|
|
|
|
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/25/2009 9:25:04 AM |
Child support is intended to give the child the same QUALITY of life they had prior to the break up. The system is not perfect and I know it doesn't always turn out that way, but that is it's intention. If the child is participating in sport prior to the break up then sports money is part of the child support. If you did not pay for that while together then child support won't cover it. It has nothing to do with the parents and their ability to live and everything to do with the child and their quality of life. ( I do NOT think there should be extenuating circumstances unless there truly is a NEED for extra such as a child get really sick and has tremendous medical bills, or truly needs therapy, bootcamp or something like that.) If a person is living within their means then child support being taken out of their check should not put them on the streets (again this is how it is supposed to work, i understand there are problems with it).
I completely understand. Choices have results though, if we are really concerned about the child first, and their quality of life maybe divorce shouldn't be the first action? Sure there are extenuating circumstances in some cases, but how many parents divorce for their own happiness and forsake the happiness of their children and then bemoan the quality of lifestyle without funding, when REALLY the quality of life is having 2 FULL time parents.
I think alot of people needs to step back and reevaluate what is needed versus what is wanted. I go into a lot of peoples homes (married and single) and can't believe all the extras they have that they think are necessary.
That is actually EXACTLY my point. The fact is divorce will NEVER have the same quality of life for children, and parents that think it will are either sticking their head in the sand or lying to feel better about themselves. I'm sorry, sports are NOT i repeat NOT a need of children. Would it be great if little johnny can play t-ball? hell yes it would, and i'd love it to happen but it isn't necessary. You are making a decision when you get divorced, a decision that has serious emotional AND financial ramifications. You are going to have to sacrifice, and your child is too unfortuneatly. Parents usually aren't willing to stick it out for their kids like they used to, theres more and more of a selfish "if i'm happier, my kids will be happier" bullshit going around.
To expect these extras, when you make a choice to deprive a kid of 2 full time parents and make a decision that puts you in financial jeopardy is silly. You can get a divorce, but things are going to change for you and your family, thats PART of the choice. Maybe the choice to divorce would be made less frequently if people lived for their kids instead of themselves. BOTH genders. | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/25/2009 9:58:46 AM |
I'm sorry, sports are NOT i repeat NOT a need of children
I'm sorry but that is so wrong on so many levels. Sports are needed! Children need to be active, they need to be able to be part of a team. When children are involved with sports they do better with school. They maybe don't need to be in hockey where my parents spent a small fortune for my brother but children do need to be in some kind of sports. My parents would buy used equipment for my brother. And playing hockey gave him tons of self-confidence.
Children that have sports, music lessons excel. While other people let their children be tv junkies. If you need money for sports how about this novel idea don't buy your kids video games, x-box or whatever use that money instead for sports. Or better yet sell your TV.
I was in music lessons when I was young. I excelled in math and now I teach piano lessons to supplement my wages. Thank-goodness my parents thought that was important. My parents bought me a second hand piano which I loved.
I know child support might be flawed and maybe the person recieving child support should account to how they are spending the money. I personally would have no problem doing that if I recieved child support. The few times my ex did give me money I would tell him what I bought for our daughter. Usually clothes, books, a new toy. But the reason there is cs is because there was a need for it.
But these are your kids why don't you want them to have the very best you can provide. Getting really tired of hearing people complain about cs.Thats ur child pay it be done with it and move on. Once again it seems its always about the money. "I shouldn't have to pay for this" talk about sense of entitlement. How about just doing right for your child and trying to give them the best.
Oh and big_pacific I was one that went out of my way for my ex to keep him happy and all I wanted in return was for him to be a good father. So I assume a lot of parents do try to make things work to give their child the best. The only problem is you can't control another person's actions. | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/25/2009 10:02:24 AM | It's pretty obvious; child SUPPORT is to help support your CHILD.
Personally, I'm saving half of what my son gets and putting it into a savings account for him, and spending the rest on whatever I can't get that month myself FOR HIM. If I need anything, I'll get it on my own; I think it's ridiculous that parents spend that money on themselves alot of the time. | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/25/2009 10:32:28 AM | Well Iam now recieving child support for my two year old son, and honestly I have a savings account that I put it in. I figure by the time he is old enough to need a car or what not it will be there for that. I dont necessarily need the child support but i do feel that his father should contribute some way. I have known the father of my son for about 6 years, and we were friends first. So going after child support wasnt something that i wanted to do right away. I told him if he would just be in my sons life then i wouldnt worry about the money. But when his partying and friends took priority over our son, and he bailed on my sons first birthday party I filed papers.
Perhaps he is just being a young 20 something year old man. Did you discuss having a child with him before you got pregnant, or did you just tell him he was going to be a father whether he wanted to be one or not?
Child support is intended to give the child the same QUALITY of life they had prior to the break up. The system is not perfect and I know it doesn't always turn out that way, but that is it's intention. If the child is participating in sport prior to the break up then sports money is part of the child support. If you did not pay for that while together then child support won't cover it. It has nothing to do with the parents and their ability to live and everything to do with the child and their quality of life. ( I do NOT think there should be extenuating circumstances unless there truly is a NEED for extra such as a child get really sick and has tremendous medical bills, or truly needs therapy, bootcamp or something like that.) If a person is living within their means then child support being taken out of their check should not put them on the streets (again this is how it is supposed to work, i understand there are problems with it).
I completely understand. Choices have results though, if we are really concerned about the child first, and their quality of life maybe divorce shouldn't be the first action? Sure there are extenuating circumstances in some cases, but how many parents divorce for their own happiness and forsake the happiness of their children and then bemoan the quality of lifestyle without funding, when REALLY the quality of life is having 2 FULL time parents. I think alot of people needs to step back and reevaluate what is needed versus what is wanted. I go into a lot of peoples homes (married and single) and can't believe all the extras they have that they think are necessary. That is actually EXACTLY my point. The fact is divorce will NEVER have the same quality of life for children, and parents that think it will are either sticking their head in the sand or lying to feel better about themselves. I'm sorry, sports are NOT i repeat NOT a need of children. Would it be great if little johnny can play t-ball? hell yes it would, and i'd love it to happen but it isn't necessary. You are making a decision when you get divorced, a decision that has serious emotional AND financial ramifications. You are going to have to sacrifice, and your child is too unfortuneatly. Parents usually aren't willing to stick it out for their kids like they used to, theres more and more of a selfish "if i'm happier, my kids will be happier" bullshit going around. To expect these extras, when you make a choice to deprive a kid of 2 full time parents and make a decision that puts you in financial jeopardy is silly. You can get a divorce, but things are going to change for you and your family, thats PART of the choice. Maybe the choice to divorce would be made less frequently if people lived for their kids instead of themselves. BOTH genders.
You are right about most people being unaware of how devastating divorce is to children. Also, many people don't realize the negative effect being born out of wedlock has on children. At least children of divorce spent some part of their lives in a two parent household. Divorced fathers are much more involved with their children, in general/on average/compared to men who were never married to their children's mothers.
In my opinion, while getting divorced is selfish, having children out of wedlock is much, much, much more selfish. | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/25/2009 1:10:21 PM | "Perhaps he is just being a young 20 something year old man. Did you discuss having a child with him before you got pregnant, or did you just tell him he was going to be a father whether he wanted to be one or not? "
I am in agreement that having children out of wedlock is selfish and its something that i will never do again. When my sons father and I found out about him, we talked in length about what we wanted to do. I understand its probably tough to hear that you are going to be a father, especially when it wasnt planned. He is already a father of 2 other lil boys, and i suppose i expected him to treat my son with the same respect that he showed his other boys. I currently live about 2 hours away from the father, but i make trips every other weekend back home so that if he wants to see his son he is able to. Has he seen him? Not at all, the last time he seen him was in May. But u did hit the nail on the head, he is 25. Although i would love to for my son to have his father, deep down i believe that even if he isnt there we will be ok. I messed up by not taking enough precautions, he is guilty as well. I wouldnt change a thing although, my son is my world | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/25/2009 2:18:37 PM |
I dont necessarily need the child support but i do feel that his father should contribute some way.
And there we have it. That's what child support is meant for. It's meant to appease the people who don't want some man (or woman) getting off scott free. There would be different steps taken if child support was about doing what was right for children. Unfortunately "what's best for the children" is just the sign that's hung in the window for the people who don't bother to come inside and realize what's really going on. | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/25/2009 3:29:01 PM | Child support is intended to give the child the same QUALITY of life they had prior to the break up. The system is not perfect and I know it doesn't always turn out that way, but that is it's intention. If the child is participating in sport prior to the break up then sports money is part of the child support. If you did not pay for that while together then child support won't cover it. It has nothing to do with the parents and their ability to live and everything to do with the child and their quality of life.
I think alot of people needs to step back and reevaluate what is needed versus what is wanted. I go into a lot of peoples homes (married and single) and can't believe all the extras they have that they think are necessary.
What is needed is playing rep sports and the thousands of dollars that is required. Because after all these players will become professional players?
Playing rep sports is not a need! It is a privilege and not everyone is able to qualify for that privilege. This past winter there were a number of showcase tournaments where we participated in. In the Blue Chip tournament I spoke to parents who were paying $600 USF to $800 USF per month 12 months of the year to play soccer at this level. Please tell me how this is a need or a requirement? But the teams were excellently coached and they sure could play!
Quality of life for the children is important. But the quality that they address or speak about is only in the home of the custodial parent. And in the case of Lizzie and other foolish woman like her the first parent who had a judgement in front of hers.
Sports and the finacial requirement involved is not something that is required for the golden ideal of a quality lifestyle. And if i am not mistaken...I am sure you will find children whose parents never divorced are no longer able pay the high costs of rep sports because of changes in finances.
yet some advocates of a hawkish variety suggest it is something they did before separation..it is something they will do after....it lacks credibility in saying it is in the best interest if it robs the non custodial of having the finacial capability of having a quality lifestyle as well that enables the children to have a second home in which the children might find security. But perhaps that is the goal of some single custodial parents...punish the other as much as possible and rob any and all dollars they can?
But these are your kids why don't you want them to have the very best you can provide. Getting really tired of hearing people complain about cs.That's your child pay it be done with it and move on. Once again it seems its always about the money. "I shouldn't have to pay for this" talk about sense of entitlement. How about just doing right for your child and trying to give them the best.
So the one who takes cs and banks it because they do not really need it but feel they should be collecting something...just because...or the one who demands and laments about how they are entiltted to social programs and entiltted to cs while they work part time...those people are more acceptable to you?
I am also sure that when they do have their children go to post secondary...they will be mandating the non custodial pay their share while they use the savings that was a result of the cs that was paid. LOL I am sure they will be lauding how responsible they are to have these savings and deriding the other parent for not being prepared like they were................. | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/25/2009 5:36:55 PM | | Child support isnt meant to appease ppl, its meant to help support the child. But r u saying that its fair that one parent takes all the responsibility and the other just leaves and doesnt provide for his child emotionally or financially? I cant say that i wasnt angry when i filed the papers. I was, but if he isnt going to raise his son and be a father then i believe he should at least provide in some way. When my son is 16 he will have a hefty chunk, for a car, or when he goes to college. I dont see anything wrong with that | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/25/2009 5:44:17 PM |
Child support isnt meant to appease ppl, its meant to help support the child. But r u saying that its fair that one parent takes all the responsibility and the other just leaves and doesnt provide for his child emotionally or financially? I cant say that i wasnt angry when i filed the papers. I was, but if he isnt going to raise his son and be a father then i believe he should at least provide in some way.
No... what you're saying is that child support has appeased your desire to enact "fairness". Which is what I said it is meant to do. Thank you. | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/25/2009 7:54:44 PM | | Well in that case i guess ur right. There is a bit of justice that i was seeking. Point made. wow, i guess i have never looked at it from that aspect. Thank you | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/25/2009 10:40:42 PM | Future, you've made some fairly broad statements regarding marriage and divorce, and how it directly reflects upon involved fathers vs. non involved fathers. I believe that some children would be better off had their parents divorced when the family was much younger. It's easier to adapt to a lifestyle when you haven't known any different. Some children would be better off not having had to endure years of their "2 parent families" at war. Some Father's (that were married to the Mothers of their children) have nary taken a backward glance at their own children as they walked out the door. So while some of your statements may carry some truth, generalizations can be dangerous territory.
As for the OP's question regarding child support, I believe that it's intended to support the child, to ensure that he/she has access to all that's required in order to provide a stable and secure environment. What that means to each family may be very different. | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/25/2009 11:23:44 PM | My ex is forced to transfer a cs payment every week and I spend it on cigarettes for me. there is no way I'm going to face a future where I have to say to my kids that mummy helped to bring them up in any way whatsoever. Mind you $7.00 per week doesn't go far  | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/26/2009 2:06:04 AM | Child support is a big grey area as there are cases where women have the baby and demand the child support from the father though they do not want any kind of active role from the father and probably did not give that father a chice to begin with to be a "dad" but still want the money
Than you have the divorced/seperated fathers, who want and/or obligated to pay montly amounts of child suppport based on their monthly income in which either your divorce decree or state attorney office decides on the monthly amount based upon their income level.
Saying that, it should not matter where said child support money goes to in regards to the parent using it to help pay costs for the running of the home everyday.
Now, where I have a problem with child support is when is comes to applying for any kind of loan, as a question that is asked is if you receive child support and if yes do you want to include this in your total income for said loan approval, now I would like to think that child support is exactey that "child support" and not used in any shape or form used to help any parent qualify for any kind of loan, period.
In saying that, I mean, child support, though should be used to support the child, this should not help parent to get financing for anything. This child support should be funds that are considered extra and to provide for the child and for their needs. | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/26/2009 3:38:56 AM | When you are told you have to have a house, not an apartment, to give the kids "adequate space"
and get the said house,
and have between the house and utilities four times the payment per month coming out of your own pocket for shelter and utilities than your ex (they downsized so that they didn't have the upkeep or the payments and walked away from the house you left them to go into foreclosure),
eight times the groceries, eight times the gas, all school clothes, vet bills, schoool lunches, household supplies, vacations, medical out of pocket costs for all three and insurance for two, vitamins, friends parties,
whether my nails are pristine or short and unpolished is beside the point. The support doesn't even cover half the groceries let alone anything else that I am paying otu of my own pocket in full every single month without complaint (two of the three kids are over 18; ironically they don't magically become "free" then either, especially with both in college); so why should anyone have ANY cause to question what I do with it (which of course is nothing because I'm not getting a dime; he feels he doesn't have to pay any support at all whatsoever in spite of really good income and extremely low living expensees (his choice); it's going to the new wife and her family instead).
What I find hard to believe is the assumptions being thrown around...
if a full audit of every penny spent on behalf of the kids was done by custodial and non custodial parents, I think it would blow the non custodial parent's mind how much that person is putting in of their own parental support that they never thought about... I could be in a tiny apartment with no upkeep, no maintenance, half the utilities, but I have what I do for them. Period.
We're not sitting here raking in handouts... and when a non custodial parent doesn't bother seeing their kids on top of not wanting to pay for their own kids; well, what kind of parenting legacy are they doing anyways?
Child support is financially kicking in for the costs incurred on raising kids. They are expensive, and they HAVE two parents. Why should the full onus be on one only... the kids get the fallout as the sole support sole custodial parent has to work ridiculously long hours ot pay for the day to day costs... while the other can move on with their life and their own expenses and pay when they feel like it; which if we did that we'd lose heat, electricity and a roof over all of our heads...
With the economy being what it's being and the job situation being what it is; it is even more expensive now than ever; and having the full onus on one parent with the other feeling entitled to not bother, well, doesn't seem much fair to me...
and the kids are the ones who suffer.. | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/26/2009 5:20:32 AM | [Women don't pay alimony and/or CS as they are most often the lower half of the wage equation and the children are more likely to reside with them (in most cases, without argument).]
[Yes, which is because of the choices women make more than anything. More women really should get thier careers together and well underway before squirting out kids.
I don't have the info at hand, but there is lots of info out there about the difference betewen how many more custodial male parents work full-time compared with custodial female parents. The difference is significant.
There is a higher percentage of women who default on their CS payments than do men.
Women state openly that they will not support a man financially in a relationship. I really can't see how they're gonna be too happy giving their ex money after he's gone.
Even though it's a pretty ridiculously unrealistic scenario, tell me how you'd like it if you were the sole breadwinner for years in your marriage while hubby stayed home, but was unhappy, decided to bang someone else, left you, gets custody the kids and half of everything money YOU earned had bought during the marriage.
Then HE can demand spousal support, collect the tax benefits for the kids, and collect up to half of YOUR hard-earned money until the kids reach the age of majority.
Oh, me-o-my, oh Joy! Oh Bliss!
Yes, yes, you and every other woman out there claims that she'd happily pay.]
I don't have the time, nor do I feel the need, to address every point in the above that irks me, but since broad generalizations annoy me, I will say these few things:
Your comments seem to assume that women, and women alone, choose to have children. The majority of women receiving CS were, if not married, at least involved in a serious relationship with their children's father. Arguments regarding laws pertaining to the choice to have a baby aside as for now, since they do exist, both parents chose to risk having a child, knowing the consequences. Even if one disagrees with these laws, they have that choice while they still have their pants on. If I assume you are talking about "girls" who randomly lay down, I admit they exist. However, the majority of "deadbeats" are the ones with whom they lay, so they are NOT the majority of those who collect CS. Exceptions aside (and I agree, there are many, of both genders), the custodial parent who only works part time has young children not yet in school, unless, of course, you are speaking of my ex, who chose to cut his hours as a means to reduce CS.
Not intending to use these forums for personal attacks, I chose to post a particular fact only as recognition that everything is not black & white in this issue. For the record, I DO happily pay, each & every day, to ensure my kids' well being. How simple it would seem to map out your life in anticipation of raising children alone; unfortunately, human nature doesn't work that way. Even if it did, putting one's career on hold to raise children is most often a decision TWO parents make, resulting in the at home parent forfeiting income, as well as retirement, insurance, etc.
You & I both know that either one of us could find data supporting for our argument, as statistics are easily manipulated. What I don't understand is how a decent parent who was willing to provide for their children, suddenly decides that doing so in unwarranted.
In any case, it seems that the problem is that those who pay CS have a problem with accounting for where the money goes. You seem to have missed that point. Changes are easiest made in small steps, and it would seem that this small change to CS would be one worth pursuing, if that would make the difference to those who protest. | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/26/2009 8:36:18 AM |
I think it would blow the non custodial parent's mind how much that person is putting in of their own parental support that they never thought about... I could be in a tiny apartment with no upkeep, no maintenance, half the utilities, but I have what I do for them. Period.
So we are to assume the father never sees the children and is afforded the luxury of living in the tiny apartment with no upkeep that you have your eye on once the children have left the nest?
If this was all about the children, people wouldn't be talking about their own personal costs. Which, again, I go back to my position that child support is meant to appease people who have these strong convictions of "fairness". Life isn't fair. You do what you can do. I could sit here and whine and gripe about how my ex's parent's bought her a house so she doesn't even have a mortgage to pay while I'm still paying maximum support, stuck with a 1-bedroom apartment because that's all I can afford while having my daughter almost 40% of the time. But do I? No. Why? I've got better things to focus my energy on than jealousy. There are thousands of other people who are even more privileged than she is. Their lives don't concern me. What concerns me is what I'm doing. I guess with all the bean counting I get to do at work, once I get home I've got better things to do with my time than try and figure out whether financial responsibilities between my ex and myself have been divided "fairly"... whatever that is. | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/26/2009 8:48:05 AM |
Your comments seem to assume that women, and women alone, choose to have children.
While recognising that in marriage-like relationships women will most often consult their SO about having kids, women ARE the only ones who can decide to bring children into the world. Men have exactly ZERO say in her decision.
Not intending to use these forums for personal attacks, I chose to post a particular fact only as recognition that everything is not black & white in this issue.
Which fact was that? And who were you feeling like attacking, personally?
I DO happily pay, each & every day, to ensure my kids' well being.
You pay CS? Good for you. I do too. The vast majority of men who are ordered to pay, do so as well.
You & I both know that either one of us could find data supporting for our argument, as statistics are easily manipulated.
So you are saying that statistics are not worth looking at?
So, these stats, from the U.S. Census Bureau can't possibly support my statment that more custodial fathers work full-time than custodial mothers?
According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the typical single parent is...
She is a Mother
•Approximately 84% of custodial parents are mothers, and
•16% of custodial parents are fathers
She is Divorced or Separated
Of the mothers who are custodial parents:
•44% are currently divorced or separated
•33% have never been married
•22% are married (In most cases, these numbers represent women who have remarried.)
•1% were widowed
Of the fathers who are custodial parents:
•57% are divorced or separated
•24% are currently married (In most cases, these numbers represent men who have remarried.)
•18% have never married
•1% were widowed
She is Employed
•79% of custodial single mothers are gainfully employed
•50% work full time, year round
•29% work part-time or part-year
•92% of custodial single fathers are gainfully employed
•74% work full time, year round
•18% work part-time or part-year
She and Her Children Do Not Live in Poverty
•27.7% of custodial single mothers and their children live in poverty
•11.1% of custodial single fathers and their children live in poverty
She Does Not Receive Public Assistance
•31% of all single parents receive public assistance
•Only 6% of single parents receive TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families)
She is 40 Years Old or Older
•37.7% of custodial mothers are 40 years old or older
She is Raising One Child
•56% of custodial mothers are raising one child from the absent parent
•44% have two or more children living with them
Ok.
It's easy to find info on percentages of deadbeat parents too. But, that's not on topic, so we'll let that go....
In any case, it seems that the problem is that those who pay CS have a problem with accounting for where the money goes. You seem to have missed that point.
Nope, I didn't miss the point at all.
In the early days, how she spent the money I gave her really did bug me. Things about it STILL bug me. Lately what bugs me is that she can afford to quit her job and do a reno on her house that has to be running into $tens-of-thousands, she has the kids two weeks a month and I'm still paying her. She's never worked full-time, yet our three kids range from 11-18. When she does work, she takes minimum wage jobs though she has qualifications that could bring in a hell of a lot more.
The good bit, and why I don't sweat it much anymore, is that she has finally gotten to the point, I hope, were she leaves me alone and doesn't keep asking for more money.
My ex and her life choices are more typical, aside from the house renos, than uncommon.
And that is MY point that many women seem to miss. There are many women out there who choose not to bring as much to the table, financially, as they could because they are collecting CS that affords them the luxury of working less than they could.
Cheers. | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/26/2009 10:03:02 AM | So we are to assume the father never sees the children and is afforded the luxury of living in the tiny apartment with no upkeep that you have your eye on once the children have left the nest?
I don't fault the kids for the house, I am happy to do it for them; but he chose the apartment because it was less than minutes from his job and he didn't feel like driving; and he was tired of yard and house maintenance; ironically though far enough away to claim "financial duress" for driving to see his own kids as soon as he moved awway.
If this was all about the children, people wouldn't be talking about their own personal costs
Again, I agree. It is those people who choose to look at what a person spends their own money on after their divorce that opens that particular can of worms. What a person spends to keep things afloat is a whole, whole, whole lot higher than those very few things that are finally done to actually do their own thing. Does the custodial parent looka t what the supposedly child support non custodial parent does? There is so much assumption of theft, coersion and pocketing; which is totally ludicrous when you look at what is actually put in by each party. it is only in response to all those who claim a parent who buys a washing machine as "pocketing money meant for the kids". I have heard things that outrageous; people forget what the point of it even is.. and how much actually IS for the kids that isn't counted; but it is directly correlated.
Which, again, I go back to my position that child support is meant to appease people who have these strong convictions of "fairness". Life isn't fair. You do what you can do. I could sit here and whine and gripe about how my ex's parent's bought her a house so she doesn't even have a mortgage to pay while I'm still paying maximum support, stuck with a 1-bedroom apartment because that's all I can afford while having my daughter almost 40% of the time.
I could gripe also about the money earmarked for the kids for their college education directly by their grandparents taken by their trustee father and not being allowed to touch it; and knowing it right now isn't even there (he admitted he spent it; found out two days before my oldest started college); having left him the house before the value went down, not asking for so much as a stick of furniture nor a dime for it; and having him on purpose walk away ); have support for one 10% of the time and having him only have them a weekend every four months, and having him not do so much as $10 in gas money when he makes almost six figures and has almost no monthly housing needs, but claims he's too "broke" to eat to the kids... (while flying his new wife and her full family back and forth from the other side of the planet twice, tarking a month off of work, buying her daughter a 24 carat necklace and missing his own daughter's 18th party and having sent thousands and thousands and thousands of dollars overseas to two DIFFERENT women in two different countries while not paying a dime for his own kids for the last four months, and being anywhere from two weeks to three months late the entire period previous. and now going to a lawyer to cease and desist child support all together, though I have all three living here and two in college.
But do I? No. Why? I've got better things to focus my energy on than jealousy. There are thousands of other people who are even more privileged than she is. Their lives don't concern me. What concerns me is what I'm doing. I guess with all the bean counting I get to do at work, once I get home I've got better things to do with my time than try and figure out whether financial responsibilities between my ex and myself have been divided "fairly"... whatever that is.
Not the point. When a parent has to take in extra hours to pay the monthly necessities and the other chooses to only when convenient (which now is, ironically never), when the one has 95% custody, when one has the other oen openly trying to make things difficult so one CAN'T do it anymore; it makes it hard for the custodial parent (whichever they are), and again I am aware there are things the other direction. Sometimes the custodial parent DOES abuse it, and in those cases they are ever every bit as much at fault as the dead beat parents who walk away from any responsibility, financial or emotional, because they have moved on, all the while playing the "good" parent while doing nothing of any substance whatsoever.
It is all about the kids; not which parent can score points off the ex. We are supposed to be on teh same team; parenting children we both gave birth to and raised. We're supposed to be on the same side.
I am not bitter, but I am tired of having the onus of "proof" be on us when I have worked 60 hours a week, had one day off workwise in the last 18 months until finally a month ago I had a week off, have literally five times the amount towards the kids coming from me while he claims duress from duing anything though he makes a ton more than I do; and trying to amke things even more difficult, especially since his new wife and her grown daughter moved in and he quit even pretending to do it.
If people appreciate and understood what the other parent should or does do for their kids; they would not make things so difficult; it would not be a war; and shouldn't most parents want to do SOMETHING for their kids, since the kids would not exist without both parents?
I just don't understand why it's a hate the ex when it's about the condition of the kids... assume theft and keep money from the big bad ex which does more than make things "unfair"; it causes them to have to work way longer hours (50-60), which si time directly away from the kids, and energy, and then THAT is held against them too.
We should all be on the same side. child support shouldn't be flame words of divorce. Whoever abuses it, whether custodial parent or absentee deadbeat parent, both of them should look deeply in a mirror. Making either parent work till their sick just because they want to "make a point" while making assumptions, the kids are always the ones who pay.
We're all on the same side. Be fair; both sides. it's incredibly important. Because it is all about the kids.
Period. | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/26/2009 10:24:01 AM | | My ex was given the minimum support ordered in my state ($150.00 per month) In the 14 years I had custody she paid a total of $600 bucks. She now owes me thousands and can't get a drivers license. Child support can be like herpes, It may never go away. | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/26/2009 10:31:33 AM | If people appreciate and understood what the other parent should or does do for their kids; they would not make things so difficult; it would not be a war; and shouldn't most parents want to do SOMETHING for their kids, since the kids would not exist without both parents?
Something, as in provide money, right? Does money make you happy? It doesn't make me happy. It seems to make a lot of people around here misrable. Do you think at the end of the day you're going to get a pat on the back from your children saying, "Way to go mom! I'm sure glad you nailed dad's ass to the wall and got us all that money!"? Will they be filled with a sense of joy and pride when they realize how much he contributed towards them? Will you be? Or will you still be miserable that it was just never enough? (edit: this is intended to be rhetorical, no intent to be directed as a personal jab)
I can tell you... with or without money, I'm still pretty happy with my life. My daughter is still happy to see me, whether or not I have money. Funny thing is, she also understands the word "No" when I tell her she can't have something she wants. | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/26/2009 11:33:59 AM | Ok,
My soon to be ex wife has a child. She recieved child support the whole time we have been married. Two and a half years ago, she moved to CA to persue a job oppertunity and stayed there. For two and a half years I took care of her son until she decided she did not want to be married any more and moved her son out to Ca. Now she claims she makes more money than me, to try to get more of the property. So I ask, if there are any rights for the STEP FATHER to be reimbursed for the support that she recieved and did nothing.
Pete | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/26/2009 6:42:12 PM |
Future, you've made some fairly broad statements regarding marriage and divorce, and how it directly reflects upon involved fathers vs. non involved fathers. I believe that some children would be better off had their parents divorced when the family was much younger. It's easier to adapt to a lifestyle when you haven't known any different. Some children would be better off not having had to endure years of their "2 parent families" at war. Some Father's (that were married to the Mothers of their children) have nary taken a backward glance at their own children as they walked out the door. So while some of your statements may carry some truth, generalizations can be dangerous territory.
A generalization means "in general", which means NOT every single person in the group being discussed, as some people tend to think.
I really don't know how much more I could put into a post to make it CLEAR that I am not talking about every, single, last person in the certain group to whom I was referring. Please note the words in bold which were placed in the sentence PURPOSEFULLY to make it CLEAR that I am not talking about EVERYONE.
Divorced fathers are much more involved with their children, in general/on average/compared to men who were never married to their children's mothers.
In my opinion, while getting divorced is selfish, having children out of wedlock is much, much, much more selfish.
| |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/26/2009 7:06:39 PM | | Yes Future, I did catch the "In my opinion" at the end of your previous statement. I'm just wondering where I would go to confirm the information regarding divorced men vs. never married men and the involvement/lack of involvement with their respective children? Or is that just your opinion also? | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/26/2009 11:11:53 PM | | I know of several men who are raisig their children and taking good care of them. They are also recieving child support. My X got child support from me when we were going through our divorce and I was fighting for custody. Missouri makes no distinction between the sexes. If you get full custody or sometimes 50/50 the custodial parent gets child support here. If you don't pay male or female you go to jail. If you are incacerated too many times for back child support or it reaches a certain amount then it becomes a felony. | |
|
| what is child support meant for?
Posted: 9/27/2009 2:32:01 AM |
Missouri makes no distinction between the sexes. If you get full custody or sometimes 50/50 the custodial parent gets child support here. If you don't pay male or female you go to jail.
That's interesting.
Similar story here in the UK. However, I've had a dig around the net and not come across a single female having been incarcerated for not paying her CS. How is it in Missouri? | |
|
|
| Page 14 of 15
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 |
|
Home
login 
