Posted on 06/15/2005 2:32:06 PM PDT by freespirited
Judicial activism, socialist, elitist, egalitarian thinking at it's worst.
"But the fair thing is for both to have 1/2 time jobs,,they could job share since she can't get 1/2 time. And then both contribute and both get to stay home."
Yes, but then what if the husband doesn't want to do that either?
There are three children. But more important is that here you have three kids who alternate custody between mom and dad. Dad, who earns almost a half million dollars a year goes to court over having to spend a few grand a month more on them that he can easily afford. You dont think these kids are going to wonder how their father feels about them now that he's gone to court hoping to be able to spend the money on himself instead of them?
I cant imagine being this guy's patient.
I was under the impression that slavery and debtors prisons were something from a bygone era....
Actually, the story said he had to pay $4,000 MORE a month after his wife stopped working. It never did say what his total payment was. My guess is that the were each paying about $4,000 a month, and he was required to pick up what she was no longer paying. $96,000 a year is not chicken feed, even for a guy making his salary. Is child support tax deductible, does anyone know? If these are after tax dollars, that really is a big bite.
In our family, my dad worked and my mom stayed home, I worked and my wife stayed home (the kids are grown now, but now we've got grandkids and my wife is pretty busy with them... and still home), and I've always believed thats the way it ought to be.
When a marriage breaks down, the dad owes a fair share of the child's expenses. Since the woman's earnings are usually limited for at least a few years after the divorce, if he has left her, he should pay something more during those first few years until she has had time to get on her feet.
But this seems like a unique case. She is, or was, a millionaire. And while she says she wasn't allowed to work half-time, it seems to me that part-time and flex-time work is pretty common in the medical field, especially when they work through an agency. I sympathise with her desire to be off while the child is at her house, but I find it hard to believe she couldn't get work through an agency the week he's with his dad.
"It just seems so disruptive unless they live around the corner from each other."
LOL, right! I remember hearing Dr. Laura tell people who wanted to do this, was to let the kids live one place and have the parents live one week on/one week off with the kids.
Why doesn't she go to work and he can stay at home and watch the kids? What about equal protection under the law? They have 50/50 time with the kids. He has as much a right to be a shirker as she does. Oh, he's a guy so he gets stuck with all the responsibilites, but none of the rights. The next Civil Rights movement needs to be for fathers who are immediately guilty when they set foot in Family Court.
That was really confusing, wasn't it? I *think* what she meant was 4K in addition to what he spends when the kids live with him and what he is putting away for their college education. So we are talking about him writing a 4K check to the ex-wife every month. Originally he did not write any check to the ex-wife.
I'm saying that MANY people claim a mom "staying home with the kids" is SO important.
The father in the story is obviously not one of them ... but there are many people, particularly here at FR, who claim that a mom should stay at home with the kids. Where are they now?
What the court didn't do was take the 14th (or 15th?) Amendment into account--slavery is prohibited. It may have been reasonable for his ex-wife to retire, but she could have taken part-time work at something other than medicine. The benefit the children derive from her greater involvement with them is likely nullified by the understandably hard feelings generated in their father. This was a poor decision, not in the best interests of the children, but clearly in the best perceived interests of the woman. And truly in the long run it won't prove to be in her best interests, either. Remember, Mrs. Dr. didn't have to sit there and watch her $1,000,000 stock portfolio dwindle to nothing either.
That's the way I see it too Madeleine. Until open season on dads is over, the manipulations will continue.
You were misinformed.
Wait a minute, isn't it the other side that presumes to be able to determine what other people can "afford"?
Can't disagree with a thing you've posted, wideawake, and I strongly agree with your last sentence. Perhaps my first post was in haste.
I admit I'm generally not sympathetic when it comes to divorce. In most cases, it strikes me as being the obvious consequence of uncommitted grown people indulging their extreme selfishness. The greatest tragedy is that their children will pay the price.
The irony of this case is apparent (no pun intended). For once a mom makes the right decision to stay home with her children, yet her divorce impedes it.
I blame divorce. Please see #55.
I agree.
What bothers me about child support today, is that it's not geared around what is a reasonable amount of support for the children. As far as I am concerned, it shouldn't be about how much the father or mother make. It should be about housing, feeding, clothing and educating the children. The father should pay half. The mother should fork up half.
The idea that it should take $4,200 a month of the father's money, in a joint custody setting, is perposterous no matter how much money that dad makes.
That's my question as well.
BTW, I believe moms should stay home with their kids. Dads, maybe, if there is no way mom can.
You mean, like when a sister sees the wife actually be physically and verbally abused and tries to get the woman to leave her husband, but is told to butt out and then for the next 20 years is told by the wife that everything is fine, not to worry, he's different now and life is good and we are having a great time and they have two kids, but suddenly decides after the 21st anniversary that the guy is a jerk and a moron and abusive and she can't let her kids be raised by such an terrible person and besides she's never getting laid anymore, so leaves and gets her other sister to foot the bill for the divorce and moving her and her two kids back home and has everyone feeling sorry for her and giving her money, and helping her relocate to her home state, and then VOILA - she has a man moved in with her (and her two sons) that she met online in a chat room and is 15 years older than her? You mean like THAT kind of woman? I don't have patience with them, either.
Bottom line: far too many Americans end marriages because they are selfish.
Exactly.
Bingo
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.