Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Stepmom Central Stepmom Central

Should Primary Custody go to a parent that doesn't work?

Posted by on Sep. 20, 2013 at 1:35 AM
  • 54 Replies

My cousin and I were talking about this the other day and we both agree that if BM or BD for that matter doesn't work they should not get primary custody because they are not able to financially support the child.  We feel that it takes 2 parents to make a baby it should take 2 parents to raise a baby and pay for a baby.    My cousin and I both know a few BMs out there that have primary custody of their kids but they are SAHM.  I know one BM that is a SAHM to school age children.  In their cases BF pay for CS.  Some of the BM that we know also receive state/govt aid (housing, food stamps, medicaid etc.)  Now I do know of some BF out there that have custody and are SAHD or that are going to school and the BM pay CS.  Also just an FYI in the state that I live in CS is a formal that they calculate each parents income and how much the child lives with that parent.  If a parent is not working then they put that parents income at minimum wage and 40 hours a week. 

So my question is that should the courts give custody to the parent that is not working.  Or should the courts step in and require that parent to get a job.  Or should the parent that has a job get custody.  I just wanted to know other people thoughts on this. 

 





by on Sep. 20, 2013 at 1:35 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
venessaw04
by Bronze Member on Sep. 20, 2013 at 3:55 AM
1 mom liked this
My hubby is a SAHD for the reason that i am the breadwinner and can provide insurance. We do not get PA or receive any CS. With 7 Kids this is what works for us and i consider the money ours, my skids are with us 24/7. They are very well taken care of in every aspect. So why is it that mu hubby doesn't deserve custody? He is an amazing daddy no different then any SAHM. If the kids are taken care of why should there be a issue?
TigaHotty85
by on Sep. 20, 2013 at 4:41 AM

In the same boat as you are talking about & agree about SAHPs who have no other means to support the child who get primary custody just on the fact they are home. ((The judge told my DH and the BM that she would get primary custody on the grounds that BM said she would be home all the time to teach her things, then got primary custody only to put her into early education school at 3 years old so she wouldn't really have to. BM argued that my DH had to work and there for was unavailable for a few hours a day with the child, so the child should be with her because she was home 24/7. To me, the majority of parents around the world have to work to support their children so there for higher baby sitters... how is that any different with me his wife watching his child while he goes to work? The legal system is so screwed up))

My DH does not have the majority custody of my SD. BM does not work... Collects child support from my DH who busts his ass and brings home only about $200 a week after child support. Also gets state aid with food stamps and medical that she does not have to pay for. She refuses to work to support her child. She expects my husband to pay for the child soly and also the money does not go to the child but to support the mother instead. All while the BM lives with family who supports BM and the child. You know what the courts told my husband?? She has found a way to support her child through "Kinship" ((Meaning mooching off of her family who takes care of the child)) has been able to support the child, so its ok that she have the majoirity. I say bullshit! We are able to make due with what we have with him working. SD has her own room here and everything she needs... (She shares a room with her 3 year old brother, SD is 9. Also there are 5 adults and 1 other child living in a 3 bedroom home. The room the kids are sharing is one they "Makeshifted" in the basement for them to sleep, but still share a room).......... Courts feel that SD is still in better hands with a dead beat mom who does not work and mooches off of others and the state.

So yes, I do agree with you on that. The SAHP's who can't support themselves should not have primary custody because they only way the can support the child is with state help and child support. The working parent who can better provide for the child should get the primary custody. But sadly, here in the state of Michigan they only care about money and could care less about the child and how bad a home the child is in with a parent that can not support themself, let alone a child.

TigaHotty85
by on Sep. 20, 2013 at 4:51 AM

 I agree, you are a great step parent to support your step kids when its not your job to do so. I'd do the same thing in your shoes. But I think the OP is referring to the stay at home parents who have no way to support their child. As in they have no significant other that is making money to support the child. Like my post, my Dh's ex has a boyfriend who lives with her in her grand parents home, fathered her other child, and also lives with another adult as well. Making 5 adults and also another child. Her boyfriend does not work at all and mooches off her family as well. The children should not be supported by the grand parents. Its the parents who should support the kids. But the OP was talking about how most SAHP's are single and have no one else who supports them. That they do live off of child support from the other parent and help from the state. Its not right that a child be granted custody to a SAHP if that stay at home parent can barley support themselves, let alone a child. That the SAHP left the "Bread Winner" of the relationship who was supporting that child.

I say that if a SAHP can't support a child in another way (Example: Significant other or have their own job), other than child support, food stamps, medicaid (Free medical insurance) then they should not have primary custody


Quoting venessaw04:

My hubby is a SAHD for the reason that i am the breadwinner and can provide insurance. We do not get PA or receive any CS. With 7 Kids this is what works for us and i consider the money ours, my skids are with us 24/7. They are very well taken care of in every aspect. So why is it that mu hubby doesn't deserve custody? He is an amazing daddy no different then any SAHM. If the kids are taken care of why should there be a issue?


 

venessaw04
by Bronze Member on Sep. 20, 2013 at 5:20 AM
When i read the post I see Op refering to BM/BF who are SAHP receiving CS or PA. She said that if one parent doesn't have a job they should not get custody because they are unable to finically support. When how a child is financially taken care of by each parent doesn't matter as long as its legal and the kids do not suffer in anyway weather it be just having sidejobs or your SO or family help as long as they dont suffer.

It may very well be that one ex is just not fit as a parent but because the other parent is a SAHP, custody is awarded. If this was how it was i don't think it right there is so much more issues that needs to be addressed when custody is involved. I think as long as they are provided for in every way.... financialy and emotionally.

Quoting TigaHotty85: I agree, you are a great step parent to support your step kids when its not your job to do so. I'd do the same thing in your shoes. But I think the OP is referring to the stay at home parents who have no way to support their child. As in they have no significant other that is making money to support the child. Like my post, my Dh's ex has a boyfriend who lives with her in her grand parents home, fathered her other child, and also lives with another adult as well. Making 5 adults and also another child. Her boyfriend does not work at all and mooches off her family as well. The children should not be supported by the grand parents. Its the parents who should support the kids. But the OP was talking about how most SAHP's are single and have no one else who supports them. That they do live off of child support from the other parent and help from the state. Its not right that a child be granted custody to a SAHP if that stay at home parent can barley support themselves, let alone a child. That the SAHP left the "Bread Winner" of the relationship who was supporting that child.
I say that if a SAHP can't support a child in another way (Example: Significant other or have their own job), other than child support, food stamps, medicaid (Free medical insurance) then they should not have primary custody

Quoting venessaw04:My hubby is a SAHD for the reason that i am the breadwinner and can provide insurance. We do not get PA or receive any CS. With 7 Kids this is what works for us and i consider the money ours, my skids are with us 24/7. They are very well taken care of in every aspect. So why is it that mu hubby doesn't deserve custody? He is an amazing daddy no different then any SAHM. If the kids are taken care of why should there be a issue?

 
chanizen
by Platinum Member on Sep. 20, 2013 at 6:55 AM
1 mom liked this

Primary custody initially should go to the person who can provide the safest, least disruptive environment to the child and who has demonstrated their involvement and commitment to parent.  That may or may not be the person who stays home.

I think, in this day and age, it is a fool who blithely sets up a traditional provider/sah parent and expects that the provider gets custody because of money. The person who stays home often sacrifices their career, their income and their retirement earnings.  However, they are the end who builds the routine, is more involved and is the person the child depends on more.  It's a trade off.  the person chose to be provider.... So they continue to provide. The other chose to give their time to the child... So they continue to do so.

I also think that many sms want to set up a second traditional situation and then argue mom should go back to work or that sm should provide childcare.  Often, those sms are on a bid to take custody.  Legally that is untenable and should be.  It's a dirty game.

whatIknownow
by Emerald Member on Sep. 20, 2013 at 7:18 AM
4 moms liked this

Case by case.. But if I have to make a blanket statement:

Custody should go to whomever is the primary caregiver at the time of the divorce. 

Obviously a zillion exceptions apply, so I will leave it at that for now.

whatIknownow
by Emerald Member on Sep. 20, 2013 at 7:22 AM

But you're talking about a post-divorce situation. When he first got divorced, he didnt' have you to support him. Are we talking about the immediately-post-divorce scenario, where there is no new spouse to provide income? Because years after the divorce, things change - the divorcee's get remarried or they get jobs (if they didnt' have a job at the time of the divorce).  I don't think custody should change at a post-divorce time point just because one or the other suddenly gets remarried or gets a job.


Quoting venessaw04:

My hubby is a SAHD for the reason that i am the breadwinner and can provide insurance. We do not get PA or receive any CS. With 7 Kids this is what works for us and i consider the money ours, my skids are with us 24/7. They are very well taken care of in every aspect. So why is it that mu hubby doesn't deserve custody? He is an amazing daddy no different then any SAHM. If the kids are taken care of why should there be a issue?



zannahdeux
by Silver Member on Sep. 20, 2013 at 7:47 AM

I don't think custody should automatically go to anyone. Every situation is different. In ours on paper it looked like kids should go with bm who didn't have a job...she should have had more  time to parent. but in reality she didnt, and couldn't financially support them and herself on just cs and her constant complaining to the skids about how they were going to be out on the street caused a lot of heartache and axiety and ultimately an unstable environment for them. They now live with us and she got a full time job and everyone is much much happier. I think if she had been more normal of a mom it would have worked out with her having custody but it was all to much for her to handle but I think this sit is rare. Bm is happy to have me do everything for skids and she only sees them eowe

MojoRsn
by on Sep. 20, 2013 at 7:53 AM

This this this. kids being babies and toddlers makes a big difference too.

Custody shouldnt be given to the parent of a baby who works 60 hours a week. How would that even work?

Quoting whatIknownow:

Case by case.. But if I have to make a blanket statement:

Custody should go to whomever is the primary caregiver at the time of the divorce. 

Obviously a zillion exceptions apply, so I will leave it at that for now.


WifeyC
by Platinum Member on Sep. 20, 2013 at 7:54 AM

Let's say DH and I decide I should be a SAHM and raise the kids.  He supports us.  We divorce and suddenly that all changes because he has a job?  Don't think so.

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)