media coverage
Sort By:
Despite welcome changes in SB 125, National Parents Organization opposes passage of the bill in its present form. This is because NPO’s primary focus is on the promotion of true shared parenting, where both parents are fully engaged in the day-to-day, hands-on work of raising the children. More than 30 years of scientific research has shown, as conclusively as these things can be shown, that this is the best arrangement for children, even when the parents don’t initially agree to it. It should be the default outcome when parents separate. And SB 125 does not encourage this sort of equal co-parenting; instead, it creates contrary incentives and treats parents who are sharing in the raising of their children unfairly. And, not surprisingly, it is the children who are the innocent victims of this unfairness.

Why? Well, start with an uncontroversial assumption: child support is for the children. That seems incontestable. But, if child support is for the children, then when the children have two homes, the child support funds should be divided between the two homes in proportion to the expected expenses on the children in each home. If child support is for the children, then child support should follow the children.

Find more

Share this post

Submit to FacebookSubmit to Google PlusSubmit to TwitterSubmit to LinkedIn