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

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

[malakhi]

But, I think the situation here, and why it went to court, was that originally the dad was paying $0.00 in child support.

No. Since their income was nearly equal, and since their placement was equal, he was essentially paying no child support to his ex-wife. He did, however, pay for half of the support of his children -- during the 50% of the time he had placement of them.

[malakhi]

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?

How about what they might think of their mother, who quits her job and avoids her agreed-upon financial responsibilities, then seeks to get her ex-husband to pay more. While she only has them 50% of the time, and they are all school age, meaning she really has very little time with them at all.

[malakhi]

Is child support tax deductible, does anyone know?

Nope, after-tax dollars.

[mlmr]

all the other lazy people who don't want to work, what's one more?


I guess you think that women at home and not working are lazy people. I disagree.

[thoughtomator]

Custody should be awarded in direct proportion to the amount of financial support provided to the children. If a parent pays nothing, they get no custody, no visitation, no rights - and that goes for mothers too.

[Robert_Paulson2]

Until open season on dads is over, the manipulations will continue.

---

nobody cares about dads.
over seventy percent of divorces are instigated by the woman statistically...

they generally get the kids, and the money, and dad gets to visit.

joint custody, isn't
joint physical custody isn't either.

It's a mess for broken families.
"Your father is an ass.... or you WOULD have those new braces, now shut up, I have to go get my nails done before my date tonight!"

it's all...
for the children, you know.

[mgist]

Staying home with children is important. Women should ideally have options, but many don't, and that's OK too. I have a lot of respect for men who recognize women as primary caretakers and strive to ensure that they can dedicate themselves to their children. Many men have no problem with women who give their career priority, then don't understand why they're too tired for anything else. I've seen plenty of women who really lose respect for their spouses once they out earn them and those who stray when tempted by attractive men in the office.

[thoughtomator]

I think its great when a mom can stay at home with the kids, but an intact family (or independent wealth) is a prerequisite for that arrangement. Having fathers forced to support children while simultaneously revoking all their parental rights is a greater evil than a working mother.

[neutrino]

Makes me glad I don't have children.

[k2blader]

There are most definitely good reasons to not have children. Sometimes I wish fewer people would.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Thank you for being a boat of logic in this sea of insanity and corruption. In other words, good post.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Regardless of how much you make. 4K is an absolute LUDICROUS sum of money to pay for child support.

This is nothing more than the Government and the Courts stealing more money from the citizenry. Robbing Peter to pay Pauline you might say. Or vice versa. If she "chose" to say home, then she CHOSE to do without.

[DoughtyOne]

I agree with your comments. Here's a "for the children" bump back at you.

[DoughtyOne]

I'm going to have to admit that I blew this call. Here's what finally occurred to me.

If the dad lost his job, he'd soon lose the house, the savings and of course his half-time caretaker status. He would not have a physical residence suited to the kids sleeping over, end of story.

Here we have the woman who just up and decided she ought to stay home all day while the kids are in school. Will she lose her home, her ability to house the kids during visitation? No

The absurdidty of this is that a man would lose his half-time status, and this bitch not only doesn't lose it, but the state helps her steal enough money to pay all her expenses in the deal.

Talk about an amazing rip-off...

[tfecw]

"I guess you think that women at home and not working are lazy people. I disagree."

And i see you also disagree with the facts of the matter.

[mlmr]

And i see you also disagree with the facts of the matter.


What fact are you talking about?

[fr_freak]

I blame divorce.

That goes without saying. If parents would stay together we wouldn't even need to discuss issues like this. Unfortunately, the divorce industry and child custody/support industry feed each other. Divorces are granted merely on a whim nowadays, without a requirement for cause. What's worse, in my view, is that the family court system is now tilted so obscenely in favor of women that 70-80% of all divorces are initiated by women, and men are subsequently shackled to alimony and child support payments (as a result of a divorce they did not initiate) and, at the same time, are denied access to their own children. The fact that this case had both parents sharing equal custody of the children is a complete anomaly.

[malakhi]

and this bitch not only doesn't lose it, but the state helps her steal enough money to pay all her expenses in the deal.

Not only that, but Wisconsin is a community property state, which means she left the marriage with half of the assets. Assuming there was other real property in excess of the $1M in investments, she came away with well over $1M.

Even assuming she lost value in her stocks, there is no way, unless she was engaging in highly speculative and irresponsible (considering the circumstances) transactions, that she would have lost more than maybe 50% total of the value of her investments. Some of which has certainly rebounded in the interim. So she most likely has well over $500K in real and liquid assets. And she still needs $4K+/month from her ex-husband?

[GoLightly]

Depending on which county & which judge, a man getting custody in Wisconsin is not difficult at all. Shared parenting was something promoted by some feminists for more than a decade.

Joint placement is not an uncommon stipulation in the state. A lot of times, the truth on the ground is a bit different & what begins as split results with something more like, school days with one parent, weekends with the other & time "made up" during holidays Sometimes there is just a complete switch, because as children get older, their needs change. Kids in a constant battle with a parent or step parent just stop doing the weekly switch. The reason the paperwork on it doesn't change, is because neither parent sees any reason to rock the boat by getting the placement order amended with the court.

After no fault, an attempt to interject abuse can work against you. If there is no finding of criminal abuse prior to the filing of the divorce, you're stupid to even mention it. If the judge believes you, (s)he knows that your odds of hooking up with another abuser are high & it would raise the possibility of the new partner physically abusing the children, instead of just their parent.

[DoughtyOne]

Well sWisconsin seems to think so. I sure don't.