Posted on 06/15/2005 2:32:06 PM PDT by freespirited
Yes -- and I am sure you are in the right profession too. First -- the amount one pays in "taxes" is his or her own money. (I assume we are talking property taxes, but the concept certainly applies to sales taxes, entertainment taxes, etc.).
When you elect to live somewhere, you agree to pay those taxes. You may hate it, but you have to pay them. You might fight to change it, but you have to pay them. When you buy items, you have a bit more control, as you may shop prudently and save on some sales tax. Heck, you may move to a state without income tax and avoid that state obligation, but it is definitely your own money. So, in a sense, you are not incorrect. It is his money -- just like the 4K I paid my mortgage company was my money too -- until I paid my obligation. Then it became theirs.
Because most people who get divorced can't work out their own problems and obligations, they shift that burden to the courts. (Shifting the cost as well). The Courts apply the law of the jurisdiction to try to find resolution for couples who can't, or in most cases won't. It's not a perfect solution, as every case is truly different. But, don't blame the Courts or the legislature that made the rules, they were just stuck with finding a resolution for parties who will not.
Child support -- as opposed to alimony -- is meant for the support of the child or children. The Court system, again filing the role of those who will not, makes a host of rules to try to do this fairly. One rule, of course, is that the kids should not pay for the problems of the divorce. (For example, unlike as has been suggested here, the kids should not be forced from their standard of living because now that the parents are no longer married, they should only get no brand cloths, live in an apartment, and shop at the dollar store.) The system is an advocate for the children, or should be. So, when parents cannot or will not work it out, the system does no punish them.
The dad and mom here both have an equal obligation to provide support for the kids. This state apparently has decided that their is value in a parent staying home with the kids. This wife wanted to go part-time, but her Husband's clinic said no. (I am sure he had nothing to do with that!). She elected to stay home, and the Court had to determine if she was doing so solely to avoid her obligation for support. On the facts, it found she was not. So, it found that the father, in order to meet his part of the obligation, no had to pay in child support 4K a month, over and above whatever support he apparently pays while the kids are in his physical custody. That's his obligation. Sure, the money was his, and some of it might have continued to be his, or under his control had he made different choices -- but he did not, and now it is an obligation he must pay.
When I say the money is not his -- I mean the money is an obligation -- it is not the wife's money either. It is for support of the children. That is the difference between child support and alimony.
Now -- am I in the right forum? Well, if being pro-life, anti-tax, pro-military, and pro-personal responsibility are the values generally well-regarded here, then yes.
In this case, however, we have two people who we not pro-family. Two people who could not be responsible in their choices in life. Two people who could not resolve the support of their children, leaving that final decision to the agents of the government. So -- having done so -- it is hard for me, as a person charged with absorbing the cost of the criminal justice system, the expense and cost and loss of productivity resulting from legislatures and courts having to fashion rules for people like this, to care that these people got stung, one way or another. Nor am sympathetic to the father who rolled the dice in the Courts rather than working this out.
If you can't take personal responsibility for your obligations, and you must have others -- e.g. the government -- resolve them for you, you should not complain about the result. Backing someone who uses his money to spite his wife, and who wants to reduce the quality of life for his kids -- on top of getting divorced that is -- and who looks to the government to solve his family problems, seems to me to be something odd in this forum.
Are you sure you are in the right forum?
The father has the children half the time. He pays for their upkeep and needs during that time. The mother has the children half the time. She pays for their upkeep and needs during that time. Mom decides she doesn't want to work, because the kids need her, so Dad should have to pay for Mom's lifestyle? Not unless you're in Bizzarro World or family court, and your nine paragraphs of senseless ranting won't change that one bit.
Even with your cute backpeddling, to say that it isn't his money is, again, ludicrous. Your position that it's only "his" until the government takes it away as an "obligation once again shows that you are probably in the wrong place. It's very easy to spout off platitudes like "pro-life, anti-tax, pro-military, and pro-personal responsibility". It's quite another to apply them to particular situations. Your personal problems have obviously blinded you to the idiocy of this situation. You talk the talk, but when it's time to walk the walk, you come up way lame.
A clear, concise statement of the Democratic Party platform.
It's extremely hard on the kids. I have a friend who has a similar custody situation and those poor kids are so frustrated and disorganized. They can never settle down and relax because by the time they readjust to whichever parent's rules it's time to go to the other parent. Let's just say they are S-T-R-E-S-S-E-D.
She is no more entitled to quit work than he is. They are divorced and both have an obligation to support their children. If she feels that strongly about the need to be home with the children, then perhaps she might consider some financial sacrifices on her part to enable her to do so. He should not be required to finance her decision, particularly when it appears to be entirely inconsistent with how they raised the children together during the marriage.
If he refused to work and/or pay his child support, in all likelihood he would be jailed either for non-support or for contempt of the Court's support order.
This lady made her decision on that point a long time ago. While the family was intact, she chose to work full time. Many of us wouldn't agree with that choice, but it was hers to make. Now, however, she wants to stay at home. But instead of making the financial sacrifices many of us make by giving up one income, she is going to just have her ex-husband pay for her decision. Odd, apparently they didn't want to take the financial hit when they were together, but once they were apart, and she could hand him the bill, suddenly staying home with her children was a more attractive option? I think having one parent stay at home is a decision that an intact couple makes together. That is not the case here.
Thanks for putting the "anal" in analysis. You must get paid by the word at your level. Perhaps someday you'll rise to my billing rate, but I doubt it. Having sampled your sterling prose, tortured "logic", and decidedly unwarranted sense of superiority, I can't imagine that there is anything you could do (standing up) that would be worth even $405/hr. But you have a nice day, anyhow.
Oh, I know. The family law system is totally tilted against men.
There's going to be exceptions, and I recognize that. When two people are married, the ideal is to have one of them home with the children. Believe me, I support that. I am not as comfortable with that situation when the parents split up.
If one of the children has a prolonged illness, I can certainly understand the need for it. If the children are in school, I'm not nearly as willing to watch the mom stay home and the dad bear the full burden of financial support, only to see the kids every other weekend and a couple of weeks in the summer (if he's lucky).
Hope your young chick turned into a strong hawk.
You've got that right. No government interest in interfering.
If you click on the link you will find a link to the court decision. That tells much more of the story than this article. The mother did make major financial sacrifices to be home with her children. Her income went from 250K to 32K. The weeks that she doesnt have the kids she is still active in their lives in a way that the father is not when she has custody. I dont think that speaks ill of the father, but the court recognized that it was in the children's best interest to have the mother continue her greater involvement.
She is still looking for part time work. I dont know Wisconsin. Maybe this is a rural area and part time work hard to find? It is all spelled out in the court document.
The children were 5, 7 and 9 when this started. I dont have any criticism of her for feeling the best use of her time was being a full time mother to them. I look at this from the standpoint of the kids. What little girl wants to know her father went to court to force her mother to be less available to her (he argued the nanny was good enough).
The record reveals that, prior to the time Dr. Chen quit, Dr. Chen's and Dr. Warner's involvement with the children was fairly typical of dual full-time working parents with high incomes. Both parents attended school and pre-school functions when they could, but not regularly. They hired a nanny to assist with the children. For the most part, one or both parents were available at dinnertime, after dinner, and on weekends. Dr. Warner, who still works full-time, attends parent-teacher conferences, attends some of the children's school activities, and spends as much as three hours a night assisting with homework during the weeks the children are with him. Dr. Warner schedules substantial vacation time with the children. The physical placement is equal: the children spend every other week with each parent....
The father's "main argument" is that the children did well when both parents were working, and there does not seem to be any significant issue that they were doing well when the mother quit work. I think the dissenting opinion states my thoughts much better than I could. I think this portion of the dissent is an excellent summary:
The decision to retire at an early age while obligated for child support [should be]disfavored. Nonetheless, courts should accept that decision as long as the retiring parent has sufficient assets or income to meet the expected support obligation. The retiring parent will be required to use income and to liquidate his or her assets before requiring the non-retiring spouse to support the retiring spouse's unilateral decision to retire. I agree with the majority that "shirking" is an unfortunate term, better suited for cases where a support payer is unemployed or has changed jobs. Yet, the majority has shoehorned this case into a "shirking" analysis. The result is an inquiry into the reasonableness of Dr. Chen's actions without considering Dr. Warner's desire not to be bound by Dr. Chen's unilateral decision, and not to pay for Dr. Chen's retirement. Of course, both Dr. Chen and Dr. Warner are ultimately responsible for their children's support. That overrides either of their economic interests.
The mother's "sacrifice" must be viewed in the context that she still has an estate of nearly $1.7 million that she is not required to touch for the support of the children. Her drop in income is her own choice. Apparently she turned down work that would take her out of town the weeks she doesn't have the children. The mother's activities with the children are admirable, but it also is admirable to see a parent working to support their children, or making the financial sacrifices that accompany the decision to stay at home. Dr. Chen isn't making a sacrifice here, because she is expecting the father to make up the difference from her quitting. As for the little girl who will grow up thinking her father believed "the nanny was good enough": the mother thought the same thing. These children are in school fulltime and with their mother one-half the remaining time. The mother's desire to be more involved with her children is great and I commend it. The question, however, is whether that decision is to be financed by her ex-husband.
Kids are in school, Mom can make more than $100K a year. Mom made poor financial decisions. Mom REFUSES to go back to work. Mom therefore seeks to get more money from Dad. It's real clear. No assumptions needed. It's all in the article.
She chose to leave. She made poor financial decisions. She REFUSES to go back to work. Now she expects Dad to pay the bills when she has the kids 1/2 the time. What about HER personal responsibility? Nuff said.
Its not about providing for the kids, its about enslaving the man.
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.