While this is summarized in a completely biased manner on this site, the comments that are notable are the following:
"Where the parent with secondary custodial responsibilities (usually the father) attempts to have his child support obligations reduced, claiming simply that the child is with him 40% of the time, the mother can argue, based on this case, that he needs to prove that reducing child support is in the best interests of the child and is reflective of the actual spending patterns of both parents."
"Where a father seeks shared custody with the stated or unstated goal of reducing his child support obligations, his lawyer can advise him that this is not a certain outcome, and that child support will be calculated so as to ensure an appropriate standard of living for the children in both parents' homes."
My perspective on these two statements is that the first demonstrates that there is an acknowledged bias against men in custody, and bias has no place in the courts. It also places the responsibility on the father, a guilty until proven innocent presumption, on the father to establish that the reduction in support is fair. There's a problem here with the idea that one parent has a higher responsibility to earn a living and this is the real problem.
The laws as they stand, and the lawmakers themselves, have a bias that suggests that the father is expected to provide lion's share of the funding for the children. The mother who would have a reduced burden on her time, if nothing else, has the ability to provide a good home for the child in her own manner. The court's decision implies that a father remains the key breadwinner and leaves the door open for the mother to be a burden on society, the family, and the father. There are laws for alimony, this is CHILD SUPPORT!
The second statement underlines that some men are out to change the custody arrangements to save money. This is wrong. If your intent when pursuing a change to custody is predominantly financial, don't even start. Be a good father, thing of what's best for your children, NOT YOURSELF!
I find it entertaining that there is so much concern for ensuring the mother's situation is ideal for the child, yet the father can be force unto the street by the actions of the FRO. How does this help the child?
Judges are idiots, unqualified moronic fools, that get off on their power without any comprehension of real world problems and the life of those not on a legal pedestal.
