Basic HTML Version
put it, "Guilt often prevents parents
from sett ing limits, but a kid gets
very frightened in a house with no
rules. At this time more than ever–
when so much else is changing–
they need firm clear limits."
Finally, don't forget your finan–
cia! obligation to your children.
lt
is vital to their welfare.
Chlld Support
Child support or maintenance has
become a big issue, especially in
the United States and Canada.
The problem of negligence has
become so great that, to quote the
cover story of the March 21, 1983
issue of
Maclean's
magazine: "With
default of divorce settlement pay–
ments running at 30.9 per cent in the
United States (and with 75 per cent
of agreements in arrears in Canada,
according to 1976 figures), [divorce]
insurance may become as prevalent
as wedding gifts."
One government su rvey done in
1982 by the U.S. Census Bureau
found that only 46.7 percent of
those eligible were receiving the
full amount of child support they
were entitled to under the terms of
their court settlement.
In 1981 , U.S. child support pay–
ments averaged $2,11 0-up $31
O
from 1978. But when inflation is
taken into account , the average
payment total actually declined by
16 percent. Along these lines, a
study by the U.S. National Confer–
ence of State Legislatures found
that men's disposable incomes
actually rise 42 percent after a
divorce while women's fall" by 73
percent. And women in the United
States are their children's guardian
nine times out of ten in a divorce.
What is the answer to this seri–
ous problem? Should divorce set–
tlements-child support or mainte–
nance- simply be deducted from
the absent parent's wages? Many
hear tily agree.
Absent fathers, however, point
out that the reason many payments
are withheld is that they're often
noi allowed to visit their children.
They add that should the govern–
ment ask for these payments to be
withheld from the paychecks, they
would find a way around it should
visiting rights be withheld.
But who are the real victims?
Once again it is the children. All of
20
the arguing and bickering will not
solve the fact that if many children
do not receive income from child
support, they do without clothes
and other necessities-even food.
Society as a whole has a stake in the
matter because ma ny of those
guardian parents who do not receive
child support payments have no–
where else to turn but public wel–
fare.
However, though human legal
processes seem to be paralyzed on
the matter of child support, there is
an authority that is quite clear on the
subject of financia! support of one's
family-and on divorce as a whole.
The Bible plainly states: " But if
anyone does not provide for his own,
and especially for those of his house–
hold [his flesh and blood], he has
denied the faith and is worse than an
unbeliever" (I Tim. 5:8, RAV).
For parents to treat their chil–
dren like chattels or bargaining
chips is the crudest form of selfish
pride.
God does hear the críes of the
fatherless in their affiiction (Ex.
22:22-23). To those who earnestly
seek God 's will and hclp, God says
he will grant them relief (Ps.
146:9) .
Why There ls Divorce
Man was never intended to have to
endure the pain and turmoi l .of
divorce (Matt. 19:7-9). God hates
divorce (Mal. 2: 16). Nevertheless,
God did allow a way out of unen–
durable situations in a marriage.
The Roman world during the
apostle Paul's day was troubled by
divorce. This trcnd even affected
Christians of the day. But while
admonishing believers not to seek
divorce from unbelieving mates,
Paul did make allowance in cases
when the unbeliever departed (l
Cor. 7:10-15).
Nevertheless, the fruits of
divorce-any divorce- are pain
and suffering. Sadly, children suf–
fer along with their parents.
Befare the turn of the century,
divorce was rare and handled much
differently from today. For example,
in the United States, the father
almost automatically received custo–
dy of his children in a divorce. But
aside from all of the problems attrib–
utable to the Victorian age, on this
point uncanny wisdom prevailed.
Men wcre reluctant to divorce
because they would have been sad–
dled with greater responsibilities
than they would have wanted to
handle. Women, in turn, would
have lost access to the children
whom they had borne, loved and
nurtured. In this sense, the c ustody
laws of the day were neither pro–
maJe nor pro-female. Rathe r, they
were pro-family.
As times changed, so did human
divorce laws. For instance, in the
last 50 years, the number of
divorces in the United States has
increased 700 percent! And nation
after nation has followed the U.S.
Iead in liberalizing divorce laws.
People
h~ve
become accustomed to
these figures, though many are
becoming alarmed. Even today's
professionals in the area of divorce
and chi ld care are having second
thoughts about decades of free–
wheel ing divorce.
" The re are times," said Dr.
Schecter in a telephone conversa–
tion with
The Plain Truth,
" l 've
wondered very much whether the
old-fashioned idea of putting up
with a spouse with whom you have
a certain leve! of decency and satis–
faction- for the purpose of Iooking
at the children's interests- might
really be the best thing in the long
run."
Dr. Schecter noted that sorne sit–
uations in marriages would simply
be inappropriate to remain in, but
added, " 1f people are relatively sol–
id , they may be able to Iive in sorne
comfort together and develop sorne
of their interests."
Sadly, however, staying together
is not the trend. Chances are
divorces will continue to increase
and take their toll on society. As
Cornell University professor Dr.
Urie Bronfenbrenner noted, "Nev–
er in the history of any society have
we had a situation in which only
one person and sometimes less than
one is left with the responsibility of
bringing up a child ... it's a very
unreliable structure."
However, after man has done with
debating the pros and cons, what
needs to be realized is that the family
is not sorne invention of man for
mere convenience- a passing phe–
nomenon of social evolution. The
family was ordained by the Creator
God (Gen. 2: 18, 24) as the funda-
The
PLAIN TRUTH