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
 Silverhawk_tkn
Joined: 12/3/2010
Msg: 128
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in CanadaPage 3 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

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


......this one really bugs me............

WRONG!!

You women all go by the premise that because we have the ability to procure high amounts of income, that we arbitrarily spend it on building a lavish lifestyle for our kids, which then subsequently needs to be maintained in the event of relationship breakdown. What if we didn't choose to contribute this much while in the relationship? Who's right is it to judge how much someone should spend on children's upbringing (beyond the necessities of life)? Do you think the doctor in question spent 10 Grand each month directly on his kids? I HIGHLY doubt it.....yet this is what he is expected to pay post divorce because someone, somewhere came up with an idea that CS should not be based on the actual needs of children, but based on what he is capable of paying........PURE CRAP!!

I'll bet money that ANYONE that has a decent job and who is paying C.S. is paying WAY more than they would have normally contributed to the well being of the kids when the relationship was whole...........and that includes yours truly........

So in essence, with some of these decisions and the mindset above, the gold digger and the kids can get WAY MORE than what you willingly chose to contribute before the dissolution of the relationship........what better way than to teach your kids that you can live a life based on entitlement rather than hard work and honest effort.......think this is in the "best interests of the children"? I think NOT.
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 129
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/11/2011 4:27:29 PM
In my opinion, for all those mothers who say dad should be jailed because it is in the best interest of the child, I wonder what their postion would be for punnishment on mothers who impede, or totally stop, ordered/negotiated visitation for the father?

Now, some of you can say it's most likely the father's fault the mother stops visitation (which is hypocritical). But I focus on those mothers who are emotionally bullying..... the ones who seek to poison the environment and the relationship between the kids and their father. We all know this happens.

Should the mother be jailed?
Should the mother be penalized?
Exactly what recourse should law enforcement enact on an uncooperative mother?
The truth of the matter is, why shouldn't the punishment for all poorly behaved parents who are in contempt of court orders serve jail time?
Why shouldn't such mothers have their license suspended?
 jenn8131
Joined: 11/12/2010
Msg: 130
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/11/2011 5:03:54 PM
There are a lot of vindictive people. People who don't know how to deal with their hurt in appropriate ways. And they carry that with them, or they hurt themselves and the people in their lives. I don't agree with jailing men that don't pay child support. We are paying way too much money on putting people in jail as it is and it doesn't really solve the issue.
How much money do we waist punishing men that will always find ways not to pay the mother of their child/children because they are so vindictive. Like lets be real the majority of the moms are not riding the gravey train of child support. I see a lot of moms who do not get anything for child support and they are scrapping by and even if the man just helped out a little bit it would be greatly apperciated.
If my daughter's father started paying child support that money would go towards our daughter but it is not going to happen.

I don't know what the answer is. People shouldn't be able to walk away from their children, and not be accountable. And that behaviour shouldn't be justified but is it worth waisting tax dollars to force these people to behave how we want them to? I think the money could be better spent.
If a man doesn't want to pay child support he will always find a way-- just to be vindictive and the only one he hurts his child. And I would suggest that a woman that keeps a good father away from his child is just as vindictive and she will have to answer for that too.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 131
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/11/2011 8:06:41 PM
You women all go by the premise that because we have the ability to procure high amounts of income, that we arbitrarily spend it on building a lavish lifestyle for our kids, which then subsequently needs to be maintained in the event of relationship breakdown. What if we didn't choose to contribute this much while in the relationship? Who's right is it to judge how much someone should spend on children's upbringing (beyond the necessities of life)? Do you think the doctor in question spent 10 Grand each month directly on his kids? I HIGHLY doubt it.....yet this is what he is expected to pay post divorce because someone, somewhere came up with an idea that CS should not be based on the actual needs of children, but based on what he is capable of paying.......


Sorry, but that isn't at all the premise, nor the basis of the argument. You don't have to agree with actuarial charts, but there is a mathematical determination of the percentage of income one contributes directly towards their children. It's that simple, not the basis upon which "we women" all go by. CS is not based on what one is capable of paying; (except in the event that it is contested, and proven to be so) it is based solely on a percentage of income (at least in most of the states in the US). Frankly, I don't doubt for a minute that anyone who makes the amount one must earn in order to have $10,000/mo. equal that percentage spent in excess of that on their children; private schools, perhaps tutors, $2000 purses, $10,000 birthday parties, etc. are the norm for such high wage earners, and I think you know it. No one is saying that you should give your kid a Mercedes, only that you shouldn't be able to take it away simply because you don't like the kids mother anymore. It seems to me that you are simply letting your anger cloud your thought process.

One is expected, post divorce, to continue to provide for their children the lifestyle THEY chose for them, not merely their needs, and inasmuch as this points towards not punishing the kids for the failure of the parents, it does seem fair. I absolutely admit that in practice it often doesn't work that way, but that only evidences the selfishness of human nature, not the unfairness of a system put in place so as to avoid putting the onus of a failed relationship on kids, as much as it can. The premise, I believe, is valid, and hardly determined by we women.
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 132
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/11/2011 9:15:20 PM

You don't have to agree with actuarial charts, but there is a mathematical determination of the percentage of income one contributes directly towards their children

^^^ It's odd how a mathematical form is used to determine finances, cost of living and expenses in comparison to one's actual income. Yet, you know better:

It's that simple, not the basis upon which "we women" all go by. CS is not based on what one is capable of paying

^^^^You speak like one of those moms who has all the answers enveloped in one simple formula:
"I'm right! They're wrong.... because the formula doesn't meet my expectations and wants"
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 133
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/11/2011 10:03:04 PM

^^^ It's odd how a mathematical form is used to determine finances, cost of living and expenses in comparison to one's actual income. Yet, you know better


Of course, I know better, as I am well aware that I spend more than 29% (the amount for cs for 3 children in NY ) of MY income for expenses directly related to my children, but I fail to see what that has to do with my response to the poster to whom I was responding. I don't expect the courts to force my ex to make up the difference (although it might be nice, but I am a proponent of personal responsibility & would neither expect nor propose intervention to assuage my personal "misfortune"), and I don't attribute it to "you men", either. There has to be some basis, no? Apparently, parents can't seem to work it out without court intervention, but I had nothing to do with that, did you?


You speak like one of those moms who has all the answers enveloped in one simple formula:
"I'm right! They're wrong.... because the formula doesn't meet my expectations and wants"


How the hell did you get THAT from my post? If it has been mathematically determined that a specific percentage of one's income is allotted for, or spent on, their kids, what has that to do with me or my attitude? My personal "expectations and wants", or even the needs of my own children have absolutely nothing to do with it, and, as you know nothing of my personal situation, what's your point? Why would any of the participants in this forum assume that the case being discussed encompassed cs amounts in excess of statute & legal determination? You seem to need to vent, as your post evidences nothing relative. Feel better?
 Silverhawk_tkn
Joined: 12/3/2010
Msg: 134
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/11/2011 11:28:39 PM

CS is not based on what one is capable of paying; (except in the event that it is contested, and proven to be so) it is based solely on a percentage of income (at least in most of the states in the US).


......and therefore based ENTIRELY on the ability of the payor to generate income....this statement is completely contradictive.....


No one is saying that you should give your kid a Mercedes, only that you shouldn't be able to take it away simply because you don't like the kids mother anymore. It seems to me that you are simply letting your anger cloud your thought process.


Whether you like the mother or not is irrelevant. CS is indeed based on a percentage of income that one is capable of generating as you so kindly pointed out and in this instance its been proven through the arguments above that this arrangement is unrealistic and unnecessary. The good Doctor decided to take corrective actions and I don't believe his actions were "clouded" by anger, nor I with my arguments above. He was presented with a problem, found a solution, and took action. Its that simple. Whether you agree or not with the solution really is irrelevant......
 mrcs84
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 135
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/12/2011 2:54:21 AM
The other thing that I think people (especially the ones who -want- child support) are forgetting is all of these obligations that the NCP has to deal with after the break-up, such as alimony and renting a new place to stay all the while [probably] still paying mortgage payments on the house that (s)he no longer lives in. But I guess that doesn't account for anything as long as the CP has their hand out.
 SweetnessInFlorida
Joined: 6/26/2008
Msg: 136
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/12/2011 3:09:59 AM
Box of Trojans-10 $

Tube of Spermicide-15 $

Gas to drive to Walgreens to purchase said products-5 $

Rawdogging some scandalous beezy and having to pay out your ass for the crotch-fruit you spawned for 18 years, priceless.


Mastercard might have come in handy..........
 sexyisback!
Joined: 9/14/2010
Msg: 137
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/12/2011 8:40:12 AM
well for the people who whine that the ex-wife is a 'gold-digger' (Forest Hill or Rosedale - Toronto, Shaughnessy- Vancouver, or Strathearn, Glenora or Strathcona must be for all the people who can't get into St. Albert? ?).

the man in question CHOSE to marry the arm-candy probably 'knowing' she was a bit of a 'digger' ; no doubt, he flaunted his earning potential as a plastic surgeon in order to attract the prettier women? I met him and his second wife (Shawnee) several years ago and would have to say he appears to choose women based primarily on looks factors more than character, intellect, personality etc.

More power to him if that is what turns him on, not surprising given he does a lot of cosmetic plastic surgery I suppose? If the wife starts getting too old to be effective arm-candy, trade her in for another (younger) one , OR take her into your clinic for a boob-job, liposuction, face-lifts, etc, .etc.

good to have options ;)
 mrcs84
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 138
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/12/2011 9:05:05 AM

Box of Trojans-10 $

Tube of Spermicide-15 $

Gas to drive to Walgreens to purchase said products-5 $

Rawdogging some scandalous beezy and having to pay out your ass for the crotch-fruit you spawned for 18 years, priceless.


Mastercard might have come in handy..........


What does this have to do with anything? It's seems evident that these two wanted a family, and wanted to be with each other. The relationship just broke down. I mean, the kids were in their mid twenties as of 2007, so simple math shows that they were born in the mid/early 80s.
 Silverhawk_tkn
Joined: 12/3/2010
Msg: 139
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/12/2011 9:15:33 AM

well for the peopel who whine that the ex-wife is a 'gold-digger' (Forest Hill or Rosedale - Toronto, Shaughnessy- Vancouver, or Strathearn, Glenora or Strathcona must be for all the people who can't get into St. Albert? ).


I'm not saying St. Albert is exclusive by any means.......and after this winter, I wouldn't be surprised if there was a mass exodus........I have snow piles that are almost 12 feet high and no sign of melting anytime soon......:(

We do have one of the highest municipal tax rates in all of Canada, though. You do need money to live here....as would you in the other areas you mentioned. Thats all I was getting at........

Interesting you met him. I did actually look up Leaka's address just to verify that she does indeed live here....I was able to find her in the local phone book. She just lives a few blocks away from my place!!
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 140
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/12/2011 9:19:38 AM

Apparently, parents can't seem to work it out without court intervention, but I had nothing to do with that, did you?


There are plenty of parents who do manage to do things without court.....I gave my all the money or equity as a payoff.....I was able to keep the children...she the money....I pay all the bills...she gets to whine about how terrible a guy I am...

Just met yesterday a custodial father....they went to court and he pays spousal support which is tax deductable...and of course one must claim...$200 week.....his ex pays $500 month cs..non deductable....his son is in college and the ex tries to stop cs....so he ends up paying $450 lawyers fee's so the responsibility office does not stop collecting the required cs....that offsets the spousal he is required to pay....he does not bother going to court for the section 7...extraordinary expenses...because it is not worth the effort...


but I am a proponent of personal responsibility


Sorry but I do not buy this....personal responsibility would require working full time to support yourself and most importantly your children...even if it was after not working full time...supposedly even if it was agreed to...when circumstances change like a marriage dissolving...I have no problem with the premise of cs to balance the household income while the children are living there...but unlike your postings...I suggest personal responsibility is working to assist in providing for your responsibilities...and to often you seem to suggest or accept single mothers or any custodial parents not having to be held to this standard.


Of course, I know better, as I am well aware that I spend more than 29% (the amount for cs for 3 children in NY ) of MY income for expenses directly related to my children, but I fail to see what that has to do with my response to the poster to whom I was responding. I don't expect the courts to force my ex to make up the difference (although it might be nice,


So what are these costs...that you would like to have made up??? costs directly attributed to the children...costs that you are also responsible for?

Housing costs are not something that the other parent should be paying....I need to have a house...be it as a custodial parent...or as a non custodial parent....so why are the single mothers...50% who are unwilling to work full time always looking for cs to assist in their housing?

So unlike most custodial parents...I do not see any reason why I should be assisted in paying the costs of housing my children when they are in my house...just like i would not assist when they are in my ex wife's house...

This wonderfull mother who was receiving $7,000 per month and found it insufficient was well within her rights to go after more....but would she perhaps have been better off accepting that small amount rather than going for what she was asking in $9500 plus $12,000 spousal and the guy getting pissed off and after a number of years...once the children were older walking away?

You reap what you sow.....I would say she lost in legal fee's...but the costs were paid by the father...so he gets busted on both sides...

So we have ohwhwynot pontificating on responsible paying of child support...and when we have single mothers not working or only working part time which does not allow for


but I am a proponent of personal responsibility


she seemingly changes or adapts her moral code for what is personal responsibility?
 barefootkitten
Joined: 12/17/2009
Msg: 141
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/12/2011 12:25:50 PM
Should a NCP pay child support? Hell yeah. However, not necessarily in the amounts courts award CPs. While a CP should indeed pay for their portion of housing/heating/food/etc.... one can't ignore the fact that by having a child, one pays MORE for these things. If one rents, it costs more money to rent a 2 or 3 BR home than a one bedroom. It also costs more to heat that home.

Why the courts don't figure out the difference paid then award based on the percentage of custody split is beyond me. Here's my suggestion based on the area where I live:
To rent a one bedroom home runs around $600 and around $850 for a 2 bedroom home. That's a $250/month difference just for the place to live.

Heating/electricity costs slightly more given the difference of size of the home, but really isn't much more expensive. Based on differences between my 2 BR and a friend's 1BR, it's about $25 more per month.

Food for the child = around $200 per month.
Clothing for the child = $25/month
Incidentals (medicine/entertainment/school supplies -- spread throughout the year) = about $75/month

That totals about $575 per child per month. Now if the parents shared 50/50 custody, then both would be responsible for 50% of that child's care costs, and NO CS should be awarded. If one parent has the child 100% of the time (and this is NOT based on the CP not allowing the other parent to be in the child's life), then why shouldn't the NCP be paying a large portion (if not all) the monetary cost to raise that child when the CP is the only one having to invest their TIME in raising the child? That said, then in a 25/75 split, the NCP would be responsible for 75% of the costs and the CP for 25% of monetary costs.

Income should NOT be taken into account for the payments. This is why so many NCPs work under the table, because they can get away with having a very small income on the books and as a result have very little responsibility for the children they created.

NO CP really needs the ridiculous amounts the courts order in some cases (thousands a month for a child? Are you kidding me?!) Should someone be awarded CS just so they can sit at home? No way! Each parent has a responsibility for the care of their child (through time and/or money). If the NCP is involved in the child's life and is spending their time AND money while the CP is only investing time, then it's not a balanced circumstance and needs to be remedied by having the CP made responsible for the monetary support of their child as well.
 SweetnessInFlorida
Joined: 6/26/2008
Msg: 142
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/12/2011 12:34:39 PM

What does this have to do with anything? It's seems evident that these two wanted a family, and wanted to be with each other. The relationship just broke down. I mean, the kids were in their mid twenties as of 2007, so simple math shows that they were born in the mid/early 80s.


Should have worked harder on the marriage then, and not divorced.
Poor kids, having to grow up and be surrounded by that drama.

And if these kids were born in the mid to late 80's, they are not even kids anymore.

I was born in 1980, and i am 31 years old. So that would make these so-called "kids" not that much younger than me placing them at about mid 20's to early 20's.
When i was in my early and mid 20's i was married, raising children, making $, and managing a household. Not asking my father for child support.
So why is this couple fighting over child support and other BS long after their children have grown up? Addicted to the drama? No life beyond their petty post divorce bickering?
'
Andyeah, birth control is VERY relevant to the topic.
People show you who they are.
Be a little pickier about where you bust a nut, and you could avoid bringing innocent children into a world of douchebaggery, both on the husband and the wifes part.
IMO, it is abuse for divorced couples to subject their children to the drama and pettiness that they do.
 sexyisback!
Joined: 9/14/2010
Msg: 143
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/12/2011 12:36:05 PM
I'm pretty sure he used his potential earnings as a plastic surgeon to lure in a more attractive woman than he might otherwise get.. (as many med/law students or graduates may tend to do)

so why would he surprised if it seems she turns out to be 'all about the money' or a 'gold-digger' if you will?
 mrcs84
Joined: 12/9/2008
Msg: 144
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/12/2011 2:28:40 PM

IMO, it is abuse for divorced couples to subject their children to the drama and pettiness that they do.


True indeed. I also think it's abuse to raise a child that you're not capable of raising on your own. I mean, you have mentioned several times that your husband passed away, so it's not like you had a -option- for child support. These divorces, however, you tend to be able to see it coming. I would think there would be some degree of preparation for the CPs to support themselves because, lets face it. There are plenty of people that dodge their "responsibilities."
 SweetnessInFlorida
Joined: 6/26/2008
Msg: 145
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/12/2011 2:36:15 PM
Wow i cant believe i agree with mrcs on something for the first time...
 Silverhawk_tkn
Joined: 12/3/2010
Msg: 146
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/12/2011 3:07:55 PM

That totals about $575 per child per month. Now if the parents shared 50/50 custody, then both would be responsible for 50% of that child's care costs, and NO CS should be awarded.


I currently have a 50/50 custody arrangement with my son and yet I still pay CS. I provision everything in my house for him like he stayed here full time, though. I refuse to treat him like a traveller between my place and my ex's. He has a full wardrobe and all the amenities that a child of a whole relationship would have at my place and my ex does the same. I have no problem paying for extra curricular activities and he isn't denied much.......I will, however, draw the line at a brand new Mercedes Benz.....lol.......

Both my ex and I make enough money to support him without the CS as we are both very successful in our careers, yet the laws mandate that because I still make more than her, I need to pay CS on the difference, which in my eyes is BS. She doesn't need the money for the well being of the child - she just pisses it away on frivolity......

At the end of the day, I cut her the $800 bucks and look at it as means to an end to a chapter in my life. Compared to others that pay ridiculous amounts, to me this looks like a bargain. However, if she ever decided to willingly cut back from her employment (like some other posters here on this site) or purposely sit back and expect me to pay more CS because she would be "entitled" to it I would push back hard........up to and maybe even including some of the measures****e took, especially as my son gets to adulthood.
 Silverhawk_tkn
Joined: 12/3/2010
Msg: 148
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/12/2011 4:32:37 PM

Ideally, to promote equality, no matter the gender of the CP....(and yes, I realize this would be a utopian idea, lol). Say, like silverhawk (just using you for example since you are the most recent poster) who says his ex earns roughly the same but "p!sses it away on frivolity". Okay...so, if silverhawk pays his ex $800 a month as he says...ideally, have the CP provide an itemized list. X-amount for food, X-amount for the child's shelter, day care, sports, leisure activities, etcetc. Any surplus? Goes into a fund for the child, towards post-secondary education and things like that.


Absolutely! Accountability for the money a custodial parent, or, in my case, the receiving parent (as we have 50/50 custody) would be more than fair and would ensure the money goes to the well being of the kids. This would make it soooo much better for me to stomach knowing the cash actually went to the child.......I would LOVE it if my ex would put away something for my son......alas, this just aint gonna happen..........nice thought though, sweetness-one!
 barefootkitten
Joined: 12/17/2009
Msg: 149
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/12/2011 5:05:04 PM
silverhawk, that's why I stated that if there's a 50/50 split there shouldn't be ANY child support. If the child is truly spending 50% of their time at BOTH parent's homes, then both parents are contributing the same amount of time on their child as well as the same amount of money on living expenses directly related to that child.

I agree with you that the NCP shouldn't be held responsible for raising the CP's living status above what the CP can afford through their own earnings. If you've spent 10 years at uni and have a good job as a result of that hard work, why should someone who doesn't have a high school diploma and no job be expected to enjoy the benefit of your work once the relationship is over? If they want a better standard of living, they have a responsibility to themselves to WORK FOR IT. The NCP's responsibility is to help ensure the children's standard of living, NOT THE CP'S! This is why I suggested that the government should base CS amounts on ACTUAL COSTS directly associated to raising the child and apply a formula taking into account how the custody is split, rather than just basing it on income.
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 150
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/12/2011 5:10:36 PM

To rent a one bedroom home runs around $600 and around $850 for a 2 bedroom home. That's a $250/month difference just for the place to live.

Heating/electricity costs slightly more given the difference of size of the home, but really isn't much more expensive. Based on differences between my 2 BR and a friend's 1BR, it's about $25 more per month.


So when you had a child...or decided to have a child...where was it suggested your costs would be covered or assisted by the father?

How is your housing costs any different than the father? An active involved non custodial has the same additional costs....but yours are to be included for child support and the non custodial parent...gets no consideration? Seems a little one sided? As a non custodial also has the same additional costs?


Heating/electricity costs slightly more given the difference of size of the home, but really isn't much more expensive. Based on differences between my 2 BR and a friend's 1BR, it's about $25 more per month.
Both the custodial and non custodial involved in his/her childs life has those additional costs...or are you suggesting that you get special consideration?

Those two costs are yours...as they are also required costs at the non custodial home...but they are never considered are they...as custodial parents to often...think only what they are paying out???


Food for the child = around $200 per month.
Clothing for the child = $25/month
Incidentals (medicine/entertainment/school supplies -- spread throughout the year) = about $75/month


So food costs...$200 clothing $25 (( a little light)) incidentals....$75 = $300 ??? but 2 parents....so each covering a 1/2 leaves $150....so why should they pay more than that??? 50/50...should be no cs...or a level based on both working full time with a income adjustment if one of the parents is better off?? I could accept based on some rules...but the 50% rate of custodial mothers not working full time would suggest woman would never like this idea....of


but I am a proponent of personal responsibility




Child support is also a tool for insuring the children do not change their lifestyles from when the parents were married...something that is both wrong and and yet something they should not suffer from...but where is the middle ground in terms of accountability on the part of the parents and serving the best interest of children?

I have long believed as a custodial parent my housing costs were my responsibility alone....I work to provide a house or home for our children...my ex has her own home to pay for...her own bills to pay for so that our children have a second home to visit or go live in...if it is their choice.....housing costs are something both custodial and non custodial have ...and should be not considered in support..

Clothing...different....braces...different ...daycare babysitters different...post secondary education different...

But I have never had an arguement as to why the non custodial parent...or non primary parent should be paying the other parent a share of the housing costs...when they have the same costs to provide a place for their children to come to.

But for someone who is willing to present a compelling arguement I am willing to listen? Differences in income...no problem...based on intent to work full time and their best intent or level ...under-employing to avoid paying child support is disgusting ...as is working part time or under-employing oneself when you have the role of custodial parent because what you are unable//unwilling to earn is made up by the ncp...
 barefootkitten
Joined: 12/17/2009
Msg: 151
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/12/2011 6:58:55 PM
Tealwood, did you even READ what I wrote?

So when you had a child...or decided to have a child...where was it suggested your costs would be covered or assisted by the father?
I, at no point, ever used the terms "mother" or "father" in my post. I said CUSTODIAL PARENT and NON-CUSTODIAL PARENT as I believe that one's gender has nothing to do with whether or not they should pay or receive cs....what does determine it, is whether or not one has custody of their child or not.

I also specifically stated that the CP has NO RIGHT to have their costs covered by the NCP....regardless of gender. They DO, however, have a right to not have to bear the burdens of raising the child BOTH parents' actions brought into this world all by themselves. If one parent is the only person who invests time in the child, why should they also be the only one to invest money?

How is your housing costs any different than the father? An active involved non custodial has the same additional costs....but yours are to be included for child support and the non custodial parent...gets no consideration? Seems a little one sided? As a non custodial also has the same additional costs?

If an NCP has no visitation/involvement with their child, why would they have to pay for an extra bedroom for that child? I specifically calculated the difference between a 1 and 2 bedroom house because, if I didn't have a child, I wouldn't be renting a 2 bedroom home. I rent a 2 bedroom home BECAUSE I have one. My child's father, who hasn't seen her in over 10 years (his choice) has no need to provide a bedroom for her, and therefore, doesn't have that extra cost added to his housing. This is also why I stated that CS agreements NEED to take into consideration custody arrangements. This is why I stated that in a 50/50 split, because BOTH parents have those added costs, that NEITHER SHOULD PAY.

Both the custodial and non custodial involved in his/her childs life has those additional costs...or are you suggesting that you get special consideration?

Those two costs are yours...as they are also required costs at the non custodial home...but they are never considered are they...as custodial parents to often...think only what they are paying out???
Again, maybe you should go back and actually READ what people say before responding. If a parent does not share visitation of their child, they DON'T have the extra costs associated with having the child. When I stated heating costs, I specifically listed the difference one pays between a 1 bedroom and a 2 bedroom home because I only included what one would pay over their own personal use -- therefore, the cost associated with having the child.


So food costs...$200 clothing $25 (( a little light)) incidentals....$75 = $300 ??? but 2 parents....so each covering a 1/2 leaves $150....so why should they pay more than that??? 50/50...should be no cs...or a level based on both working full time with a income adjustment if one of the parents is better off?? I could accept based on some rules...but the 50% rate of custodial mothers not working full time would suggest woman would never like this idea....of
I personally don't buy my child clothing on a weekly basis, and I REFUSE to buy my child brand name clothing. I don't even necessarily buy her clothing every month. I buy her clothes WHEN SHE NEEDS CLOTHES. This can sometimes be every month if she's in a growth spurt, or if she's not, she may not have something new for months at a time. My figure for clothing is most certainly not light for those of us who don't spoil our kids with name brand crap.

To say the child's housing/heating/etc.. costs shouldn't be taken into account is LUDICROUS. If a parent never sees their child, or only sees them one weekend a month, they don't need to pay for a room to sit empty 95% of the time. The person who DOES need to do this is the one where the child stays for significant periods of time. This is why I suggested that the most EQUITABLE way of determining CS amounts would take into account how often the child spends in each home.

Where have I EVER stated that I think it's okay for a parent to stay home with their child while the other one subsidizes their lifestyle? In fact, I made a statement CONDEMNING that behaviour!



As a parent, I most certainly pay MORE for housing than I did before I had a child because that child NEEDS A ROOM! The costs I suggested were solely EXTRA costs attributed to the child itself. I then went on to state that the percentage of custody (50/50, or sole) should be taken into consideration and CS increased or decreased IN DIRECT PROPORTION to how often a child is with either parent.

In the case whereby custody is split 50/50, I specifically stated that NO CHILD SUPPORT SHOULD BE AWARDED as BOTH parents will have those extra costs and be investing the same amount of time for the child. If a NCP, by their choice, does not want to be involved in the child's life, why should the CP be the only person responsible for their actions/choices and be the only one investing time and money into the child?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 152
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/12/2011 8:08:52 PM
Nice try, but .... CS is based on actual income, imputed only to those who attempt to avoid and are proven liars in a court proceeding based on fact finding (presentation of tax returns, evidence of working off the books, etc.) It is your interpretation of the statement, rather than the statement itself, that is contradictive.

The agreement of an uninterested party is certainly irrelevant, whether that party be you or me. Telling, though, how you view meeting one's responsibility to their offspring as a problem requiring a solution; avoidance is not action, btw.
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 153
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/12/2011 9:27:22 PM
The other thing that I think people (especially the ones who -want- child support) are forgetting is all of these obligations that the NCP has to deal with after the break-up, such as alimony and renting a new place to stay all the while [probably] still paying mortgage payments on the house that (s)he no longer lives in. But I guess that doesn't account for anything as long as the CP has their hand out.


Calculation of income percentage does indeed take into account expenses not related to children; 100 - whatever the percentage is (based on the number of children) is assumed to be for the personal expenses of the ncp. Alimony is no longer a given, and rarely ordered to one who worked during a marriage; neither is a home, which may be bought out by one party or another, depending upon the state in which you reside. I do not believe it is probable any longer that one spouse is made to pay a mortgage for a home in which they no longer reside, except in cases where they can not agree to a buy out option, or the parties wish the children to remain in the marital home until they are of a certain age, and that is by agreement, not statute; the benefits of doing so are attained upon the sale. I am thinking that it is assumed that the effect of having a lesser amount of disposable income is a cost to be borne by the parents rather than the child, and rightly so, and the fact is that all family members are indeed financially affected to some degree.


There are plenty of parents who do manage to do things without court.....I gave my all the money or equity as a payoff.


Yes there are, and if they were in the majority, this wouldn't be such a problem to begin with. To respond thusly to my post, however, is disingenuous, as a quick read back of the post responded to would evidence.


Sorry but I do not buy this....personal responsibility would require working full time to support yourself and most importantly your children...even if it was after not working full time...supposedly even if it was agreed to...when circumstances change like a marriage dissolving...I have no problem with the premise of cs to balance the household income while the children are living there...but unlike your postings...I suggest personal responsibility is working to assist in providing for your responsibilities...and to often you seem to suggest or accept single mothers or any custodial parents not having to be held to this standard.


I do work full time to support my kids. This thread isn't about me, however. What I suggest, and have all along, is that a cp who has children not yet of school age, may not be avoiding their responsibility simply because they do not work full time. Even a parent who has found a means of generating income, with less sacrifice to their kids, may not be shirking their responsibility. Parenting encompasses far more than the generation of income, that's all I'm saying. Working full time while incurring the costs of day care may well not be the most responsible of parenting. Every case is different. That discussion, however, has no bearing on the thread presented here. Personal responsibility means that you take responsibility for your choices, whether that choice is to have kids who have a full time parent at home, resulting in that parent forfeiting income & delaying their ability to contribute financially to the extent that a parent who has had the opportunity to build their career does. I must wonder why you, and those in your camp, continue to use "supposedly" "golddigger", and refer to "the good doctor". I am not "seeming to suggest", I am merely responding to those who post relative to their postings.

I do think that both parents should be responsible for the support of their children, and I do believe that support encompasses more than the financial. I would not go so far as to suggest that a cp contribute ONLY 19% of their income to support a child, knowing full well that it often exceeds that percentage, yet I have not argued that the amount set for cs is unfair. Things aren't equal, life isn't fair, and part of personal responsibility is accepting that & working within the framework one has no choice but to work within. I am not, however, the one who is crying foul here. I acknowledge reality, and reality for the majority is not that single parents are living in the lap of luxury, with their hand out. It is a struggle for the single parent far more often than not, just as more often than not it is the case that both parents willingly meet the financial needs of their offspring to the best of their ability. That is not the basis for most of the discussion that goes on here, though, is it?


So what are these costs...that you would like to have made up??? costs directly attributed to the children...costs that you are also responsible for?

Housing costs are not something that the other parent should be paying....I need to have a house...be it as a custodial parent...or as a non custodial parent....so why are the single mothers...50% who are unwilling to work full time always looking for cs to assist in their housing?


I know not why you feel the need to make this personal. I am not the one complaining about the cs system, although I certainly recognize its imperfections. But many of you here fail to acknowledge that it works both ways. Your need or my own to have a house is irrelevant. Since you brought it up, though, my ex hasn't seen his kids since 2004, so his housing requirement is a one bedroom, not affected in the least by how many kids we have. I am not sure of the accuracy of the number of single mothers who work full time, although, as I have stated, I don't believe that the number of hours one works is the end all determining factor. Certainly you could make an allowance for the percentage of single mothers who are single parents 24/7, thereby reducing that percentage. Of course, I am quite sure that that is because they have alienated the fathers, made it "too difficult" for men to fight for their right to coparent, etc., etc. , right? Are there no men at all who do wrong? We defend men who avoid their financial responsibility to their kids if they "can''t afford it", yet women are merely "unwilling to work"? C'mon, it's pretty much tit for tat when it comes to shirking responsibility. I don't defend either side, I simply acknowledge that we don't know, and that, in this case, there is as much evidence that he is a liar who cares less for his own children than for his own good time as there is that she is a golddigger. Likely they are both guilty to some extent, although the determination of the courts would suggest some evidence in her favor.


So unlike most custodial parents...I do not see any reason why I should be assisted in paying the costs of housing my children when they are in my house...just like i would not assist when they are in my ex wife's house...


Unlike most cp's, you were likely the major breadwinner prior to the split, putting you in a position where you are able to do so immediately following a breakup. Do you really refuse to acknowledge that?


This wonderfull mother who was receiving $7,000 per month and found it insufficient was well within her rights to go after more....but would she perhaps have been better off accepting that small amount rather than going for what she was asking in $9500 plus $12,000 spousal and the guy getting pissed off and after a number of years...once the children were older walking away?

You reap what you sow.....I would say she lost in legal fee's...but the costs were paid by the father...so he gets busted on both sides...


She might well have been better off. I have consistently mentioned that in the real world, as opposed to the gender war sparking cases presented on these forums, most parents give a little in order to have some peace of mind, as well as out of a sense of fairness. Either way, the question "are the children better off" is the pertinent one, no? "Wonderfull(sic) mother" sarcasm noted, and telling.....

Working part time, and even on rare occasions, not at all and personal responsibility are not necessarily mutually exclusive. That would vary on a case by case basis. In the same manner, giving up parenting in favor of wage earning and being a responsible parent are not entirely inclusive. Truth be told, the give & take on the part of both parties is exemplification of personal responsibility. Self sacrifice, rather than taking it out on the kids is often the norm, and as it should be, if you ask me.

All told, I don't waiver on my definition of personal responsibility despite your attempts to skew my postings. You seem to forget that cs is not paid by ncp's alone.
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  >