Why Family Courts Protect a Child's "Lifestyle" But Not Their Relationship With a Parent.

The Double Standard No One Wants to Admit:

Why Family Courts Protect a Child’s “Lifestyle” But Not Their Relationship With a Parent.

For decades, family courts have justified massive child-support orders with a single argument:

“A child should not experience two different standards of living when their parents separate.”

It sounds noble. It sounds protective. And financially, courts enforce it with an iron fist. But here’s the uncomfortable truth: Family courts fiercely protect a child’s monetary lifestyle, but not their emotional, psychological, or relational stability.

Time with their parents? Optional.

Phone calls? Restricted.

Holidays? Negotiated like a business contract.

Fifty percent of their childhood? Gone.

Why? Because government systems profit off dollars, not time. And that’s the part they never want the public to question.

When parents separate, the government doesn’t suddenly care about the child’s comfort. It cares about:

Federal Title IV-D incentives

State reimbursements

Administrative fees

Garnishments

Mandatory payments processed through state-run systems

The multi-billion-dollar ecosystem surrounding custody litigation

Every dollar that moves creates revenue.

But parenting time does not. So the system built a strange, hypocritical standard:

“Your child deserves the same financial lifestyle in both homes.” “Your child does not deserve equal time, contact, or emotional stability with both parents.” It’s a violation of logic, psychology, and basic human decency.

When money is at stake: Every penny must be preserved. Lifestyle must be maintained. No child should experience a downgrade. Courts claim it is “in the best interest of the child.”

When a parent is at stake: Suddenly none of the above applies. The court sees no problem cutting a child’s parent in half. Or assigning them “visitation” like they’re an uncle.

Most fathers are reduced to 4–6 days a month. And many mothers are now experiencing the same.

If the system cared about children’s stability, they’d protect parental relationships with the same urgency they protect income streams.

But they don’t. Because one makes money. And the other does not.

The Result: Children Lose What Money Can’t Replace. A child loses:

Half their childhood with one parent

Half the memories

Half the teaching

Half the emotional security

Half their identity

Half their extended family

Half their sense of belonging

No child support payment fixes that.

No GAL report explains that away.

No court order can replace the missing parent they never got to grow up with.

And when a system creates the separation, that’s not a family court.

That is state-sanctioned parental deprivation.

Why Does This Hypocrisy Stands Unchallenged? Because the system is built on one thing: financial incentive.

Under Title IV-D:

States get federal money for every child support dollar collected. More child support = more federal reimbursement.

Enforcement activities are billable. Even arrears generate revenue.

But equal parenting? There’s no profit in that. No backlog. No endless hearings.

No battles to bill for. No litigation to feed the machine. Equal parenting starves the system. And the system protects itself first.

If the State Were Truly “Protecting Children,” Then This Would Also Be True:

If they say a child "deserves the same life in both homes,” then logically…

A child also deserves: The same access to both parents. The same emotional connection. The same guidance, safety, and love. The same instruction, culture, and family history. The same time to bond, grow, and attachments. But family courts don’t enforce that, because enforcing it doesn’t pay.

What South Carolina (and America) Needs Now A real family court system would prioritize:

1. Equal access. Equal rights. Equal parenting time.

If both parents are fit, 50/50 should be the default, not the exception.

2. Accountability for professionals who deliberately get it wrong.

GALs, therapists, attorneys, and judges who manipulate outcomes must be answerable to someone besides themselves.

3. Separation of financial incentives from custody decisions.

No more Title IV-D profit motives influencing family life.

4. Recognition of emotional safety equal to financial stability.

Children deserve stability of relationship as much as stability of income.

Because let’s say it plainly: A child would rather live in two small homes with two loving parents, than one big house and an every other weekend apartment, controlled by a court-created winner and loser.