Posted on 06/15/2005 2:32:06 PM PDT by freespirited
At 43, with three children, staying home is a pretty common call. My wife now stays home, giving up a six figure salary to do so. We believe the kids are better off, she is better off, and the family is better off with her home. I make a fine salary -- but losing 110K in income hurts -- period.
This case is obviously one that is fact-driven, and should be based upon the individual circumstances of each case and each family.
At 472K, contributing 4k a month to child support is not a real problem. This is a guy who is probably damn mad at the wife, and would rather have the money in his pocket. I can't blame him for that -- but this is a situation of their making.
Neither of these folks are horribly sympathetic, Particularly when most American families would love to net a total of 4K a month in their whole houshold.
If he refused to work, he would be in jail. If the roles were reversed, he would be in jail. Men's disobedience to the child support industry will not be tolerated.
It's never a problem when it's not your money.
I think your post pretty much nailed it.
Im not one of them..
They each have equal capacity to earn fairly generous incomes. They agreed that each would cover the expense of the child during their half of the year.
She has decided to take off work during her custody period, and has asked him to pay her a stipend during that time. Is she willing to do the same for him, if he decides to take off work when the child is staying with him?
That would be my verdict. Instead of alternating weeks, let them alternate months. Let him pay her the $4k during her month off, then when he has custody and she's back at work, let her pay him.
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
_____
Your joking right? What does cheating have to do with custody under nofault divorce laws?
I think that if I worked full time and hubby worked full time and Daddy left and I was not able to get a part time job I would stay home with the children. The kids would be on tenterhooks as it is and need the extra guidance.
At 472K, contributing 4k a month to child support is not a real problem
_________
I read it as 4k more a month...I imagine he is paying 7 or 8K. But at 472 that still doesnt give much of a bump.
"Moreover, he argued, the children were of school-age, had no special needs, and had done well earlier in their lives, when both parents worked full time."
And about all this, he had a good point!
Great post! This was really and excellent article, it gave a very informative over view of this subject, and was quite readable, if a little exacting in its precision (but I guess that can't be avoided in a piece like this). It also really shows, not tells but shows, how divorce truly undermines family life; and indicates via its discussion of even the wealthiest amoung us, how that starts to undermine all of society. Especially in its impact on the children in the family. If this family was together they might have the mom stay home; or maybe she could get better part time work (it seemed the week on/week off custody was making sucha gig hard to find, maybe), or they might have big fights about it (all the time!), but they wouldn't be adversaries in a court room, letting "society" and THE GOVERNMENT run their lives and raise their children.
So telling, really.
She left a job paying 240 a year to stay home and he bitches about 4 k in support? That is peculiar.
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.
I believe about 2/3 of divorces are initiated by the wife.
Of course, restricting their ability to divorce would also constitute "society" and THE GOVERNMENT running their lives.
Sure I would agree with that scenario, but this article couldn't be any farther from that scenario
But that was the gist of the article.
"But that was the gist of the article. "
Wrong try reading the article, not Gisting it. Post 20 gives a "gist" of the article.
"I read it as 4k more a month...I imagine he is paying 7 or 8K. But at 472 that still doesnt give much of a bump."
Sure, he's already paying for all the other lazy people who don't want to work, what's one more?
"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)"
But, I think the situation here, and why it went to court, was that originally the dad was paying $0.00 in child support. They just each went about their lives with the kids and only if a big expense came up would either have to part with a specific amount of $$. Then, even when the mom started working part time she supplemented with other income from investments, etc. and still did not get a "child support" income from ex-hubby.
Now, she wanted to stop working all together and have him provide a monthly (annual, whatever) "stipend"; and I guess she'll get it now. But, as the kids are older, and as the father does have a great ability to pay, I suppose it's ok for these people. But what I really got out of this article is how really bad a way that is to life one's life as a parent.
I felt sorry for the kids, one week with mom, one week with Dad. How can a kid deal with that? It just seems so disruptive unless they live around the corner from each other.
"It's never a problem when it's not your money."
And that's true too.
No, he doesn't value her refusing to pull her weight financially. Her little mid-life crisis is costing him $4000 more per month.
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.