Legal Question in Family Law in Oregon

Well, it boils down to the price-tag that you place on the children's right to see and maintain a relationship with their father.

----> So if father pays no support, the children are not permitted to see and speak to their father at all (just as if were dead).

-----> If father pays SOME support, but not the full amount, the children would be permitted to see and speak to their father just sparingly -- SOME of the time, but not a whole lot. (With mother, of course, being in control of deciding how much or how little time will be allowed.)

-----> If father pays the FULL AMOUNT of support, the children will then be permitted to see and speak to their father on a regular basis.

-----> And finally, if father pays a whole lot of support, way, way beyond the regular full amount (indeed, even more than the moher's contribution), the children should be permitted to see and speak to their father ALL THE TIME (in effect, changing custody).

All of this is so because a noncustodial parent's contact and relationship with the child should be based solely on financial considerations, regardless of the child's right to maintain a relationship with a parent. In sum, visitation (at least as Mom sees it) should be based on a "pay to see" basis. In other words, the more Dad pays, the more he gets to see the kids. And he if pays a whole lot of money, it should entitle him to simply "buy" the kids from the other parent.

I have always found it most interesting when a parent (usually mother) puts a price tag on a child's right to have contact with the noncusotidal parent. One would thin that better and more mature thinking on the part of a parent might recognize that VISITATION IS FOR THE CHILD'S BENEFIT, not the parent's. It is the CHILD who has a legal right to maintain a parent-child relationship with BOTH parents, without regard to financial considerations.

Mother's action of not allowing the children to see and speak with father because father is not paying his chid support is obviously a really smart move, as it instills in the child the concept that "two wrongs make a right," which is of course a wise ethical principle that we want our children to know and understand and carry on into adulthood.

Not to mention, furtherr, that mother's action of not allowing the children to see and speak with father because father is not paying his chid support effectively punishes the children for the sins of the father. Another wise ethical principle we want to instill in our children.

It certainly must be a wise, wonderful, caring mother who sees the world from the perspective evidenced by the question presented here.

LAWRENCE D. GORIN