Child support guidelines often overlook nonresidential fathers’ direct child-related expenses. Most guidelines assume fathers spend nothing below 30% of visitation time. This assumption leads to a “cliff” model, where credits start abruptly at 30%. The study challenges this model by examining fathers’ spending on specific items. It finds a linear relationship between time spent and direct expenditures. Unexpectedly high spending occurs even at low levels of visitation. These findings suggest the need for more generous child support adjustments. The study highlights fathers’ significant contributions, which are often ignored by current guidelines.
It is well documented in other research that the higher visitation and more regular contact a father has with his child, the more likely he is to maintain if not exceed his maintenance obligations. Fathers 4 Justice South Africa (F4J) advocates for automatic 50/50 contact, care, guardianship, and maintenance (CCGM) by both parents of the child from birth. Marital status or lack thereof, religion, culture, religion, and other societal norms and practices should have no bearing on the child’s continued automatic contact with both parents from birth. It is the child’s inherent right to have a meaningful relationship with both parents
Observations from the research on non-child support expenditures by nonresidential divorced fathers:
Future Policy: The findings advocate for rethinking how child support credits are allocated.
Cliff Model Assumption: Child support guidelines assume minimal expenditures below 30% visitation time.
Lack of Data: No prior data supported the assumption that fathers incur no expenses below 30% visitation.
Research Aim: The study aimed to investigate fathers’ direct expenditures at various visitation levels.
Benchmark Items: Fathers’ spending was measured on clothes, toys, bedrooms, and car expenses.
Linear Relationship: Fathers’ expenditures increased linearly with time spent with children.
Unexpected Findings: High levels of fatherly provision occurred even at low contact times.
Policy Implication: Findings suggest a need for continuous child support adjustments.
Guideline Critique: The current cliff model overlooks fathers’ substantial contributions at lower contact levels.
Financial Sacrifices: Nonresidential fathers already incur significant costs without legal obligations.
Economic Diversity: Wealthier fathers made more substantial contributions regardless of time with children.
Shared Custody Benefits: Research indicates children fare better in joint custody arrangements. F4J SA advocates for automatic 50/50 CCGM from birth. The fact that the Department of Social Development is dragging its feet in making the necessary changes to The South African Children act, so desperately needed tells a very sinister story.
Policy Recommendations: Adjusting support calculations could more fairly distribute resources.
Fathers’ Involvement: Nonresidential fathers maintain custodial responsibilities at their own homes.
Misconception: The cliff model wrongly assumes that guidelines factor in a 20% visitation reduction.
Credit Justification: Fathers should receive credit for their financial contributions to their children.
Children’s Perspectives: Adult children from shared custody believe it is best for them.
Legal Reform: The findings support the case for more joint legal custody grants.
Equal Financial Burden: The study suggests redistributing financial resources between both parents’ homes.
Research Significance: The study challenges existing assumptions about divorced fathers’ financial roles.
Nonresidential fathers spend more on children than guidelines typically acknowledge. Their direct expenditures increase steadily with more visitation time. These findings challenge the “cliff” model of child support adjustments. Fathers spend money on items like clothes and toys even when there is limited contact. Ignoring these expenses overlooks the true costs borne by fathers. More accurate child support guidelines should reflect this financial reality. Granting credits for these expenses is both fair and justified. Recognizing these contributions supports the notion of shared parental responsibility. The study advocates for policy changes to better support nonresidential fathers.
Final Thoughts
The system turns many fathers into deadbeats. It pushes them to that point. Fathers lose everything because of an unjust legal system. Even with money, there’s no guarantee of contact with children. We have proof that wealth doesn’t secure father-child relationships. The violent, gynocentric, misandrist legal system destroys fathers.
Middle and lower-income fathers can’t fight the legal behemoth. Educated fathers lack the cash to challenge the system. South Africa’s education system leaves lower-income fathers desperate. These fathers are undereducated and lack funds to provide.
Too many mothers expect fathers to “buy” time with their children. Maintenance is vital, but fathers are bullied into paying exorbitant amounts. They receive little or no contact with their children.
Fathers are bullied by both the opposition and their legal counsel. Legal advice is often inadequate or non-existent. The obvious solution is automatic 50/50 CCGM from the child’s birth. This should be mandatory for both biological parents.
Stop complaining about fathers until 50/50 CCGM is automatic. Contact, maintenance, and care issues must be mediated. Failure to mediate should default to arbitration. The government drags its feet and ignores these demands. Fathers are not the problem—the government is.
We demand immediate changes to the South African Children’s Act. We can’t wait another five years, not even five minutes. Fathers are simply not the problem. The government must act now!
Contact Information for The Official Fathers 4 Justice South Africa:
WhatsApp: 066 331 8972
Email: info@f4j.co.za
Website: Fathers 4 Justice SA
LinkedIn: Fathers 4 Justice SA LinkedIn
Facebook: Fathers 4 Justice SA Facebook
Twitter: Fathers 4 Justice SA Twitter
Reference Table for “Non–Child Support Expenditures on Children by Nonresidential Divorced Fathers: Results of a Study”
| Section | Content Summary |
|---|---|
| Authors | William V. Fabricius and Sanford L. Braver |
| Title | Non–Child Support Expenditures on Children by Nonresidential Divorced Fathers |
| Publication | Family Court Review |
| Volume and Issue | Vol. 41, No. X, Month 2003 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1531244503254640 |
| Objective | To assess nonresidential divorced fathers’ direct expenditures on their children. |
| Key Assumptions | High expenditures were observed even at low levels of contact. |
| Methodology | Analyzed fathers’ spending on clothes, toys, bedrooms, and car expenses for teens. |
| Main Findings | Fathers’ expenditures increase linearly with time spent, not following a “cliff” model. |
| Unexpected Results | Suggests the need for more generous and continuous child support adjustments. |
| Implications | Guidelines should reflect the actual financial contributions of nonresidential fathers. |
| Key Terms | Noncustodial fathers, child support, visitation, expenditures, guidelines |
| Rationale for the Study | Address the absence of data on noncustodial fathers’ direct expenditures on children. |
| Challenges to Existing Models | Questions the validity of the “cliff” model used in most child support guidelines. |
| Policy Recommendations | Advocate for crediting fathers’ direct expenditures regardless of visitation time percentage. |
| Conclusion | Guidelines should reflect the actual financial contributions of nonresidential fathers. |
| Significance | Highlights the overlooked financial role of noncustodial fathers in child-rearing. |
| Keywords | Incarcerated noncustodial fathers, reentry programs, noncustodial fathers, child support |
#fathersrights #equalrights #childrensrights #familylaw #divorce #parentingrights #constitution #familycourt
#childcustody #divorce #law #genderbias #fathersrights #mothers #children #parentingrights #discrimination #familycourt #familylaw #legalreform #socialjustice #equalrights #jointcustody #endbias #reformnow #5050custody #unitethefamily #allfamiliesmatter #fatherlessness #childrensrights #saveoursons #ParentalRights #CustodyRights #CoParenting #LegalAdvice #FamilyLaw #ChildCustody #FatherhoodRights #FalseAccusations #MaintenanceDisputes #LegalFAQs#FamilyLaw #MediationAdvocacy #Fathers4Justice #ParentingPlan #LegalReform #DivorceResolution #CustodyRights #EfficientMediation #LegalAccountability #Curatorpersonae #Curatorbonis #curatoradlitem #Visitation #Fathersrights #Fathersresponsibilities #divorce #Guardianship #Contact #Care #Custody #Childcustody #Custodyofthechild #childmaintenance #guardianadlitem #curatoradlitem #Voiceofthechild #divorcemediationsouthafrica #fathersrights #fathersrightsinsouthafrica #howdivorceaffectschildren #howtogetaletterofguardianship #guardianship #divorcemediation #divorcemediationnearme #Maintenance #Maintenanceissues #Maintenanceproblems #familylaw #familycourtsouthafrica #fathers4justice #familylawsouthafrica #parentsrights #unmarriedfathersrightsinsouthafrica #visitationrightsforfathersinsouthafrica #whendoesafatherloseparentalrightssouthafrica #legalguardianshipdocument #familylawyersnearme #custodyofchildtofather #unmarriedfathersrights #parentingplan #parentingplanexample #parentingplanssouthafrica #Parentalalienation #Parentalalienationsyndrome #PAS #DSM5
