Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 sweetestthang
Joined: 9/13/2006
Msg: 79
Jail for Deadbeat dad in CanadaPage 2 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)
what if he gets the child every other weekend and one day a week....what if he gets the child three days a week....if its 50/50 should he not help support his child...should he not chip in for extra activities,lessons,clothing,etc even if the mother makes more money?If men/women dont want to hand over money to the ex.....go out and buy the clothes your child wears....diapers he/she uses.....food he/she eats.....pay for the cable the child watches....let me phrase that better.....help out with the food...diapers...clothes.....
 sweetestthang
Joined: 9/13/2006
Msg: 83
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/10/2007 3:43:10 AM
That guy.....i understand your point....i am a single parent who gets no help from my ex...nor do i plan on taking him to court.....he chooses not to see his child...but i do think he should help support her...with that being said...i dont plan on forcing him either.....i know she will understand one day who took care of her...So beings that i have never been to court i do not know much about child support issues(except that i dont get any...lol)I guess its a dream that 2 people could work together and ensure that a child has a great life...i feel sorry for men whos ex's make it hard for them to be a great father...if they only knew how lucky they are to have help in raising their child.

But i do not have sympathy for men who just cant be bothered because they dont want to open their wallets....last time i checked....my daughter doesnt eat for free.
 sweetestthang
Joined: 9/13/2006
Msg: 85
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/10/2007 6:06:15 AM
that guy...u may be right....i am not going for support for my daughter for a few reasons though....and one of them isnt to make another mans life hell....im sorry if me not going for support will cause other men to suffer...but my situation is a little different...i live in windsor..he lives in detroit,michigan(border cities)...i do not know where he is or how to find him...and second of all...he has nothing...so why bother...he quit his job when the government started garnishing his wages when his sons mom took it to court....i really dont want to deal with that battle.and i refuse to pay for a lawyer just so i can get $25/month to help out.....would i like him to just support her...sure...but life isnt always what u want
 lialies
Joined: 2/27/2007
Msg: 86
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/10/2007 4:27:50 PM
I've read through this whole forum and there is one very inportant fact that many of you are forgetting CHILD support. The money is for the child, so is CHILD tax benefit. The money had already been spent on the child by the care giver or needs to be. Any money recieved from the other parent is only a form of re-embursement for what they would have paid had they had been sharing expenses in a working relationship. For the child not the mother.
Yes I believe there should be a cap of reasonal amount to be paid, perhaps an average of what it costs to raise a child. I agree with one of the first posters that jail would be silly but chain gang style work of a form of workfare to force such compensation.

And for the record a very good friend of mine is a mother of four who's children live with their dad and not only does she send a % a month support but takes another small % and puts it into a bank account for each of them.

What do you do about deadbeats who don't choose to see their children??
 lialies
Joined: 2/27/2007
Msg: 89
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/10/2007 5:46:38 PM
It takes a community to raise a child. A positive enviroment and above all education.

Sometimes it is better for a child not to have their father in their lives.
 darkside_girl_LOL
Joined: 3/2/2011
Msg: 108
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/6/2011 8:41:21 AM
I don't understand why

1. he didn't try to lower his amount and arrears. $11,000 a month are you kidding me. Man talk about living large and charge. I got a large spousal support amount, trying to collect reliably is a different story. Keep going MEPS.

2. Why did her lawyers not get his passport revoked considering he is a Canadian citizen. Therefore, he would have to sell his property from his lavish lifestyle in the Bahamas to pay some of the back support.

3. The new wife/receptionist is disgusting and I hope he does it to her too. She smells of a golddigger.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 109
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/6/2011 5:21:17 PM
Too bad this thread isn't about deadbeat PARENTS. As it stands, it has become nothing more than fodder for the gender war that often transpires on these forums. Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that, as a pure number, women suffer the most financially, as a far greater percentage of women are single parents. Whether we like it or not, it is a fact that, as a pure percentage, men suffer the most as far as not receiving cs. Neither is fair, but the numbers game isn't proof of anything at all, and honestly, immaterial to this discussion.

Personally, I am not a big fan of what amounts to the mere punitive, but there must be an effective way to enforce cs, gender aside. Perhaps one day, we'll find it, as it not likely that those who default will ever be mature or rational enough to siply accept that life isn;t fair, and that they alone are responsible, not only for the continued support of the children they produced, but for their life choices as well.
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 110
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/6/2011 6:04:04 PM

Personally, I am not a big fan of what amounts to the mere punitive, but there must be an effective way to enforce cs, gender aside. Perhaps one day, we'll find it, as it not likely that those who default will ever be mature or rational enough to siply accept that life isn;t fair, and that they alone are responsible, not only for the continued support of the children they produced, but for their life choices as well.


ohwhynot.....if you can ever find a reasonable tool or arguement I would be happy to stand in support...

Did you notice the poster who brought forward the posting.....her children are plus 18....age 45++ unemployed and thinking about going back to school...and it seems she is complaining about her spousal support? or her large spousal support that she is having problems collecting on?

I would suggest that if you required both parties to be working and supporting themselves and their children...if you were to support more shared parenting...you would find the idea of paying support far more palatable to many....

I understand you want to support those who supposedly stayed home...on both parties agreement...but situations change...situations dictate changes to where and what you do...so that also suggests that the stay at home then needs to go to work.....even if there is some financial top up after....

But it seems you never want to address or deal with this premise?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 111
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/6/2011 6:34:30 PM

I would suggest that if you required both parties to be working and supporting themselves and their children...if you were to support more shared parenting...you would find the idea of paying support far more palatable to many....

I understand you want to support those who supposedly stayed home...on both parties agreement...but situations change...situations dictate changes to where and what you do...so that also suggests that the stay at home then needs to go to work.....even if there is some financial top up after....

But it seems you never want to address or deal with this premise?


My experience shows me that more often than not, both parents do work & support themselves & their children, and I do support that, inasmuch as it is the continuation of the life which children have led, to the extent that it can, once one parent is gone. We are not, however, discussing my experience, or my beliefs, only generalities, and sometimes, specific cases. Isn't it telling that, when it comes to situations where there is a stay at home parent, you address the situation as a "supposedly"? The majority of stay at home parents (not just moms, although it is predominantly moms who did stay at home) do go to work; that is not the issue here, as far as I can see.Whether one parent works or not has no bearing on cs where I live; cs is a set percentage of income. I deal with the premise on a daily basis, thanks. My personal situation has no bearing on this discussion, even if you'd like to believe that it does. Fair is fair, and if you bring children into the household of a millionaire, that millionaire is no more or less responsible for their percentage than if they were closer to a pauper. A deadbeat is a deadbeat at any income level & aside from gender.
 Silverhawk_tkn
Joined: 12/3/2010
Msg: 112
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/7/2011 9:20:57 AM

Even though it may not be enforced because her ex-husband lives in the Bahamas


Does anyone get the irony here? The court could have ruled he owes millions.....it doesn't really matter, because he played the system right and by moving to the Bahamas where this ruling has no jurisdiction, he never has to pay a cent (or go to jail) ever!!

By the way, the ex lives in the same town as me....which is very affluent. I doubt very highly she is living poor and destitute. The ex is a gold digger........

If anything, this kind of ruling should make men wake up and realize how much risk there is in Marriage or co-habitation with a single mom........Marriage is truly only a promise of love, but a guarantee of liability........

Men, tread carefully and be aware of what can happen to you if you don't protect yourself from this kind of garbage........
 forumrum
Joined: 5/25/2009
Msg: 113
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/7/2011 11:59:39 AM
Exactly! This is also the reason marriage is a dying institution.

It's not 1950 anymore. Both parents should have to work and contribute equally. Period. Can't afford your kids? Tough, then give them to the parent who can.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 114
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/7/2011 6:12:33 PM
So, if two people enter into a legal contract and they are both well off, or live in affluent community, they shouldn't be held to their contractual obligation? That what I seem to be hearing. It doesn't matter if any of us feel that an agreement points toward one (ex)partner being a user, it only matters that there is a basis for the legal contract, doesn't it? That having been said, children are not property, simply to be handed off to a person merely on the basis of finances. The vast majority of custody arrangements are made outside of a court room, and agreed upon by both parties.

As far as cs goes, and I realize it varies somewhat from state to state & country to country, but it is assumed that both parents do contribute equally, the same percentage of their income. The courts don't care if I choose to spend 50% of my income on music lessons for one of 10 kids, or only 10% on food for 5 kids, as it not up to them to "police" individual spending. Surely inequities exist, but they exist everywhere, and on both sides of every arrangement. That is a matter of being responsible as an individual, much the same as is paying the required amount towards the support of one's children.
 Silverhawk_tkn
Joined: 12/3/2010
Msg: 115
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/7/2011 9:09:40 PM

they shouldn't be held to their contractual obligation?


The only contractual obligation I see here is the one the courts have stuck him with post divorce. Looks to me like he's payed enough to the gold digger (enough for her to live in an affluent neighborhood in Western Canada and more than enough to keep the kids healthy, fed, and educated) and she just wants more.

He did the right thing and looked after himself.....after he looked after her and the kids. Enough is enough. No one should be bound to pay what he is paying.....

I say bravo to him for moving to the Bahamas.......stop the madness.........let the courts do whatever they want - it doesn't affect him.
 jojoaus
Joined: 10/28/2007
Msg: 116
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/8/2011 3:26:30 AM
OK so I am shallow (tho in my defense was a single mum with zero spousal support, financially and emotionally) but... Mr****e?? Wife.. Leaka?? farrrrrrrrrrrrrk
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 117
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/8/2011 6:45:27 PM

Looks to me like he's payed enough to the gold digger (enough for her to live in an affluent neighborhood in Western Canada and more than enough to keep the kids healthy, fed, and educated) and she just wants more


She may be a golddigger, she may not, but I fail to see how that excuses a father from his obligation to his children. Do you really think he "ran out of money", running a plastic surgery practice? Don't you see the "convenience" of his operations being in the bahamas? It's not about the amount of money, or even the fact that he chose to marry a woman who may be a golddigger, and it's most certainly not about how it looks to you, an uninterested third party.. His avoidance of his responsibility to his children is not a laughing matter, silly as it may seem to one immature enough to be inclined toward punishing children for the ills of a parent. I would think that the amount due came about prior to the children becoming adults, and, no matter how one looks at the character of the parent seeking enforcement via the courts, it isn't right to deny one's children what one was once willing to provide merely to act vindictively toward an ex. I may not be able to afford to buy my kids a Mercedes, but if I was able to do so, and willing to do so, how is a reflection on their other parent if I suddenly decide to avoid doing so simply because I didn't like the other parent? You think that deserves applause? Really? Effects on his kids aside? I have little doubt that his actions have affected THEM. What makes you think he is finished looking after his kids? Are you able from this discussion to ascertain their ages and needs when he ceased to support them? The amount he is paying has no bearing, as it is likely relative to his income.
 Silverhawk_tkn
Joined: 12/3/2010
Msg: 118
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/9/2011 8:01:11 AM
Wow.....just wow..........

Its had already been mentioned in the thread that the kids were already adults at the time of the court decision........again, the fact that she was living in a very affluent neightborhood at the time tells me she (and the kids) certainly isn't NEEDING the necessities of life.

So you feel that anyone that CAN afford to buy their kids a Mercedes should, by the hand of the law in this case, be MADE to buy their kids a Mercedes? I am appalled at how easily you dismiss the fact that he has provided for these kids and payed hundreds of thousands of dollars to their well being prior to the court decision and focus on what he didn't pay.......he has clearly provided for well more than the necessities of life.....yet you feel that he should pay more based on his ability to generate income, all under the guise that its in the "best interests of the kids"? That is just WRONG, but so typical of the court system and of women in general in North America.

Of course I see the "convenience" of him setting up shop in the Bahamas. Of course I see that he didn't "run out of money". However, this has NOTHING to do with shirking his responsibility to his kids. He's provided PLENTY to them and the ex. More than most will see in a lifetime, and well enough to become self sufficient members of society........enough is enough, and he did the right thing by stopping the gravy train and protecting his assets - regardless of the ridiculous court decision.

I would have NO hesitation to do EXACTLY as he did if I were in his shoes and by golly, I've taken some good notes from this one........

Your response just reinforces the need for us to take extreme precautions to protect our assets and finances when we engage in long term relationships with the opposite sex. I already refuse to co-habitate with anyone that has young kids for fear of landing in a situation like this....I see these precautions becoming more and more necessary with rulings and attitudes like this. Society is changing. Us males have to roll with the punches and adjust. Women, you must be prepared to accept the inevitable consequences that will be brought to bear by actions like this..........
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 119
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/9/2011 2:58:09 PM
Silver


The doctor was paying prior to the original judgement in 2001.... $7,000 month in child support....but it seems the wife wanted more.....In the notice of motion...the wife originally was seeking spousal $12,000 per month then dropped to...$12,546 with no spousal or $9,048 and spousal of $4750....Problem was she based it on his income of $915,000 per year as reported in 1991...but with changes to his practice due to malpractice insurance his income was now $650,000...supposedly??...so she wins in court...as the income was fixed at $915,000...or $9067.12 cs plus the spousal support.

So had she settled for the pittance of $7,000 per month...he may have kept up his responsibilities....instead she went for more and they got into a pissing match....


But in reality...two greedy people and i would have problems defending the guy as he seems petty....but ohwhynot...will no doubt continue in her defence of poor woman who stopped working...

Supposedly the woman was working as she moved to Alberta....$56,000 or $70,000 per year....depending on the source....plus the spousal and cs....she was really close to poverty....she just no longer had her nanny...housekeeper...gardener to assist in her primary caregiver role.

Was there not something about the disposition of scorned woman?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 120
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/9/2011 8:39:44 PM
Its had already been mentioned in the thread that the kids were already adults at the time of the court decision........


Perhaps I missed it, but what I what I read was that the mother is living with the children who are NOW grown. He paid support for 10 years, but nowhere did I read how old the kids were when they split.


again, the fact that she was living in a very affluent neightborhood at the time tells me she (and the kids) certainly isn't NEEDING the necessities of life.


I fail to see how it matters where they live, as far as anyone's responsibility to support their children. Are you suggesting that they should move to less expensive neighborhood, and if so, that the ex husband should then not be allowed the luxury of travel, new business ventures, and the freedom to embark on a new marriage & the ensuing financial responsibilities as well?


So you feel that anyone that CAN afford to buy their kids a Mercedes should, by the hand of the law in this case, be MADE to buy their kids a Mercedes? I am appalled at how easily you dismiss the fact that he has provided for these kids and payed hundreds of thousands of dollars to their well being prior to the court decision and focus on what he didn't pay.......he has clearly provided for well more than the necessities of life.....yet you feel that he should pay more based on his ability to generate income, all under the guise that its in the "best interests of the kids"? That is just WRONG, but so typical of the court system and of women in general in North America.


No, actually, I feel that any responsible parent would set for their child an example of hard work so that they can buy their own Mercedes, but the point is that cs is not meant merely for necessities, it is intended for maintaining a life for one's child that they have indicated, by prior evidence, to desire for those children. It makes no sense to me that I would buy my kids Ugg boots, then deny them the same, simply because I have split with their other parent. I do what I do for my children out of love & responsibility to them, not out of love/hate for my ex. As far as paying based on ability to generate income, well those are your words, not mine, although the scenario presented, coupled with a bit of life experience, suggests to me that he may well be either hiding income or simply choosing to make less. Admit it or not, but it happens every day, and it is not gender specific. The cynic in me has often said that even the seemingly best of parents may have the capacity to screw over their children for a dime, and they often do.


Your response just reinforces the need for us to take extreme precautions to protect our assets and finances when we engage in long term relationships with the opposite sex. I already refuse to co-habitate with anyone that has young kids for fear of landing in a situation like this....I see these precautions becoming more and more necessary with rulings and attitudes like this. Society is changing. Us males have to roll with the punches and adjust. Women, you must be prepared to accept the inevitable consequences that will be brought to bear by actions like this..........


Your response just reinforces the notion put forth in the last sentence of my previous paragraph. I take extreme precautions to protect my assets as well; my children.Co habitating with someone who has children is hardly applicable here, as they are his children, and he HAS chosen to marry someone else with children. Another thread....

btw, Tealwood, I am not defending "some poor woman" here, I am trying to point out that simply because anyone is able to provide necessities, doesn't mean that an other responsible party should be exonerated from their responsibility to contribute. That is parallel to taking a stance that the man had no business marrying another woman with kids if he couldn't afford his support payments, don't you think? If I were to state that the fact that he left the country to "join" his new wife & her children, (as stated in the op) is indicative of the fact that he could well afford to travel out of the country, so he should be capable of keeping up with support payments, you'd be all over me, wouldn't you? There are, in fact, three sides to every story, and "fill in the blank" just doesn't cut it with me. Bottom line: cs is based on income, unrelated to the disposable income of an ex, and meant to provide for one's children the life chosen by THE PARENTS for them. Paying for your own failure to maintain a relationship by making sacrifices, while contributing an amount, percentage wise, equal (more likely than not lesser) to what you willingly chose to contribute prior top the dissolution of a relationship, is in the best interest of the children. The mistake is yours (the parent), not theirs. That really is the heart of the matter here.
 mrcs84
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 121
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/9/2011 10:35:27 PM
Can someone explain to me how putting the father in jail is in the best interest of the child?
 sexyisback!
Joined: 9/14/2010
Msg: 122
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/10/2011 9:34:46 AM
^^

It is not for that, it is supposed to impose "respect" for the law and its mechanisms.

The law is not much if there is no enforcement mechanism, if one can simply ignore a judge's orders, or in effect, tell a judge to "go fukk him/ or herself" with impunity.

you may recall in several high-profile cases, (e.g. Martha Stewart, and others) a stiff penalty (jail time) was imposed for LYING to the court, or to the police, NOT for the original alleged offense. often the penalty for perjury could be much harsher than the original charge.
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 123
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/10/2011 1:59:13 PM
I'm not about to read this entire thread. I can almost imagine what some of the posts claim. But after reading the OP and looking at the motivating factors for all those involved - including the special interest groups - it's not surprising none of them mentioned the children.

What disturbs me most about the attitudes (because obviously neither parties care about the kids) is this:

"It's a great moral victory for us.

^^^ In short:
What moral victory did the kids gain?

Relationships are becoming transactions with a lifetime warranty that ensures kids get totally fvcked over by both parents.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 124
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/10/2011 6:45:15 PM

Can someone explain to me how putting the father in jail is in the best interest of the child?


I have to say, I agree, inasmuch as I am not a big fan of that which is merely punitive, serving no other purpose. I would imagine the premise is deterrence, although I don't personally believe that in it works very well, not to mention the costs to taxpayers. On the other hand, jail is used as a deterrent to so much that has little effect on the affected parties, so I guess it is no different than being jailed for so many other infractions. I guess the alternative would simply be to let us all do whatever we wanted where it concerns enforcement of court orders. Complicated matter, to say the least, but certainly it is not punishment that is in the interest of the child.
 SweetnessInFlorida
Joined: 6/26/2008
Msg: 125
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/11/2011 1:29:44 AM
I think men who begrudge doing anything for their kids sound like the greedy ones.
It doesnt even have to be financially, how will one be a strong parental figure t their kids if they are running away from them?
Why are these dudes not being more picky about who they have sex with, and using birth control? A box of condoms & a tube of spermicide is cheaper than child support, just sayin.

And bahamians are VERY family-oriented, i know many, family is first in their culture, the locals wouldnt have much respect for a hiding out deadbeat Dad and would likely shun him.
 U make it entertaining
Joined: 7/17/2009
Msg: 126
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/11/2011 7:16:10 AM
Another old thread returns.


Can someone explain to me how putting the father in jail is in the best interest of the child?


It doesn't. In fact it is a waste of tax payers money to house these deapbeats.

Better yet, I like that they are not allowing them to renew their drivers license. That hits them where it hurts.

Mind you, I had my first husband skip country so he didn't have to pay for his kids, and the second who could barely take care of himself, so what could he offer financially towards his son's support. (I know, my error, bad choice in husbands ... I've had my lessons to learn).

My daughter's so-called boyfriend just came out of jail for this offense.

She was livid that his daughter's mother even initiated this.

I can see both sides, so I was the wrong person for her to complain too. And she knew that as her father was the one who skipped country.

Some men (and woman) are not capable of taking care of children, but boy do they know how to make them!

I go back to the idea that my youngest had.

Sterilize everyone at birth, then when it comes time that you WANT children, you have to apply for a reversal and take courses. This may be harsh, but it makes sense.
 Silverhawk_tkn
Joined: 12/3/2010
Msg: 127
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/11/2011 10:24:02 AM

.Wow...says alot that a father would pick protecting his new mercedes over providing "guidline CP to his kids"...I digress.
Since when did society decide to give the "darting Dad's" control over what amount of CP they deemed to be "fair and equitable?" Since when did ANYONE think that a arrogant self entitled greedy man could demonstrate a consious? ....BTW...I would wager this guy in question has NO relationship with the kids he ditched!
It is apples and watermelons...but still the same arguement.
For some reason, men think it is okay to cut their kids off at paying only the income they were making when they became seperated/divorced from the mother. It is okay to default on payments for sports and lifestyle luxuries that the kids were BORN into and accustomed too...just as long as the mother who is left to break the news to the kids is suffering and looks like the bad guy right?
Dosen't sound like gravy is a side dish in the Bahama's....score one for a father ditching his kids because the money wasn't worth it! Yay!


......yea, bo frikkin hoo......women crying because THEY can't buy the new Mercedes they wanted because the money got cut off.......yea, and I'm supposed to believe this is all at the expense of the kids and these "poor" kids are suffering.....rrrright......again, not ONE mention of the hundreds of thousands he already paid.......and all this from a woman who chooses to work part time, collect fat CS cheques, and ride taxpayers asses for the rest of her lifestyle........nice!!

And, just so we are on the level....these are NO LONGER KIDS...they are all adults!!

Do you honestly think the amount of CS he was bound to pay is "fair and equitable" in todays society? This court ruling is more like a lottery awarding ceremony rather than a landmark decision....what a joke!!

" Since when did society decide to give the "darting Dad's" control over what amount of CP they deemed to be "fair and equitable?" The answer to that is when society fails to realize there needs to be a cap on the amount of C.S. "required" to properly provide the necessities of life for the children.....and I can't wait to hear all the feminist rebuttals agains that little comment.......flame away. Fact is that both parents have to go through a "lifestyle change" when they separate, so too do the kids. Its BS to think that lavish lifestyles need to be preserved in light of separation......

I stand by his actions. He did the right thing, and it did NOT come at the expense of his kids......

Again, I would do the same thing if I were in his shoes............for my own kid, I'm happy to provide C.S. for the necessities of life and I do. If it ever gets to the point where my C.S. goes to fund his (or her) brand new Mercedes Benz, you can be damn sure I'll take (drastic) actions similar to Mr.****e to prevent that kind of nonsense from happening......

Liz, I'll be happy to serve you a generous helping of gravy in the Bahamas when you come and visit me!! Love you, hon!
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  >