Deadbeats, Rights and Responsibilities

invisibledad made a very well thought comment to my post "Deadbeat Equality" below. I want to bring it to everyone's attention. He makes several great points and interesting comparisons.

In my post I was making the point that financial support (responsibility) issues are dealt with harshly without even knowing if they are true, while visitation (emotional support, parental rights) are completely ignored even in the most egregious cases. invisibledad points out existing precedents that strongly support that rights and responsibilities should never be separated. He also points out that when someone gives up parental rights they are not expected to continue their responsibilities, nor are they called deadbeats. Again more support for the tie between rights & responsibilities.

He also reminds me of the hideous terminology that helps perpetuate this injustice. Spouses are divorcing, the child is not divorcing his parents, so why then are they called custodial and non-custodial? Even the terms residential and non-residential are not much better. They are different terms and it sets us up for inequality. Visitation is the most vile word for describing time with your parent. Since the child is not divorcing his parents, there really should be no distinction between the parents. The only thing to do is determine how the child can achieve equal access to his parents.

But beware, many people use new politically correct terminology while maintaining (and translating to) their own primitive unjust treatment!

invisibledad said...

I think we need to define the status of "parent" as something determined much more by one's relationships than one's biology, and I think we need to support the position that parental rights and parental responsibilities must go hand-in-hand.

This position is consistent with cases of adoption. Adoption is a socially sanctioned process by which individuals cede both their parental rights AND their parental responsibilities. Those offering their children for adoption are not referred to as "deadbeats."

(Moreover, if the individual doing the ceding is a 16-year-old girl, she's perceived not as a deadbeat, but rather noble. How egregious can a double standard be?)

The view that the relationship determines who is and isn't a parent is also reinforced in the case of same sex couples. Refusing to call both members of the union "parents" will certainly be met with disapproval.

A number of times I've seen psychologists tell adopted children, "Your parents are the ones who raised you." If this is true, many of us who have suffered under this system aren't really parents (as much as we'd like to be).

Finally, I think a consistent application of this perspective necessarily implies that parental rights and parental responsibilities must go together.

If innocent parents are going to have their children effectively kidnapped (or "forcibly adopted"), calling them "deadbeats" is absurd--it makes no more sense to hold them to their alleged parental responsibilities than it does to attempt to hold a biological parent responsible after his/her children have been legally adopted by another party.

If I'm going to be held to my parental responsibilities, I expect my parental rights to be enforced. I have no time for those who see it any other way; nor do I have time for a system that perpetuates such injustice.

Thank you for your ideas. invisibledad's comment is a great example of my goal for this Blog to collaborate and improve upon ideas. You can visit his Blog at What Would Josey Do?

PS: invisibledad added a few comments to this post. He mentions the need to recognize the enemies of parental rights, I would add that these are the enemies of both the restricted rights parent and the child who does not have equal access to both his parents. He makes an important point about cherry picking rights and responsibilities. Comparing how Divorced Dad's are handled relative to other groups really emphasizes the absurdity of the current system.