|Spousal supportPage 1 of 1 |
|I know that cs is a hot button topic...but what does this one do for some?|
I had to pay it....but saw it as an investment!
I just see it as an obscenity when both parties are capable and able to work...
I say able as opposed to willing!
Posted: 11/14/2007 10:14:03 AM
|WHAT?:modhammer: :modhammer: :modhammer: :modhammer: :modhammer:|
Posted: 11/14/2007 11:27:53 AM
|LOL so your reason for having this deleted is non english?|
Now I know a few reasons why this should be deleted...but non English is something I wonder at?
I read with interest posters talking about cs and best interest of the child....and I fully understand and support the idea....which is also one of the reasons I have never strongly entertained going after cs myself. but I also feel that when both parties are willing to live close to each other and be active that custody needs to be less rigid than it is presently. But I also feel and suggest that many woman are unwilling to allow this due to the reduction in cs that they would receive. the idea of two active parents in raising the children is I understand in the best interest of the children...yet is often conveniently overlooked when people get down to the nuts and bolts. Instead many posters complain about non custodial who do not pay their fair share. And the non custodial often complain that they feel viewed as a wallet. The suggestion then that some pursue cs and spousal support might give further credence to this view that we have some fundamental problems....
Further compounding problems is the perhaps antiquated notion that some woman need to be taken care of by means of spousal support. It would suggest that if it is really not about the money but the best interest of the children then it would be impossible for someone to argue that spousal support is legitimate.
(or at least long term if someone could prove they supported financially when in school)
Posted: 11/14/2007 11:47:25 AM
I had to pay it....but saw it as an investment!
What are you going to do with or expect from your kids after they are grown? Are you thinking they will take care of you in your old age and that is how you will get your return investment?
I just see it as an obscenity when both parties are capable and able to work
I work and he works, but unfortunately for the most part women are still under paid compaired to men( in this country anyway). It still boils down to being responsible to and for your child reguardless of marriage, divorce, breakup or one night stand. If the child is born and you are the father and take responsibility then pay the support that is due...PERIOD.
I say able as opposed to willing!
That is true, one can be able to pay but is unwilling to pay...sorry same thing goes.
Just pay the support that was court ordered or agreed upon.
Sorry guys I just really think it is all about control over a woman you no longer have control over. So the only control you can exert is through withholding childsupport or manipulating the children to make life as difficult as possible for the mother of your child. All because of a bruised ego...if the shoe fits get your head examined.
Op I understand the concept about joint custody, however you have to have two people that really want this to work out for the best interest of the child...and maturity level has a great deal to do with this working. I really thought my x and I had a fairly well adjusted divorced cordial relationship until I started dating(9 years after the divorce). Boy was I wrong...a real rude awakening.
Posted: 11/14/2007 12:27:16 PM
|[What are you going to do with or expect from your kids after they are grown? Are you thinking they will take care of you in your old age and that is how you will get your return investment? ]|
LOL...no I am working and plan to pay my own way...to provide for myself...to insure that i am not an anchor or beholding to someone else. I had a very strong legal argument with facts to have a very different division of assets reached...one which would have probably left my ex((which i would not have cared about)) but also the mother of the children in severe financial straits since she chose to leave her well paid job when my own job started to be financially rewarding. ((having her destitute would have caused issue with the children))
I prefer not to live of the avails of others. I signed over all the money and started fresh. And I have no intent to live of the children....but then most men are raised to fend and take care of themselves and not look for handouts?
[I work and he works, but unfortunately for the most part women are still under paid compared to men( in this country anyway). It still boils down to being responsible to and for your child regardless of marriage, divorce, breakup or one night stand. If the child is born and you are the father and take responsibility then pay the support that is due...PERIOD. ]
I have no issue with both parties financially contributing to raising children...but i support the premise that both parties are required to financially support the child....and society today does not have that legal requirement of both parties? Unlike your post I also suggest that woman are equally required to financially support that child. I am not sure you support that idea of equal accountability? And regarding income it is interesting that for over 20yrs more woman enter post secondary schooling but they tend not to pursue education where it will result in better paying jobs? But that could be a different thread?
[Sorry guys I just really think it is all about control over a woman you no longer have control over. So the only control you can exert is through withholding child support or manipulating the children to make life as difficult as possible for the mother of your child. All because of a bruised ego...if the shoe fits get your head examined.]
Control issues are found on both sides of the gender table. The use of cs and spousal support is also for many a means of control especially when they are also then are found enrolling children in sports to further ask for money and perhaps obstructing access? In my case my object was to pay her off and get rid of any further obligations moral or financial. I soon realized and saw in papers written that what was hers...was hers....what was ours was hers...and what was mine was ours...which then became hers!!
Posted: 11/14/2007 3:12:51 PM
I have no issue with both parties financially contributing to raising children...but i support the premise that both parties are required to financially support the child....and society today does not have that legal requirement of both parties? Unlike your post I also suggest that woman are equally required to financially support that child. I am not sure you support that idea of equal accountability?
Sure I do, actually I guess I am not like most, I pay for her dance classes and costumes(he usually volunteers help w/ costumes at recital), all the school and girlscout activities I pay for those. Her school clothes and seasonal things I pay for those- she lives w/me and he pays support(?).
As far as equally required to financially support her well yes I do. She has a roof, hot water, food, activities of her choosing, allowance, even her mediacl insurance that he carries on her I pay half of that.
And yes you are right control issues happen on both sides. My whole concern was that she has a relationship with her father and I have supported that, he chose to not participate in her activities. No wonder she feels off with him, the last was the school chorus performance(all county) at the college arts center and he would not go to see her sing, that hurt her.
It all boils down to divorce sucks for everyone. I have a friend who had a simular divorce as yours and he is very bitter about it, and no it was not fair to him or you what the courts can do to some and not others. My x made out like a bandit!
Posted: 11/14/2007 7:50:56 PM
|I'm surprised that this hasn't gotten ugly, as you brought the issue of cs into it, as well. |
Let me preface my comments by stating that I do not get, nor have I requested, what is known as "maintenance". I will also state that I realize that there are some divorcees who will remain unmarried simply to continue collecting, or otherwise "punish" their ex. That having been said, there are some strong arguments in favor of maintenance for an ex.
Rare is the case, when one parent remained at home caring for the children, in which that parent didn't forfeit income during those years. Assuming this was agreed upon by the parents, why shouldn't something be given by the one who had the opportunity to "prosper" via work experience & a rising income? The parent who remained at home suffers the monetary loss, not only in earning potential, but also in the form of pension, retirement funds, medical insurance, even social security benefits.
Posted: 11/14/2007 7:59:11 PM
|Okay, I'll stick my foot into the pile.. I hope I don't come out all dirty.|
My ex pays spousal support until next May.
Why? Because I took over 10 years off to raise our kids. I was also a single parent for a good portion of those years as my ex worked overseas on a rotational basis in the oil industry.
When we seperated, I made less than 1/3 of what he made.
We also have a disabled daughter that requires more than the usual amount of care.
He no longer pays child support for her.
The idea of spousal support is to allow the lower income person to "rebuild" their career.
My ex has complained bitterly over spousal support which he calls alimony every since our our divorce. He has invented many many ways in which I give up my spousal support, the last method was where we would take the kids to Disneyland for one last "family" vacation .. if I would just forgo spousal support for the rest of my life.
He considers it punishment, the lawyers and the justice system in Canada considered it fair.
C'est la vie.. its what it is.
My support was for four years, not for life and wasn't contingent upon me not remarrying. Like that would happen lmao
Posted: 11/14/2007 8:06:29 PM
|^^^i think this is the type of situation where spousal support is intended to achieve.|
It is temporary in nature. To help with transition and relieve financial harship while the breadwinner earns a wage and the other parent cared for the family.
For others i think spousal support would depend on the contribution to their particular relationship.
Several factors need to be taken into account...such as is there really a need? Is it fair and reasonable? the ability to pay spousal support? (obvioulsly someone making 10 bucks an hour cannot realistically pay this.)
Posted: 11/15/2007 7:48:47 PM
|I agree - GEM is the exact situation Spousal was intended for.|
On the flip side is my stepfather's now exwife (after my mother). He is in his 70's, she in her late 50's/early 60's. Met online and married within 6 months of meeting, primarily because she claimed to have breast cancer and needed the benefits. They weren't even together a year and, in between hospitalizations for vague, nonspecific illnesses like diverticulitis, she was off to the casinos every weekend - maxing his credit cards. They separated, she became "desperately ill" and begged him to return - he did and she was miraculously well enough to return to her casino-habit. They separated again shortly after and she filed for spousal support.
Not only did she file for spousal support from a man she was married and living with for less then two years, she filed in a higher income county that NEITHER of them lived in.
She was awarded spousal support in the amount of $325/mo, which doesn't sound like much, but in this area, it's nearly a rent payment. When he was laid off, the spousal support didn't change. She dragged the divorce out for almost three years - meaning she got spousal support for LONGER then they were living together/married from a man she had no children with, who never insisted she not work and whom she basically wrung dry financially! That is NOT what spousal support is supposed to be for.