No need to explain. I’ve already gone over this with ** levdrakon** in previous posts. I’m not disputing the obvious biological differences between men and women in procreation. I’ve just asked those whining about equal rights for men to offer anything in the way of a practical workable solution. So far, they got nothing.
Posters come in here and say the system is all messed up and unjust , and someone ought to fix it and stop punishing men. Then when I ask for some realistic example of what they might be proposing they can’t offer one.
I think that’s because our justice system has already been struggling with this issue for decades and what we have, with all it’s imperfections, already considers the rights of everybody involved in a real world way.
Take a look at ** levdrakon**'s link to Roe vs Wade for men and tell me what you think.
No more of this nonsense. You’re not arguing* for* anything in particular. You’re just criticizing me and nitpicking semantics without offering anything.
My position is uncomplicated. Based on biological realities of how procreation works and all the individuals involved I think our current system is at least operating on correct principles.
IMO those who propose equal rights for men are looking at it men’s rights vs womens rights. The* crucial difference* is the other individual they are leaving out in their consideration of equal rights. The innocent child, and who should be held responsible for it’s care and support.
Like the others, you are welcome to offer any kind or practical , realistic, workable solution, for any injustice you see heaped on men. If you actually have a point you are *arguing for * I’m ready to consider your arguments.
If all you want to do is criticize without having any substantial arguments of your own then we’re are done.
The reality is that you either have to expect men to support their offspring or you have to give them the right to ignore them. Recognizing that the current system is not equal (but is fair as far as the support of the children goes), are you really suggesting that a man should have the right to ignore the support of his offspring simply because he didn’t want them in the first place? Do you actually believe that a civilized society would acquiesce to such a demand? Do you actually believe society should agree to this?
Do we also give a break to men who just get sick of their family and decide 5 years down the road that they don’t want to continue to provide for them?
More meaningless bitching. I’ve spelled out my position several times now. If you have an opposing position to argue please do so. If not there’s no need for me to defend anything.
Here’s one thing I’d change, based on my limited experience: have child support be based on the man’s actual income, not what the court thinks he SHOULD be making. So if he loses your job and takes a lower paying one rather than go on unemployment, lower the child support. If the man wants to go back to school, lower the child support. Then review it again if he gets a better job. Don’t force people to live on 60% of their pre-tax salary because at one time they made X, but now they make X-Y.
Make it easier to enforce visitation, and have penalties for women who violate it.
Make the system work for people who can’t afford lawyers (this could go for the entire court system, of course).
Don’t force non-custodial parents pay for college. In intact families, the parents can refuse to pay for college and the kid takes out loans. When the parents are not together, the kid can sue his non-custodial parent and force him to pay. That’s not right. Your college tuition is a gift your parents can choose to give or not give; you shouldn’t be able to sue for it.
I don’t think you understand the laws as they currently exist, or you’d realize that:
Support is based on what the parents are currently making, unless there is good reason to believe that a parent is willfully un- or under-employed.
Visitation is easy to enforce, but nobody seems to want to take the necessary step–going to court. The court will enforce visitation if the NCP asks it to. Usually the NCP whines to the wrong people about lack of visitiation so nothing gets accomplished.
People who can’t afford lawyers can get all the necessary forms for child support orders and modifications online. They can contact family courts for assistance in completing these forms. If support is paid through the Child Support Registry, either parent can have their local support enforcement office assist with modifications or setting support.
Requirements for paying for college are based on assumptions made for individual families and take both parents possible contributions into consideration. If a custodial parent requests college contributions, there is usually some kind of reasonable assumption based on the family history that the child would have gotten this support if the parents had stayed together. It is not a mandatory requirement to have college tuition addressed in support orders and generally it is not included in orders just because there is no guarantee that parents would send their kids to college–I’m sure not paying for mine to go.
Really? Not in my experience. You can’t just take a lower paying job and expect your support to get lowered, automatically. You can’t change careers, or get fired and take whatever job you can get so as not to be unemployed, and expect your support to be lowered. While you are dealing with the lost job and are at your brokest, you have to go to court, and if your ex has a lawyer and you don’t, it very well might not get lowered. Then you go into arrears. Maybe that’s not how it’s supposed to work, but you do acknowledge the gray areas, “reason to believe the NCP is willfully underemployed.” Convincing the court that’s what’s going on is the CP’s lawyer’s job, and they tend to do it better than regular people with no lawyers.
Or the NCP can’t afford a lawyer and the CP can. It’s all about the lawyers.
What happened to “you have to go to court”? If you do that without a lawyer, you will likely get screwed.
Your kid can sue you for college money-- this is outside of “support orders”-- in some states. He might win, he might not, but he can try if he can afford the lawyer to do it. My attorney (for something else) has told me stories about kids suing their dads to get them to pay for college and winning (some losing, too, depending on the situation). I think this is inherently wrong, since you never hear of parents in intact families being sued and forced to pay for college. Yes, the kid’s tuition contribution is assessed based on both parents’ income, but for kids from intact families, that just means bigger loans if the parents won’t pay. It doesn’t mean “Sue Dad and make him kick in his share.”
I think stretch is responding from a world where child support and custody work like they’re supposed to on paper. In reality, it’s a court, and a bureaucracy, with all the attendant complications and injustices. It just doesn’t work the way it’s supposed to for a lot of people. If it did, why would so many people be so bitter about it?
This happens. I can think of a couple of friends of mine who have suffered from this. The problem is too many men have purposely worked less and tried to work under the table to avoid their child support. I don’t think there’s any way to make this easy or always just. If you make it easier for the guys who legitimately try and lose their job or make a career change then you also make it easier for the guys who want to purposely avoid their responsibilities.
I think the point being made though is that at the time of the initial CS award, actual income is what is considered. Changes after that are more complicated.
No, you can’t just take a lower paying job because you want to…that’s willful underemployment and not fair to the kid. Why would they lower support automatically when the next week you may go back to a higher paying job as soon as the support is lowered? There has to be a history of making the lower wage before the support can or should be lowered to prevent willful underemployment. If your ex has a lawyer and you don’t you best be prepared to rep yourself…that’s what I did. We also were quite capable of convincing a judge that mr.stretch’s ex was willfully underemployed without using a lawyer so obviously it can be done.
Or the NCP can get assistance for the family court, which is pretty damn good assistance in my experience.
Not at all. The judge makes the determination and bases that on the information provided by both parties. They don’t automatically assume the one with the lawyer is right.
Well, if a kid sues the parent for college funds, that’s between the kid and the parent, and is outside the jurisdiction of child support. If the courts allow a dependent to sue, then they must allow dependents of non-divorced parents to sue as well. I haven’t heard of either thing happening to be honest with you.
ETA:
I live in the real world, where most people pay their child support without complaint. People bitch about every fucking thing, especially when they aren’t getting their way. Most folks you hear whining on this issue take the little picture view of “I’m getting screwed” rather than the big pciture view of “I’m taking care of my kid.” People are assholes.
You’re right there are complications and injustices and it’s not fair to everybody. All society can do is make the attempt to make it work on paper, try to apply the law as best they can to each situation.
It often get’s complicated because of the animosity and selfishness of the people involved. If people were more concerned about treating each other decently and accepting the responsibilities of their actions the courts wouldn’t be nearly so burdened and messed up.
CS doesn’t even have to go through the courts at all if people can simply agree. We also had an example where the NC Dad wound up making less than he used to and the Mom knew he was sincerely trying so she cooperated with the courts and got his CS lowered. It’s called being decent with each other even in the face of harsh reality.
I appreciate all your input. It seems grounded in experience facts and good common sense. I had two friends here in town who used to make great money and things changed. I think one may have voluntarily left his high powered job in NYC to come to Nashville. He couldn’t get his CS lowered but has managed to survive through the years his kids were growing up and is doing just great.
I see your point. If he voluntarily gave up his job then there’s no good justification to reduce his CS. Having grown up poor and struggled with CS myself I have a hard time identifying with folks who go from doing exceptionally well to a mere reasonably well, and feeling a bunch of sympathy. It’s all part of the complications of divorce with kids involved.
Another friend relocated from LA to Nashville in order to be closer to his son after his ex moved. This meant he had to start over and build his finances again. Fortunately he has a hit song that pays significant royalties which his ex now gets most of. This will only go on for a few more years and then he’ll be doing fine.
Thanks for being insulting when I was trying to be civil. Your experience is not universal, and people do get screwed who honestly want to support their kids. I no longer wish to discuss this with you, since you’re determined to continue to make this conversation nasty and argumentative.
I didn’t insult anyone. I stated that I live in the real world where the majority of people pay their support. That’s a fact, Jack.
Your limited experience is just that–your limited experience. The real world of child support actually works much better than is indicated by the folks who whine about having to pay support.
I’m not talking about not paying support. I’m presenting a different POV, which was solicited by Cosmodan, with my constructive suggestions for making things more fair. You disagree, that’s fine, but don’t change the subject onto who is and who isn’t a whiny asshole. And when you call someone an asshole in MPSIMS, you’re in the wrong forum, because that is insulting.
A lot of people are very bitter about it. There are problems with the system that hurt people. We are entitled to discuss it without being accused of defending deadbeat-ism or being tarred with the brush “assholes” or “whiners.”