Thank you Minty! Paying extra for being free. Yeah, that describes Joshs’ father to a tee. I would let him see Josh reguardless of the money if he would have spent time with him. I am not sure it that is what you were saying, but I would drop Josh off at dads’ house and right after dinner he would take off leaving Josh with his sister.
It four fricken days out of the month that you are seeing your child! Granted his family should be able to see Josh also, but every time he had him he was out and about till all hours and then would sleep all day.’
I know this since he showed up on my door step at four in the morning once high as hell on coke (which I never knew he was doing, started after we split) thinking he just killed a guy. He stole his sisters car to come and tell me this. When I asked where in the hell Josh was he couldn’t remember! What a great guy!
Even if the non-custodial parent wanted the split or not, they still don’t have to go through the day to day trials and tribulations that full time parents do.
My daughters father will take her sick or not, just so that he can be there for her. We take my husbands daughter sick or not. Why, because we care.
In Iowa it doesn’t matter if you remarry and have step-children you are taking care of, or that you are having other children biologically. The only people who count in the way your child support goes up or down is you and your ex. I was actually told once that my kids didn’t count even tho they belonged to my husband. This was after he got a paycheck for an even $0 and the next was -$2.16.
Who cares if we could live or not, as long as our step-daughter got her support.
And I am sure they are like that because of the men and women who don’t want to pay. It sucks for those of us who are honestly trying to make it.
My husbands ex even tried to help us get it lowered since her husband had a good job and we were starting a family together. Hell, I even tried to get my sons sperm donors lowered when his wife had their first child together.
But to him I am still the bitch who turns him in every time he gets a new job. Whatever! I Iowa the employer has to check with child support recovery and comply within 30days, or they get fined. It’s a law you fricken moron. But, if it helps you sleep at night blame it on me.
My husband doesn’t have to be there for my children, and I don’t have to be there for his, but we love all the kids and they are ours. Not his, mine and ours.
Dr. Laura can kiss my ass! She just made mention of this the other day. What is wrong with blended families if it is working? It is people like her and the schools who make this hard.
We have eight kids between two households. Ours and his Ex-wifes. Eight kids with four parents who love and care for them all. I know it is unusual, but it is working if people would just stay out of it. This kids on the other hand do get upset sometimes, cause you never know when a parent is going to pop up and you are going to get busted. 
It’s working, leave us be!
[QUOTE]
***Originally posted by Rysdad *
I agree with most of what you are saying here MG and in most cases would be there with you looking for a rope, but in actual fact, there are takebacks.
If two people have sex and the female gets pregnant then she has another choice as to what to do about it. Now it doesn’t matters whether they agreed to have children, or not. The woman still has that choice. So, if the man gets the jitters after the fact about raising a child he is screwed and gets to pay for the next 18+ years as you say. But, if the women gets the jitters she just takes a trip down to the local clinic and solves the problem.
Please notice that I said that the woman has another choice. I realize that both made a decision to have sex and should accept the consequences. And it is also her body that is in question here so I am not saying that the male should be able to force her to have an abortion. What I suggest is that he also be given that second choice of whether he wants to pay for the support of that child for the next 18+ years.
So, what you end up with is either 1: No child, 2: A child that the mother wishes to raise on her own without the aid of the father, 4: Parents who both wish to have the child.
Number 2 might seem unfair to you, but when you consider that number 3 would have been the father wanting the child and the mother not and having the abortion then you can see that number 2 still leaves her with her original choice.
Another choice could have been adoption. Why didn’t that fit in there?
Abortion is not a form of birth control. And I really don’t want to get into that. I wouldn’t do it, and I hope my kids wouldn’t, but other people are going to do what they want to no matter what laws they do or don’t pass. Yeah, I know, kinda defeatest about it.
Sorry bout that. I do kinda see the point of it with the father having more say in what is going to happen to the rest of his life also, but prior planning like birth control would also be an option.
Yeah, I know that sometimes birth control fails. That is how I got my youngest. Condoms, the mini pill, and nursing, and along she came. Not unwanted, just a suprise three weeks after having my son.
Shit happens, and people need to suck it up and move on. Be responsible.
We have all said that it takes someone pretty shitty to fit the bill of what we are discussing. Not the occational dad fell on hard times and fell behind and is instantly a piece of shit, or mom is vendictive. The rolls can be reversed as we have also stated.
What is crappy is that these absent people who do it out of spite, don’t realise the they are hurting their children either financially or emotionally, and that is the whole point.
And to pik nits, in a way, it does hurt the parent that is there because you have to deal with the tears and the hard to answer questions of why.
My personal experience is that my ex-wife is the deadbeat. She never held a job for more than a month, and she didn’t want to take care of the kids so we got divorced. We got along fine except for the fact that she served no purpose and did next to nothing for our kids. I got custody and I only asked for 300 a month. And when she didn’t pay it I didn’t take her to court or call her and raise hell about it or threaten to have her thrown in jail. I just got my new job and conveniently didn’t inform her of where I moved to since she didn’t visit anyway.
Now I live across the country from her. The kids are happy that they don’t have to deal with her anymore and so am I. I’ll never try to get back at her for not paying and since she is making no effort to find them I can see that the feeling is mutual.
I think that forgetting about the support and getting along with life will make anyone’s life much easier. I am totally free of the stress that goes along with waiting for the check or preparing for the visit. I have to deal with none of that. The money is just not worth all of the trouble.
And BTW, I totally agree with what Uzi said about pregnancy. If the mother has the choice then the father should as well. Why should a father be responsible for havng sex when a woman isn’t necessarily?
Isn’t the saying “it takes two to tango?” Then why is the decision for both made by one?
No, I’d rather tell him that I love him and that I’m proud of him, as I often do. My son isn’t the problem. In fact, he’s my one greatest joy.
You, on the other hand, I’d like to offer the chance to kiss my ass.
Because I was stupid and didn’t think of it at the time. Doh!
That would certainly apply if the father didn’t want the child and if the mother didn’t want to have an abortion, but couldn’t afford to raise the child on her own.
It might sound kinda heartless as to what I have posted, but I think it would be better if two parents want a child than if one does and can then force the other to pay for that decision.
Uzi, I am so glad that you didn’t take that as a personal attack! Thank you.
I was just pointing that out in general that there are other options.
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Jodi *
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.
I wish that were true here.
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.
Why? If her income is irrelevant, then that tends to support my point that excessive child support is punitive.
An aside here…I am not, by any means, saying that I want my child support eliminated. I can, do, and would still support my son very well. More than fairly. Generously, even. But the current guidelines are excessive. Furthermore, child support doesn’t cover medical/dental, day care, school lunches, braces, etc. These are also tacked on, on top of support. (Hell, I was even ordered to pay for half the cost of a karate class that my son didn’t even want to go to.)
My point is…just what is support supposed to cover, if not the things I just mentioned? Food, clothing, rent/mortgage, utilities…the support I pay covers my son’s percentage of all of those things with plenty left over. I supply his entertainment as well as food, clothing, transportation, and myriad other odds and ends while he’s with me as well.
What I mean is, I pay my son’s costs twice.
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.
**And why not? New hubby knew he was marrying someone with a child. Only a soulless bastard would say, “I take you…but not him.”
Again, if her income is irrelevant, then calculating support based solely on my income is punitive.**
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?
A difficult area, I agree. I’ll work on that some more.
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.
I have my son roughly half the time. I know what the costs are. The guidelines, as I see them, do not accurately reflect the costs of raising a child.
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.
Maybe, but only if my wages increased, too. Non-custodial parents would have to cut back on things across the board if the COL went up but their wages didn’t. Why don’t I have that same option?
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.(Insert: See my earlier response about this.) 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.
I think it’s decidedly unfair. It’s inherently unfair. Non-custodial parent lives hand-to-mouth while custodial parent lives in the lap of luxury? As I said before, I’m not irresponsible, nor would I be. I’d just like to see a little equity here.
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.
The first time I heard the words “fatherhood fine” was from the caseworker assigned when child support was originally ordered. I didn’t laugh then, either.
Let me reemphasize the point I’ve made several times: I will always support my son. No debate there. I will do my best to keep him happy, healthy, and secure. All I’m asking for is that everyone take a moment to see my point of view, and that is that ordering child support based strictly on the income of the non-custodial parent is basically unfair. There needs to be a better way.
Dearest Rysdad:
My deepest apologies for anything I said that insinuated you personally wished you were a deadbeat dad. Clearly, you were only defending the motivations of deadbeath dads. That, and arguing that your financial obligations to support your child were just too darned excessive.
To make it up to you, is there somewhere that I can motivate you for sainthood, or a Nobel Prize? :rolleyes:
Sarcastically yours,
Minty
*Originally posted by minty green *
Dearest Rysdad:
My deepest apologies for anything I said that insinuated you personally wished you were a deadbeat dad.
You should’ve stopped here.
Clearly, you were only defending the motivations of deadbeath [sic] dads.
Excessive child support can drive a parent away, meaning that the child would then receive nothing. That was my point.
That, and arguing that your financial obligations to support your child were just too darned excessive.
Yep, they are.
To make it up to you, is there somewhere that I can motivate you for sainthood, or a Nobel Prize? :rolleyes:
Sarcastically yours,
Minty
**Were it not for those ol’ pesky things such as syntax, grammar and logic, you might’ve made a point somewhere.
“…motivate you for sainthood…” Sheer fucking brilliance.
It must get dank under your rock.**
Motivate, nominate. They’re synonyms and homonyms, right? 
You say the child support guidelines, as well as your personal obligations, are excessive. I find that hard to believe, because I’ve seen plenty of state child support guidelines. They all looked pretty damn reasonable to me. Hence, my snap conclusion that you’re whine far too much. But let’s test your hypothesis.
In fact, let’s imagine you are a divorced father of one, in a nice, middle-of-the-road kinda state. Let’s pick, oh, say Minnesota. Why, that’s where you live, you say? What a coincidence. And let’s imagine that your occupation is “Instructor - adult learning, travel business.” Sounds professional to me. Precisely the sort of occupation that might earn a person somewhere between $1000 and $5000 per month in net income. Just to be clear, that income becomes “net” after subtracting all state and federal income taxes, social security, health insurance payments, union dues, and pension deductions.
So let’s plug all those hypothetical numbers into the Minnesota child support guidelines and see what we get. Turns out you’re supposed to pay 25% of that net income in child support.
Dude, if you think 25% of your take-home income is too much to be paying to support your own child, you are one whiny son of a bitch.
I also note that the Minnesota statute provides that:
In other words, the court was already required to consider your ex-spouse’s income and wealth when setting your support payment, despite your assertions to the contrary above.
Hello Minty Green,
I suppose I invited you in this discussion, but it did surprise me an invitation was needed.
I read that response and figured the only ones capable of taking that position in the scenario as described would be someone who haven’t lived it, or a g-damn lawyer. Well, I checked your profile and it was no surprise to me which one you were. Initially I thought this was cool, you may have something to bring to the discussion, then you came up with this bullshit:
You, my friend, are an incredibly fucked up human being for believing this. Fortunately this actually helps my original concept of killing the Deadbeat Dad stereotype. You, and/or your colleagues (I have no idea what area you practice) are a HUGE, if not THE cause of the problem.
Do you honestly think that we would be paying for freedom from our children ? Fuck you. Period.
The legal community has established a system that handles divorces on a bulk rate basis. no-fault, if there’s a divorce, mom gets kids and stuff, dad pays. This makes things easiest on the legal system and allows those involved to gain maximum billable hours with minimum amount of effort. Fuck you! no-fault is bullshit. Divorce in a courtroom is devolving a legal contract, and there should be fault involved. And those at fault shouldn’t reap benefits. (E.I. Reread my above the scenario) Ya know what just came to mind, Attorneys on the losing side should have some form of liability placed on them, you know, something like we lose we support your ex spouse in there new endeavors, I know, that’s stupid, but still we gotta think of something to motivate your asses. As it stands in the divorce battle the score sheet looks something like this:
Lawyer: Big winner-a lot of hours, minimal effort
Judge: Winner-easy docket
Counselors/
Psyche evaluators
Mediators, etc: Winner-They get paid no matter what kind of job they do
Parents combined: Losers-One on them fucked up deciding playing this game was a good idea, and the other suffers.
Mom: Tough call-she generally gets the stuff and the kids, and she stands to clean dad’s clock.
Dad: Loser-no mater who’s fault, he no longer can spend all his time with the kids and he generally gets his clock cleaned.
Children: Biggest Losers-they get to go through a hell that never should have to see.
This system needs to be redone as it stands, because yes it is biased, sexist, discriminatory, and it does generate deadbeat’s just by the absurdity of it, but it will be perpetuated by those that are profiting from it. I could go in to why divorce is so predominant but I believe that’s best left for another thread. Fortunately there’s some of us who rise above it, sure, I’ll pat myself on the back, me included, and through all the bullshit, can take care of the children involved.
Thanks everyone for posting here, There are many points brought up by you that I wanted to respond to, but (thankfully I’m sure) I just can’t type that much !
G’nite all, I’m out.
PS:
A true parent DOE’S NOT need any fucking court order to support their children, in any situation.
Lawyers are evil because they think parents who are delinquent in their child support obligations should be required to pay up, you say? Oooooh, burn! I shall immediately begin to flog myself in penance.
Nevertheless I certainly agree with you on a couple of points:
And most parents willingly make those payments. We’re talking about the ones who don’t. And for those deadbeats, don’t you think that a court order and the threat of jail time might be pretty darned effective?
And the children are my overriding concern.
Do the ex-spouse’s motivations and behavior matter? Absolutely. Those are very relevant considerations when you’re talking about property settlement and child custody provisions. But they simply do not matter when you are talking about the support of the children. They’re already getting screwed over by the mere fact that their parents are divorcing. I see no reason to cheap out on them when it comes to their financial support.
In short: neener, neener, neener! 
Rysdad, correct me if I am wrong, but you basically have joint custody dont you?
If the parents have the kid equal amounts of time, why should either one pay support?
What I mean is if it costs Dad $300 a month in child support for junior, but junior lives with him half the time, shouldnt Mom have to pay the dad $300 a month too?
True joint custody shouldnt require child support, as they would have to really share the expenses. (of course there might be exceptions, but the day to day stuff would be equal.)
I can see the mans point - if he has the kid half of the time, then he has the same expenses the mom has( heat, lights, food, extra bedroom, decent auto, etc etc) but he gets no support.
Rysdad, you have to understand - and I think we have talked about this before: you are an exception to the rule. Most men dont keep up the kind of contact you have, most havent been as completely and royally fucked up the ass as you have either.
Please know that when we lament about ‘deadbeats’ you dont need to rush in to play devils advocate, we dont mean you. We mean men like my ex who callously toss away their children, choosing not to contact them, not to use the visitation they have a right to use. Men who dont contribute financially either. I dont have a rich boyfriend, I dont have rich parents. I live in a rented mobile home, and I work. I dont make big money. My ex is a DEADBEAT. The money he can well afford to pay is supposed to help the children live a better life. And it would make a big difference.
It wasnt a one night stand, he was their father for a long time, before we split up. Somehow, he is able to walk away from the parental bond - how? I dont know.
I know single fathers hate the term deadbeat dad, but what would you call him?
By the way, I would just like to point out one other thing, Rysdad. You complain that the income of an ex-spouse’s new spouse is not taken into consideration when setting child support obligations. That’s true enough, according to the Minnesota staute.
However, you should also recognize that it works both ways. If you remarry, your new spouse’s income will not increase your child support payments in any way, since “net income” doesn’t include “the income of the obligor’s spouse.” So marry into money and rest assured that your ex- will never see any of it.
I have friends who have true joint custody and neither one pays the other because they both have him the same exact amount of time. Grandparents get Saturdays so it’s even.
Now, who knows what will happen next year when the son goes to school since one parent lives in Iowa and the other in Illinois. Even though they don’t really get alone with each other too well, I am sure that they will figure something else out that will work.
It is complicated and shitty anymore. Do you guys know that my son has 10 brothers and sisters? I am the only one recieving support since my son is #2 out of ten, and I am the only one who makes him face up to his responsibility. The other three moms just let him slide and then bitch about it.
Yeah, he’s a pure jackass, but I never tell my son about my feeling towards his dad. He will learn soon enough on his own. I think his accident showed him alot, and it was crappy because that is when Josh really needed to know he cared.
My husband took off work to sleep at the hospital the first night while Josh was in ICU since dad couldn’t possibly leave his family or take time off work.
The jerk once got pissed at me because I didn’t tell him that Josh was having tubes put in his ears. I had no idea where he was! He just up and disappeared leaving not even a phone number, and I was the bad guy for not getting police dogs to track him down. If he really cared he would make some semblence of an effort to try to keep up on what his son is doing.
He has no idea what his favorite color is, his favorite food, his friends, or what he likes to do with his free time.
He also doesn’t feel Josh should be medicated for ADHD, so the three weekends he had him a year ago he threw the meds out. That is a controled narcotic, and the kids who take it go through withdrawl when they go off suddenly. He has know idea what we went through to get to the last resort of meds. Doctors, and blood tests, and psycologists. I did not just jump on the medication band wagon.
But hey, that’s right, I’m the bad guy for keeping the light of his life away from him. By all rights, I could have since he is technically a dangers to his health, but I didn’t, and every time he called I bent over backwards to get Josh to him.
*Originally posted by minty green *
Turns out you’re supposed to pay 25% of that net income in child support.
Dude, if you think 25% of your take-home income is too much to be paying to support your own child, you are one whiny son of a bitch.
And you’re a gnat. But, anyway, 25% is too much considering I have my son very close to half the time (that he awake and not in school), the ex- doesn’t provide him with articles and costs that should be covered by support, and she has incurred significant additional income.
I also note that the Minnesota statute provides that:
Yeah, right. Just try to get a judge in Minnesota to apply it. Any attorney I’ve spoken with had said that it’s simple: "How much do you make? Give up a third (after add-ons)."
In other words, the court was already required to consider your ex-spouse’s income and wealth when setting your support payment, despite your assertions to the contrary above.
**In actuality, in real life dearie, the court does not take into account the ex’s income, wealth, property, etc. Had they done so, the amount I pay would have been something other than the straight guideline amount.
No, toots, regardless of your protestations otherwise, determining support by basing it on a percentage of the non-custodial parent’s income is ludicrous. The parents’ incomes may change, their costs may vary, they may move to an area where costs are different.
Fact is, I could choose to move and go to any of several other states and bring a motion to have my child support reduced, and it would be done out of hand…or so I’ve been told. I do know someone who did this. Of course, I’ll never leave my son, so that’s not an option to me.
Let’s look at a hypothetical here, just for fun. Dad is the sole wage-earner, Mom is the homemaker, one child. Dad takes home $1000 per month. Since you think 25% of that is reasonable for support, let’s just park $250 and use the rest to cover rent, groceries and utilities. Doesn’t leave much. Ah! But wait! You say that part of the $250 is for rent, groceries and utilities for junior. Ok, now I guess we have to start figuring percentages. What percentages do we use? Divide everything by the number of people in the household? The number of bedrooms that they occupy? The actual costs they incur? Does 100% of the $250 get applied toward rent/utils/groceries? What part gets withheld for clothing? Entertainment? Transportation?
What?
I know why the guidelines exist as they do: simplicity. It makes it easy for the court. Ease often conflicts with fairness, though.
Minty, I would guess you probably don’t have any children, so maybe you could propose what I’m about to say to anyone you know who is married, with both people working, and they have kids.
Pick either parent and ask if 25% of their take home pay would be less than adequate, adequate, or more than adequate to support just one of their kids under the following circumstances:
A. The kid has a place to live (two places in fact). Shelter is not a concern. There are no shelter costs.
B. Approximately 50% of the kid’s food costs are completely paid for. 25% are subsidized, and the rest only need to be provided less than 70% of the time.
C. 90% of the kid’s entertainment and transportation needs are covered.
D. His clothing is subsidized 50%.
E. The cost of heating/cooling would remain the same whether he was there of not. Water and electricity may rise slightly. Garbage and phone are basically unchanged.
F. He spends as least 30% of the time somewhere else, and when he’s elsewhere, his costs are covered 100% by someone else.
I would think that 25% would more than adequately cover any remaining costs that kid might have…with a significant portion left over.
Yet, you say I whine about what I pay and call me a son of a bitch. I complain, yes, ideed. If you want to call it whining (and if that irritates you, all the better), so be it.
Here’s you last chance, Minty, to achieve comprehension. You are an imbecile if you can’t understand this:
I pay 100% of my son’s costs when he’s with my ex- through child support, and I also pay 100% of his costs while he’s with me.
That’s excessive, get it?
I’ll ignore the SOB remark. I know that’s something you’d only type, and never dare to actually say to anyone.**
RYSDAD – I obviously have no right and no ability to argue the specifics of your particular case, so I don’t intend to do so. I will make just a couple of points, however:
I should have been clearer. The wife’s income is not irrelevant of course, but the income of her second husband largely is. So if she drives a big new car (bought by him) and lives in a big fancy house (bought by him), it does not (and should not) reduce your child support obligation. Because the second husband does not have the obligation to support your child for you. (Generic ‘you’ here; not you personally.)
I can only repeat that I know a lot of non-custodial parents think they are. I am not convinced that this means they are. Certainly posters weighing in as custodial parents appear to be of the opinion that they are not.
Hmm. Well, I guess I don’t put people who are unwilling to support children not their own when the children’s actual parents have the ability to support them in the category of “soulless bastards.” It seems to me to be reasonable to expect a child’s parents to support the child. It further seems to me to be manifestly unfair to stick some man (or woman) with a support obligation for a child not his (or her) own just because he (or she) can more easily afford it than the natural parent can.
And I frankly don’t see it as all that inequitable. A father has the obligation to pay for half the cost of raising his kids. That obligation does not change in light of whether the mother is rich or poor, or the stepfather rich or poor. It is a pre-existing obligation to THE CHILDREN, and the difficulty (or lack thereof) it presents to the parents does not change the existence or nature of that obligation.
I do see your point of view, and I sympathize with it. I’m just not sure I agree with it. And, again, “ordering child support based strictly on the income of the non-custodial parent” is NOT how the system works in every jurisdiction.
MOJO – I find if very interesting that you are so vehement in attacking the stereotype of the “deadbeat dad,” but yourself employ stereotypes so indiscriminately. Let’s take a look:
Assuming you are talking about lawyers, how can you say that a particular lawyer is “part of the problem” if you admittedly don’t even know what area of law the lawyer practices? How does a tax lawyer contribute to the problem of child custody and support? A criminal prosecutor? An estate planner? This is, not to put too fine a point on it, a stupid statement.
This is wildly overgeneralized and not strictly correct. No-fault divorce was instituted to make the process of divorcing easier not for the courts or the attorneys, but for the parties. Painful issues of who cheated on whom or abandoned whom no longer need to be aired. I am at a loss to imagine how you think this creates more work for lawyers; it obviously makes it less work, because a lawyer does not have to go to the trouble of establishing fault in order to seek a divorce on behalf of his client. No-fault divorces DO make divorces easier to obtain, but they do not provide the desire to get divorced; people either already have that, or they don’t. In any event, it is not automatice that “mom gets kids and stuff, dad pays;” custody is set up to serve the best interests of the child. There IS still a presumption that it is in a child’s best interest to live with his or her mother (especially a small child), all things being equal. If you want to attack that presumption, that’s fine, but it’s a different issue than the one presented here.
Again, this is simply incorrect. Fault-based divorce, being much harder to obtain and taking much longer to secure, obviously was more of a money-maker for lawyers than no-fault divorce.
Why? Moral fault isn’t involved in the breach of any other type of contract. Besides, if my husband beats the crap out of me and I leave him, who breached the contract?
This again is premised upon the idea that child support exists to benefit the custodial parent and punish the non-custodial parent. It does not; it exists to benefit the kids.
Why do you imagine that filing petitions, motions, and briefs in family law cases involves “minimal effort”? Because no-fault is easier to do? This is true, of course, but it also takes less hours. See, “a lot of hours” = lots of effort; “minimal effort” = minimal hours. You can’t have it both ways and claim that no-fault takes tons of time but little work. Time equals work in the legal profession.
A judge is paid a salary; she doesn’t earn more or less for no-fault divorce than she does for, say, a criminal trial. And family law cases are often not “easy” precisely because the issues become so emotional and the participants so irrational. I hated dealing with family law issues when I was a legal clerk; I would far rather have deal with complex cases where the participants did not have a hidden agenda of trying to screw each other to the wall.
I think you need to decide if you are against allowing people to divorce at all; or the legal profession; or the stereotype of deadbeat dads; or stay-at-home moms; or whatever it is that pisses you off, because you’re covering a lot of ground here, and frankly not making a ton of sense.
No, “dearie,” that is not per se excessive. I know nothing about your ex-wife’s income. If she has little or no income, it makes perfect sense to me that you cover 100% of your son’s support requirements. Unless you want to stop talking in generalities and get down to some specific income figures, nobody can make an informed judgment on whether or not your specific support payments are reasonable or unreasonable.
But since you are so certain that your payments are in fact unreasonable, why don’t you hire a real attorney instead of the losers you’ve apparently been speaking to and ask the court to modify the support order? As long as it’s been at least one year since the initial order or any modification, that’s perfectly allowable under the Minnesota statute. And please don’t try and tell me that it can’t be done because the mean old judges don’t listen. Support orders are routinely modified based on changed circumstances, and yours can be too. And let your lawyer do the talking for you, because your attitude is bound to piss off the judge.
Again, you are misinformed as to the state of the law. Under the Uniform Interstate Family Support Act, no out-of-state court has the power to modify a child support order unless the child no longer lives in the state that issued the order. And even then, there are additional requirements that must be met before a foreign court can modify the order.
And I’m so glad you willing to overlook my SOB remark, “toots.” In the spirit of reconciliation, I will therefore overlook the following:
if you try to paint me with that brush, you’re liable to have it sticking out of your ass.
you twit
This is, by far, the most ignorant, post I’ve seen in years.
You, on the other hand, I’d like to offer the chance to kiss my ass.
Sheer fucking brilliance.
It must get dank under your rock.
And you’re a gnat.
You are an imbecile if you can’t understand this
Simply further examples of lazy lawyers/legislators who, when staring the patently obvious dead in the face, said, “There’s nothing there.” How sincredibly ignorant. (Not you, Minty.) The law simply refuses to accept the truth of the matter. It’s saying, in effect, if the facts are a problem, then just deny the facts.
One other thing i’ll quibble with here, and that’s your earlier statement:
Let’s say the ex- lives in a two-bedroom house when she meets hubby #2. They marry and he moves in.
Just how much is he responsible for? Half the mortgage payment? A third? How about utilities, etc., how much of those should he pay?
Do you see it now? Mom’s costs went down significantly (or should have) when hubby #2 entered the picture.
Part of the mortage/rent, utilities and general household upkeep are being paid by hub2, so her costs (and, by extension, the cost of raising a child) have lessened.
Or, if you wish to deny that mortgage/utils are part of child support, then you have to justify that child support be spent only on clothing, food and strictly personal items used by none other than the child.
You can’t.
So, regardless if her income goes up, her expenditures can be reasonably expected to go down because there’s someone else paying a portion of them.
It follows that child support should then also go down.
That the law doesn’t recognize this is deplorable.