncustodial parent does not prove that the move is adverse to the child’s best interest to requiring the custodial parent to show exceptional circumstances in order to obtain permission to move. In many states, only a challenge by the noncustodial parent will require the custodial parent to provide a reason for moving. Indeed, many times the custodial parent’s desire/need to move to another state is pitted against the desire to retain custody. This may be particularly true for women because courts tend to be more demanding of sacrifice for the sake of children from mothers and question a woman’s pursuit of a career. In the past, if dissatisfied with a custody decision, a parent could move with a child to another state and bring an action for custody. Although not condoned, “forum shopping,” as this practice has been called, was possible because jurisdiction rules have not been applied in custody cases as they have in other cases. However, parents are finding this practice less viable today.

To address problems of jurisdiction in custody cases, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) was designed as a model to shift the focus from jurisdiction over the parent to the needs of the child. The purposes were to reduce chaos created by interstate jurisdictional competition and to promote cooperation between jurisdictions, as well as to promote the stable environment that most consider to be in a child’s best interests. Through the concept of continuing jurisdiction, the act forbids the modification of a child custody decree in one state when the original decree was issued in another state that still has jurisdiction over the case. The model act is said to have partially laid aside the confusion created by the Halvey case, in which the Supreme Court held that in order to protect the best interests of the child, a court in one state could modify a custody decree from another state. Although most states have adopted the principles in the UCCJA, the issues are complicated, and there are still many problems. For an excellent review of the application of and problems with UCCJA.

Sexual Behavior of Custodial Parents

As has been seen, courts tend to be biased in favor of traditional assumptions about family life and the roles of men and women. Such biases may be best illustrated in disputes involving the sexual behavior of parents. It should be noted at the outset that jeopardy to custody because of a nonmarital sexual relationship is a greater problem for women than for men.

Whether the parent is involved in a nonmarital heterosexual or homosexual relationship, the court may grant custody on the condition that the parent not live with certain persons or even that the parent terminate certain relationships. The court may require that a juvenile authority supervise the parent’s behavior, may require a change of the parent’s conduct, or may prohibit the parent from participating in overnight stays with certain persons—all of which is done in order to insulate the child from behavior considered inappropriate by the court. Although courts at all levels may let their views of appropriate behaviors influence custody decisions, these biases appear to be most prevalent at the trial court level.

Homosexual parents have a more difficult time than heterosexual parents. Where actual harm to the child is presumed, courts will generally prohibit the custodial parent from overnight visitation with lovers. Among other things, this indicates that courts are reluctant to expand the definition of family in visitation and custody disputes to reflect trends in the makeup of the American family. A New York court refused visitation rights to a lesbian ex-partner with the biological mother of the child because the statute in question only applied to biological parents. The biological mother had been artificially inseminated, and the lesbian ex-partner had acted as the child’s parent during the relationship; after the relationship was terminated, she had provided financial support for the child. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, stating that the ex-partner had no standing to bring a petition for visitation.

It is common for courts to worry that a homosexual parent will influence a child’s sexual orientation even though the evidence clearly indicates this is not a problem. Courts may be concerned that others will harass a child whose parent is homosexual or may conclude that a homosexual parent is unacceptable because the behavior is in violation of sodomy statutes. The degree of limitation on personal behavior/freedom of parents varies according to the court’s beliefs about and knowledge of sexuality. However now with same sex marriages being legal in Utah and many other states, things are being to change for the better.

Cohabitation

Cohabitation is another situation in which presumed sexual behavior can cause difficulty with custody decisions. A disgruntled spouse may use the traditional assumptions of the court to manipulate and control the behavior of the other spouse. For example, in one case, in response to the mother’s motion for modification of custody, the father also filed a petition to modify custody. He did not seek custody of his children, but sought to have the mother cease relations with her boyfriend. The custodial parent (mother) had sought modification of a custody decree in order to establish specific times at which the noncustodial parent (father) could visit their children. Apparently, the father had not only refused to pay the amount of child support stipulated in the divorce decree, he had also crashed his car into the mother’s boyfriend’s car and had threatened the family. The trial court, without specific findings of harm to the children, stated that overnight visitations by the mother’s boyfriend were not conducive to the children’s well-being, but that if the mother were to marry the boyfriend there would be no issue. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island upheld the trial court’s decision to modify the custody provision, which, in effect, restrained the mother from having overnight visits with her boyfriend. Not only did this court extend the definition of cohabitation to include sexual relations, but also, in effect, it allowed an exspouse to control the sexual behavior of the custodial parent. This decision forced the custodial parent to choose between two constitutional rights, freedom of association and personal privacy from unwarranted governmental intrusion. Although the United States Supreme Court has expressly provided that the government cannot force an individual to choose between two constitutionally guaranteed rights, in custody cases, it is the child’s best interests, not the parents interests, that are the issue.

Religious Practices

When religious practices of parents are thought to jeopardize the mental health or physical safety of a child, they can be a determining factor in a custody decision. In one case (Hadeen), the mother’s religious practices included fasting and spanking until the will of a child is broken. The trial court awarded custody to the father, but, on appeal, the court specifically considered whether the religious practices of the mother constituted reasonable likelihood that the child would be impaired. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for further consideration by the trial court in order to ensure that the trial court had not put too much weight on the religious factor. Justice Dore, dissenting, disagreed with the reversal, stating that the facts of the case indicated that the children were in jeopardy. One compelling incident reported in testimony was of the mother spanking one child for two hours while her other children held the child down.

In addition to noting that religion is a thorny issue in custody disputes, it is important to recognize that the religious interests of parents are more often seen as commensurate with the best interests of children—even when children are directly affected and hurt—than are the relationship interests of parents, even if children are neither directly affected nor hurt. In Hadeen, the court appeared to be more concerned with protecting Mrs. Hadeen’s right to freedom of religious practices than with protecting the best interests of the children. In this case the attention clearly wasn’t focused on the children. Taken together, the case seems to say that it is not really the effect on children but the values of courts that ultimately determine the outcome. It appears to be more acceptable to discipline a child in a manner that constitutes child abuse than to have relationships with members of the same or opposite sex, regardless of whether the nature of the relationship is known by the children or whether the relationship can be shown to be harmful to the children.

Joint Custody

Joint custody arrangements have become increasingly popular. Joint legal custody, as opposed to joint physical custody, generally connotes a situation in which the parents share equal responsibilities in child rearing; it is generally not tied to the amount of time that a child is in the presence of one or the other parent. The joint custody arrangement has its roots in concern for the best interests of the child; however, there are still many arguments for and against joint custody. Joint custody is necessarily a complex arrangement, and partly because of the individual circumstances in each case, there is little agreement on the best policies to be followed.

It is interesting that despite the fact that the success of joint custody arrangements is predicated on the willingness of parents to work together, some courts allow joint custody over the objection of a parent. Some courts feel so strongly about the importance of both parents being involved with the child(ren) that spousal attitudes toward each other can influence custody decisions. Insistence that both parents have access to a child may be warranted in most cases, but where there is a history of family violence or harassment, a parent’s objection to an award of joint custody should not prejudice the court. Although there are cases in which a court has ruled that a parent’s good faith objection to joint custody should not prejudice a request for sole custody, one can imagine a situation in which a battered spouse has no specific proof to present to the court in support of a request for sole custody.

Additionally, joint custody arrangements may result in reduction in the allowance or in no allowance for child support. It is not only unfair but also illogical to place equal financial responsibility on parents who are not equivalent in terms of financial resources.

Child custody laws in Utah are complex. Hire the services of an expert – an experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer to help you navigate the complex maze of American Fork Utah child custody laws.

American Fork Utah Divorce Lawyer

When you need legal help in American Fork Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC (801) 676-5506 for your Free Consultation. We can help you with divorce, child custody, child support, postnups, prenups, adoptions, guardianships, and more.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Criminal Defense Lawyer Riverton Utah

Divorce Cases With Child Custody In Utah

Variances And Conditional Use Permits

Juvenile Criminal Offenses In Utah

Tax Aspects Of Bankruptcy

Family Lawyer Bountiful Utah

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/divorce-lawyer-american-fork-utah/

[advertphoto]

Divorce Lawyer American Fork Utah

The law of divorce has changed a lot since the first divorce laws were passed in this country. If you are seeking a divorce consult with an experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer. Utah divorce law is complex. The lawyer can help you navigate the complex maze of Utah divorce laws.

During the first half of the nineteenth century, contests about political, religious, and economic roles of husbands and wives were prevalent throughout the North and West. Debates about limiting suffrage to male property owners emerged early in the century. Civic responsibility came to be shared among a larger class; property restrictions on male voting waned. As men moved out of the home to work, women gained recognition as teachers of domestic, cultural, and religious values.

In many areas of the country, and in parts of Utah, both spouses acquired new roles. Husbands and fathers, while retaining their position as political governors, became breadwinners. Wives and mothers, while continuing their household chores, became teachers and moral beacons. Faith also became more democratic. Salvation for many became an individual decision to be made rather than an outcome to be imposed by God. Women, deprived of political and economic power, often were attracted to this devotional message and integrated its teachings into their family life. Since salvation required good deeds on earth, maintenance of an observant family became an essential good deed for women. Throughout, however, patriarchal families remained central, as a place for faithful religious observance, a site for inculcation of cultural values, and a training ground for adult exercise of civic responsibility.

Modification of marital property rules throughout the nation during the first decades of the nineteenth century, like changes in political and religious structures, left the essential features of the patriarchal family intact. Upon marriage, common law rules used in much of the nation during the Revolutionary War era gave a husband ownership of almost all of the personal property of his wife as soon as he reduced it to his possession. In addition, he also gained management rights over her real property for the life of the marriage. Upon the birth of a child, control over the wife’s real property was extended to the lifetime of the husband. While early nineteenth-century reforms allowed some deserted women to regain their property or their economic independence and married women’s property acts precluded attachment of a wife’s property by creditors of her husband, men retained control over the central economic features of intact families. Family formation rituals also changed after the Revolutionary War. Arranged marriages virtually disappeared. Romance emerged as a basis for mate selection. But such “freedom” did not reduce the impetus to marry. Family remained as a solid source of status and cultural location. The attractions of power remained for men; the promise of economic security attracted women; the legitimation of sexual behavior attracted both. In stark contrast with the present day, when images of rock-solid, politically attuned, churchgoing families often seem little more than nostalgic symbols called to duty by desperate politicians, early nineteenth-century adults expected to marry, raise a family, develop a family economy, and stay together ‘til death did they part.

While the headlines focus on child support, the damage to the family far exceeds the monetary hurt. Living with one parent in and of itself places a child at risk for a host of negative experiences. When the child whose parents split up is not even seeing the other parent, the consequences can be more severe (as will be discussed). In neighborhoods with a high rate of father absence, there are higher rates of poverty, public assistance families, and high school dropouts. Fatherlessness (and to a lesser extent, motherlessness) cuts across all races and economic classes.

An experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer can assist you in your custody battle. In a custody battle, a frequently litigated change of circumstance is the presence of a live-in companion of the custodial parent. As mentioned earlier, courts approach this matter in very different ways, but the critical issue should always be the effect that the relationship has on the children. In a highly publicized Rhode Island case, a court ordered a custodial parent to refrain from allowing any unrelated males from making overnight visits while the children were in the house. And yet in another state a court ruled that a mother could not be prevented from permitting overnight visits by unrelated males unless there was evidence that it directly affected the welfare of the children. Indeed, there is no single guiding principle for this issue except that courts are supposed to be looking out for the interests of the children rather than using these cases to impose their own morality. But what is “best” for the children is often a subjective consideration, and custody has been lost on the basis of a court’s decision that the children would be better off in the other parent’s household.

Fathers who don’t pay child support

If your ex-spouse is not paying the child support as ordered by the court, speak to an experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer. There are many categories of fathers who don’t pay child support. One category outlines what has been termed the “overextended parent.” There are a number of variations of this type of man. The first is a man who was so eager to get out of his marriage or felt so guilty about leaving the marriage that he agreed to undertake an unreasonable level of child support that he was then unable to fulfill. This type of man is often described as relatively immature and naive, with little idea about what it takes to support two households. Once he falls behind on his support payments, it becomes virtually impossible for him to catch up. Thus the delinquency stems from his inability to meet the obligation, and often he eventually gives up even trying.

The second variation largely includes men who start out paying the prescribed amount, but within a couple of years — often after comparing notes with other divorced fathers — they come to believe that their burden exceeds that which others are obliged to pay. This type of man is likely to become angry, but rather than go back to court to seek a modification of his payments, he unilaterally reduces the payment on his own. This type of man does not perceive himself as a delinquent because some payment is still made, but it is inadequate to meet the needs of the children.

A third type of man who becomes an overextended parent is the noncustodial father who remarries, giving rise to a second family. When he has insufficient financial resources to meet the demands of both families, it is invariably his current family that gets taken care of and his noncustodial children that suffer.

As an aside, it has been observed that many men who have sufficient resources are often more diligent about making support payments when they remarry and have a second family. While this may be counter-intuitive, the reason may be that men who remarry are family oriented and consequently more concerned about the welfare of their children.

Finally, the fourth variation of the overextended father is one who becomes ill or unemployed; instead of going to court and having his payments reduced or temporarily suspended, he ignores the situation, engages in denial to avoid dealing with his payment problem, and merely drifts into delinquency without assuming any responsibility for his plight. When the problem inevitably catches up with him, he is the one who feels victimized by the system and adopts a hostile, rather than conciliatory, posture. The second category of men who fail to comply with their child support obligations are those who seek revenge against their ex-wives. This type of man carries with him many grudges, grievances and unresolved feelings concerning his marriage and family situation. Withholding child support payments is one of his few means of expressing anger. By controlling the money he exercises power and control over his ex-spouse, continuing the hostilities that resulted in the divorce but that apparently were not resolved by it.

Since disagreement over money is a major source of conflict in many marriages, particularly those that fail, withholding money is a way of keeping those past disputes alive. Where there was a high level of conflict between the parents prior to their separation, there is likely to be a high level of unresolved conflict subsequent to the divorce. In such high-conflict cases, withholding child support payments is not an unusual way for feelings of revenge to be expressed. Also, men who feel that they have been unfairly treated by the court may believe that the financial settlement is unjust and that withholding child support payments is warranted.

These men feel discriminated against by the legal system, hostile toward the world, and believe their ex-spouses are responsible for the injustice. Little regard is given to the effect that this vengeful behavior has on the children.

The third category of deadbeat dads are those men who do not make child support payments because of the emotional pain that is wrapped up in the divorce process. There appear to be two types of situations that provide these men with a rationale for withholding child support. The first is the man’s intense emotional reaction to his marriage falling apart and his becoming an absentee parent. His feeling shut out of the family is intensely painful to him, and one way of coping with his emotional distress is by distancing himself from the children.

The very process of establishing distance, which may be both physical and emotional, protects him from pain but also causes him to become alienated from the family. What then emerges is the rationale that since he is no longer part of the family, he need not assume any of the financial responsibility for it. Thus, to cope with the pain of losing custody of his children, he pushes them away and ignores their needs.

The second type of situation within this category occurs when there is a dispute over visitation. Here an otherwise caring father is denied the amount of visitation that he wants with his children and withholds support as a way of forcing his ex-spouse to acquiesce to his visitation requests. Interestingly, most problems involving denial of visitation stem from conflicts around money and payments of child support. Visitation thus becomes the ball on the economic playing field. Despite the fact that in most cases child support is specifically not conditioned upon a right of visitation, the emotional pain experienced by the noncustodial parent often causes him to seek revenge by hurting the very children with whom he wants to visit. Often this leads to a cycle of nonpayment and denied visitation that is so detrimental to the best interests of the very children who are the subjects of the support and visitation.

The fourth and largest category of deadbeat dads are those fathers who simply behave in an irresponsible manner with respect to their children. This type of man may disappear, not because he is overburdened per se and not because he is angry or vengeful toward the mother of his children. Many simply have no interest in parenting. Their role models have either been extremely poor or nonexistent and, not having themselves been treated well as children, they feel no responsibility to care for their own children. They rarely think about the children and may not even think of themselves as the parent.

For this type of man, children have little meaning in his life and he feels little obligation on their behalf. He certainly would not go out of his way or change his established pattern of behavior, nor would he consider working harder to make more money in order to provide for the children. This category includes the father who participated in bringing a child into the world but who has little or no sense of what it takes to rear that child. This kind of man often feels as though he was trapped by the woman and therefore believes that he is entitled to abdicate responsibility for the child.

Finally, there is a small category of men who are said to be going through what has been termed the “New Life Syndrome.” This type of man is egocentric and self-absorbed. While many deadbeat dads also tend to be self-centered, most seem to have some rationale for their behavior other than merely their own self-interest. This type of deadbeat is different: he needs no justification for his delinquency other than his own desires. He puts himself first; he feels entitled to have his needs met above all others, including his children; and he offers no excuses for his behavior. A significant factor is the father’s perception of how much control he has in determining how his child support payments are used on behalf of the children. For example, if he believes that his child support payments are being used by his ex-spouse on herself, he is less likely to continue making payments. Some men who feel that they have little say in the children’s upbringing believe it is ample excuse for not meeting financial responsibilities.

When there is joint child custody, a factor often related to compliance with child support obligations is the length of time that the children live with the father. When children stay with the father for periods of weeks or even months at a time (such as on holidays or school vacations), there is a tendency for payments to be withheld or reduced at those times because the father perceives himself as already supporting the children.

Extended visits are frequently viewed by fathers quite differently than shorter stays, because of the length of time and cost involved. Yet this may be inevitable when father and children live geographically distant from one another. The children have to travel far to visit their father, and therefore the visits tend to be less frequent but longer.

Often this changes, however, as children get older. Adolescents become reluctant to leave their friends for extended periods, resulting in their visits with fathers becoming less frequent. The reduced time together is likely to diminish the emotional connection between father and children, and the resulting alienation serves to diminish the father’s commitment to meeting his child support obligations. While this is not universally true, the level of contact between a father and his children is generally considered to be a significant factor in child support payments being made. Men who see their children irregularly are more likely to abdicate their financial responsibilities to them.

The remarriage of either or both spouses often creates another obstacle to continued child support payments. If the mother remarries and the ex-husband continues to maintain hostility against her, he may feel betrayed and angry at her new relationship. Her remarriage gives him an excuse to terminate payments upon the rationale that her new husband will provide for the children and his support is no longer necessary. This is a typical reaction when it is the ex-wife who remarries. When it is the ex-husband who remarries, there seem to be two possible paths. When economic resources are limited, a father is often faced with the difficult task of trying to maintain a good standard of living for his new family while at the same time struggling to keep up with his child support payments, which his new wife will often pressure him to reduce, or even stop. On the other hand, fathers who have an adequate income when they remarry frequently continue to make their child support payments, particularly if they are able to maintain a relationship with the children.

A very important consideration that affects full and timely child support obligations being met is the prior and existing relationship between the children’s mother and father. Factors include: the length of the marriage, the quality of the relationship during the divorce process, and the continuing level of attachment and interaction between the parents. Marriages that lasted a long time appear to result in a greater financial and emotional investment on the part of both parents. This interdependency between the parents may foster or facilitate an enduring attachment between them, which thereby reinforces their commitment to cooperate in the upbringing of their children. By the same token, parents who relate to each other in a relatively non-hostile manner during the divorce process also increase the likelihood that support will be paid. A poor quality of relationship between the ex-spouses often gives rise to the father expressing his negative feelings through noncompliance with support obligations. Thus, to the extent that a good relationship between former spouses can be maintained, it will reinforce the mutual commitment to their children and is likely to lead to greater compliance with child support obligations.

Another element that is likely to influence the continuity of child support is whether the obligation was arrived at by agreement or by court order. An agreement generally gives both parties an opportunity to exercise some control over the amount and frequency of the payments. This reduces the likelihood that the father will feel that he has been treated unjustly by the legal system. A feeling of being victimized often provides an excuse for not fulfilling financial responsibilities to the children.

Perhaps the single most important component is the degree of likelihood that the order will be enforced. Many fathers will not voluntarily pay child support to their ex-wives unless they are confronted by an authority that is willing and able to track them down and employ enforcement mechanisms.

Compliance rates are significantly higher when there is a court-monitored system for collecting child support and where there is a certainty of recourse (e.g., fines and/or jail) for noncompliance. In the absence of a perceived direct relationship between non-payment of child support and punishment, many fathers simply will not pay. The burden of collecting child support still falls primarily upon the mother, whose responsibility for pursuing payments that are in default often seems overwhelming and unmanageable. Many women become discouraged with having to deal with a slow and generally unresponsive legal system, trying to locate the whereabouts of an ex-husband, and finding the time, energy, emotional strength, and financial resources to carry a legal action forward.

The Single Mother Who Doesn’t Receive Support

The burden of collecting child support still falls upon the parent, and how she responds to a deadbeat dad has a significant impact on the likelihood of her obtaining child support payments. Indeed, the attitudes and responses of many custodial mothers contribute to the problem. Those who do not pursue child support in an effective and timely fashion reinforce, to both themselves and the deadbeat dad, that they are either unwilling or unable to stand up for the rights of their children. There are several types of women whose reactions or inaction contributes to the problems they encounter in receiving child support payments.

One type of woman is inappropriately passive and believes that someone will come along and take care of her. These women are often young and may never have had the responsibility of living on their own. When their relationship or marriage ends, they naively believe that the children’s father will continue to provide financial support. It is a rude awakening indeed when he does not, and often for the first time she finds herself on her own. She must assume sole support of her children or figure out a way to get the father to pay his share.

Many such women attempt to engage a lawyer, but soon realize such a route is complicated and expensive. Others find the responsibility for pursuing a legal remedy when payments are in default to be overwhelming and unmanageable. They find that they must deal with a slow and generally unresponsive legal system. But for so many women, finding the time, energy, emotional strength and financial resources to carry the legal action forward is more than they can muster.

Passive women also fail to follow through with the federally funded agencies that are available to provide assistance. While the services provided by these agencies are generally free of charge, they require monitoring and persistence, since the case workers are generally overburdened and the process is typical of large bureaucracies. A woman who relies on federal or state services must be prepared to pursue the case workers on a regular basis and insist that all available avenues of recourse be exhausted.

A second type of woman who may encounter difficulty in working through a bureaucratic government agency is the woman who is anxious and angry. She frequently deals with her frustrations poorly by flooding the child support agency with highly emotional calls and letters and by irritating the case workers who are overwhelmed with cases but who are nonetheless trying to help.

While the long-held maxim that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” may be true in many instances, this type of woman tends to be so overemotional and overbearing in her efforts to gain assistance that she actually works against herself as she alienates the very people who can help her. Many such women will abandon their efforts to pursue child support when they realize how difficult and frustrating the process can be.

Finally, there are still other women who have never taken steps to get a child support order. Some are women whose children were born out of wedlock; because they never married they erroneously believe that their children are not entitled to child support. Others fail to secure an award because they feel disgraced, do not want to get involved with the legal system, or would rather rely on their family for support. In the latter group are those who choose not to have any relationship between father and child and decline support in order to prevent such a relationship. This includes women who never even tell the father that he has a child. And there are single mothers who through their naiveté, passivity, inappropriate behavior, and feeling of lack of entitlement inadvertently contribute to their children’s problems. Most single mothers, however, are deeply concerned about their children’s welfare and would willingly, if not gladly, at least do what is needed in the best interest of the children.

What a Woman Can do to Facilitate Compliance

In recent years state and federal governments have instituted significant new methods for locating delinquent fathers and making them meet their child support obligations. It is clear, however, to anyone who has been involved in child support collection that practical solutions are much more effective than agency or judicial proceedings. Adversarial confrontations drain everyone involved of precious and scarce time, energy, and money. They may even have negative effects on the children by maintaining a high level of post divorce turmoil. Understanding the delinquent father’s motivation can sometimes be helpful in gaining his compliance.

When there is a good relationship between ex-spouses, there tends to be greater compliance with child support payments. Assuming the custodial parent’s goal is to ensure the best interests of the children, and that compliance with child support obligations promotes that goal, the first task is to establish and maintain as good a relationship as possible. This may mean consciously putting aside grudges and lingering feelings of anger toward an exspouse. This is often not easy, since divorce is usually acrimonious and leaves a legacy of bitterness and disappointment. Yet it is this very lingering conflict during the post divorce stage that is often used by the noncustodial father to rationalize his failure to make payments. A woman seeking to ensure compliance with support obligations should attempt to work through or set aside negative or hostile feelings in order to minimize conflict with her ex-husband. This is also likely to improve his relationship with the children, which will also increase the likelihood of paying support.

It is important to reiterate here that an agreement reached voluntarily by both parties is more likely to work than is one that is ordered by the court without participation and agreement of the parties. While it is important to formalize any private agreement by presenting it in court, a mutually negotiated and voluntary agreement is more likely to be honored by the parties. Once again, this requires the parties to be able to set aside negative feelings, focus the negotiation on the welfare of the children rather than continuing pre-divorce conflicts, and to arrive at a child support agreement that both parties feel has tried to accommodate their needs.

While it may be important to settle such practical matters as how and when child support payments will be made (e.g., by check through the mail, by deposit made into a bank account, by electronic funds transfer, etc.), an important concern of fathers is that they be able to exercise a degree of control over their obligation. Sometimes those who feel little control will use this as a rationale for nonpayment. For example, if the children are older and it is important to the father to demonstrate to them that he contributes to their support in a significant way, he might make payments directly to their school, to extracurricular activities, or even purchase necessities himself.

Many noncustodial fathers also feel a loss of control over the decision-making process concerning both how their children will be raised and how the money that they pay will be used. Fathers frequently feel that their money goes into a “black hole” controlled by their ex-wife, who they often suspect uses it for herself and not the children. Whether these fears and suspicions are real or fabricated to avoid payment, often the result is that the children do not receive the support that is due. An instrument that has emerged to deal with this, as well as to negotiate a voluntary agreement, is mediation. Mediators are usually professionals trained in the art of negotiated settlements.

A mediator can be hired by the parties or suggested by the court to devise a workable agreement. The mediator is not aligned with either party, but is engaged to facilitate accord. All parties have an opportunity to express themselves and to voice their needs and concerns. The process is intended to allay fears, deal with defensiveness and rationalization, create problem solving, and consider the needs of all the parties, particularly the best interests of the children. Child support agreements that are voluntarily established through mediation have higher rates of observance than those that are ordered by the court. Women who are concerned about compliance should make every effort to negotiate their own settlement and should be aware of the positive results obtained through mediation.

Another issue closely related to maintaining child support is the degree of emotional connection between a father and his children. If conditions become such that fathers lose their sense of closeness or connectedness with their children, the likelihood of their keeping up their support is diminished. This can occur as time goes by and the father sees less and less of his children because they get older and develop their own relationships. It can also occur if the father or children move far away from one another. It also happens to some men when they remarry and develop new allegiances and responsibilities. Regardless of the reason for the estrangement, the deterioration of the emotional connection between a father and his children significantly affects his commitment to their financial support. It is very important that the father be assisted in maintaining his relationship with his children. Regular visits are important. Having the father participate in decision making around important child issues is crucial. Both reinforce the bond between a father and his children.

Even if regular visitation or paternal participation is not feasible (or perhaps desirable), other steps can be taken to keep the father informed, and thus involved, with his children, albeit on a more superficial level. It is important to make every effort to keep him in touch with the children’s development, their accomplishments, and their needs. Pictures can be sent regularly. The children themselves can send notes and memorabilia related to their interests and accomplishments. Every effort that keeps him in contact with his children will enhance the likelihood of their getting the child support to which they are entitled.

Federal courts typically do not claim jurisdiction over matters of divorce, alimony, or child custody. Implications of this limitation are that custody decisions are not appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and general national trends are discernible primarily at the state level of appeal through an examination of case law.

In 1970, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws adopted the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act. The American Bar Association ratified it in 1974. Consistent with no-fault legislation and the move toward gender equality in matters of divorce, the UMDA adopted the best interest of the child (BIOC) standard for child custody decision making. Five criteria were suggested for use with the BIOC standard: (a) the wishes of the child’s parent or parents as to his/her custody; (b) the wishes of the child as to his/her custodian; (c) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with his/her parent or parents, his/her siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest; (d) the child’s adjustment to his or her home, school, and community; and (e) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved. Conduct of the proposed custodian that does not affect his/her relationship to the child was not to be considered. The UMDA represented a national commentary on child custody standards, and, since 1970, all 50 states have translated aspects of the BIOC standard into either statutes or case law.

On the international level of policy making, the United States is one of 30 countries that has adopted the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction. This convention is used when a child has been wrongfully taken away from his or her place of “habitual residence” against the wishes of the custodial parent. The convention is used by the state and federal courts to return the child to the place of habitual residence where substantive issues of custody can be heard. The Hague Convention cannot be used to evaluate issues of best interest, only the issue of wrongful removal from the habitual residence.

The BIOC standard is a substantive guideline for custody decision making that focuses on the life situation of a particular child and involves the consideration of a list of relevant factors in determining with whom the child should be placed.

Many states require the use of a specified subset of these factors to decide contested custody cases and ask judges to consider all relevant factors without systematic (i.e., across all cases) preference to any one factor. It is the purest application of the BIOC standard and, because of the open-ended consideration of factors, the most complex decision-making standard. It is favored by some because it respects the individual situation of each child, allows the child due process in terms of having a variety of factors considered, and because many of the other proposed rules have been judged as inequitable or unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. However, the unweighted BIOC standard also has been criticized as too individualistic and indeterminant (relying on judges’ personal values and normative beliefs rather than societal ones), resulting in heavy demands on judicial and court resources and increased litigation. Thus, the unweighted BIOC standard seems to have merit when evaluated using some child-based values, but is problematic when evaluated using criteria focusing on logistics and selected societal values and normative role patterns (e.g., children should be placed with the person who provided the most frequent and consistent care).

Consequently, several intermediate rules have been championed, with the differing rules being favored by some and disdained by others. These rules include the tender years doctrine (equated by some with the maternal presumption), the psychological parent preference, the primary caretaker preference, the preference for joint custody, the child wishes rule, and the approximation rule. Potentially, each of these intermediate rules can be used to define the BIOC and, when used as such, carry preferential or presumptive weight in the decision-making process.

Tender Years Presumption

This presumption orders the court to assume that the best interests of the child are met when the child remains with the mother. It surfaced in the 19th century, and the definition of tender years expanded from infancy to the teen years during the 20th century. Determination of maternal fault for the marital breakdown and/or evidence of maternal unfitness were required to overrule the presumption.

During the 1970s, the tender years presumption was deemed unsuitable in determining the BIOC in most states. Political, legal, and social norms highlighted the importance of gender neutrality, and many states decided the tender years presumption violated the Equal Protection Amendment of the Constitution and/or was not good public policy.

Child Support

Regardless of financial resources, parents have a legal duty during and after marriage to support children below the age of majority (i.e., legal age), including those born outside of wedlock. Post-divorce support of children is intended to maintain the marital standard of living. Amount of support required is based on current needs; therefore, it is modifiable if there has been a change in circumstances that warrants reconsideration. Utah has laws that hold mothers and fathers equally responsible for child support. Likewise, most recent court decisions have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment or state equal rights amendments to require gender-neutral support statutes. However, gender neutral statutes that essentially eliminate the father’s primary duty to support have received some criticism. Not only does level of living improve for men and get worse for women after divorce. Because the custodial parent bears the primary responsibility for the care of children, earning potential often must be sacrificed, whereas the noncustodial parent gains earning potential as a result of not having responsibility for the day-to-day care of children. Because the majority of custodial parents are women, and women generally earn less than men, it is the woman who will, proportionately, contribute most to the financial support of children.

It is ironic that, in the face of an established parental duty to support, the early courts looked to the custodial parent’s financial stability rather than considering the noncustodial parent’s duty to support. Today some courts are unwilling to increase child support if the increase would improve the custodial parent’s standard of living along with the child’s. At the same time, even though a court may be reluctant to award enough support for a mother to stay home or obtain excellent care for children, the same court may question whether a working mother should get and/or retain custody.

Modification of Support

There are a number of circumstances under which modifications are made. Examples include a reduction in the income of the supporting parent (however, this is rarely effective even if the supporting parent has been incarcerated or either a formal or informal agreement to a reduction. Ordinarily only modifications of future obligations are allowed, but when a parent has requested that the obligation be reduced and has not been able to pay at the current level, retroactive modifications have been made. The problem is that some noncustodial parents have made reduced payments expecting that if the custodial parent seeks enforcement of the original support obligation, it would be possible to get a retroactive reduction. Although it is clearly possible in some cases, retroactive reduction of arrearages in child support are prohibited by federal law if the custodial parent receives funds from Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

Termination of Support

There are several reasons why support may be terminated before a child reaches the age of majority. In some states if the supporting parent dies, support is terminated, but in some, death does not result in automatic termination; inheritance and life insurance are used to continue support. Another reason for terminating support is the emancipation of the minor child; that is, the child is accorded legal status before reaching the age of majority. Examples include marriage, entry into military service, leaving the parent’s home and refusing to follow parent’s wishes, or becoming economically independent through employment. Adoption by a parent who replaces the supporting parent is also a possible reason for termination of a support obligation.

It is also possible for support obligations to be terminated if visitation by the supporting, noncustodial parent is denied. It is commonly thought that the reason why men refuse to pay child support is that they are denied opportunity to visit their children. Although studies have found no correlation between child support compliance and complaints about visitation, some courts have interpreted visitation and support decrees as mutually dependent contracts. Indeed, when visitation privileges or joint custody were awarded to fathers, almost 80 percent of mothers were awarded child support, but when neither visitation privileges nor joint custody were awarded to fathers, only about 30 percent of mothers were awarded child support. In cases in which a child has refused to see the custodial parent, courts have terminated support. Also, in extreme cases, such as concealment of the child by the mother, some courts have refused to make fathers pay unpaid support, maintaining that concealment is a waiver of support even though the child or spouse has been abused by the father. Rules that link child support and visitation and those that do not are inherently biased. When support and visitation are linked, the child and custodial parent’s need for financial support may be subordinated to the noncustodial parent’s need for a relationship with the child. On the other hand, when the rules are not connected, the noncustodial parent’s financial support may be considered more important than the nurturance received from either the custodial or the noncustodial parent. This is a problem because the law is more apt to recognize a tangible contribution such as money than it is to recognize an intangible contribution such as nurturance. Under some partially connecting rules, a noncustodial parent may withhold support payments if the custodial parent interferes with his or her visitation rights, but the custodial parent must have court permission to interfere with the visitation rights of the noncustodial parent even if child support has not been paid. In other words, this partially connecting rule seems to place the noncustodial parent’s right to visit above the child’s right to support.

Child Support Enforcement

The problems most common to child support are those associated with enforcement. Courts have used various civil and criminal remedies to enforce the payment of child support obligations, including contempt of court, income withholding in cases of arrearages, criminal prosecution, income tax refund offsets, guarantees for nonpayment such as bonds and liens, and termination of parental rights. Since the mid-1970s, the federal government has been actively involved in enforcement efforts.

There are two sides to federal involvement in child support enforcement. Both have grown out of efforts to obtain child support from fathers of children who receive AFDC benefits. The Child Support Enforcement Act (Pub. Law No. 93–647) was passed in 1975 and included establishment of state child support agencies, state and federal parent locator services, and the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement operated by the department of Health and Human Services. This law and its amendments put in place a number of strategies for finding fathers and forcing them to pay child support.

On the negative side of federal involvement, mothers of children who receive AFDC must identify the father of the child, a requirement that only affects poor, unmarried mothers. This legislation gives the government an unconstitutional right to intrude in the lives of poor, unmarried mothers. The United States Supreme Court agreed in Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), indicating that the interest of the state in preserving its fiscal resources did not justify an invasion of the constitutional rights of poor women. Later, when the issue was unannounced home visits by social service personnel to insure that there was no father in the home, the Court took a different position. The visits had been objected to as a violation of Fourth Amendment protection from unlawful search (a part of the logic of the right of privacy), but were upheld by the majority opinion of the Court (Wyman v. James, 1971) with dissents from Justices Douglas, Marshall, and Brennan, who pointed out the jeopardy to constitutional rights brought on by acceptance of welfare benefits. To date, this violation of the rights of poor, unmarried mothers to privacy and familial autonomy is a problem that has not been resolved either by statute or Court interpretation. On the positive side, for a mother who wants to find a father and enforce his payment of child support, resources have been improved. This is especially true in cases in which parents no longer live in the same state.

Although all states including Utah now have laws to deal with problems of enforcement of support obligations when one parent moves out of the state, getting these laws in place has been a long and frustrating problem for both parents and courts. Initially, when a parent moved out of the jurisdiction of a court, the laws that were used to exercise jurisdiction were those that had been developed to apply to commercial activities. Some courts have been unwilling to extend a long-arm statute that applied to commercial activities to a child support case because, obviously, they address different issues. In Shaffer the Court would not exercise jurisdiction (i.e., exercise authority to hear the case) over the nonresident parent who had support obligations because the nature of the ties between that parent, the state, and the precedent for litigation (commercial activities) were not related.

In Kulko, the Court agreed that the use of commercial long-arm statutes was not appropriate in child support cases. In this case, the mother moved from New York (the marital domicile of the couple) to California, where she later obtained custody of her two children. She subsequently filed a motion to modify child support. The only contacts the child’s father had with the state of California were (1) a three-day stay years before at the time the couple was married, (2) the act of buying one child’s airline ticket to move in with her mother, and (3) the fact that his children were located in that state. The Supreme Court, citing Shaffer (1977), ruled that this was insufficient to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction over the father by the state of California. The Court not only noted that from these acts alone the defendant would not have foreseen being summoned to a California court in order to defend himself, but also noted that his actions neither amounted to personal benefits derived from activities within the state nor caused an effect in California that amounted to criminal activities. Thus, the Court concluded that it would not be fair to require the father to defend himself in California. The Court further stated that the mother could have sought relief through the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), which would not require the father to leave the state of New York and would satisfy her needs.

The URESA and later the Revised URESA (RURESA) were designed as models to provide for interstate enforcement of a child support obligation. The drafters of RURESA sought to reduce the possibility of unnecessary or inappropriate modifications of support decrees by requiring that, among other things, motions to modify be reviewed by the court that delivered the initial support decision. In the Federal Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984, Congress required all states to have some form of the RURESA. Although state reciprocal enforcement acts have resulted in improvements over past attempts to use long-arm statutes designed for commercial activities, there are still some problems. In this as well as other parenting issues, courts may find themselves juggling a concern for the best interest of the child with often unacknowledged biases that arise from assumptions about relationships between husbands and wives.

Custody

Men face some biases in courts, especially in terms of child custody. Even with the move away from the maternal preference for custody, many courts still view the best interest of children to be with a mother who is “naturally” better able to nurture them. However, considered case by case, stereotyped gender-based expectations for men appear to be balanced by an inclination for male judges to understand and sympathize with the situation of another male—something that is most unlikely to happen in the response of a male judge to a woman. It would be unwise for a single mother seeking custody to count on the maternal preference. For example, if a woman does not work and stays at home where she can maximize her nurturing function, she and her child usually must live in poverty because it is rare for a court to award enough child and spousal support to relieve her of the need to work. On the other hand, if she seeks employment, the bias of the court shifts to favor the male, especially if he has remarried and the child could live with the father and a mother figure. In other words, the maternal presumption is easily overcome or inapplicable if the mother is employed outside the home. For women seeking custody, the maternal preference is balanced by traditional stereotypes and myths about women and poverty.

The law of domestic relations as it relates to child custody and child support has changed significantly throughout the last century. It was developed from state statutory and common law. In creating statutes and deciding cases, legislatures and courts have reviewed other state laws and have considered decisions in other state courts as precedent for their own actions. These efforts have culminated into what is now viewed as a national tradition of the law of domestic relations.

There are still differences between and among jurisdictions, but there are also national trends that cut across jurisdictions.

Although the “best interests of the child” has been adopted in the United States as the standard by which custody determinations are made, remnants of the Roman and English common law view of children as chattel were influential on the development of the law, especially as it relates to child support. For example, the notion that children were property of the father gave the father certain rights and responsibilities, including the right to services and custody of his children, which led to the responsibility or duty to support his children. Child support has not always, however, been considered a legally enforceable duty of the parent or right of the child. Whereas child custody has been considered in terms of the best interests of the child, child support has been considered in terms of contract law or in terms of a community’s interest in keeping citizens from becoming a public charge. Even the child support enforcement program that was initiated in 1950 was motivated primarily out of a desire to keep families from becoming dependents of the state. As would be expected, laws of custody and laws of support although related, affect single parents differently.

Most state statutes give courts considerable discretion in making custody determinations. Many would-be custody battles are settled by agreement of the parties before the case reaches the courtroom, but the court, not the parties, decides whether the agreement is in the child’s best interests. Even if the court accepts an agreement made by divorcing parents, it is free to reopen the case if a change in circumstances warrants reconsideration. This rule may be viewed as one which greatly limits parental power. However, the propensity of courts to rubberstamp these agreements may exacerbate a situation in which one parent has little bargaining power. For example, the parent most emotionally involved with the child (usually the mother) may be willing to accept less child support and other monetary or property awards as a result of threats from the other parent (usually the father) to sue for sole custody.

With extensive judicial discretion, it is difficult to avoid interjecting personal values and opinions in custody and visitation decisions. These decisions require judgments regarding the characteristics of all persons involved in the case as well as consideration of the facts. As a rule, any circumstance relevant to the best interests of the child is admissible—even past behaviors of parents. Adding to the difficulty of courts to be fair, state statutes that enumerate circumstances relevant to the child’s best interests generally do not include the weight to be given to each factor in making the custody determination.

Because of the continuing inclination to view mother-custody as best for children, fathers can be at a disadvantage in obtaining custody and visitation. Two-thirds of fathers who request it rre awarded custody by courts. However at times the courts are seen as being insensitive to noncustodial fathers who wish to continue a relationship with their children and to those fathers who are frustrated in their efforts to relate to their children.

Putative Fathers

A series of Supreme Court cases in the 1970s and 1980s defined the unwed, or putative, father’s relationship with his child as the basis of a liberty interest. A liberty interest is not exactly a right but it is similar in that it has been granted constitutional protection. This liberty interest is thought to arise from belief in the importance of the family unit; it is primarily a function of relationship rather than biological kinship. The importance of a putative father’s relationship with his child as compared to the importance of biological kinship is addressed in what is known as the Stanley line of cases: Stanley (1972), Quillion (1978), Caban (1979), and Lehr (1983). In this line of cases, the United States Supreme Court held that (1) biological kinship provides an opportunity for the putative father to develop a relationship with his child; (2) the nature of the relationship between the putative father and his child may give rise to a liberty interest in the relationship; and (3) the liberty interest gives rise to the constitutionally protected right to assert paternity. Although the unwed father may be denied the right to gain custody, to visit, or to stop an adoption proceeding, especially if the mother is married to another man, an illegitimate child is entitled to support from the biological father. Thus, the state or the mother (whether or not married to another man) may bring an action to obtain support for a child. <

Mobility of the Single Custodial Parent

The standards applied to cases involving the relocation of a parent outside the jurisdiction in which a custody decree exists varies by jurisdiction. Requirements in different states range from allowing the custodial parent to move for any reason so long as the noncustodial parent does not prove that the move is adverse to the child’s best interest to requiring the custodial parent to show exceptional circumstances in order to obtain permission to move. In many states, only a challenge by the noncustodial parent will require the custodial parent to provide a reason for moving. Indeed, many times the custodial parent’s desire/need to move to another state is pitted against the desire to retain custody. This may be particularly true for women because courts tend to be more demanding of sacrifice for the sake of children from mothers and question a woman’s pursuit of a career. In the past, if dissatisfied with a custody decision, a parent could move with a child to another state and bring an action for custody. Although not condoned, “forum shopping,” as this practice has been called, was possible because jurisdiction rules have not been applied in custody cases as they have in other cases. However, parents are finding this practice less viable today.

To address problems of jurisdiction in custody cases, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) was designed as a model to shift the focus from jurisdiction over the parent to the needs of the child. The purposes were to reduce chaos created by interstate jurisdictional competition and to promote cooperation between jurisdictions, as well as to promote the stable environment that most consider to be in a child’s best interests. Through the concept of continuing jurisdiction, the act forbids the modification of a child custody decree in one state when the original decree was issued in another state that still has jurisdiction over the case. The model act is said to have partially laid aside the confusion created by the Halvey case, in which the Supreme Court held that in order to protect the best interests of the child, a court in one state could modify a custody decree from another state. Although most states have adopted the principles in the UCCJA, the issues are complicated, and there are still many problems. For an excellent review of the application of and problems with UCCJA.

Sexual Behavior of Custodial Parents

As has been seen, courts tend to be biased in favor of traditional assumptions about family life and the roles of men and women. Such biases may be best illustrated in disputes involving the sexual behavior of parents. It should be noted at the outset that jeopardy to custody because of a nonmarital sexual relationship is a greater problem for women than for men.

Whether the parent is involved in a nonmarital heterosexual or homosexual relationship, the court may grant custody on the condition that the parent not live with certain persons or even that the parent terminate certain relationships. The court may require that a juvenile authority supervise the parent’s behavior, may require a change of the parent’s conduct, or may prohibit the parent from participating in overnight stays with certain persons—all of which is done in order to insulate the child from behavior considered inappropriate by the court. Although courts at all levels may let their views of appropriate behaviors influence custody decisions, these biases appear to be most prevalent at the trial court level.

Homosexual parents have a more difficult time than heterosexual parents. Where actual harm to the child is presumed, courts will generally prohibit the custodial parent from overnight visitation with lovers. Among other things, this indicates that courts are reluctant to expand the definition of family in visitation and custody disputes to reflect trends in the makeup of the American family. A New York court refused visitation rights to a lesbian ex-partner with the biological mother of the child because the statute in question only applied to biological parents. The biological mother had been artificially inseminated, and the lesbian ex-partner had acted as the child’s parent during the relationship; after the relationship was terminated, she had provided financial support for the child. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, stating that the ex-partner had no standing to bring a petition for visitation.

It is common for courts to worry that a homosexual parent will influence a child’s sexual orientation even though the evidence clearly indicates this is not a problem. Courts may be concerned that others will harass a child whose parent is homosexual or may conclude that a homosexual parent is unacceptable because the behavior is in violation of sodomy statutes. The degree of limitation on personal behavior/freedom of parents varies according to the court’s beliefs about and knowledge of sexuality. However now with same sex marriages being legal in Utah and many other states, things are being to change for the better.

Cohabitation

Cohabitation is another situation in which presumed sexual behavior can cause difficulty with custody decisions. A disgruntled spouse may use the traditional assumptions of the court to manipulate and control the behavior of the other spouse. For example, in one case, in response to the mother’s motion for modification of custody, the father also filed a petition to modify custody. He did not seek custody of his children, but sought to have the mother cease relations with her boyfriend. The custodial parent (mother) had sought modification of a custody decree in order to establish specific times at which the noncustodial parent (father) could visit their children. Apparently, the father had not only refused to pay the amount of child support stipulated in the divorce decree, he had also crashed his car into the mother’s boyfriend’s car and had threatened the family. The trial court, without specific findings of harm to the children, stated that overnight visitations by the mother’s boyfriend were not conducive to the children’s well-being, but that if the mother were to marry the boyfriend there would be no issue. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island upheld the trial court’s decision to modify the custody provision, which, in effect, restrained the mother from having overnight visits with her boyfriend. Not only did this court extend the definition of cohabitation to include sexual relations, but also, in effect, it allowed an exspouse to control the sexual behavior of the custodial parent. This decision forced the custodial parent to choose between two constitutional rights, freedom of association and personal privacy from unwarranted governmental intrusion. Although the United States Supreme Court has expressly provided that the government cannot force an individual to choose between two constitutionally guaranteed rights, in custody cases, it is the child’s best interests, not the parents interests, that are the issue.

Religious Practices

When religious practices of parents are thought to jeopardize the mental health or physical safety of a child, they can be a determining factor in a custody decision. In one case (Hadeen), the mother’s religious practices included fasting and spanking until the will of a child is broken. The trial court awarded custody to the father, but, on appeal, the court specifically considered whether the religious practices of the mother constituted reasonable likelihood that the child would be impaired. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for further consideration by the trial court in order to ensure that the trial court had not put too much weight on the religious factor. Justice Dore, dissenting, disagreed with the reversal, stating that the facts of the case indicated that the children were in jeopardy. One compelling incident reported in testimony was of the mother spanking one child for two hours while her other children held the child down.

In addition to noting that religion is a thorny issue in custody disputes, it is important to recognize that the religious interests of parents are more often seen as commensurate with the best interests of children—even when children are directly affected and hurt—than are the relationship interests of parents, even if children are neither directly affected nor hurt. In Hadeen, the court appeared to be more concerned with protecting Mrs. Hadeen’s right to freedom of religious practices than with protecting the best interests of the children. In this case the attention clearly wasn’t focused on the children. Taken together, the case seems to say that it is not really the effect on children but the values of courts that ultimately determine the outcome. It appears to be more acceptable to discipline a child in a manner that constitutes child abuse than to have relationships with members of the same or opposite sex, regardless of whether the nature of the relationship is known by the children or whether the relationship can be shown to be harmful to the children.

Joint Custody

Joint custody arrangements have become increasingly popular. Joint legal custody, as opposed to joint physical custody, generally connotes a situation in which the parents share equal responsibilities in child rearing; it is generally not tied to the amount of time that a child is in the presence of one or the other parent. The joint custody arrangement has its roots in concern for the best interests of the child; however, there are still many arguments for and against joint custody. Joint custody is necessarily a complex arrangement, and partly because of the individual circumstances in each case, there is little agreement on the best policies to be followed.

It is interesting that despite the fact that the success of joint custody arrangements is predicated on the willingness of parents to work together, some courts allow joint custody over the objection of a parent. Some courts feel so strongly about the importance of both parents being involved with the child(ren) that spousal attitudes toward each other can influence custody decisions. Insistence that both parents have access to a child may be warranted in most cases, but where there is a history of family violence or harassment, a parent’s objection to an award of joint custody should not prejudice the court. Although there are cases in which a court has ruled that a parent’s good faith objection to joint custody should not prejudice a request for sole custody, one can imagine a situation in which a battered spouse has no specific proof to present to the court in support of a request for sole custody.

Additionally, joint custody arrangements may result in reduction in the allowance or in no allowance for child support. It is not only unfair but also illogical to place equal financial responsibility on parents who are not equivalent in terms of financial resources.

Child custody laws in Utah are complex. Hire the services of an expert – an experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer to help you navigate the complex maze of American Fork Utah child custody laws.

American Fork Utah Divorce Lawyer

When you need legal help in American Fork Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC (801) 676-5506 for your Free Consultation. We can help you with divorce, child custody, child support, postnups, prenups, adoptions, guardianships, and more.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Criminal Defense Lawyer Riverton Utah

Divorce Cases With Child Custody In Utah

Variances And Conditional Use Permits

Juvenile Criminal Offenses In Utah

Tax Aspects Of Bankruptcy

Family Lawyer Bountiful Utah

Source: https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/divorce-lawyer-american-fork-utah/

[mayarosa47]

Divorce Lawyer American Fork Utah

The law of divorce has changed a lot since the first divorce laws were passed in this country. If you are seeking a divorce consult with an experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer. Utah divorce law is complex. The lawyer can help you navigate the complex maze of Utah divorce laws.

During the first half of the nineteenth century, contests about political, religious, and economic roles of husbands and wives were prevalent throughout the North and West. Debates about limiting suffrage to male property owners emerged early in the century. Civic responsibility came to be shared among a larger class; property restrictions on male voting waned. As men moved out of the home to work, women gained recognition as teachers of domestic, cultural, and religious values.

In many areas of the country, and in parts of Utah, both spouses acquired new roles. Husbands and fathers, while retaining their position as political governors, became breadwinners. Wives and mothers, while continuing their household chores, became teachers and moral beacons. Faith also became more democratic. Salvation for many became an individual decision to be made rather than an outcome to be imposed by God. Women, deprived of political and economic power, often were attracted to this devotional message and integrated its teachings into their family life. Since salvation required good deeds on earth, maintenance of an observant family became an essential good deed for women. Throughout, however, patriarchal families remained central, as a place for faithful religious observance, a site for inculcation of cultural values, and a training ground for adult exercise of civic responsibility.

Modification of marital property rules throughout the nation during the first decades of the nineteenth century, like changes in political and religious structures, left the essential features of the patriarchal family intact. Upon marriage, common law rules used in much of the nation during the Revolutionary War era gave a husband ownership of almost all of the personal property of his wife as soon as he reduced it to his possession. In addition, he also gained management rights over her real property for the life of the marriage. Upon the birth of a child, control over the wife’s real property was extended to the lifetime of the husband. While early nineteenth-century reforms allowed some deserted women to regain their property or their economic independence and married women’s property acts precluded attachment of a wife’s property by creditors of her husband, men retained control over the central economic features of intact families. Family formation rituals also changed after the Revolutionary War. Arranged marriages virtually disappeared. Romance emerged as a basis for mate selection. But such “freedom” did not reduce the impetus to marry. Family remained as a solid source of status and cultural location. The attractions of power remained for men; the promise of economic security attracted women; the legitimation of sexual behavior attracted both. In stark contrast with the present day, when images of rock-solid, politically attuned, churchgoing families often seem little more than nostalgic symbols called to duty by desperate politicians, early nineteenth-century adults expected to marry, raise a family, develop a family economy, and stay together ‘til death did they part.

While the headlines focus on child support, the damage to the family far exceeds the monetary hurt. Living with one parent in and of itself places a child at risk for a host of negative experiences. When the child whose parents split up is not even seeing the other parent, the consequences can be more severe (as will be discussed). In neighborhoods with a high rate of father absence, there are higher rates of poverty, public assistance families, and high school dropouts. Fatherlessness (and to a lesser extent, motherlessness) cuts across all races and economic classes.

An experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer can assist you in your custody battle. In a custody battle, a frequently litigated change of circumstance is the presence of a live-in companion of the custodial parent. As mentioned earlier, courts approach this matter in very different ways, but the critical issue should always be the effect that the relationship has on the children. In a highly publicized Rhode Island case, a court ordered a custodial parent to refrain from allowing any unrelated males from making overnight visits while the children were in the house. And yet in another state a court ruled that a mother could not be prevented from permitting overnight visits by unrelated males unless there was evidence that it directly affected the welfare of the children. Indeed, there is no single guiding principle for this issue except that courts are supposed to be looking out for the interests of the children rather than using these cases to impose their own morality. But what is “best” for the children is often a subjective consideration, and custody has been lost on the basis of a court’s decision that the children would be better off in the other parent’s household.

Fathers who don’t pay child support

If your ex-spouse is not paying the child support as ordered by the court, speak to an experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer. There are many categories of fathers who don’t pay child support. One category outlines what has been termed the “overextended parent.” There are a number of variations of this type of man. The first is a man who was so eager to get out of his marriage or felt so guilty about leaving the marriage that he agreed to undertake an unreasonable level of child support that he was then unable to fulfill. This type of man is often described as relatively immature and naive, with little idea about what it takes to support two households. Once he falls behind on his support payments, it becomes virtually impossible for him to catch up. Thus the delinquency stems from his inability to meet the obligation, and often he eventually gives up even trying.

The second variation largely includes men who start out paying the prescribed amount, but within a couple of years — often after comparing notes with other divorced fathers — they come to believe that their burden exceeds that which others are obliged to pay. This type of man is likely to become angry, but rather than go back to court to seek a modification of his payments, he unilaterally reduces the payment on his own. This type of man does not perceive himself as a delinquent because some payment is still made, but it is inadequate to meet the needs of the children.

A third type of man who becomes an overextended parent is the noncustodial father who remarries, giving rise to a second family. When he has insufficient financial resources to meet the demands of both families, it is invariably his current family that gets taken care of and his noncustodial children that suffer.

As an aside, it has been observed that many men who have sufficient resources are often more diligent about making support payments when they remarry and have a second family. While this may be counter-intuitive, the reason may be that men who remarry are family oriented and consequently more concerned about the welfare of their children.

Finally, the fourth variation of the overextended father is one who becomes ill or unemployed; instead of going to court and having his payments reduced or temporarily suspended, he ignores the situation, engages in denial to avoid dealing with his payment problem, and merely drifts into delinquency without assuming any responsibility for his plight. When the problem inevitably catches up with him, he is the one who feels victimized by the system and adopts a hostile, rather than conciliatory, posture. The second category of men who fail to comply with their child support obligations are those who seek revenge against their ex-wives. This type of man carries with him many grudges, grievances and unresolved feelings concerning his marriage and family situation. Withholding child support payments is one of his few means of expressing anger. By controlling the money he exercises power and control over his ex-spouse, continuing the hostilities that resulted in the divorce but that apparently were not resolved by it.

Since disagreement over money is a major source of conflict in many marriages, particularly those that fail, withholding money is a way of keeping those past disputes alive. Where there was a high level of conflict between the parents prior to their separation, there is likely to be a high level of unresolved conflict subsequent to the divorce. In such high-conflict cases, withholding child support payments is not an unusual way for feelings of revenge to be expressed. Also, men who feel that they have been unfairly treated by the court may believe that the financial settlement is unjust and that withholding child support payments is warranted.

These men feel discriminated against by the legal system, hostile toward the world, and believe their ex-spouses are responsible for the injustice. Little regard is given to the effect that this vengeful behavior has on the children.

The third category of deadbeat dads are those men who do not make child support payments because of the emotional pain that is wrapped up in the divorce process. There appear to be two types of situations that provide these men with a rationale for withholding child support. The first is the man’s intense emotional reaction to his marriage falling apart and his becoming an absentee parent. His feeling shut out of the family is intensely painful to him, and one way of coping with his emotional distress is by distancing himself from the children.

The very process of establishing distance, which may be both physical and emotional, protects him from pain but also causes him to become alienated from the family. What then emerges is the rationale that since he is no longer part of the family, he need not assume any of the financial responsibility for it. Thus, to cope with the pain of losing custody of his children, he pushes them away and ignores their needs.

The second type of situation within this category occurs when there is a dispute over visitation. Here an otherwise caring father is denied the amount of visitation that he wants with his children and withholds support as a way of forcing his ex-spouse to acquiesce to his visitation requests. Interestingly, most problems involving denial of visitation stem from conflicts around money and payments of child support. Visitation thus becomes the ball on the economic playing field. Despite the fact that in most cases child support is specifically not conditioned upon a right of visitation, the emotional pain experienced by the noncustodial parent often causes him to seek revenge by hurting the very children with whom he wants to visit. Often this leads to a cycle of nonpayment and denied visitation that is so detrimental to the best interests of the very children who are the subjects of the support and visitation.

The fourth and largest category of deadbeat dads are those fathers who simply behave in an irresponsible manner with respect to their children. This type of man may disappear, not because he is overburdened per se and not because he is angry or vengeful toward the mother of his children. Many simply have no interest in parenting. Their role models have either been extremely poor or nonexistent and, not having themselves been treated well as children, they feel no responsibility to care for their own children. They rarely think about the children and may not even think of themselves as the parent.

For this type of man, children have little meaning in his life and he feels little obligation on their behalf. He certainly would not go out of his way or change his established pattern of behavior, nor would he consider working harder to make more money in order to provide for the children. This category includes the father who participated in bringing a child into the world but who has little or no sense of what it takes to rear that child. This kind of man often feels as though he was trapped by the woman and therefore believes that he is entitled to abdicate responsibility for the child.

Finally, there is a small category of men who are said to be going through what has been termed the “New Life Syndrome.” This type of man is egocentric and self-absorbed. While many deadbeat dads also tend to be self-centered, most seem to have some rationale for their behavior other than merely their own self-interest. This type of deadbeat is different: he needs no justification for his delinquency other than his own desires. He puts himself first; he feels entitled to have his needs met above all others, including his children; and he offers no excuses for his behavior. A significant factor is the father’s perception of how much control he has in determining how his child support payments are used on behalf of the children. For example, if he believes that his child support payments are being used by his ex-spouse on herself, he is less likely to continue making payments. Some men who feel that they have little say in the children’s upbringing believe it is ample excuse for not meeting financial responsibilities.

When there is joint child custody, a factor often related to compliance with child support obligations is the length of time that the children live with the father. When children stay with the father for periods of weeks or even months at a time (such as on holidays or school vacations), there is a tendency for payments to be withheld or reduced at those times because the father perceives himself as already supporting the children.

Extended visits are frequently viewed by fathers quite differently than shorter stays, because of the length of time and cost involved. Yet this may be inevitable when father and children live geographically distant from one another. The children have to travel far to visit their father, and therefore the visits tend to be less frequent but longer.

Often this changes, however, as children get older. Adolescents become reluctant to leave their friends for extended periods, resulting in their visits with fathers becoming less frequent. The reduced time together is likely to diminish the emotional connection between father and children, and the resulting alienation serves to diminish the father’s commitment to meeting his child support obligations. While this is not universally true, the level of contact between a father and his children is generally considered to be a significant factor in child support payments being made. Men who see their children irregularly are more likely to abdicate their financial responsibilities to them.

The remarriage of either or both spouses often creates another obstacle to continued child support payments. If the mother remarries and the ex-husband continues to maintain hostility against her, he may feel betrayed and angry at her new relationship. Her remarriage gives him an excuse to terminate payments upon the rationale that her new husband will provide for the children and his support is no longer necessary. This is a typical reaction when it is the ex-wife who remarries. When it is the ex-husband who remarries, there seem to be two possible paths. When economic resources are limited, a father is often faced with the difficult task of trying to maintain a good standard of living for his new family while at the same time struggling to keep up with his child support payments, which his new wife will often pressure him to reduce, or even stop. On the other hand, fathers who have an adequate income when they remarry frequently continue to make their child support payments, particularly if they are able to maintain a relationship with the children.

A very important consideration that affects full and timely child support obligations being met is the prior and existing relationship between the children’s mother and father. Factors include: the length of the marriage, the quality of the relationship during the divorce process, and the continuing level of attachment and interaction between the parents. Marriages that lasted a long time appear to result in a greater financial and emotional investment on the part of both parents. This interdependency between the parents may foster or facilitate an enduring attachment between them, which thereby reinforces their commitment to cooperate in the upbringing of their children. By the same token, parents who relate to each other in a relatively non-hostile manner during the divorce process also increase the likelihood that support will be paid. A poor quality of relationship between the ex-spouses often gives rise to the father expressing his negative feelings through noncompliance with support obligations. Thus, to the extent that a good relationship between former spouses can be maintained, it will reinforce the mutual commitment to their children and is likely to lead to greater compliance with child support obligations.

Another element that is likely to influence the continuity of child support is whether the obligation was arrived at by agreement or by court order. An agreement generally gives both parties an opportunity to exercise some control over the amount and frequency of the payments. This reduces the likelihood that the father will feel that he has been treated unjustly by the legal system. A feeling of being victimized often provides an excuse for not fulfilling financial responsibilities to the children.

Perhaps the single most important component is the degree of likelihood that the order will be enforced. Many fathers will not voluntarily pay child support to their ex-wives unless they are confronted by an authority that is willing and able to track them down and employ enforcement mechanisms.

Compliance rates are significantly higher when there is a court-monitored system for collecting child support and where there is a certainty of recourse (e.g., fines and/or jail) for noncompliance. In the absence of a perceived direct relationship between non-payment of child support and punishment, many fathers simply will not pay. The burden of collecting child support still falls primarily upon the mother, whose responsibility for pursuing payments that are in default often seems overwhelming and unmanageable. Many women become discouraged with having to deal with a slow and generally unresponsive legal system, trying to locate the whereabouts of an ex-husband, and finding the time, energy, emotional strength, and financial resources to carry a legal action forward.

The Single Mother Who Doesn’t Receive Support

The burden of collecting child support still falls upon the parent, and how she responds to a deadbeat dad has a significant impact on the likelihood of her obtaining child support payments. Indeed, the attitudes and responses of many custodial mothers contribute to the problem. Those who do not pursue child support in an effective and timely fashion reinforce, to both themselves and the deadbeat dad, that they are either unwilling or unable to stand up for the rights of their children. There are several types of women whose reactions or inaction contributes to the problems they encounter in receiving child support payments.

One type of woman is inappropriately passive and believes that someone will come along and take care of her. These women are often young and may never have had the responsibility of living on their own. When their relationship or marriage ends, they naively believe that the children’s father will continue to provide financial support. It is a rude awakening indeed when he does not, and often for the first time she finds herself on her own. She must assume sole support of her children or figure out a way to get the father to pay his share.

Many such women attempt to engage a lawyer, but soon realize such a route is complicated and expensive. Others find the responsibility for pursuing a legal remedy when payments are in default to be overwhelming and unmanageable. They find that they must deal with a slow and generally unresponsive legal system. But for so many women, finding the time, energy, emotional strength and financial resources to carry the legal action forward is more than they can muster.

Passive women also fail to follow through with the federally funded agencies that are available to provide assistance. While the services provided by these agencies are generally free of charge, they require monitoring and persistence, since the case workers are generally overburdened and the process is typical of large bureaucracies. A woman who relies on federal or state services must be prepared to pursue the case workers on a regular basis and insist that all available avenues of recourse be exhausted.

A second type of woman who may encounter difficulty in working through a bureaucratic government agency is the woman who is anxious and angry. She frequently deals with her frustrations poorly by flooding the child support agency with highly emotional calls and letters and by irritating the case workers who are overwhelmed with cases but who are nonetheless trying to help.

While the long-held maxim that “the squeaky wheel gets the grease” may be true in many instances, this type of woman tends to be so overemotional and overbearing in her efforts to gain assistance that she actually works against herself as she alienates the very people who can help her. Many such women will abandon their efforts to pursue child support when they realize how difficult and frustrating the process can be.

Finally, there are still other women who have never taken steps to get a child support order. Some are women whose children were born out of wedlock; because they never married they erroneously believe that their children are not entitled to child support. Others fail to secure an award because they feel disgraced, do not want to get involved with the legal system, or would rather rely on their family for support. In the latter group are those who choose not to have any relationship between father and child and decline support in order to prevent such a relationship. This includes women who never even tell the father that he has a child. And there are single mothers who through their naiveté, passivity, inappropriate behavior, and feeling of lack of entitlement inadvertently contribute to their children’s problems. Most single mothers, however, are deeply concerned about their children’s welfare and would willingly, if not gladly, at least do what is needed in the best interest of the children.

What a Woman Can do to Facilitate Compliance

In recent years state and federal governments have instituted significant new methods for locating delinquent fathers and making them meet their child support obligations. It is clear, however, to anyone who has been involved in child support collection that practical solutions are much more effective than agency or judicial proceedings. Adversarial confrontations drain everyone involved of precious and scarce time, energy, and money. They may even have negative effects on the children by maintaining a high level of post divorce turmoil. Understanding the delinquent father’s motivation can sometimes be helpful in gaining his compliance.

When there is a good relationship between ex-spouses, there tends to be greater compliance with child support payments. Assuming the custodial parent’s goal is to ensure the best interests of the children, and that compliance with child support obligations promotes that goal, the first task is to establish and maintain as good a relationship as possible. This may mean consciously putting aside grudges and lingering feelings of anger toward an exspouse. This is often not easy, since divorce is usually acrimonious and leaves a legacy of bitterness and disappointment. Yet it is this very lingering conflict during the post divorce stage that is often used by the noncustodial father to rationalize his failure to make payments. A woman seeking to ensure compliance with support obligations should attempt to work through or set aside negative or hostile feelings in order to minimize conflict with her ex-husband. This is also likely to improve his relationship with the children, which will also increase the likelihood of paying support.

It is important to reiterate here that an agreement reached voluntarily by both parties is more likely to work than is one that is ordered by the court without participation and agreement of the parties. While it is important to formalize any private agreement by presenting it in court, a mutually negotiated and voluntary agreement is more likely to be honored by the parties. Once again, this requires the parties to be able to set aside negative feelings, focus the negotiation on the welfare of the children rather than continuing pre-divorce conflicts, and to arrive at a child support agreement that both parties feel has tried to accommodate their needs.

While it may be important to settle such practical matters as how and when child support payments will be made (e.g., by check through the mail, by deposit made into a bank account, by electronic funds transfer, etc.), an important concern of fathers is that they be able to exercise a degree of control over their obligation. Sometimes those who feel little control will use this as a rationale for nonpayment. For example, if the children are older and it is important to the father to demonstrate to them that he contributes to their support in a significant way, he might make payments directly to their school, to extracurricular activities, or even purchase necessities himself.

Many noncustodial fathers also feel a loss of control over the decision-making process concerning both how their children will be raised and how the money that they pay will be used. Fathers frequently feel that their money goes into a “black hole” controlled by their ex-wife, who they often suspect uses it for herself and not the children. Whether these fears and suspicions are real or fabricated to avoid payment, often the result is that the children do not receive the support that is due. An instrument that has emerged to deal with this, as well as to negotiate a voluntary agreement, is mediation. Mediators are usually professionals trained in the art of negotiated settlements.

A mediator can be hired by the parties or suggested by the court to devise a workable agreement. The mediator is not aligned with either party, but is engaged to facilitate accord. All parties have an opportunity to express themselves and to voice their needs and concerns. The process is intended to allay fears, deal with defensiveness and rationalization, create problem solving, and consider the needs of all the parties, particularly the best interests of the children. Child support agreements that are voluntarily established through mediation have higher rates of observance than those that are ordered by the court. Women who are concerned about compliance should make every effort to negotiate their own settlement and should be aware of the positive results obtained through mediation.

Another issue closely related to maintaining child support is the degree of emotional connection between a father and his children. If conditions become such that fathers lose their sense of closeness or connectedness with their children, the likelihood of their keeping up their support is diminished. This can occur as time goes by and the father sees less and less of his children because they get older and develop their own relationships. It can also occur if the father or children move far away from one another. It also happens to some men when they remarry and develop new allegiances and responsibilities. Regardless of the reason for the estrangement, the deterioration of the emotional connection between a father and his children significantly affects his commitment to their financial support. It is very important that the father be assisted in maintaining his relationship with his children. Regular visits are important. Having the father participate in decision making around important child issues is crucial. Both reinforce the bond between a father and his children.

Even if regular visitation or paternal participation is not feasible (or perhaps desirable), other steps can be taken to keep the father informed, and thus involved, with his children, albeit on a more superficial level. It is important to make every effort to keep him in touch with the children’s development, their accomplishments, and their needs. Pictures can be sent regularly. The children themselves can send notes and memorabilia related to their interests and accomplishments. Every effort that keeps him in contact with his children will enhance the likelihood of their getting the child support to which they are entitled.

Federal courts typically do not claim jurisdiction over matters of divorce, alimony, or child custody. Implications of this limitation are that custody decisions are not appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, and general national trends are discernible primarily at the state level of appeal through an examination of case law.

In 1970, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws adopted the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act. The American Bar Association ratified it in 1974. Consistent with no-fault legislation and the move toward gender equality in matters of divorce, the UMDA adopted the best interest of the child (BIOC) standard for child custody decision making. Five criteria were suggested for use with the BIOC standard: (a) the wishes of the child’s parent or parents as to his/her custody; (b) the wishes of the child as to his/her custodian; (c) the interaction and interrelationship of the child with his/her parent or parents, his/her siblings, and any other person who may significantly affect the child’s best interest; (d) the child’s adjustment to his or her home, school, and community; and (e) the mental and physical health of all individuals involved. Conduct of the proposed custodian that does not affect his/her relationship to the child was not to be considered. The UMDA represented a national commentary on child custody standards, and, since 1970, all 50 states have translated aspects of the BIOC standard into either statutes or case law.

On the international level of policy making, the United States is one of 30 countries that has adopted the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of Child Abduction. This convention is used when a child has been wrongfully taken away from his or her place of “habitual residence” against the wishes of the custodial parent. The convention is used by the state and federal courts to return the child to the place of habitual residence where substantive issues of custody can be heard. The Hague Convention cannot be used to evaluate issues of best interest, only the issue of wrongful removal from the habitual residence.

The BIOC standard is a substantive guideline for custody decision making that focuses on the life situation of a particular child and involves the consideration of a list of relevant factors in determining with whom the child should be placed.

Many states require the use of a specified subset of these factors to decide contested custody cases and ask judges to consider all relevant factors without systematic (i.e., across all cases) preference to any one factor. It is the purest application of the BIOC standard and, because of the open-ended consideration of factors, the most complex decision-making standard. It is favored by some because it respects the individual situation of each child, allows the child due process in terms of having a variety of factors considered, and because many of the other proposed rules have been judged as inequitable or unsubstantiated by empirical evidence. However, the unweighted BIOC standard also has been criticized as too individualistic and indeterminant (relying on judges’ personal values and normative beliefs rather than societal ones), resulting in heavy demands on judicial and court resources and increased litigation. Thus, the unweighted BIOC standard seems to have merit when evaluated using some child-based values, but is problematic when evaluated using criteria focusing on logistics and selected societal values and normative role patterns (e.g., children should be placed with the person who provided the most frequent and consistent care).

Consequently, several intermediate rules have been championed, with the differing rules being favored by some and disdained by others. These rules include the tender years doctrine (equated by some with the maternal presumption), the psychological parent preference, the primary caretaker preference, the preference for joint custody, the child wishes rule, and the approximation rule. Potentially, each of these intermediate rules can be used to define the BIOC and, when used as such, carry preferential or presumptive weight in the decision-making process.

Tender Years Presumption

This presumption orders the court to assume that the best interests of the child are met when the child remains with the mother. It surfaced in the 19th century, and the definition of tender years expanded from infancy to the teen years during the 20th century. Determination of maternal fault for the marital breakdown and/or evidence of maternal unfitness were required to overrule the presumption.

During the 1970s, the tender years presumption was deemed unsuitable in determining the BIOC in most states. Political, legal, and social norms highlighted the importance of gender neutrality, and many states decided the tender years presumption violated the Equal Protection Amendment of the Constitution and/or was not good public policy.

Child Support

Regardless of financial resources, parents have a legal duty during and after marriage to support children below the age of majority (i.e., legal age), including those born outside of wedlock. Post-divorce support of children is intended to maintain the marital standard of living. Amount of support required is based on current needs; therefore, it is modifiable if there has been a change in circumstances that warrants reconsideration. Utah has laws that hold mothers and fathers equally responsible for child support. Likewise, most recent court decisions have interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment or state equal rights amendments to require gender-neutral support statutes. However, gender neutral statutes that essentially eliminate the father’s primary duty to support have received some criticism. Not only does level of living improve for men and get worse for women after divorce. Because the custodial parent bears the primary responsibility for the care of children, earning potential often must be sacrificed, whereas the noncustodial parent gains earning potential as a result of not having responsibility for the day-to-day care of children. Because the majority of custodial parents are women, and women generally earn less than men, it is the woman who will, proportionately, contribute most to the financial support of children.

It is ironic that, in the face of an established parental duty to support, the early courts looked to the custodial parent’s financial stability rather than considering the noncustodial parent’s duty to support. Today some courts are unwilling to increase child support if the increase would improve the custodial parent’s standard of living along with the child’s. At the same time, even though a court may be reluctant to award enough support for a mother to stay home or obtain excellent care for children, the same court may question whether a working mother should get and/or retain custody.

Modification of Support

There are a number of circumstances under which modifications are made. Examples include a reduction in the income of the supporting parent (however, this is rarely effective even if the supporting parent has been incarcerated or either a formal or informal agreement to a reduction. Ordinarily only modifications of future obligations are allowed, but when a parent has requested that the obligation be reduced and has not been able to pay at the current level, retroactive modifications have been made. The problem is that some noncustodial parents have made reduced payments expecting that if the custodial parent seeks enforcement of the original support obligation, it would be possible to get a retroactive reduction. Although it is clearly possible in some cases, retroactive reduction of arrearages in child support are prohibited by federal law if the custodial parent receives funds from Aid to Families with Dependent Children.

Termination of Support

There are several reasons why support may be terminated before a child reaches the age of majority. In some states if the supporting parent dies, support is terminated, but in some, death does not result in automatic termination; inheritance and life insurance are used to continue support. Another reason for terminating support is the emancipation of the minor child; that is, the child is accorded legal status before reaching the age of majority. Examples include marriage, entry into military service, leaving the parent’s home and refusing to follow parent’s wishes, or becoming economically independent through employment. Adoption by a parent who replaces the supporting parent is also a possible reason for termination of a support obligation.

It is also possible for support obligations to be terminated if visitation by the supporting, noncustodial parent is denied. It is commonly thought that the reason why men refuse to pay child support is that they are denied opportunity to visit their children. Although studies have found no correlation between child support compliance and complaints about visitation, some courts have interpreted visitation and support decrees as mutually dependent contracts. Indeed, when visitation privileges or joint custody were awarded to fathers, almost 80 percent of mothers were awarded child support, but when neither visitation privileges nor joint custody were awarded to fathers, only about 30 percent of mothers were awarded child support. In cases in which a child has refused to see the custodial parent, courts have terminated support. Also, in extreme cases, such as concealment of the child by the mother, some courts have refused to make fathers pay unpaid support, maintaining that concealment is a waiver of support even though the child or spouse has been abused by the father. Rules that link child support and visitation and those that do not are inherently biased. When support and visitation are linked, the child and custodial parent’s need for financial support may be subordinated to the noncustodial parent’s need for a relationship with the child. On the other hand, when the rules are not connected, the noncustodial parent’s financial support may be considered more important than the nurturance received from either the custodial or the noncustodial parent. This is a problem because the law is more apt to recognize a tangible contribution such as money than it is to recognize an intangible contribution such as nurturance. Under some partially connecting rules, a noncustodial parent may withhold support payments if the custodial parent interferes with his or her visitation rights, but the custodial parent must have court permission to interfere with the visitation rights of the noncustodial parent even if child support has not been paid. In other words, this partially connecting rule seems to place the noncustodial parent’s right to visit above the child’s right to support.

Child Support Enforcement

The problems most common to child support are those associated with enforcement. Courts have used various civil and criminal remedies to enforce the payment of child support obligations, including contempt of court, income withholding in cases of arrearages, criminal prosecution, income tax refund offsets, guarantees for nonpayment such as bonds and liens, and termination of parental rights. Since the mid-1970s, the federal government has been actively involved in enforcement efforts.

There are two sides to federal involvement in child support enforcement. Both have grown out of efforts to obtain child support from fathers of children who receive AFDC benefits. The Child Support Enforcement Act (Pub. Law No. 93–647) was passed in 1975 and included establishment of state child support agencies, state and federal parent locator services, and the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement operated by the department of Health and Human Services. This law and its amendments put in place a number of strategies for finding fathers and forcing them to pay child support.

On the negative side of federal involvement, mothers of children who receive AFDC must identify the father of the child, a requirement that only affects poor, unmarried mothers. This legislation gives the government an unconstitutional right to intrude in the lives of poor, unmarried mothers. The United States Supreme Court agreed in Shapiro v. Thompson (1969), indicating that the interest of the state in preserving its fiscal resources did not justify an invasion of the constitutional rights of poor women. Later, when the issue was unannounced home visits by social service personnel to insure that there was no father in the home, the Court took a different position. The visits had been objected to as a violation of Fourth Amendment protection from unlawful search (a part of the logic of the right of privacy), but were upheld by the majority opinion of the Court (Wyman v. James, 1971) with dissents from Justices Douglas, Marshall, and Brennan, who pointed out the jeopardy to constitutional rights brought on by acceptance of welfare benefits. To date, this violation of the rights of poor, unmarried mothers to privacy and familial autonomy is a problem that has not been resolved either by statute or Court interpretation. On the positive side, for a mother who wants to find a father and enforce his payment of child support, resources have been improved. This is especially true in cases in which parents no longer live in the same state.

Although all states including Utah now have laws to deal with problems of enforcement of support obligations when one parent moves out of the state, getting these laws in place has been a long and frustrating problem for both parents and courts. Initially, when a parent moved out of the jurisdiction of a court, the laws that were used to exercise jurisdiction were those that had been developed to apply to commercial activities. Some courts have been unwilling to extend a long-arm statute that applied to commercial activities to a child support case because, obviously, they address different issues. In Shaffer the Court would not exercise jurisdiction (i.e., exercise authority to hear the case) over the nonresident parent who had support obligations because the nature of the ties between that parent, the state, and the precedent for litigation (commercial activities) were not related.

In Kulko, the Court agreed that the use of commercial long-arm statutes was not appropriate in child support cases. In this case, the mother moved from New York (the marital domicile of the couple) to California, where she later obtained custody of her two children. She subsequently filed a motion to modify child support. The only contacts the child’s father had with the state of California were (1) a three-day stay years before at the time the couple was married, (2) the act of buying one child’s airline ticket to move in with her mother, and (3) the fact that his children were located in that state. The Supreme Court, citing Shaffer (1977), ruled that this was insufficient to warrant the exercise of jurisdiction over the father by the state of California. The Court not only noted that from these acts alone the defendant would not have foreseen being summoned to a California court in order to defend himself, but also noted that his actions neither amounted to personal benefits derived from activities within the state nor caused an effect in California that amounted to criminal activities. Thus, the Court concluded that it would not be fair to require the father to defend himself in California. The Court further stated that the mother could have sought relief through the Uniform Reciprocal Enforcement of Support Act (URESA), which would not require the father to leave the state of New York and would satisfy her needs.

The URESA and later the Revised URESA (RURESA) were designed as models to provide for interstate enforcement of a child support obligation. The drafters of RURESA sought to reduce the possibility of unnecessary or inappropriate modifications of support decrees by requiring that, among other things, motions to modify be reviewed by the court that delivered the initial support decision. In the Federal Child Support Enforcement Amendments of 1984, Congress required all states to have some form of the RURESA. Although state reciprocal enforcement acts have resulted in improvements over past attempts to use long-arm statutes designed for commercial activities, there are still some problems. In this as well as other parenting issues, courts may find themselves juggling a concern for the best interest of the child with often unacknowledged biases that arise from assumptions about relationships between husbands and wives.

Custody

Men face some biases in courts, especially in terms of child custody. Even with the move away from the maternal preference for custody, many courts still view the best interest of children to be with a mother who is “naturally” better able to nurture them. However, considered case by case, stereotyped gender-based expectations for men appear to be balanced by an inclination for male judges to understand and sympathize with the situation of another male—something that is most unlikely to happen in the response of a male judge to a woman. It would be unwise for a single mother seeking custody to count on the maternal preference. For example, if a woman does not work and stays at home where she can maximize her nurturing function, she and her child usually must live in poverty because it is rare for a court to award enough child and spousal support to relieve her of the need to work. On the other hand, if she seeks employment, the bias of the court shifts to favor the male, especially if he has remarried and the child could live with the father and a mother figure. In other words, the maternal presumption is easily overcome or inapplicable if the mother is employed outside the home. For women seeking custody, the maternal preference is balanced by traditional stereotypes and myths about women and poverty.

The law of domestic relations as it relates to child custody and child support has changed significantly throughout the last century. It was developed from state statutory and common law. In creating statutes and deciding cases, legislatures and courts have reviewed other state laws and have considered decisions in other state courts as precedent for their own actions. These efforts have culminated into what is now viewed as a national tradition of the law of domestic relations.

There are still differences between and among jurisdictions, but there are also national trends that cut across jurisdictions.

Although the “best interests of the child” has been adopted in the United States as the standard by which custody determinations are made, remnants of the Roman and English common law view of children as chattel were influential on the development of the law, especially as it relates to child support. For example, the notion that children were property of the father gave the father certain rights and responsibilities, including the right to services and custody of his children, which led to the responsibility or duty to support his children. Child support has not always, however, been considered a legally enforceable duty of the parent or right of the child. Whereas child custody has been considered in terms of the best interests of the child, child support has been considered in terms of contract law or in terms of a community’s interest in keeping citizens from becoming a public charge. Even the child support enforcement program that was initiated in 1950 was motivated primarily out of a desire to keep families from becoming dependents of the state. As would be expected, laws of custody and laws of support although related, affect single parents differently.

Most state statutes give courts considerable discretion in making custody determinations. Many would-be custody battles are settled by agreement of the parties before the case reaches the courtroom, but the court, not the parties, decides whether the agreement is in the child’s best interests. Even if the court accepts an agreement made by divorcing parents, it is free to reopen the case if a change in circumstances warrants reconsideration. This rule may be viewed as one which greatly limits parental power. However, the propensity of courts to rubberstamp these agreements may exacerbate a situation in which one parent has little bargaining power. For example, the parent most emotionally involved with the child (usually the mother) may be willing to accept less child support and other monetary or property awards as a result of threats from the other parent (usually the father) to sue for sole custody.

With extensive judicial discretion, it is difficult to avoid interjecting personal values and opinions in custody and visitation decisions. These decisions require judgments regarding the characteristics of all persons involved in the case as well as consideration of the facts. As a rule, any circumstance relevant to the best interests of the child is admissible—even past behaviors of parents. Adding to the difficulty of courts to be fair, state statutes that enumerate circumstances relevant to the child’s best interests generally do not include the weight to be given to each factor in making the custody determination.

Because of the continuing inclination to view mother-custody as best for children, fathers can be at a disadvantage in obtaining custody and visitation. Two-thirds of fathers who request it rre awarded custody by courts. However at times the courts are seen as being insensitive to noncustodial fathers who wish to continue a relationship with their children and to those fathers who are frustrated in their efforts to relate to their children.

Putative Fathers

A series of Supreme Court cases in the 1970s and 1980s defined the unwed, or putative, father’s relationship with his child as the basis of a liberty interest. A liberty interest is not exactly a right but it is similar in that it has been granted constitutional protection. This liberty interest is thought to arise from belief in the importance of the family unit; it is primarily a function of relationship rather than biological kinship. The importance of a putative father’s relationship with his child as compared to the importance of biological kinship is addressed in what is known as the Stanley line of cases: Stanley (1972), Quillion (1978), Caban (1979), and Lehr (1983). In this line of cases, the United States Supreme Court held that (1) biological kinship provides an opportunity for the putative father to develop a relationship with his child; (2) the nature of the relationship between the putative father and his child may give rise to a liberty interest in the relationship; and (3) the liberty interest gives rise to the constitutionally protected right to assert paternity. Although the unwed father may be denied the right to gain custody, to visit, or to stop an adoption proceeding, especially if the mother is married to another man, an illegitimate child is entitled to support from the biological father. Thus, the state or the mother (whether or not married to another man) may bring an action to obtain support for a child. <

Mobility of the Single Custodial Parent

The standards applied to cases involving the relocation of a parent outside the jurisdiction in which a custody decree exists varies by jurisdiction. Requirements in different states range from allowing the custodial parent to move for any reason so long as the noncustodial parent does not prove that the move is adverse to the child’s best interest to requiring the custodial parent to show exceptional circumstances in order to obtain permission to move. In many states, only a challenge by the noncustodial parent will require the custodial parent to provide a reason for moving. Indeed, many times the custodial parent’s desire/need to move to another state is pitted against the desire to retain custody. This may be particularly true for women because courts tend to be more demanding of sacrifice for the sake of children from mothers and question a woman’s pursuit of a career. In the past, if dissatisfied with a custody decision, a parent could move with a child to another state and bring an action for custody. Although not condoned, “forum shopping,” as this practice has been called, was possible because jurisdiction rules have not been applied in custody cases as they have in other cases. However, parents are finding this practice less viable today.

To address problems of jurisdiction in custody cases, the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Act (UCCJA) was designed as a model to shift the focus from jurisdiction over the parent to the needs of the child. The purposes were to reduce chaos created by interstate jurisdictional competition and to promote cooperation between jurisdictions, as well as to promote the stable environment that most consider to be in a child’s best interests. Through the concept of continuing jurisdiction, the act forbids the modification of a child custody decree in one state when the original decree was issued in another state that still has jurisdiction over the case. The model act is said to have partially laid aside the confusion created by the Halvey case, in which the Supreme Court held that in order to protect the best interests of the child, a court in one state could modify a custody decree from another state. Although most states have adopted the principles in the UCCJA, the issues are complicated, and there are still many problems. For an excellent review of the application of and problems with UCCJA.

Sexual Behavior of Custodial Parents

As has been seen, courts tend to be biased in favor of traditional assumptions about family life and the roles of men and women. Such biases may be best illustrated in disputes involving the sexual behavior of parents. It should be noted at the outset that jeopardy to custody because of a nonmarital sexual relationship is a greater problem for women than for men.

Whether the parent is involved in a nonmarital heterosexual or homosexual relationship, the court may grant custody on the condition that the parent not live with certain persons or even that the parent terminate certain relationships. The court may require that a juvenile authority supervise the parent’s behavior, may require a change of the parent’s conduct, or may prohibit the parent from participating in overnight stays with certain persons—all of which is done in order to insulate the child from behavior considered inappropriate by the court. Although courts at all levels may let their views of appropriate behaviors influence custody decisions, these biases appear to be most prevalent at the trial court level.

Homosexual parents have a more difficult time than heterosexual parents. Where actual harm to the child is presumed, courts will generally prohibit the custodial parent from overnight visitation with lovers. Among other things, this indicates that courts are reluctant to expand the definition of family in visitation and custody disputes to reflect trends in the makeup of the American family. A New York court refused visitation rights to a lesbian ex-partner with the biological mother of the child because the statute in question only applied to biological parents. The biological mother had been artificially inseminated, and the lesbian ex-partner had acted as the child’s parent during the relationship; after the relationship was terminated, she had provided financial support for the child. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court, stating that the ex-partner had no standing to bring a petition for visitation.

It is common for courts to worry that a homosexual parent will influence a child’s sexual orientation even though the evidence clearly indicates this is not a problem. Courts may be concerned that others will harass a child whose parent is homosexual or may conclude that a homosexual parent is unacceptable because the behavior is in violation of sodomy statutes. The degree of limitation on personal behavior/freedom of parents varies according to the court’s beliefs about and knowledge of sexuality. However now with same sex marriages being legal in Utah and many other states, things are being to change for the better.

Cohabitation

Cohabitation is another situation in which presumed sexual behavior can cause difficulty with custody decisions. A disgruntled spouse may use the traditional assumptions of the court to manipulate and control the behavior of the other spouse. For example, in one case, in response to the mother’s motion for modification of custody, the father also filed a petition to modify custody. He did not seek custody of his children, but sought to have the mother cease relations with her boyfriend. The custodial parent (mother) had sought modification of a custody decree in order to establish specific times at which the noncustodial parent (father) could visit their children. Apparently, the father had not only refused to pay the amount of child support stipulated in the divorce decree, he had also crashed his car into the mother’s boyfriend’s car and had threatened the family. The trial court, without specific findings of harm to the children, stated that overnight visitations by the mother’s boyfriend were not conducive to the children’s well-being, but that if the mother were to marry the boyfriend there would be no issue. The Supreme Court of Rhode Island upheld the trial court’s decision to modify the custody provision, which, in effect, restrained the mother from having overnight visits with her boyfriend. Not only did this court extend the definition of cohabitation to include sexual relations, but also, in effect, it allowed an exspouse to control the sexual behavior of the custodial parent. This decision forced the custodial parent to choose between two constitutional rights, freedom of association and personal privacy from unwarranted governmental intrusion. Although the United States Supreme Court has expressly provided that the government cannot force an individual to choose between two constitutionally guaranteed rights, in custody cases, it is the child’s best interests, not the parents interests, that are the issue.

Religious Practices

When religious practices of parents are thought to jeopardize the mental health or physical safety of a child, they can be a determining factor in a custody decision. In one case (Hadeen), the mother’s religious practices included fasting and spanking until the will of a child is broken. The trial court awarded custody to the father, but, on appeal, the court specifically considered whether the religious practices of the mother constituted reasonable likelihood that the child would be impaired. The appellate court reversed and remanded the case for further consideration by the trial court in order to ensure that the trial court had not put too much weight on the religious factor. Justice Dore, dissenting, disagreed with the reversal, stating that the facts of the case indicated that the children were in jeopardy. One compelling incident reported in testimony was of the mother spanking one child for two hours while her other children held the child down.

In addition to noting that religion is a thorny issue in custody disputes, it is important to recognize that the religious interests of parents are more often seen as commensurate with the best interests of children—even when children are directly affected and hurt—than are the relationship interests of parents, even if children are neither directly affected nor hurt. In Hadeen, the court appeared to be more concerned with protecting Mrs. Hadeen’s right to freedom of religious practices than with protecting the best interests of the children. In this case the attention clearly wasn’t focused on the children. Taken together, the case seems to say that it is not really the effect on children but the values of courts that ultimately determine the outcome. It appears to be more acceptable to discipline a child in a manner that constitutes child abuse than to have relationships with members of the same or opposite sex, regardless of whether the nature of the relationship is known by the children or whether the relationship can be shown to be harmful to the children.

Joint Custody

Joint custody arrangements have become increasingly popular. Joint legal custody, as opposed to joint physical custody, generally connotes a situation in which the parents share equal responsibilities in child rearing; it is generally not tied to the amount of time that a child is in the presence of one or the other parent. The joint custody arrangement has its roots in concern for the best interests of the child; however, there are still many arguments for and against joint custody. Joint custody is necessarily a complex arrangement, and partly because of the individual circumstances in each case, there is little agreement on the best policies to be followed.

It is interesting that despite the fact that the success of joint custody arrangements is predicated on the willingness of parents to work together, some courts allow joint custody over the objection of a parent. Some courts feel so strongly about the importance of both parents being involved with the child(ren) that spousal attitudes toward each other can influence custody decisions. Insistence that both parents have access to a child may be warranted in most cases, but where there is a history of family violence or harassment, a parent’s objection to an award of joint custody should not prejudice the court. Although there are cases in which a court has ruled that a parent’s good faith objection to joint custody should not prejudice a request for sole custody, one can imagine a situation in which a battered spouse has no specific proof to present to the court in support of a request for sole custody.

Additionally, joint custody arrangements may result in reduction in the allowance or in no allowance for child support. It is not only unfair but also illogical to place equal financial responsibility on parents who are not equivalent in terms of financial resources.

Child custody laws in Utah are complex. Hire the services of an expert – an experienced American Fork Utah divorce lawyer to help you navigate the complex maze of American Fork Utah child custody laws.

American Fork Utah Divorce Lawyer

When you need legal help in American Fork Utah, please call Ascent Law LLC (801) 676-5506 for your Free Consultation. We can help you with divorce, child custody, child support, postnups, prenups, adoptions, guardianships, and more.

Ascent Law LLC 8833 S. Redwood Road, Suite C West Jordan, Utah 84088 United States Telephone: (801) 676-5506

Ascent Law LLC

4.9 stars – based on 67 reviews

Recent Posts

Criminal Defense Lawyer Riverton Utah

Divorce Cases With Child Custody In Utah

Variances And Conditional Use Permits

Juvenile Criminal Offenses In Utah

Tax Aspects Of Bankruptcy

Family Lawyer Bountiful Utah

from https://www.ascentlawfirm.com/divorce-lawyer-american-fork-utah/

from Criminal Defense Lawyer West Jordan Utah - Blog http://criminaldefenselawyerwestjordanutah.weebly.com/blog/divorce-lawyer-american-fork-utah