Even if you ask mothers how often this happens, only 12 percent attempt to claim that their ex-husbands voluntarily refuse to visit and spend time with their children. If you ask fathers, only three percent claim that they voluntarily miss time they should have with their children. In fact, a quarter of mothers admit they interfere with or deny entirely the children's father's access to their kids!

The truth is that according to a study done by Sanford Braver, PhD (Arizona State University) only one in six fathers get the custodial arrangements they wanted. A study done by Stanford University in the late 1980s showed the same thing - close to 70% of fathers wanted either joint or sole physical custody.

Statistically speaking, fathers don't abandon their children - they are forced out following divorce by the mothers of those children, usually without justification or legally-relavent cause.

Indeed, even today we see people cite this book as "proof" that child support awards are too infrequently collected and too small to begin with. Not one major media outlet has paraded the truth about this "study" - that is was and is patently incorrect both in its methodology and simple command of mathematics.

Not one state in the US requires recipients of child support to actually prove that the amounts received are 1) necessary to meet the children's needs or 2) are actually spent in the children. A number of states, in fact, actually document in their laws that part of the purpose of child support is to protect the standard of living of the custodial parent - almost always the mother - which would have existed had the divorce not taken place. If child support were actually for the children then a payer would be able to demand documentation that 1) the amount paid was actually necessary for the children's needs, and 2) was actually spent exclusively on the children.

In fact, one may reasonably wonder just what "child support" is really for, especially in the case where parents have joint physical custody. In most states, including Illinois, the presence of Joint Custody has very little, if any, impact on the award of child support - even though such practices appear to fly in the face of the statutes as written in many of these situations.

Myth:

Mom's do the majority of the nurturing of children, especially young children. Equality tears children away from their mothers and puts them in the hands of fathers with no parenting skills.

Truth:

This claim is simply not supported by the evidence. People like to point to studies that show that Mom's - in two-income families - perform the "majority" of childcare. But the truth is that neither parent performs the majority of that care - it is performed by third-party providers! Whether the provider is a daycare center or school, truth is uglier than the claims - both parents tend to spend a dismal amount of actual hands-on interactive time with their children. Some studies show less than one half hour per day of actual interactive time when both parents are working! The single-income capability that exists in some marriages is gone post-divorce. For this reason attempting to apply a "1950's egalitarian model" of raising children to post-divorce situations is fraudulent and impossible to achieve. Further, most families today are two-income families - even prior to a divorce or separation. As such there simply is no "primary caregiver" in the home. We've yet to hear anyone argue for giving custody to a daycare center or school - yet this is precisely how cases should be adjudicated under a true "primary caregiver" standard! We're obviously not arguing for such a standard. Rather, we're arguing that the true status quo - that both parents be recognized as equal parents and equally responsible - be enforced in the law.   Myth:   Equality is  just a way to avoid paying child support to the other parent. Truth: It is often claimed that men are simply trying to avoid paying child support and that the true cost of raising kids is nowhere near covered (not even half-covered) by child support payments. In fact, politicians and "child support advocates" alike both parrot this claim. Let's examine this for a minute: If in fact child support does not cover the cost of raising a child, then the person who gets custody will have to spend more than they would in child support on raising the child directly! Therefore, it would be far to the non-custodial parent's advantage to simply pay the support and ignore the child. If in fact caring for your child is such a burden that you should be compensated for doing so, then once again the claim that "child support avoidance" is a reason for seeking custody - either joint or full - is irrational. For if it is such a burden then sole custodians should be falling all over themselves to give custody to the other parent and pay support (instead of taking care of the kids!) The truth is that women and feminist advocacy groups such as NOW know full well that neither of these claims are true. In fact "child support" is nothing of the kind - for families who earn more than the poverty level today's "child support" awards not only cover half the true cost of raising a child, it exceeds the entire cost. As such what feminists are really arguing is that Dads may be seeking custody because not only are they being assessed for the cost of the children, but also the cost of their ex-wife and her new lover's living expenses! Of course the feminists don't want to admit that, because to admit the truth about the current system leads directly to the repeal of the current guidelines - and the end of the windfall. The"child support" system produces such a windfall for the custodial parent in the majority of cases that it provides a huge financial incentive to break up families, including but not limited to an incentive to level false accusations and rip children away from their other parent! Most non custodial parents overwhelmingly want their children. Men and women overwhelmingly do not believe that their children are a "burden". Men overwhelmingly are even willing to accept joint, primary or full custody without any child support from their ex-wife!