LAST MONDAY, ex-Beatle Paul McCartney was ordered to pay his ex-wife almost $50 million in their divorce settlement. This settlement will come in payments of $1.2 million per year, plus $5 million to purchase a home. Additionally, the court ordered him to pay $70,000 per year in child support. According to CNN online, ex-wife Heather Mills responded by complaining that her four-year-old would no longer be able to fly first class five times per year, estimated to cost around $34,000. According to her, this is "very sad." This court decision clearly demonstrates one instance in which our child support system took away a father's right to make choices regarding his child's lifestyle in a system that continues to be unfair to men.
Today, it seems people are always complaining that men are increasingly absent from their children's lives. Supposedly each child belongs in part to its paternal father, who is therefore obligated to do what is best for his child. However, from the beginning men are told and shown that this is not the case. A man does not get to decide whether a woman keeps a child or not. He does not get to decide whether or not he wants to support a child. Finally, he often does not get the chance to decide what kind of lifestyle he wants to provide his child, as this responsibility is left to a judge in a court settlement.
The judge estimated McCartney's net worth to be about $800 million. In fact, the settlement represents only six percent of his total assets, which is somewhat surprising considering they did not sign a prenuptial agreement. Obviously, McCartney can afford to pay this settlement without falling to financial ruin. However, this does not mean he should be required to do so. The point of child support is to do just that: support a child. The child of a wealthy parent does not have more needs than the child of an unwealthy one; it is not fair to require to require a wealthy person to pay extravagant child support payments only because he is able to do so.
A happily married parent worth this much money might reasonably decide that private schools, first class travel and personal nannies are unnecessary to raise a happy and well-adjusted child. Perhaps such a parent would have his child's best interests at heart, wishing to raise a responsible and independent child. A judge could never order such a person to spend over $70,000 per year on his child. It is a parent's responsibility to provide his children a comfortable, healthy lifestyle: beyond this, financial decisions are made at the parent's discretion.
Divorced men should be allowed to be active parents by making similar financial decisions. This does not mean that a non-custodial parent should not contribute to his child's wellbeing. Any parent should provide his child with comfortable and safe shelter, food, qualified adult supervision and health care to the extent that he is able to do so. The child of a wealthy person should not have to worry about his or her survival or health. However, it is difficult to justify mandating that anyone provide more than this, as this should be a personal decision. For this reason, child support payments should continue to be decided as a percentage of a parent's income, but there should be a maximum required payment to avoid unfairly limiting normal parenting decisions.
Some might argue that it is impossible to decide how much a child really needs to live safely and happily. The court system would have to make this decision, and arguably the outcome would be somewhat arbitrary. This is simply unavoidable and does not mean this is a less fair way to deal with child support. The decisions in child support agreements are always somewhat arbitrary, as is the poverty line, minimum wage and other important government cut-offs. It is difficult and perhaps impossible for courts to determine the exact amount of money required to live comfortably, but these cut-offs are still helpful guidelines. The fact that these numbers may not be exact would not prevent us from finding a maximum required child support payment that would at least come close to estimating the actual cost to raise a child. It would be hard to argue that Mills and her daughter will need $2 million per year to live comfortably, even if Mills never worked another day in her life. Mills herself admits that they will not need this money when she announces plans to give it to charity. A cut-off, although somewhat arbitrary, would still be fairer than such outlandish settlements.
If non-custodial parents are to play active roles in raising the children that supposedly belong to them, too, they must be allowed to make important decisions as a parent. This includes deciding the amount of financial support they wish to give their children. Courts should only mandate child support payments that they could reasonably expect a child's primary caregiver to provide.
Arin Smith's column appears Fridays in The Cavalier Daily. She can be reached at asmith@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
WILLIAMS: Donald Trump will be a threat to student loan forgiveness
By Ryan Williams | YesterdayTo be sure, this is not a problem of the University’s making. Nevertheless, understanding the uncertainty of financial accessibility in education, the University must step up to the plate.
PATEL: Personal development courses support students beyond the gradebook
By Heer Patel | 6 days agoThe University must rethink its approach to education beyond traditional major-specific requirements and mandate personal development courses.
EDITORIAL: Commercialization threatens U.Va.’s educational mission
By Editorial Board | 6 days agoAfter all, measuring the University’s worth in terms of accrued capital, operational efficiency and numerical rankings molds this space into just another cookie-cutter institution.
