Argumentative Essay on Should Equal Visitation and Elimination of Child Support Be Implemented

Introduction

One of the most challenging tasks among parents who cease to live with together is adequately participating in caring for their children. When the children are not under the supervision of parents living together, one side of the parent fails to take responsibility for the progress of the child actors. Many reasons including separation or divorce contribute to lack of parents to take care of the children (Gunter 7). Different states in America have developed different approaches that servers to assure children of the best support parental support even in the event of a separated or divorced family.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Despite the federal government laying down guidelines for joint custody through Child Support Standards Act (CSSA), the decision to impose a given demand to parents concerning children visitation and elimination of support cannot take a particular side on all the cases that require child support. Inapplicability of a bias decision results basically from the fact that at no point in time both parents will experience the same financial conditions (Gunter 16). This paper discusses the parameters on which the implementation of equal visitation and elimination of child support could be acceptable or rebuttable.

Arguments for Implementation of the Proposal

Implementation of the regular visitations and elimination of children support should consider among other factors, the existence of mutual consent between parents, the financial social and economic status of the parents and the emotional connection between a parent and the child.

Mutual Consent between the Custodians. Many parents choose to agree, using either oral or written consent on how they will share the role of raising their children (Stark 61, 163). However, the aspect triggers a series of controversies over child support. Despite the existence of a well-consented plan between custodians, some of them choose to abuse the agreement. They deliberately avoid taking their responsibility due to their knowledge of unenforceability of the consent by courts of law. Stark reports that most men tend to abandon their parenting roles some way after approval (219). Depending on who is the custodian of the child, the non-custodial partners usually excuse themselves with unsupported explanations, citing financial inadequacy. Exemption of such parents from the role only serves in favor of their ill-motives. This case requires the implementation of the proposal. The proposal will help in forcing such parents to take responsibility for their children.

Financial Status of the Custodians. Due to the weaknesses of the provisions of CSSA, over one-quarter of non-custodial partners abuse the act in their pursuit of evading their responsibility (Rogers 283). Such parents collude with fraudulent authorities that help them forge documents, design the materials to indicate low figures, for example, of their monthly income and asset ownership. The effect is that a court deciding on the distribution of responsibility is misguided and will deliver in-appropriate judgment. Rogers confirms that a good number of parents misuse the financial circumstances and purposefully refuse to care for their children due to the weakness of the provision (294). With their presumed low financial capabilities, such character's benefits from the reduction in the visitation frequencies and small contributions to child support. Such non-custodial partners celebrate the court orders of cessation or modification of the visitation and child support as an achievement through fraudulent means.

Emotional Connection between Custodians and Children. Even though a child is a product of two parents, there is always an imbalance of the emotional attachment between the child-mother and child-father connection levels. Despite the emotional connection between a child and a parent, some parents deliberately neglect their mandate (Czapanskiy 403). Any decision from the courts regarding child support must, therefore, consider between the custodian, who understands the child better, and who the child mostly wishes to spend time. However, there is a rise in the negligence of the on the custodians. Czapanskiy works indicate that despite the existence of emotional connections, some custodians end up abandoning their parenting roles (411). In such cases, it is justifiable to implement the proposal.

Arguments Against the Implementation of the of the Proposal

Although the above discussion illustrates reasons that triggers implementation of the proposal, analysis of the same reasons allows one to see the need of not implementing the plan. Therefore, there is a need for a high voltage vigilance on the interpretation of the proposal before concluding. Below is an illustration of the possible reasons that will require non-implementation of the plan.

Mutual Consent between the Custodians. It would be inappropriate to implement the same visitation proposal of child support before considering if there is an active agreement between the two parents. Sometimes the parents formulate oral agreement or written agreement on how they will raise the child. Stark states that most parents use the written agreement to spell out the specifics in terms of the role of one another in supporting the child (211). The route enables them to avoid paying for child support oversight fee and direct the same to help the child. Custodians might choose whether to take their child to a relative or allow one of them to provide the custody to the child. The parents develop a parenting plan that helps them track their expenses. The tracking will enable them to maintain open communication in case there is a need for an increase in budget. The success of such an arrangement willdefinitely require no additional enforcement like implementing the bill.

The Financial Status of the Custodians. The court should determine such cases as the financial condition of both parents before implementing the proposals. As Rogers suggests, despite both parents having the intention of equally complimenting phycological connection with their children, factors like the occupation may deny one of them a fair chance due to its demands (292). Therefore, the determination should tell if both parents occupation allows them equal time to make up with their families. Supporting a child using nested custody generates other expenses like additional care and travel expenses. In this case, the court should not implement equal visitation as the parents have different financial abilities. The extra travel and care expenses mean that a parent who wishes to see their child will have to incur both costs. The courts should allow the parent with the ability for the demands to visit the child. If at all the court finds much disparity in the strength of the custodians, it should rule to allow even the weaker partner access to the child to a manageable level, but not eliminate the privilege all together (Rogers 292).

Emotional Connection between Custodians and Children. Implementing the proposal will contravene the emotional connection between a child and a parent. This circumstance means that restricting parents visits to a predetermined ratio deny the child the privilege. Implementing the proposal, therefore, generates the aspects of contradicting with the overriding requirement in child support where a decision must work in favor of the wellness of the children. The case should thus be left open for individual custodians to determine how frequent they wish and can visit the child. The number of days a parent spends with the child also influence the financial support the parent is expected to give to the child although mothers usually have a high emotional connection with their children than fathers (Czapanskiy 427). Consequently, it is inappropriate to impose equal visitation to the mothers who wish to always connect with their child. What the proposal should include is the expected minimum frequency of visitation and allow the rest for individual parents to decide.

Conclusion

Implementation of the equal visitation and elimination of child support takes two folds. Analysis of each of the three points of view above indicates a possible conversation and rebuttal. The implementors of such bill, like county executive, should thus consider elaborating or expounding on the finer provisions before its implementation. The enforcers of such acts, the courts, should also examine the prevailing circumstances its appropriateness before implementation of its decisions appropriate or otherwise. The courts must work to ensure that based on the factors like the agreement between the parents, the priority demands of the child and the financial status of the each of the parents, they deliver the most appropriate advice on the parents for child support.

Works Cited

Gunter, Samara R. "Child support wage withholding and father-child contact: parental bargaining and salience effects." Review of Economics of the Household (2016): 1-26. Retrieved from https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11150-016-9330-4

Stark, Barbara. International family law: an introduction. Routledge, 2017.

Czapanskiy, Karen Syma. "The Shared Custody Child Support Adjustment: Not Worth the Candle." Family Law Quarterly49.3 (2015): 409-431. Retrieved from https://www.jstor.org/stable/24576183

Rogers, Ruth. "Parents Who Wait: Acknowledging the Support Needs and Vulnerabilities of Approved Adopters during Their Wait to Become Adoptive Parents." Child & Family Social Work, vol. 23, no. 2, 2017, pp. 289-296., doi:10.1111/cfs.12417.