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: 154
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in CanadaPage 4 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

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.


...please stop it.....your weak rhetoric is becoming cyclically redundant.......he met his responsibilities to his kids - well beyond what most will ever pay. Not sure why you can't understand this. He did indeed take action, which you simply don't agree with. Leave it at that...you are loosing credibility fast......Tealwood also owned you on the personal responsibility comment.........I rest my case.
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 155
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/13/2011 12:25:00 PM
Tealwood, did you even READ what I wrote?


But I also have read the census numbers in respect to custodial parents...custodial fathers to custodial mothers....and the numbers relating to cs...75% of custodial mothers with a cs order...to the 25% of custodial fathers with a cs order...and the numbers indicating that nc mothers default at double the rate of nc fathers....


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.


Okay..I agre with you...a ncp who never see's their child....does not need to pay for an extra bedroom....but the majority of ncp...do see their children...and the standard every other weekend requires that extra bedroom is required?

Yes or No?

So if you in fact say yes...then housing costs need to be taken off your formula? Unless your suggestion is that cusodials need extra...but instead you are suggesting in your post a 75/25 split....with the ncp being responsible for 25%....yet you do not address the additional costs burden that the ncp is having to pay...your 25%...plus the whole additional cost in his/her own home..or second residence for the child...


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 this premise as well...however what happens when a childs parents have different earning capabilities? The one earns $75,000 per year and the other parent earns $40,000 per year? The child or children grew up in a family setting where the dual income provided a standard of living...some equalization is sometimes required...but when a second family is introduced...if it is the nc parent...any children in that marriage is treated as second class...the children of the first marriage comes first...the income of a spouse of the custodial parent can not be used in family income...as woman have long cried out that the responsibility to the children was not to be downloaded on the second husband....that is until the marriage breaks up...then they change their tune..and "loco parentis" is the phrase they hang their arguement on!

But what about the guy earning $50,000 a year...his ex wife earns $50,000 as well....he has his children every other weekend...and every Wed...or 26% to 33% of the month....based on legislation he is required to pay...based on 1 child...$425 per month;;;
or $5,100 yr

So his gross is $44,900 after CS
Her gross is $55,100 after receiving CS

His income tax is calculated on his gross less his personal exemption....her income tax is calculated on her gross less personal exemption plus the equivalent to married deduction...or a double personal exemption.....so he pays more tax on a lower amount....or her tax bill is smaller despite the higher gross income....

Yet his/her 2 bedrooms cost the same? And the number of times I hear custodial parents suggesting that without a bedroom for the child...they argue the child should not be able to enjoy overnights....you go at it both ways...you want more in payments and without the same disposable income they are able to afford less?

Income tax....the equivalent to married deduction is only available to the custodial parent....the CCTB is only available to the custodial parent....


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?


I have no problem acknowledging that. I earned more money at the time of separation. At the time of marriage....she was earning more than I was....and for a few years after...and she left or quit her job...$65,000 per year because she felt it was too stressful and since i had surpassed her income she felt she could stay home...play with the horses...or take part time jobs working with animals contributing a few hundred dollars a month...she felt she had a right to not work and it was my job as a male to be financially responsible...to this day...she does not pay costs for the two girls..because she feels that is the role//responsiblity of the father or real man to pay.

And yet...with me having the children over 60% of the time...she was after spousal support...and wanted to impute my income to the previous year..as I earned more that year...but after losing my number one account to bankruptcy...my sales and commissions were down...

Just like that doctors wife...she wanted to impute to the highest income year so she could realize the greatest benefit in spousal and cs payments...


You seem to forget that cs is not paid by ncp's alone.


In Canada....custodial parents do not pay anything.....nor is their income ever taken into consideration...a custodial parent like myself...could go to court and have a cs order put in place even if I earned double of what my ex claims...I say claims..as i know they are working under the table for cash...for 50% of their jobs....friends or confidants are great to have...especially when they hear the truth or see the truth of who is the one paying the bills...over the years....


You seem to forget that cs is not paid by ncp's alone.


So in the US...cs or calculations are based on both the income of the custodial parent...and the non custodial parent? And some sort of offsetting payment is made? That actually seems somewhat reasonable? That would of course be based on both parties being required to work? I would suggest fair is fair?



All told, I don't waiver on my definition of personal responsibility despite your attempts to skew my postings.


Okay...I am having some fun in respect to your defining of personal responsibility!!

I just fail to see or understand how one is upholding personal responsibility....when they are working part time....and expect or demand the other parent is working full time....i just define that as irrational or talking with forked tongue...
 barefootkitten
Joined: 12/17/2009
Msg: 156
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/13/2011 1:46:42 PM

But I also have read the census numbers in respect to custodial parents...custodial fathers to custodial mothers....and the numbers relating to cs...75% of custodial mothers with a cs order...to the 25% of custodial fathers with a cs order...and the numbers indicating that nc mothers default at double the rate of nc fathers....


What does this have to do with anything? Any custodial parent, REGARDLESS OF GENDER, has a right to get a CS order. Just because women do so at a higher rate than do men means nothing. And just because an order exists doesn't mean one actually RECEIVES child support. I have a CS order for all of $100/month and have NEVER received any child support in 10 years. The government, at this point has even given up on trying to collect from him.

You talk as if the numbers of nc mothers who default is anywhere NEAR the number of nc fathers who default. If women gain primary custody at far greater rates than do men (and I do disagree that women should automatically get it), than the sheer NUMBER of men who default on cs far outnumbers the number of women who do, despite what the RATES state. Men who gain primary custody usually do so because the mother of the children is unfit, whereas many women do, not necessarily because the father was unfit, but because it's the custom.


Okay..I agre with you...a ncp who never see's their child....does not need to pay for an extra bedroom....but the majority of ncp...do see their children...and the standard every other weekend requires that extra bedroom is required?

Yes or No?
Personally, I think if the child only spends two or three days a month in the ncp's home, why would they need a bedroom to themselves? If the cp doesn't want the child to have to sleep on the couch while the kid is there, then how hard is it for the ncp to sleep on the couch and allow the kid to have the bedroom for the couple days a month they are there?


I agree with this premise as well...however what happens when a childs parents have different earning capabilities?
What about it? People need to live within their means. The actual cost directly attributed to the child's care does not change just because someone earns more. If someone earns 100K a year and CHOOSES to spend more on their child, that's their prerogative, but fact is, the actual costs NEEDED by the child are the same whether one earns a million a year or if someone earns 20K. Why should the parent who earns more subsidize the other parent's income so the other parent can live above their own means? So long as the CHILD'S costs are split between the parents is what the issue is.

Furthermore, you seem to ignore that TIME is a factor that needs to be taken into consideration here. Money is not the only way one supports their child. Time is also a valuable commodity that should be considered in the amount of cs paid. If one parent is investing more time int he child than the other, then why should they also bear the brunt of the financial burden as well?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 157
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/14/2011 8:53:53 PM
silverhawk, sorry, but you have ceased to be even be worthy of argument. Avoidance of cs is not evidence of having met one's repsonsibilkity to ehir kids, no matter how you twist it.

Tealwood, truth is I do believe that in real life, you do the right thing, but I have to admit, your constant spouting of stats as if they are indicative of the whole picture is a bit tiresome. You want to look at the whole picture?:

Using your numbers and other recent statistics from the US Census Bureau: for every 100 persons who have custody of their children, 85 of them are women, 15 of them are men. 57 of those 85 women are supposed to receive cs, 37 actually receive any; 5 of those men are supposed to receive cs, 2 of them do. So, the children of three men out of every 100 are ripped off, while 47 of 100 every women. Please explain to me how the children of 3 out of every 100 men are more significant than the children of 43 out of every 100 women?> C'mon, children have two parents. You can not possibly compare parenting skills using the statistics you present. You are speaking about the children of THOSE parents, and those parents alone. In general, your stats don't work, and the truth is that stats both never and always work, so long as one knows how to use them to their advantage. Respective to women, cp's who are men are a rather insignificant number, let's face it. That fact, in & of itself, may be indicative of unfairness in the system, lack of regard for their offspring on the part of men, selfishness on the part of the species in general, or the vindictiveness & power of women, but that isn't the point here, and it is not what you trying to prove. Please, though, cease to argue as if percentages, when applied to the practically minuscule number of men with custody proves that men make better parents. The percentages, as you choose to apply them, are not even meaningful. The average cs award is $280/month; insignificant in nearly any case, if you ask me.


..as woman have long cried out that the responsibility to the children was not to be downloaded on the second husband....that is until the marriage breaks up...then they change their tune..and "loco parentis" is the phrase they hang their arguement on!


Is that it is only women who have cried out, or the fact that is mainly women who are cp's? Do you really think that men don't complain that they can't "go on with their lives" because they have to support their kids? You use statistics to argue that male cp's are superior, with total disregard for the fact that it is those same men who seem to be able to afford to have more children with a new women, whilst complaining about having to support those they bore with a woman they are no longer interested in. You can't have it both ways. I am quite sure that if the number of men with custody were equal to the number of women with custody, they cries would be nearly equal. Certainly there are differences between the genders, but they aren't as different as you are suggesting here. The only reason we hear this complaint from women more often than from men is that it is more often women who have custody, an I believe that you are smart enough to recognize this. It is not a gender cry; rather, a parental one.


she was earning more than I was....and for a few years after...and she left or quit her job...$65,000 per year because she felt it was too stressful and since i had surpassed her income she felt she could stay home...play with the horses...or take part time jobs working with animals contributing a few hundred dollars a month...she felt she had a right to not work and it was my job as a male to be financially responsible...to this day...she does not pay costs for the two girls..because she feels that is the role//responsiblity of the father or real man to pay.

And yet...with me having the children over 60% of the time...she was after spousal support...and wanted to impute my income to the previous year..as I earned more that year...but after losing my number one account to bankruptcy...my sales and commissions were down...

Just like that doctors wife...she wanted to impute to the highest income year so she could realize the greatest benefit in spousal and cs payments..


Your personal anecdote is not much different than my own, or that of the majority of cp's but it is beside the point. In any case, my experience is that income is imputed, when it is imputed at all, based on evidence that is gathered form several years of tax returns, not simply the highest year. As you said "she wanted to...", but was she successful? Do you refuse to believe that there are those who, as ncp's "want to" prove income as equal to that of their lowest wage earning years? or "lose" a job, choose to work less hours, conveniently, during the time of court proceedings, ie, "voluntarily" lower their income, as did your own ex? Do you have personal knowledge/evidence that that is what happened in this case? Do you know for a fact that it wasn't "the good doctor" who didn't play this game? I believe that they both played the game, as is often the case. In the same manner, it is often beside the point. Let's not lose the point here.


In Canada....custodial parents do not pay anything.


Really?! In Canada, a cp does not contribute a penny for food for their kids? the roof over their heads? Clothes on their back? Extracurricular activities? Nothing? Hell, we'd all move to Canada, have kids, then not have any financial responsibility for them at all! C'mon, you know that what I meant was that a cp has child related expenses too. More often than not, in excess of the percentages allotted by statute for the care of a child. Just because you are laying out the cash at the grocery store, rather than writing a check to a cp, having wages deducted from your paycheck, etc., that doesn't mean that you aren't paying to support your children. More often than not, it is the cp who pays the majority of "little extras"; the fast food bought in between taxiing the kids from school to activities, the extra pair of shoes because the little one left theirs at a friend's house, etc.


So in the US...cs or calculations are based on both the income of the custodial parent...and the non custodial parent? And some sort of offsetting payment is made? That actually seems somewhat reasonable? That would of course be based on both parties being required to work? I would suggest fair is fair?


In the US, the calculation is based on studies that calculate the percentage of income that is spent exclusively on children. Additions/deductions are made in cases where income is sufficiently high or low so as to account for standard of living consistency for the children. Of course, there will be exceptions but I do think this fair, in general. It has nothing to do with who earns the income, as it assumes only that a percentage of income is exclusively related to expenses directly related to children. Certainly, in cases where only one parent worked, it would seem that that the percentage would be higher for the parent who earned the income, but it isn't, at least not in NY. How is that unfair to that parent? If anything, it forces the cp who didn't work to do so, no? Does that make you happy? It does, of course, help to explain why the majority of those living below the poverty level are cp's, gender aside. That would only provide for an argument in favor of higher amounts, though, wouldn't it? I am not arguing in favor of higher amounts, and I am not even arguing that it is always fair, to either party. In general, though, unless parents can come to an agreement, it does seem fair to me. Discrepancies only ensue due to the inability of "responsible adults" to acknowledge that they will have to sacrifice in order to provide for their children what they have been willing to provide since their birth. I see this as a gender divide due only to the fact that it is most often women who collect the funds. I have long held that an accounting for the spending of such funds seems reasonable, and I have no problem at all with that. geez, I might end up with more cs that way!


Okay...I am having some fun in respect to your defining of personal responsibility!!

I just fail to see or understand how one is upholding personal responsibility....when they are working part time....and expect or demand the other parent is working full time....i just define that as irrational or talking with forked tongue...


I fail to see how raising one's children by actually being there to raise them is denying personal responsibility, if that is what has been agreed upon by both parents prior to a breakup, and especially if you are the only parent spending time raising them at all, yet I have not suggested this modification to cs calculations at all . If my ex & I made a choice as to who would forfeit their career opportunity, why should one party have to make that change? If I were to return to work, and incur childcare expense (astronomical here in NY, in case you didn't know) how is that more fair? To whom is it fair? Certainly not to the children, and who, if anyone, is to make up the difference for the years of lack of work experience? The lack of retirement funds?, etc.,,,, In any case, as a personal matter, I not only went to work, my youngest exchanged time with a parent (the only parent in her life), sleep, as she now had to arise two hours earlier every morning in order to get to daycare on time for me to get to work on time, and many other things that my older children had the benefit of so that we could all eat, all at my financial expense. Not one dime was contributed toward childcare by my ex, and not one minute of time, either. Is that what you call fair? Fair to whom? More responsible? Really? How does one set priorities? The difference is the change, the advantage. No change to the parent who worked full time all along. And the sacrifice of disposable income? Why would you feel that it should be borne by anyone other than the adults involved? Kids don't have disposable income.

Bottom line is that I am trying to look at the whole picture, outside of my personal situation. Nearly everyone's situation deviates from the general, but the system sets guidelines for cs based on generalities. I do believe that the general is what the system is in place to deal with from the get go, as, if we as parents were simply able to do the right thing, and focus on what should be the priority, we wouldn't be before the courts at all. Many aren't, but here, on these forums are those who are so self involved that we can't see past our own misfortune, poor choices, etc., and seem to feel the need to take out our frustrations on those who are doing the right thing by our children, whether that be working long hours so that they can eat, or enforcing responsibility on a parent who declines to take responsibility for their offspring, so hell bent are they on getting back on their ex. No matter what the scenario is, you can bet that there is sacrifice involved, If you are able to make it by working part time while taking advantage of tax breaks and collecting the amount legally determined to be yours to collect toward the support of your children, all the better for your children. There is a vast difference between taking advantage of a system and finding every advantage for your children, and it doesn't negate personal responsibility, it is encompassing of it.
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 158
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/14/2011 9:17:56 PM

There is a vast difference between taking advantage of a system and finding every advantage for your children, and it doesn't negate personal responsibility, it is encompassing of it

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all if you're looking at the long term affect. It's women who think like this (or make excuses to do less) who are the ones becoming empty nester's and wanting to change child support payments into alimony payments.

Again... another way of doing nothing while making others pay for it.

About the statistics used by government in the USA:
http://www.abs-comptech.com/~aewhale/2020_000107_baddads_trans.html
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 159
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/14/2011 9:34:46 PM

I'm sorry, but that makes no sense at all if you're looking at the long term affect. It's women who think like this (or make excuses to do less) who are the ones becoming empty nester's and wanting to change child support payments into alimony payments.


First of all, it's Effect, not Affect. Most importantly, though, the effect of spending time raising your children as opposed to earning the few extra dollars which would take away the tax breaks enabling you to do so, particularly in the absence of contributions by the other parent, is hardly comparable to "extorting" alimony.

Why on earth would you choose to pick that one sentence as the crux of the discussion? Alimony hasn't even entered in to the discussion thus far, and has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand. Your link? I didn't see any data related to the US Census Bureau, which is where I got the majority of my data from, much of it coinciding with the data presented by the poster to whom I addressed my response. My point is that statistics, in & of themselves, are fairly meaningless, as their meaning is defined by the intent of the individual alone. Clearly, you have an agenda. Save it for another day.
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 160
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/14/2011 9:59:01 PM

First of all, it's Effect, not Affect

^^^All you do is bust balls and play stupid. For example"

Your link? I didn't see any data related to the US Census Bureau

Oh yes it did, sweetheart:

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) And what about that census data about so many dads being deadbeats?
Another widespread belief is that most divorced fathers selfishly refuse to pay their child support. True?

DIANE O’CONNELL No, it’s not true at all.

1ST WOMAN Hi. I’m from the US Census Bureau.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) The census gave us this tape to illustrate how they get their information. Every couple of years the census sends workers out to people’s homes to ask, is child support being paid?
They found that half the time it isn’t.

DIANE O’CONNELL Yeah, but who are they asking? They’re asking the mothers. They’re not asking the fathers. You’re getting one side of the story.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Amazingly, the government bases all its data on child support on questions asked of just one of the parents.
They’re asking the parent who has custody.

DIANE O’CONNELL Exactly.

JOHN STOSSEL And 90 percent of the time that’s the mother.

DIANE O’CONNELL That’s the mother.

SANFORD BRAVER Everything we knew about non-custodial fathers, it turns out we knew from custodial mothers.

JOHN STOSSEL (VO) Dan Weinberg heads the census division that collects the data.
So the census worker says, how much in child support payments were you supposed to receive this year? And the woman remembers.

DAN WEINBERG Yes.

JOHN STOSSEL How much did you actually receive? I just have a hard time believing that these people, many of whom are angry, are going to give honest answers.

DAN WEINBERG Actually—well, the anger may help them remember what they’re supposed to receive.

JOHN STOSSEL Why not go to the man and ask, is it true?

DAN WEINBERG We would be violating the confidentiality of the custodial mother.


Clearly, you have an agenda

Yes... of course I do. That's why I'm the one with the long winded posts and read links through my vagina.

Alimony hasn't even entered in to the discussion thus far, and has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand

^^^ And all of your long-winded posts are on topic?
*sigh*
 Silverhawk_tkn
Joined: 12/3/2010
Msg: 161
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/15/2011 7:50:56 PM

silverhawk, sorry, but you have ceased to be even be worthy of argument. Avoidance of cs is not evidence of having met one's repsonsibilkity to ehir kids, no matter how you twist it.


LOL!! You're like a little toddler that trys to put the square peg in the round hole.......you finally figure out the round peg fits in the round hole, yet you keep insisting the square peg can somehow be pushed, pulled, dragged, pounded into that round hole.......

Guess what? He payed tons of CS.

You also know what? That square peg? It fits into the SQUARE hole....If you want, Ohwhynot, I'll even show you how to put that square peg in the square hole for ya........ok?

....and, you're right.....I'm not really worth your time....let someone else respond to your weak drivel....although I'll still find it somewhat entertaining on an entirely childish level......
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 162
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/15/2011 8:15:45 PM

Time is also a valuable commodity that should be considered in the amount of cs paid. If one parent is investing more time int he child than the other, then why should they also bear the brunt of the financial burden as well?



The golden truth.....which is also why so many woman are so opposed to shared 50/50 joint custody....because shared time entails losing the amount they receive...

I invest more time in my children....I have driven them both to all their extra curricular activities...because I want to be there and spend the time with them...to give back and enable them to enjoy the activities like my mother did for me selflessly....and I did it on my dime without expectation of reimbursement from the ex....but it seems you advocate $$$ reward for doing for your children....something i accuse many custodial parents of doing...

LOL...but stay the course and support part time mothers who earn less and have little extra to fully support themselves and their children...and slight those who work full time..earn good money so they can have the resources to support their children...


Personally, I think if the child only spends two or three days a month in the ncp's home, why would they need a bedroom to themselves?


I feel it important for the relationship with the parent that the child or children have their own space or bedroom so they have a better sense of family...but so like many custodial parents...who need to marginalize or minimize the relationship between the child and the ncp.....One wonders...what are you afraid of? or is just the need to punish?
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 163
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/15/2011 8:23:44 PM

That's why I'm the one with the long winded posts and read links through my vagina.


As far as I know, John Stossel is a media representative, rather than a member of the census bureau. Try this: www.census.gov
btw, data is collected by those who elect to respond, not solely women who don't receive their court ordered payments. Since a fairly high percentage of cs is collected via the support collection unit, though, participation of respondents isn't entirely necessary. Lest we forget, we are talking about an agency with a collection rate of less than 30%. That is a fact, not subject to response at all, and would likely result in termination of employment, were it applicable to a private company rather than a government agency. Also off topic, but pertinent to your post all the same.

Perhaps the fact that you read anything at all "through your vagina" or even the fact that you mention having one explains your confusion, as I have found far better uses for my own. Thanks, though; I had a hectic day, you made me smile.
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 164
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/15/2011 9:11:42 PM

As far as I know, John Stossel is a media representative, rather than a member of the census bureau

^^^And he interviewed those directly employed (and in a position of authority) by the census bureau. On the contrary, you, as always, provide such profound revelations like this:

data is collected by those who elect to respond, not solely women who don't receive their court ordered payments

^^^That was not the issue. In his report he simply made the point that it is was a few hundred women (out of several million) who were interviwed; no men (out of severalmillion)were interviewed. The report also focussed on the fact that it was word of mouth with no facyual evidence provided to substantiate their claim.

Perhaps the fact that you read anything at all "through your vagina" or even the fact that you mention having one explains your confusion, as I have found far better uses for my own. Thanks, though; I had a hectic day, you made me smile

You're welcome!
Think of me every time you use it.


Ya see, I have this uncanny knack to make people laugh (in real life)... even those who despise me.
 barefootkitten
Joined: 12/17/2009
Msg: 165
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/15/2011 11:47:19 PM

The golden truth.....which is also why so many woman are so opposed to shared 50/50 joint custody....because shared time entails losing the amount they receive...
And where are your statistics to prove that many women are against shared custody? I have NEVER met a woman who WANTED to raise a child on her own. Just about every single mother I have met actually WANTS the child(ren)'s father to be more involved than they are (at least up to 1/2 the time with the kids anyway). Perhaps there are SOME women who want to minimize the amount of time their ex spends with their children out of immature spite, however, I'm sure there are just as many MEN who try to do this as well.


LOL...but stay the course and support part time mothers who earn less and have little extra to fully support themselves and their children...and slight those who work full time..earn good money so they can have the resources to support their children...
Again, you are choosing to ignore my statements that I do believe BOTH PARENTS are financially responsible for THEMSELVES. The care for the children is a different matter -- one that should be split equally between BOTH people that brought them into this world. Ideally, upon the breakup of the relationship, both parents would be contributing IN EQUAL AMOUNTS to the care/raising of the children. This means financially as well as time spent upon care of the children. If one parent is spending more time raising the children, then the other should be contributing more financially, otherwise the burden of raising the children is disproportionately placed on one parent over the other.

In no way, shape, nor form do I think that a custodial parent should be staying home full-time with the children while the other pays their living expenses. Upon the dissolution of the relationship, agreements one had within that relationship are no longer valid and new options may have to be explored. If this means the child goes into daycare so the cp can work to support not only themselves, but their children, then so be it.

I love how you talk as if I support taking advantage of the other parent. For your information, when my ex and I broke up 10 years ago (our daughter was a few months old), he chose to drop out of her life altogether. I did everything I could for years to encourage a relationship between them, yet this is a man who has never sent our daughter a single gift (not birthdays, christmas, nothing) in her entire life. He has never paid child support despite an order. I have raised my child 24/7 since we broke up and contributed 100% of her financial costs BY WORKING FULLTIME. So while we BOTH chose to bring her into this world, I am the only one doing anything to raise her. How you seem to think I support "slighting" those who work full-time while supporting those who don't is beyond me because I have NEVER said anything of the sort. I believe BOTH parents have a responsibility to live up to their decisions IN EQUAL AMOUNTS. If time spent is the same, then money contributed to the children EQUALS OUT.


I feel it important for the relationship with the parent that the child or children have their own space or bedroom so they have a better sense of family...but so like many custodial parents...who need to marginalize or minimize the relationship between the child and the ncp.....One wonders...what are you afraid of? or is just the need to punish?
Well that's your right to your opinion. I disagree. Perhaps it's my frugal nature, but personally, I see it as a waste of money to have to pay for a bedroom in one's home that only gets slept in once or twice a month. If the ncp wants more time with their child, then they have the right to seek that IN COURT.

I'm not minimalizing the relationship between ncp and child at all. If the ncp doesn't care enough to seek more time with their child than a couple times a month, then that's their prerogative, but it certainly doesn't relieve them of their obligations to support their child. If they aren't supporting their child through time dedicated to raising the child, then they need to do so financially.

What am I afraid of? What's that supposed to mean? I'm not afraid of anything regarding visitation seeings how my child's father has CHOSEN to not see her in over 10 years. It's not an issue I deal with EVER. If he CHOSE to enter her life, I don't see myself as having a right to stop him. However, I will look out for what's best for my daughter. I told him years ago (when I still knew where he lived) that if he wants to be involved, he can. However, I won't allow him to come and go in and out of her life as it's too disruptive for her. Be there, or don't be there, but kids aren't something one only has when it's at their convenience. Would I expect him to have a bedroom for her to stay in if he was only seeing her for one or two days a month? No way. If he WANTED to pay for her to have a room sit empty 95% of the time, that's his prerogative, but certainly not something I expect. Perhaps you see having a bedroom as "having a sense of family", however I do not. Family isn't determined by the number of rooms in your house, it's the people that reside there.

When I was in school when my daughter was younger I couldn't afford a 2 bedroom home, so my daughter and I shared a room for years. I NEVER saw the lack of a space of our own as diminishing us as a family. In fact, I believe it made us CLOSER as a family because we had to SHARE a space rather than segregating ourselves to separate areas of the house.
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 166
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/16/2011 5:37:14 AM

WTF is wrong with most of you guys?
Seriously? If anyone of you dillholes spent as much time fighting for custody of your kids when they were young and a "burden" (yep I said it) and alot of"work" during the seperation/divorce of your marriage, why didn't you take the kids with you? Why did most of you leave them behind? It seems very hipicritical of some to suggest that they could do a better job...only after their income is affected dosen't it? Only a hypocite would actually complain about circumstances after they have had the benefit of hindsight...and want all the rewards with none of the sacrifices that come with the origional decision?
Do you want to know what I THINK IS FU?
I think it is FU that my EX pays support for two kids that aren't his bio kids..yet he made his own bed..I dealt.
I think it is FU that my Ex still pays for two kids 6 years later he never sees, yet took me to court to reduce the pittance of child support I haven't seen for years.(he must have spidey senses)
I think it is FU that men have the audacity to complain about paying child support and expect a running tally for their monthly contribution.
I think it is FU that men would rather complain about their kids being abused and continue paying child support instead of actually DOING SOMETHING TO PROTECT THEIR KIDS....again why did they leave the babies behind when they left?
I think it is FU that the men here who think that the Mother's of their children are trash and disposable as soon as they apply a little terror into the pre-teen kids.
I think it is FU that there are way too many men who forgot they are only as successful and were lucky enough to have children because of the sacrifices the women they choose to be mother's of their children made.
I think it is FU that too many kids from divorced families actually are forced to pick a parent. (dosen't mean a favourite..kids will choose survival)

I think it's fvcked up that you are blasting men for being a part of their children's life yet, you complain about the father being out of your kids life.
 happybunny8
Joined: 4/16/2010
Msg: 167
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/16/2011 11:39:28 AM
I think it's pretty FU that the same people keep going on and on and on in these types of posts.

Just saying.

I have a question.

Let's say dad makes 75,000 + a year and lives in a great neighbourhood with a pool etc.
Mom makes less than 35000 a year and lives in a townhome.

Kids are all under 18. Parents have 50/50 custody. Should the CS be split or should it be given to the mom so that she can allow the kids to live the same lifestyle as with dad?

If the parenting style and discipline is the same and both parents make an effort with their children - alot of kids will prefer to stay with Dad simply based on the toys he has.

I'm curious.
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 168
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 3/16/2011 1:00:08 PM

Let's say dad makes 75,000 + a year and lives in a great neighbourhood with a pool etc.
Mom makes less than 35000 a year and lives in a townhome.

^^^ In reality, and speaking in terms of the vast majority, I think what you describe is not common. But, in any case, I can speak of a situation where a long time friend is a medical professional and his wife was a part time employee earning about 10% of his income:
The wife kept the house and he paid a large amount in child support and in alimony. He lived in a less expensive house. This is what usually happens. The kids are not uprooted from the home and the mother who is normally the "caregiver" in the house is the one who kept the house - the husband paid for her and the kids to remain in the house........ I think that is closer to what reality is. I think that is also something most people would consider "appropriate".

The OP's case seems to be more of the abnormal. Meaning, not too many parnets flee the continent (not country) to avoid payments. Let's hope you aren't jumping on the bandwagon and suggesting all fathers behave that way.

Should the CS be split or should it be given to the mom so that she can allow the kids to live the same lifestyle as with dad?

For the most part, child support is based on earnings. I can't see where the mother would be ordered to contribute to the father's home.
 Wealistic
Joined: 5/19/2009
Msg: 169
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 4/22/2011 8:14:09 PM
After reading 7 pages worth of threads it seems the one thing being missed - what the kids feel and think. Do the kids really care if Mom buys him / her a new shirt?, no. Do the kids care if Dad buys the new shirt? , no. They just want their world to be back together, with Mom and Dad, even if it is broken but working.

This year marks the first year that divorce rates surpass marriage rates (IPsos Reid) Its all about the money. Research in Australia has proven that the current system is not a lot short of a taxing system. Taxing on parents, families and court systems. But in more areas than most think. Its also no secret divorce is a multi billion dollar industry. ... Industry. Australia, with this information is making moves to alleviate all the conflicts in one fail swoop by not allowing divorcing parents the choice, but no unlike when two young kids are fighting over a chocolate bar - a parent grabs the darn thing, splits it in two and sends each in their corner. Both parents are sharing the cost of raising their kids in complete, (in every sense of the word) shared environments. (Unless there is proven abuse, etc) The court assigns shared custody, and enforces it through mediation.

The principal is simple, remove money out of the equation as much as possible, focus on raising well adjusted kids on a broken but fair family model. No mother can deny access, no father can be deadbeat, no games are played where one party can use the kids as a tool for revenge. If any issues arise a mediator is assigned to resolve in a timely manner with costs being split between each parent equally. It sounds simple, but it works. This model is quickly catching on throughout parts of the world as a method of eliminating problems that have plagued the system since the early 1970's. Lets hope it catches on here. And soon.
 Wealistic
Joined: 5/19/2009
Msg: 170
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 4/22/2011 8:26:16 PM
(Information is as follows): http://www.international-divorce.com/australia_child_custody.htm

On July 1, 2006, Australia's Family Law Amendment (Shared Parental Responsibility) Act 2006 came into force. It dramatically changes Australia's child custody law:

* It places an increased focus on the rights of children to have a meaningful relationship with both their parents and to be protected from harm.
* The law also encourages parents to equally share responsibility for their children, after separation.
* Most critically, the law sets forth a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for each of the childs parents to have equal shared parental responsibility.
* In Goode & Goode,[2006] FamCA 1346, the Family Court of Australia summarized some of the critical changes as follows:

In summary, the amendments to Part VII have the following effectS:

1. Unless the Court makes an order changing the statutory conferral of joint parental responsibility, s 61C(1) provides that until a child turns 18, each of the childs parents has parental responsibility for the child. Parental responsibility means all the duties, powers, and authority which by law parents have in relation to children and parental responsibility is not displaced except by order of the Court or the provisions of a parenting plan made between the parties.

2. The making of a parenting order triggers the application of a presumption that it is in the best interests of the child for each of the childs parents to have equal shared parental responsibility. That presumption must be applied unless there are reasonable grounds to believe that a parent or a person who lives with a parent has engaged in abuse of the child or family violence (s 61DA(1) and s 61DA(2)).

3. If it is appropriate to apply the presumption, it is to be applied in relation to both final and interim orders unless, in the case of the making of an interim order, the Court considers it would not be appropriate in the circumstances to apply it (s61DA(1) and s 61DA(3)).

4. The presumption may be rebutted where the Court is satisfied that the application of a presumption of equal shared parental responsibility would conflict with the best interests of the child (s 61DA(4)).

5. When the presumption is applied, the first thing the Court must do is to consider making an order if it is consistent with the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable for the child to spend equal time with each of the parents. If equal time is not in the interests of the child or reasonably practicable the Court must go on to consider making an order if it is consistent with the best interests of the child and reasonably practicable for the child to spend substantial and significant time with each of the parents (s 65DAA(1) and (2)).

6. The Act provides guidance as to the meaning of substantial and significant time (ss 65DAA(3) and (4)) and as to the meaning of reasonable practicability (s 65DAA(5)).

7. The concept of substantial and significant time is defined in s 65DAA to mean:

(a) the time the child spends with the parent includes both:

(i) days that fall on weekends and holidays; and

(ii) days that do not fall on weekends and holidays; and

(b) the time the child spends with the parent allows the parent to be involved in:

(i) the childs daily routine; and

(ii) occasions and events that are of particular significance to the child; and

(c) the time the child spends with the parent allows the child to be involved in occasions and events that are of special significance to the parent.

8. Where neither concept of equal time nor substantial and significant time delivers an outcome that promotes the childs best interests, then the issue is at large and to be determined in accordance with the childs best interests.

9. The childs best interests are ascertained by a consideration of the objects and principles in s 60B and the primary and additional considerations in s 60CC.

10. When the presumption of equal shared parental responsibility is not applied, the Court is at large to consider what arrangements will best promote the childs best interests, including, if the Court considers it appropriate, an order that the child spend equal or substantial and significant time with each of the parents. These considerations would particularly be so if one or other of the parties was seeking an order for equal or substantial and significant time but, as the best interests of the child are the paramount consideration, the Court may consider making such orders whenever it would be in the best interests of the child to do so after affording procedural fairness to the parties.

11. The childs best interests remain the overriding consideration.
 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 171
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 4/23/2011 5:31:06 PM

Let's say dad makes 75,000 + a year and lives in a great neighbourhood with a pool etc.
Mom makes less than 35000 a year and lives in a townhome.

Kids are all under 18. Parents have 50/50 custody. Should the CS be split or should it be given to the mom so that she can allow the kids to live the same lifestyle as with dad?


I can speak to that....

I make lots more than my ex and have the kids half of the time. I pay her, she chooses not to work or works part-time at best. Currently, she's on holiday in California for a couple of months, so I have kids full-time for the until the end of June. I pay $hundreds in CS a month. I live in a "better" neighbourhood, but she has a bigger house.

I keep my mouth shut and pay since she could choose not work at all and I'd be paying a lot more than I do.

My kids would prefer to live with me full-time, but I don't push it. It will likely happen one day, but I have no interest in getting in the way of their relationship with their mother.

 Capitano_Blaugh
Joined: 3/18/2008
Msg: 172
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 4/23/2011 5:33:39 PM

^^^All sounds good to me! Even though I make a third of what my Ex nets...I would be happy sharing expenses and sharing in the parenting...but that is really a perfect world...not the exception these days now is it?


Whatever, izzy darling.

Weren't you the one biatching and complaining that your boys wanted to go live with their dad, which would compromise your financial situation?

You? All about equal living arrangements? What a fvcking laugh.

You just want to be in control of everything and everyone.

 SweetnessInFlorida
Joined: 6/26/2008
Msg: 173
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 4/23/2011 5:49:45 PM
I think if custody is split 50/50, instead of child support just have each parent contribute to things the kid needs,major things just split 50/50, and each one be responsible for having food/clothing/toys and entertainment in each of their homes for when the children are present.

Of course if a crisis hits one of the parents and they dont have the fund to put dinner on their table or get someting the kid needs the other parent should step up, simply because thats their child.
 english lass
Joined: 11/14/2007
Msg: 174
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 4/24/2011 3:57:22 PM
I don't see the point of just putting guys (or gals) in jail for not paying child support

It'd make more sense if they were put to community work with a portion of the pay going to the recipient, than just sitting in a cell

Twice my ex was going to have his license taken away for not paying - the first time I asked that it be given back so that I wasn't having to do all the driving to take the kids to see him and the second time he went to court to say he was too depressed to work (past, present and foreseeable future)... the fact that he's now remarried to a woman who works two jobs and has a son who pays him rent, has nothing to do with his lack of desire to work, of course...
 Tealwood
Joined: 12/16/2008
Msg: 175
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 4/24/2011 5:16:10 PM

Whatever, izzy darling.

Weren't you the one biatching and complaining that your boys wanted to go live with their dad, which would compromise your financial situation?

You? All about equal living arrangements? What a fvcking laugh.

You just want to be in control of everything and everyone.


Now Cappy !!! One could go a little further back...and she would be ranting againts the perils of shared loint custody.... as she used the slightly pro feminist leanings of Elizabeth Kates.....who has written and stood behind many issues againts joint parenting...and seemingly suggesting that men are the problem....but then she is a lawyer...

The Liz Library was her bible of truth supporting her objection to joint parenting....until the potential loss of cs...or was it the suggestion of having to pay had they both gone to live with their father???? Seemingly had her suggesting joint parenting...so was it growth...or simply fear of financial accountability?
 Silverhawk_tkn
Joined: 12/3/2010
Msg: 176
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 4/30/2011 2:31:36 PM

I was in the DR catching some sun for a much needed break.....


....on taxpayers or definitely someone else's dime...........
 rearguard*2
Joined: 2/8/2008
Msg: 177
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 5/1/2011 5:18:46 AM
Whatever the merits of the support payment issue, I can't think of a more effective way of not getting support payments than sending the paying partner to jail. Not only that, eventually the kids grow up and find out about it all, then what do you say to them? "Yeah, your father pissed me off, so I tossed him in jail, he lost his job, was saddled with a criminal record, and was never able to work again at a descent job, but hey, he is an a***hole. I know he never comes to see you and such, but that has nothing to do with me!" I am quite sure the average young adult is way to stupid to figure that one out. At least you hope so.....

People are completely brain dead......no matter what the situation, you are always far better off by keeping the law and the authorities completely out of the family matters. Huge numbers of people get along perfectly fine, including myself, without support payments, lawyers, courts, cops and social workers, and everyone concerned ends up a lot better off in the end. You can always get more money, but you can never recover lost relationships.
 Silverhawk_tkn
Joined: 12/3/2010
Msg: 178
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 5/2/2011 8:02:21 AM

^^^^^^^^....on taxpayers or definitely someone else's dime..........~silverhawk_tkn~

^^Now don't be bitter. Seriously, I can't be that clever..heck I can't even figure out how to highlight posts in this forum after being on this site for 6 years!

We all have a moral compass in which we live our life by..mine just happens to point between heaven and purgatory (sp?) depending on my mood.. and most of the men's moral compass who post here seems to point south in the general direction of their penis...don't hate the player..hate the game...you guys invented it so don't be sour that women are learning to play within the rules you have made.
BTW...men who don't pay or support their kids deserve to sit in jail to contemplate their priorities for a few weeks...nothing like good old fashioned scared straight tactics to motivate! JMPO though. Audios.


Hey Liz, just wanted to clarify a couple of things:

1). I'm never bitter....I just like picking on you. You always have colorful responses and thus make this place entertaining........love you, hun!!

2). I guess my moral compass goes north, cause that is usually where my penis points most of the time......guess I'm just a horn-dog!!

3). The dude in question in this thread actually beat the system. He moved to the Bahamas to avoid paying CS as well as avoid having to go to jail for same.......bravo for him (and I took some good notes as well)...... I actually live about a block away from his ex wife.....lol...........
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  >