So you wanna get flamed, Mojo? Happy to oblige, in the spirit of the Pit.
Well tough fucking shit! The purpose of child support is to SUPPORT THE CHILD. The ex-spouse’s motivation, standard of living, and love life are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT to that consideration. If someone uses those excuses to avoid financial obligations to a child, “deadbeat” is about the kindest thing that can or should be said about that person. Personally, I would prefer “inmate.”
Whoa!!!
Are you implying that if the divorce ‘wasnt his fault’ that he shouldnt have to contribute to the financial well being of his children??
It doesnt matter who ‘destroys the family’ - the kids still need shoes!
If dad doesnt want to wind up paying for a ‘situation he didnt bargain for’ he should have gotten a vasectomy!
Virtually ALL marriages now end in divorce, it makes no difference at all who left whom, who did what to whom, who cheated, whatever. Child support is for CHILDREN. Maybe you are confusing it with alimony, I dont know. But a lying scheming bitch of an ex-wife doesnt excuse you of the child support. **Child ** support - as in forkids!
And I keep hearing about ex-wives and their new boyfriends.
So what? Are they not entitled to remarry?
Let me ask the men out there, would you want to marry a woman with another mans kids if you knew you had to take on the fathers role of financially supporting them?
Does the biological fathers purpose disappear when the mother remarries? Is this what men want???
Maybe we SHOULD do it that way. And if the father remarries, then the mother doesnt have to support the kids either.
What utter bullshit.
I would think, as a parent you would want to re-assert yourself in the childs life as to not be ‘replaced’ by another father - emotionally AND financially.
If I hooked up with a man who had kids by another woman - I would encourage him to see them, and pay his support - be a real father to them. If I hooked up with a man whose kids lived with him - I wouldnt be looking to take over the financial responsibility for them! That is the parents job!
You know, if people would remember that CHILDREN ARE SUPPOSED TO COME FIRST! maybe, just maybe, we wouldnt have all this trouble. People get so petty with their ex’s because one of them has a new SO, or whatever - remember the fucking kids for a minute!
As long as we allow the attitude that **if the ex-spouse was ‘bad’, we can ‘screw them over’ **then we will NEVER fix this problem.
It boils down to the fact that by having sex, you agree to support the possible outcome of that encounter. If you dont want to make the commitment - dont have sex, or get yourself neutered.
Men (or women) who choose to not pay (like my ex), make me sick.
Women (or men) who abuse the system (like dewt’s ex) make me equally sick.
I am sure my ex has his excuses: “she doesnt need it”, “she is a bitch”, whatever… I doubt he thinks of himself as a deadbeat. He probably thinks he is a real victim! Although nobody MADE him move across country and he KNOWS the phone number here) He probably thinks he isnt doing anything wrong.
I bet dewt’s ex thinks the same thing! She probably has some left over resentment or whatever. I bet she doesnt think of how she is hurting the kids, or how unreasonable she is.
The courts need to step in and protect the fucking children - because we as parents arent doing a very good job.
Um, Minty put it better.
Yes, there are dads out there that didn’t choose to be outed of the family life. When my husband got divorced, he was in Germany in the Army, and his wife was here, and already pregnant again with another mans child.
she screwed him since he had no attorney here. She has sole care and custody with him having what she deems as resonable visitation. Child support until the child turns 21, or goes into college.
We had a lawyer tell us that their divorce may not be legal since she was pregnant and he was out of the country. Who knows, who cares. Things are working well since we all get along. If we didn’t get alone who knows what hell he could be living. She’s one of my best friends, but I know that she can be evil and one sided also.
I have had two of my female friends bail on thier kids. It’s sad. I think the reason it seems worse for a mom to bail than a dad is because moms are supposed to be there for the emotional and the nurturing. Yes, rolls are changing, but there is a long way to go with this one.
Like I said, I was there as a child, and I am living all senerios now. Paying and visiting, recieving with daughter and her seeing her father all the time, and grudgingly recieving and no visiting for my son.
I did forget to mention that my sons wonderful father is only a father by default. They gave him ten days to accept or deny paternity, and he never sent anything back so it went through by default. Yep, that’s his boy alright. And the only reason he is paying child support is because they take it from his paycheck. His current wife won’t let him quit his job, otherwise we would still be playing the job jumping game.
Come on you know the one. Jump from one job to another until they catch up with you and then call mom and tell her what an evil bitch she is for making you take financial responsibility for the life you created.
And MoJo, you asked why the outed parent must pay? Well, if you think about it you would have more bills if the child were in your home than you do with 50 bucks a week.
Not you personally, that was a general you.
To me the money is a nice perk and helps with school clothes and school supplies, and special events the kids want to go to. There was a time when the support meant if my kids were eating or not.
I would be happy if my sons father would just see him even if he didn’t pay support. And we did that for a while too until he made the statement that if he paid support he would just be making my van payment. It really upset me. I didn’t go after him or anything after that, but it really hurt that he would think that.
I mean we don’t get along well, but he didn’t have to say that, and in front of our son even. And even if some of that money went towards van upkeep oh, well, it gets his son to doctors appointments, and back and forth to school on rainy crappy days.
(ok I’m going to ramble a bit…sorry)
I have to tell you, this thread has done more for my slef image than all the self esteem threads out there.
I have been feeling really depressed about my situation, but I now see how fucking lucky I am.
I am divorced, have two kids with my ex and pay CS.
Every week.
Yeah it hurts me financially- It keeps me from being able to give them a BR of their own or take them places, but I don’t mind . The fact is that that my ex makes 4x what I do, has wealthy parents who take her and the children skiing, to Hawaii, to the summer house etc. The Inlaws pay most of the education bills and I end up paying for her new Jeep Cherokee. Still no prob for me- they are in fact safer in the new car!
I get along very well with my ex and we work really hard to make the kids’ lives as trouble free as possible- I talk to her and them almost, no…, Every day and I see them at least every other day as well.
The idea of people abandoning their kids is so incomprehensible to me as to make me think that there must be something wrong mentally with them. I just cant imagine not seeing and being an integral part of my childrens’ lives…
Would I give that up so I could drive a Prelude and have a nice pad in Evanston?
NO Fucking Way!!
It fucks w/ my “personal” life but I put them and my resposibility to them as much higher priorities at his point in my life.
If I find someone who can live with that and me, well I’ll be happy.
Disclaimer- I did schedule my work/pay evaluation a month after my CS calc goes into effect but…
Yeah Mike!!! We need more people out there like that. Notice I didn’t say men?
And I agree with Kelli in that women like Dewts ex make me sick.
They have a personal vendetta to make the ex miserable no matter what the cost to the kids.
Do they care that when the kids get to dads that they will have less since her household is getting most of his money? Hell, no! And why, because that just proves the point of what a low life dad is. Get real.
My brother-in-laws ex is like that. she even has him giving her cash so it isn’t going through the clerk of court or child support recovery. So what the means is that the $1400 he gave her over two weeks time didn’t come off his back support that he accrued while he was unemployed. She tells him that she will make sure it does, but there is no way she can. It has to be documented through one system or the other, and not on her word or canceled checks.
I think the amount of child support people are paying is ridiculous. I help raise a kid, she gets pampered a lot, yet she costs nowhere near $300 a month, probably not even when she was in daycare. And there are people getting a lot more than $300 a month as ‘child support’. If you are rich, you will pay a LOT more - why? Do children of rich people require more money spent on them than children born to middle-class parents?
I think child support is beeing seen as a replacement for alimony. It’s better, for the woman at least, because they don’t have to prove the husband was somewhat at fault for the divorce, and if he doesn’t pay it you can make him out to be a bad father.
And precisely what third world nation are you living in, Badtz, where the cost of living is so low that it only costs $3,600 per year to raise a child? Jesus Christ, that’s less than welfare in most states! Halfway decent daycare alone is way more than $300/month!
[Soup Nazi]
No smypathy for you!
[/Soup Nazi]
Jodi, I agree that this girl was fucked up early on in life…My ex used to date her mother, and then began dating her when she was 15 (and he was 30). Mom thought that was just fine, 'cause she didn’t have to keep an eye on her anymore. Sadly, she just grew stranger as she spent more time with him, and her self-esteem was zero to begin with. She was the town whore. I tried to befriend her, but then she started with crap like cutting my picture out of the family photos (after I had bought her new clothes when the house burned down!). Yeah, she’s fucked up, but he didn’t help matters at all…and he still treated my kid like a stranger.
Actually, yes. As a society we tend to feel that a child is entitled to live at a standard commeserate with the wealth of both thier parents. For instance, a set of married parents who both make minimum wage and dress thier children in clothes from the salvation army seems fine; a set of parents making 100K a year doing the same thing seems down right neglectful. For poor parents to not provide dentist visits is a fact of life; for middle class parents to do the same is neglectful.
Now I agree that child support payments are often set too high, but the idea that there is a “flat rate” that a child costs is just silly. Should one exsist, is is remarkably low: if someone’s Ex can afford a studio appartment and he/she and the children all sleep on a matress on the floor together and eat nothing but rice, beans and maccaroni, every single one of the children’s needs are being met. In fact, their are plenty of people that live like this. But I think we can all agree that a better standard of living than raw survival ought to be provided if it is possible. To think otherwise is to suggest that child support payments should cut out when the custodial parent’s income reaches the poverty line.
My point is that there is no “reasonable” standard of living. It is all relative. So the only thing we can do is work with the idea that child support should be some percentage of income, and that the child’s lifestyle should not be signifigantly lower than that of either parent.
Badtz, the reason people with money pay more than those who don’t is because you don’t just “keep the kid alive”, they are entitled to 1/3 of your income (in many states)so that they can live the life they are accustomed to. Why should a wealthy father live so much better than his child? A good man wouldn’t want to be living the good life while the kids are living in low-income housing! You are supposed to want the best for your children!
What friggin planet are you on Batz???
Daycare around here costs $100 per WEEK, per KID!!
I could live in a funky bachelor pad somewhere, instead of a three bedroom home with a yard - if I didnt have kids! So I figure part of the child support can offset the rent.
The electricity, the heating costs - both would be lower without the kids.
I spend a fortune in gas taking them to doctors, school picking up at daycares, etc etc… if I was single, I could manage by bus.
Groceries are a kings ransom of fruit, vegetables, milk, sandwich meat (cant take peanut butter - allergies in the school). If I lived alone, ramen noodles and pepsi for me!!!
Kids need shoes - alot of shoes! Indoor sneakers at least twice a year, outdoor sneakers twice a year, and at least one pair of winter boots. They need new coats and snow pants around here every year too.
Sometimes they need medicine and dental care.
They need stuff for school, money for feild trips and textbooks. Many schools require the kids to have computer access now at home just to keep up!
There are activities I would like to put them into, sports, stuff like that, but it all costs money. Because my ex, in his infinite wisdom, thinks I dont need ‘his’ money, I cant afford to give them all they deserve.
Personally, I usually do without to make sure they have nutritious food, decent clothes, a warm safe home in a decent neighborhood…
It takes EVERY CENT I HAVE to make this family run, so dont you DARE sit there and tell me that you can raise a child on $300 bucks a month!!!
THAT is exactly the attitude that leads people to bail out on their responsibilties.
So, why do some parents become “deadbeats?”
One reason may be because the amount of child support ordered is based solely on the income of the non-custodial parent. How is this fair, or even logical?
Let’s say Mom remarries someone who makes a pretty good wage. Or inherits a windfall. Or even hits the lottery. None of that affects the amount of support that Dad has to pay.
Oh, sure, sure…you can say that her new hubby isn’t legally bound to support the kid, but neither is he allowed to legally neglect him. That’s irrelevant anyway because their joint income still goes toward paying the bills–which, by logical extension, means her financial liabilities are significantly reduced. Why should support remain the same when the amount required for support has been reduced?
Then, there’s no accountability for where the support money goes. In my case, I pay far and away more for my son’s support than for any costs he could be reasonably expected to incur. Where does the rest go? It’s not like he wears designer clothing or has all the latest toys/gadgets. I hear he gets a $5 per week allowance. I spend more than that on one of his meals, and I have him half of the time that he’s not sleeping or in school.
Lastly, it doesn’t matter if my wages increase. Child support automatically does by a certain percentage each year.
Why can’t child support be made more logical in the sense that both parents are responsible? Unless both parents’ household incomes are taken into account, it’s only reasonable to expect that some non-custodial parents will be resentful of paying a large amount of support when the custodial parent has a much higher overall income.
As it’s set up, child support is not support, it’s a fine imposed until the child reaches the age of maturity.
Actually, Rysdad, this varies by jurisdiction. Some take into account the custodial parent’s income; others do not. I think I remember that the former is more common, but I don’t have my Family Law textbook with me at the moment. The American Law Institute is developing a model code (which may or may not be adopted by any state), that has a fairly complicated formula designed to try to assure that the standard of living of the child is not reduced too much, taking into account all available resources.
Rysdad, I agree with you to a point. I don’t think you should end up paying 1/2 your salary if the kids are living in a home with a much higher income (provided the mom and her partner are married), but I also don’t believe that if she marries a millionaire, you should be cut loose of your obligation to support the kids, either. And as far as where the money goes, the kids not wearing designer clothes, etc, electric, rent, phone, water, garbage pick-up, household maintenance, babysitters, daycare, etc., all eat into that $XXX/month you pay. Child support isn’t about good clothes and new toys. It’s a complex mixture of many things. (which someone already said, and I agree)
Good god, who knew there were so many deadbeats or wannabe deadbeats around here?
Because they have vindictive attitudes towards their former spouses, and don’t give a rat’s ass about their children?
It is fair and logical because it is YOUR F***ING CHILD. You create a child and you are financially responsible for that child for the next 18+ years. No takebacks.
Because it doesn’t affect the fact that you fathered that child.
Wrong, wrong, wrong. Short of neglect that rises to the level of child abuse (for which ANY person can be held responsible), a non-parent has no special responsibilities, financial or otherwise, for the care of a child.
Becasue if you create a child, you are obligated to be financially responsible for that child for the next 18+ years. You. Personally. Not somebody else.
As well it should. See MandaJO’s post for a cogent explanation of why we don’t want Donald Trump’s children to wear sackcloth.
THEY ARE. You are simply paying extra for the freedom of being the noncustodial parent.
And the next time you see your son, be sure and tell him what a drag it is having to contribute unnecessary money to his upkeep. I’m sure he’ll understand.
I mostly agree with what minty said, except for this bit:
Few if any noncustodial parents pay “extra.” Many believe they do, but they also believe that $300/mo ought to be enough to support a child. When you count in such things as the cost of providing housing, lost wages incurred by being home with the kids when they are sick, daycare, school supplies, clothing, etc., the financial burdens of child support almost invariably fall more heavily on the custodial parent.
(Someone will inevitably ask me for a cite for this; I must put off responding at least until tonight, since I don’t have my authority with me at work).
The effects on mixed families should also be considered. Fathers don’t want to pay to support their ex’s new stepkids, but would it really be good for their kid to be eating steak while the rest of the family is eating Tuna Helper? Some states take parental responsibility for other children into account when figuring out child support amounts; others do not.
I retract my original statement re: paying “extra” and heartily endorse that of ENugent.
I know its not always possible, but if you can work on getting along with the ex, many times, the financial end of divorce won’t be as crazy. (I talk like I’m an authority or something, and I never collected a dime, and we got along well until the last couple years). Most ex-spouses want things to be amicable. Of course, you’ll always have a handful of nutcases that will make your life a living hell, but it is a small price to pay for the welfare of your kids. At least, I think it is.
RYSDAD:
I admit I don’t know much about family law, but I know this isn’t true at least in my state. Here, the parents both fill out child-support worksheets reflecting income, debits, and projected costs for the child(ren), and each pays half unless there is reason for one or the other to pay a higher percentage.
It may, if for some reason Dad can show that he legitimately cannot make his child support payments. But the wealth of the woman is not in and of itself reason to reduce the support obligation of the man; they are equally responsible for their children and “she can afford it more easily than I can” is not reason to reduce or excuse a man’s responsibility. Her wealth is irrelevant to what he owes to his children.
Surely you can see that the amount required to support the child remains the same. You have merely reduced that “requirement” by demanding that some of the costs be paid by the new couple’s “joint income,” rather than by the non-custodial parent. Again, what the other parent can or cannot afford is largely (but not entirely) irrelevant to what a parent owes to his or her children.
There is some accountability. If you could show that the child support was not being spent on the child, the custodial parent would certainly have to answer for that. But there is not rigid accountability because there can’t be. If you were the custodial parent, would you want to have to report to the non-custodial parent every time you took the child to McDonald’s?
With respect, and not questioning the truth of this statement in your case, most non-custodial parents underestimate the cost of raising children and believe they are paying much more than is necessary, when in fact they are not. Then, when their support obligation is set by a judge (using guidelines that do reflect the realities of how expensive children are), they claim that they’ve been screwed by the system.
Again, this is in your jurisdiction, and surely you can see that if the cost of living goes up every year, then a strong argument can be made that the support must go up every year as well.
Under your system, the person who is rightly resentful is the second husband or wife, who does not believe he or she should have to pay to support a child not their own. This is what you are proposing when you talk about “household income” (ie, not just the parent’s, but the parent’s and spouse’s) and reducing child support obligations in light of it. If your ex-wife’s second husband sets her up in a mansion with fancy cars and furs, that doesn’t make you any less responsible for your kids, or her new husband any more resonsible for them. It must suck to see such an ex living it up while the non-custodial parent toils away to meet his or her obligations, but that doesn’t mean it’s unfair.
Yeah, a lot of people who have to pay support believe this. They continue to believe that requiring them to support their own kids is done not for the kids’ sake but to punish them, as if “child support” is about them, not the children. I frankly don’t have a lot of time for this, and it’s one of the reasons I don’t practice family law.