Children In Favor Of The Father Due To Economic Reasons

Children stayed with the mother before or the custody went to her, but now the father has the custody of the children. What influence does the patriarchy still have after a divorce?

There are many women who get great economic benefits from the divorce, women who have maintained the same level of life they had during the marriage and continued their lives without working and even shared the alimony that the former husband paid only for the children under the age of eighteen (so did their new partner).

There is another group of women-mothers, who, due to the reluctance of their ex-husbands to pay them "them" food share "for the children", are forced to have to accept the father’s conditions because otherwise they cannot maintain them.

A few years, a client was willing to sign a tenancy agreement for the father, but, before doing so, the family group was asked to make a consultation with a family therapist.

It was clear that there was an alliance between the father and the children, but there was no explicit underlying, according to the psychologist.

The father did not want to pay alimony. The children refused to lower the standard of living. The father offered to live in the same luxury. The mother could offer very little room in the grandmother’s house. The father offered to pay a trip to Italy once a year, the mother told them she was going to start looking for work and the children preferred to live openly with the father for economic reasons. They also admitted it.

By then, it was not so common for a mother to not hold the custody of the children (they were four, one of them disabled, the mother had him committed first and then filed for divorce) and the mother had to sing the agreement. He was afraid that the client would regret her decision two months later, but she did not, despite the fact that the disabled child died soon after admission. Years later, the father's company went bankrupt. The woman had already been integrated into the workforce and the children went to live with her, even though she worked.

There are also cases in which the ownership is shared. When this happens, each parent "keeps" each of the children for one week.

As it is agreed that the children spend time with both of their parents, there is no set alimony. The maintenance obligation lies with the two and each must give it "in turn" when living with their children.

But what happens when the man is a wealthy merchant who can provide welfare for their children, give them money to go out during the weekend, feed them well, buy designer clothes and the mother does not have a good job and just does odd jobs because she is more than 40 years old and she cannot get a job?

There are days when this mother cannot afford to feed her children, let alone to pay for weekend outings for two teenagers and that generates discussions with the children, who, under such circumstances, prefer to return to their father's house.

The father fails to deliver them, telling her she cannot keep them, so he says that they can come home every month and he can keep them. The teenage boys end up preferring to live with the father because they lack nothing and only "visit" the mother. These mothers eventually end up accepting that their children live entirely with their father.

Their right to live with the children is lost because of financial reasons. You might be wondering if there are no legal means to prevent this from happening. The answer is: it depends on the particular case and on whether that man's earnings are on target or not, etc. There are unfortunately cases in which the children are raffled to the highest bidder or, even sadder, it is them who choose to go with the parent who gives them more money.