Posted on 06/16/2010 8:59:20 AM PDT by Responsibility2nd
From personal experience:
ALL child support should be paid to the court - by BOTH parents, then the court can dole it out. That forces the custodial parent (usually the Mom), and the non-custodial parent (usually the Dad) to equally contribute to the care of the children.
After being stuck with significant child support as well as spousal support payments I found that fully 70% of my after tax income was gone. I earned a significant income and ended up with crappy used cars and crappy apartments because I couldn’t afford more.
In the meantime the ex has a boyfriend in residence who contributed nothing to the housing, he was driving the car that I HAD to provide and eating the food. The ex had no job even though the kids were in school most of the time - just lived off my. The court doesn’t care about that even though the total effect on the kids is far greater than would the impact of no support payments.
So first and foremost child support has got to be a 50/50 proposition and it has to be enforced that way. So if I had to contribute say $500 per month, then the ex should do the same - then the court can decide how to allocate the $1000 bucks FOR THE KIDS SAKE. AND the court can rule that the freakin’ live in boyfriend can pay part of the payment for the house or car or food.
I think it just patently unfair that the court looks as a chart that shows the fathers income and determines how much to take while the mother’s income is usually non-existent and will always be that way till the kid turns 18. Child support is for the child - not the custodial parent.
Sure more government involvement, but the process has to start somewhere.
Moms can withhold the kids, alienate the father by any means they choose and voluntarily not pay their fair share of shared child expenses. There is little a father can do except go back to court, spending more money to resolve the issue than they’ll recoup. However, if a father voluntarily reduces support or doesn’t pay for even justifiable reasons, they are threatened with jail time. The mother definitely has all the power to manipulate and control; while the father is powerless.
Most mother’s of divorce don’t want the father’s in their children’s life. They want the father’s to be deadbeat except for the money. This is for two reasons; First, they can claim they are victims of a dead beat husband, trying to prove their own worth and second, they get maximum amount of money. Even if the father is both active with the children and a good provider during the marriage, during divorce the fathers will often be alienated from the children, being granted only a weekend here or there an then expected to pay maximum support and alimony. Steel the children from the father and then make him financially pay for the alienation (a double whammy). It’s an absolutely crazy world out there.
you forgot to mention things like, the “standard” equation for determining child support is decades old, and calculated on the fact that, at one time, the majority of women were uneducated and largely unemployable. in today’s world, women make every bit as much as men do, yet win a mini lottery in child support.
Or that child support is not taken into account when defining welfare benefits or vice versa.
Or that while the father is forced to work to pay the support, the mother isn’t.
Or that usually the father has to pay taxes on the money he pays in child support, while the mother turns around and claims the tax deduction for the child.
Or that the government reaps not only control of the father’s life, but monetarily a percentage, or at least a fee, for administrating the payment.
I’m not saying that a father should not have to pay for his child, but i do think that a: it should not be court ordered. b: it should be reasonable and c: there should be accountability from the mother. she should show the father why she needs the money and where its spent. I’m sick of these women that treat child support as an entitlement, or as earned income. No, child support should not be spent on big screen tvs, iphones, satellite tv, vehicle payments, vacations, new shoes, manicures.. it should be spent on the child.
Sorry lady, you walked away from the guy, you lost your right to his money.
Not quite true. Men can win, but it will cost a lot of money. I spent over 40K to win 50% custody of my kids. “Win” is a funny term as 50% should be the starting point, but it felt like I was a “defendant” the entire time, trying to justify my role as a father. If I lost, I would probably be an every other weekend dad. Ultimately, I lost anyway as I’m now broke and not sure how I can pay support, maintenance, rent, legal debts and for the vacant land we invested in, but at least I have fair access to my kids.
Hmmm, close, but not quite. Would have been just too much of a coincidence if you were my friend who I mentioned. The world really can’t be THAT small!
Sometimes it can be.
I am having a hard time digesting some of the posts here. It certainly sounds as though most posters believe that a divorced woman should be on her own in terms of raising the children from the marriage. ‘You walked away and have no right to his money.’ Wow. What if there was abuse in the relationship? What if HE walked away? What if he was abusive to the kids? I’m shocked at the attitudes I see here.
There are definitely exceptions, but I think the abusive father walking away is the exception not the rule. What people have a problem with is that father’s, as a rule, are assumed to be the problem with the original relationship and mother’s are the victims and therefore the father must pay. I would argue that this is not a majority of the cases and therefore an injustice is being done in many, if not most cases.
you’re missing the point.
No one thinks the mom should be completely on her own (ok, maybe in some circumstances- like she makes gobs of money and he’s not able to make much- but not as a rule)
what we want is fairness and accountability. why should the dad be stuck scraping by, working to pay her, while she gets free money that often isn’t actually spent on the kids?
and not every mom is like that, but many are.
I’ll be honest I have no idea about ‘most’ cases. I only know what we have lived. My ex owes his kids over $11,000 and has not even attempted to pay it. He does not have visitation due to abuse (well documented and proven in court).
It just seems like there is a lot of anger directed towards divorced women.
As you now know:
EVERY divorce lawyer (his and hers) finds out how much money there is. And they don’t quit till it’s all gone.
Motions, hearings, court dates, you name it. They will show you how NECESSARY it is for this or that to be done. You will do it. You will pay for it.
That’s how the game is played.
I once said IF my husband and I were to divorce I wouldn’t want to seek child support. If he loves his children he will do his best to be a dad any way he can. If not, the children remember such things when they get older. The person I said this to said it was a stupid thing not to expect child support.
I feel for the situation, and if he truly is abusive and a threat to the mother and children, then he should be responsible and pay for his injustices. He should get what he deserver, but at some point isn’t it healthier to just cut the strings all together, assuming she is capable of financially support herself, even if it’s not to the level of the support payments?
My situation is much different. My wife wanted the divorce, refused any counseling or reconciliation and expected to be a SAHM with full custody of the kids and make me work the the rest of my childrens’ youth years just to support her and the children. I was always involved and fully willing to take responsibility for my children, but she didn’t want me to take responsibility. My wife thought she could use the system and accuse me of being abusive and the courts would entitle her to whatever she wanted. When she found that I wasn’t going to simply hand of the kids and fight to keep 50% custody, she attempted to blackmail me to make me back down.
I don’t think my case is atypical in custody disputes. Unfortunately all cases are different, but I don’t think anyone would argue that my situation wasn’t an uphill battle for me to fight through due to court bias. If there was not a bias, then I would not be out over 40k to lawyers and child advocates, simply over wanting 50% custody. I was assumed an unfit dad and had to prove in court that I love my children and could care for them.
I’m still fighting the financial aspects and I’ll probably lose that battle and eventually file for bankruptcy, but at least I have my kids.
I feel for you and hope that your situation turns out better than you think it will.
Kudos to being a good dad regardless of the cost. I wish there were more out there like you.
It’s not the ONLY reason - it’s “a” reason. Another step might be to dump no-fault divorce... any other suggestions would be welcome...
Making sure fathers get visitation - and free access to the courts if it’s denied - plus an end to no-fault divorce might help...
So, does that help you get any money?
Does what help me get any money? Please read the post. I said that I AGREE that jailing deadbeats is usually counterproductive.
My point stands...men who fail to support their children, regardless of the circumstances, are low-lifes. Sorry if that hits one of your nerves.
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.