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
 ohwhynot46
Joined: 6/28/2009
Msg: 159
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in CanadaPage 5 of 8    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8)

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...........
 SweetnessInFlorida
Joined: 6/26/2008
Msg: 179
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 5/2/2011 1:05:58 PM

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!!



Lizzy and i love keeping y'all entertained.
We would appreciate some dollar bills (5 dollars if you are feeling generous) in our garter belts for entertainment
Holla @ your bvtchez
 My I
Joined: 1/23/2007
Msg: 180
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 5/2/2011 8:11:55 PM
What I found disappointing is the fact that women's groups and others in that article are celebrating oveer alimony to the wife as opposed to tackling the entire issue of deadbeats. These people commenting strongly state it's a moral victory for women when, in truth, it's a loss for deadbeat moms and dads. It's also kinda pathetic for the one comment about "Feminization of poverty"

Is there anything remotely sugggesting concerns for child support was even an issue? It seems this is all about alimony.

Feminization of poverty?
Maybe exploiting children for personal gain, if anything.

Both parents are a-holes.
 Silverhawk_tkn
Joined: 12/3/2010
Msg: 181
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 5/4/2011 9:12:20 PM
BTW sweet meant $20 bills ....must have been a typo.


...gotta be a super sexy garter for the 20s to roll out.......I like to get what I pay for!!......lol......:)
 Silverhawk_tkn
Joined: 12/3/2010
Msg: 182
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 5/11/2011 4:16:07 PM

I'll take the 50/50 split costs of child support and costs


You know what, Liz? This is what I do already, and I pay child support OVER TOP of this arrangement..........

I equip my house with all the needs. Clothes, toys, bikes....you name it. I refuse to have my son feel like he is a traveller between his place and mine, so I provide everything just like he was here full time, but I still pay child support.

So yea, give me the 50/50 split costs any day....I'd love it!! And yea, I'll keep my 20s and my hands to myself.......gladly!!
 Silverhawk_tkn
Joined: 12/3/2010
Msg: 183
view profile
History
Jail for Deadbeat dad in Canada
Posted: 5/16/2011 4:03:04 PM

I suspect somehow silverhawk..you do this because you are ordered to by a judge?
Perhaps you don't like the prospect of going to jail?..


I'm mandated by law to do this as its the norm to have the bigger bread winner pay the smaller bread winner when you have 50/50 custody arrangements.

I'm not ordered to equip my house as such. This is totally my decision. I could easily say to my ex that she has to buy him all his clothes, toys, etc. with the money I give her, but again, it will only be my son that suffers when he is at my place without those things and again, I don't want him to feel like a traveller between our respective places........


BTW...when I said yellow thongs...I didn't mean yellow lifejacket


....oh come now.....the lifejacket is sexy.......just think of the well oiled body underneath.......you want me, don't you?.........lol........
Show ALL Forums  > Single Parents  >