Is Staying Home with Children "Shirking Work" For Child Support Purposes? [UNBELIEVABLE LAWSUIT]

Findlaw's Writ ^ | 6/14/05 | Joanna Grossman

[freespirited]

By that time, Warner's income had nearly doubled -- to $472,000. Even after he paid his own expenses and contributed to a retirement account, he was left with discretionary monthly income of $12,000.

And he went to court over giving 4K a month to his kids? The feminists will have a field day with this guy.

[k2blader]

Okay, where are all the dolts you see on divorce/child support threads blaming only the women.

[tfecw]

"And he complained that due to her decision, a court was now ordering him to pay $4000 more a month in child support. "

Hmm just another guy refusing to bear the burden of supporting people who don't want to work. Good for him, wonder how he votes

[Xenophobic Alien]

What child needs 4k a month to live off of?

[Rakkasan1]

it's only "shirking work" if a guy does it.

basing any case law on this would be silly since it's such an anomaly. Probably 1 in 500 dads get custody.

[tfecw]

well it's more than that ;)

they don't say how much he pays but mentioned that the 2 parents pay about the same (dad pays a couple hundred dollars more)

So based on that I would guess these kids are getting about 8,200 a month for in total.

[Xenophobic Alien]

Welcome to freerepublic

[Now_is_The_Time]

If the gender roles were reversed this wouldn't even be an issue. No single father would be allowed to choose to stay home to raise his children and get $4k a month from his ex-wife in child support. We are programmed not to notice this unfair double-standard.

[Lorianne]

Obviously, he doesn't value mom staying home with children.
A lot of men would rather have the 2nd income than a stay at home mom for the kids.

[wideawake]

If the husband is now an ex-husband because he committed infidelity, or was physically violent toward his wife, or was a drug addict he should be on the hook no matter what.

But I have no patience for women who leave their husbands because of constant bickering, or "emotional abuse", or their own infidelity or because they're "in a rut" and "have to be me."

These things really have to be judged on a case-by-case basis.

Botom line: far too many Americans end marriages because they are selfish.

[wideawake]

A lot of men would rather have the 2nd income than a stay at home mom for the kids.

Not I.

I'm an actual man.

[Rakkasan1]

courts are suppose to consider the "best interest of the child" . maybe the kid was best interested in violin lessons,ballet lessons, summer,spring and fall camp,wearing the Ambercrombie wardrobe, and going to private tutors.
and when all is said and done, they'll probably need a shrink and some meds ,too.
btw, cool name.

[Madeleine Ward]

I'm most confused as to why the interest on $1 million wasn't enough to provide for herself and the kids during her custodial periods.

And I don't understand, really, why it's OK for a woman to change the deal midstream. We wouldn't let the guys do this. Also, we seem to think it's OK for a man to just have to go along with the woman's decision here without any input into it whatsoever.

This is classic feminism.

[DoughtyOne]

I wonder who would pay if he decided not to work. I'll bet the court would force him to work, and there's your answer.

If he can't quit working, she shouldn't be able to either.

If she's well off enough to quit working, then he shouldn't have to pay any increase in support. If she isn't well off enough to quit working, then what the hell did she quit for?

Happy Father's day dad. Hope you get some vaseline...

[tfecw]

She's not a stay at home mom for the kids.

She's a, "happens to be at home because she wanted to coast on her earnings mom when they are living with her instead of their father every other week"

As for why they got divorced? If he was cheating or beating the ol wife i highly doubt he would have equal custody of the kiddies. We aren't talking about a deadbeat dad, we're talking about a person who has the potential to earn 400,000 bucks a year decided she doesn't want to work anymore because the ex can pay for things.

[Half Vast Conspiracy]

Bottom line: far too many Americans end marriages because they are selfish.

Agreed. And, when they do this, they give up the convenience of being able to decide (together) that one should stay home with the kids.

[Xenophobic Alien]

ping

[Madeleine Ward]

If he had tried to quit work, he would not have been awarded any money from the wife because his staying at home would not be 'reasonable.'

[fr_freak]

OK, let me get this straight: these two parents, after the divorce, were caring for the children on alternate weeks. That means that 50% of the time, the kids were living at Dad's house. Dad was also putting money into a college account for each kid monthly. Mom, who made as much as Dad, decides to quit, presumably to devote more time to the children that she ONLY CARED FOR 50% OF THE TIME. Then, inexplicably, the market downturn somehow affected her "savings" (I'm thinking if you lost money from a market downturn, your money wasn't in savings, but in stocks), so she then feels entitled to ask for $4000/month for caring for the kids 50% of the time. Oh, and let's not forget that these kids were school-age, so most of the day they're not even at home.

My guess is that this woman has decided she just didn't want to work anymore, and it was far easier to force her husband to pay her way than go back to work. She's taking him for a ride, and he knows it. He has shown quite clearly that he want to take care of his children, and does, but he obviously does not feel obligated to pay her personal expenses just because she decided not to work. Since child support was the only means she had of siphoning money out of him, then arguing against the child support is the only way he can stop her from stealing his money. However, knee-jerkers grab that concept and say "Hey, he's trying to get out of paying child support!" Bah. $4000/month is far more than is needed to take care of these kids 50% of the time. She'd be spending most of that money on her own personal items and expenses.