Child maintenance and the paradox of responsibility

Kanisa George

Attorney

Magistrate: “How much maintenance yah looking for?”

It seems all too common, the trend of parents, old and young alike, being summoned to court as if beckoned to the gallows, to answer to the crime of “Financial Absenteeism.” The court room is filled, almost daily, with the ills and many forms of deviant behaviour, but oftentimes to deal with the issue of child. This leads one to consider, without minimising its role, how did maintenance and enforcement of same find its place in our legal system?

It must be said, that the Family Law (Guardianship of Minors, Domicile and Maintenance) Act, acts as a safety net for there are situations that genuinely require the courts assistance as regards maintenance. But why is it the court’s responsibility to compel a parent to financially maintain their child?

One would think that the principle of parental responsibility relies heavily on the ideology of financial maintenance, while being balanced against emotional and psychological stimulation. If the principle of maintenance is untouchable, why do parents need reminding?

I must admit, there is an echo penetrating the walls of the Scarborough 2nd Magistrates’ Court that makes me question a parent’s motive when making a maintenance application.

A woman stands visibly shaking before the Magistrate, pleading that the father of her child be made to pay maintenance. She explains the reasons for her application and admits that his involvement in the child’s life came to an end after the breakdown of their relationship. The tone and nature of this story is one and the same. Almost every woman, with each application, speaks the same truth. It leads one to question whether maintenance runs with the lifespan of the parents’ relationship.

Then there is the cloud of doom. Those relationships so toxic, that the child is used as a pawn to further embarrass the non-custodial parent. Applications couched to reflect the needs of the child are used as a vehicle to seek revenge on an ex-partner. Is a maintenance order a tool for ensuring parental responsibility or a weapon to further alienate the relationship between parent and child? Is child maintenance for absent fathers or failed relationships?

This then leads to the burning question - How much maintenance is “good maintenance?” Applicants are within their rights to ensure that the financial needs of their children are met, but usually there is little consideration that they too are indebted in this transaction. For some, maintenance for “my child” means financial contribution from the other parent without considering their own obligations, as if the custodial duty somewhat eradicates their financial responsibility.

And what about those overzealous fathers who are always fully prepared to answer the “courts call,” one placed on them since the child’s birth?

“Your worship I am fully prepared to take care of my child,” the father says. Only to have a warrant issued for failing to comply with the court’s order, within three months of the order being made.

And if the court demanding payment for maintenance isn’t enough, there is too the matter of forcing parents to pay half of all medical and dental bills and even school supplies.

It’s a culture of hand holding, where the parents are the subject matter and the court the parent. I wonder if one stops to consider the psychological effect this has on a minor child. Hearing the words, “Ah have to check the court to see if yah daddy put money” must be a sinister reminder to the child of the importance of a father. Local Counselling Psychologist Nikida Walker has observed that children whose parents deal with issues through the court, experience psychological disorders including depression and anxiety. In some cases, children believe that their parents care more about fighting with each other than caring for them, with overzealous pursuits destroying the ability for parties to effectively co-parent.

Maintenance orders - a new cultural phenomenon where parenting skills are put on display like a fighting match and responsibility shelved is brought back to life by the intervening judiciary. An end game marked by grovelling and pouts, with the child at the centre of a destabilising core.