# Child Support is unfair



## Aristotle

I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?


----------



## AmyNation

What do you mean track?


----------



## Aristotle

I believe if child support is in the best interest of the child and if the state wants the father (or mother) to pay, it should be in the form of a card like an EBT to check how the money is being spent. It makes no sense for fathers to cut a woman a check, only to have her do as she wish. I hear to many stories of men payingan arm and a leg yet, the woman is buying Channel gift bags while her child has a dirty shirt and a snotty nose.


----------



## AmyNation

I can understand the feeling, however whether she/he takes that specific check and spends it on nails or beer, is not the other parents business.

Think of the money for child support as a reimbursement check, for monies the primary parent has already spent that month for the child.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction


----------



## AmyNation

" In the United States, 10 states (Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Oregon, and Washington) allow courts to demand an accounting on expenses and spending from custodial parents. Additionally, Alabama courts have authorized such accounting under certain specific circumstances."

Child support - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My personal opinion is that if the parent paying child support feels their support is being abused then they should be able to petition for an accounting. However keeping track of every cases payments and where each cent goes seems like a bit much.


----------



## KissMy

AmyNation said:


> I can understand the feeling, however whether she/he takes that specific check and spends it on nails or beer, is not the other parents business.
> 
> Think of the money for child support as a reimbursement check, for monies the primary parent has already spent that month for the child.



What if she did not spend any on the child & blew all the money on crack?


----------



## AmyNation

KissMy said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand the feeling, however whether she/he takes that specific check and spends it on nails or beer, is not the other parents business.
> 
> Think of the money for child support as a reimbursement check, for monies the primary parent has already spent that month for the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if she did not spend any on the child & blew all the money on crack?
Click to expand...


Then you call CPS.


----------



## AmyNation

Here the thing, child support is largely based on the income of the non-custodial parent, not the exact costs to care for the child. So, depending on your income you could be sending not near enough to cover expenses, or you could be sending a lot more.


----------



## KissMy

AmyNation said:


> Here the thing, child support is largely based on the income of the non-custodial parent, not the exact costs to care for the child. So, depending on your income you could be sending not near enough to cover expenses, or you could be sending a lot more.



If you are sending a lot more than is used at that time to care for the child shouldn't that money be locked away into an account for the child's future needs or college instead of buying mom's new boyfriend a motorcycle?


----------



## Aristotle

AmyNation said:


> I can understand the feeling, however whether she/he takes that specific check and spends it on nails or beer, is not the other parents business.
> 
> Think of the money for child support as a reimbursement check, for monies the primary parent has already spent that month for the child.



reimbursement?

I think when a man participates sexually with a woman there is no such thing as reimbursement. The man has much of a responsibility to the child as the woman. This is 50/50. I'm surprised you had the audacity to write what you wrote.

I'm not one of those men that thinks delivering a child makes you a demi-god. Sorry, I don't subscribe to that. People make choices. Nobody told women to have a baby. These are choices these women make.

I also don't subscribe to the notion that women who get child support have a right to spend it on what they need. Spending money on nails does not support the child, it supports personal luxury. Spending child support on beer does not support the child, it supports a potential habit.


----------



## Noomi

Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.


----------



## Aristotle

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction



This is what upsets me. The courts scale the monthly payment with whatever you make annually I assume.

Sean "Puffy" Combs pay what, $10,000 a month? What child costs $10,000 a month? I never realized providing basic sustenance for a child would cost $10,000.


----------



## Steelplate

the answer is simple.....keep it in your pants. After all, women are supposed to hold an aspirin between their knees for birth control.

Same thing with us men. Oh...masturbation cleans the pipes just as well and has a 0% pregnancy rate.


----------



## Steelplate

Aristotle said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is what upsets me. The courts scale the monthly payment with whatever you make annually I assume.
> 
> Sean "Puffy" Combs pay what, $10,000 a month? What child costs $10,000 a month? I never realized providing basic sustenance for a child would cost $10,000.
Click to expand...


So tell me....why should Combs' kid NOT live a lifestyle in a similar manner as his dad? I do agree about the tax deduction thing though. The custodial parent gets the tax deduction for the child, the person who provides support ought to be able to deduct his/her contributions.

I see a lot of whining here. I also see a lot of questionable accusations.....nails, beer, motorcycles for the boyfriend, crack? How much of that shit do you really think is going on? more importantly, how much can you prove?

I have two step children....they are both over 18, so any support my wife got is long gone. I can tell you what we did with it...we spent it on them either directly or indirectly. Directly in the form of clothes, toys, VHS tapes and DVDS, etc.....Indirectly in the form of paying the occasional electric, or some other bill when times were tight. When both kids were under 18, we saw about $300/ month. When my wife and I got some baggage from our previous marriages(we both were married once before) paid off and were a little better off....we put the entire amount into their TAP(tuition account program) fund....along with a similar contribution out of our pockets.

This allowed our oldest to get a Penn State education and is putting our youngest through college now.....without taking a Parent Plus loan(so far).

I saw a recent statistic where the average cost of raising a kid from birth to 18, if the child were born today, is $200K. That's a lot of money, considering most two income families are bringing in under $50k/year and still have to pay every other bill imaginable. Cut that two income family income in half, and it becomes damn near impossible.


----------



## Care4all

Noomi said:


> Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.


If the man never wanted a child then the man should have been using rubbers or should have had a vasectomy.  He should be responsible for himself and his own wishes....SHE SHOULD NOT have to be responsible for forefilling his desires of not having a child.


----------



## Care4all

the cost of taking care of YOUR CHILD 24/7 is more than a dollar figure....the man can easily run off with any woman and marry again...the man can have a full time career and add to his retirement for old age, the mother is limited to such full time good paying careers, as the single parent caring for your child, again 24/7....she has much less opportunity to remarry and to add to her own retirement and to succeed in life with a good career, mainly because she is the 24/7 parent for your child, while you are free as a bird....

there is more to this than buying your kid a hot dog for dinner....who cooks it for them, who cleans the dishes afterwards, who puts your child to bed at night, who washes them in the tub every night, who takes them to the doctor when sick and who has to miss work in order to do it, who dresses your kid and who has to take them to school or make certain they make it safe to school?


----------



## 007

Care4all said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> If the man never wanted a child then the man should have been using rubbers or should have had a vasectomy.  He should be responsible for himself and his own wishes....SHE SHOULD NOT have to be responsible for forefilling his desires of not having a child.
Click to expand...


No matter what form of BC two people may elect to use, they BOTH MUST take responsibility for the fact that the woman MIGHT get pregnant. If either is unwilling to take that responsibility, then they have NO business having sex. This assumption that people just simply can NOT STOP THEMSELVES FROM HAVING SEX is a very pathetic excuse for unwanted pregnancies.


----------



## editec

Aristotle said:


> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?


 
I can cite an egregious example of that blatent gender bias regarding child support payments that happened to a friend of mine here in Maine.


So yes, I do think there is often gender bias against men when it comes to child support.


----------



## Care4all

007 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> If the man never wanted a child then the man should have been using rubbers or should have had a vasectomy.  He should be responsible for himself and his own wishes....SHE SHOULD NOT have to be responsible for fore-filling his desires of not having a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No matter what form of BC two people may elect to use, they BOTH MUST take responsibility for the fact that the woman MIGHT get pregnant. If either is unwilling to take that responsibility, then they have NO business having sex. This assumption that people just simply can NOT STOP THEMSELVES FROM HAVING SEX is a very pathetic excuse for unwanted pregnancies.
Click to expand...

I agree...that's how it used to be, when i was growing up.......abstain or both took responsibility if pregnancy took place....the woman had the child, the man married the woman....for the most part.


----------



## FA_Q2

Care4all said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> If the man never wanted a child then the man should have been using rubbers or should have had a vasectomy.  He should be responsible for himself and his own wishes....SHE SHOULD NOT have to be responsible for forefilling his desires of not having a child.
Click to expand...


If a woman does not want a child then she should use protection, take the pill, or not have sex.  She should NOT be able to get an abortion to. Oh wait, your example is meaningless.

The man is expected to take the responsibility but he does not have a choice.  The woman has that ball by virtue of her sex.  The field is not even nor will it ever be.  I agree with the original statement that a potential mother should not be allowed to force a man to live the next 18 years in servitude if he never wanted the child in the first place as she can opt out through an abortion and he has no say in that decision as well.  She could go have the baby and put it up fpr adoption, all without ever having the father in the loop at all.  All without ever taking one single ounce of responsibility for her own actions and yet we demand that the father should have no options at all, ever, in any set of circumstances.  

Then there are states where a woman can arbitrarily declare a father that is not even present and unless you have the 500 bucks to shell out on the spot for the test you are screwed.  Even of you prove after the fact that you are not the actual father, the court does not care unless you can find the biological father yourself.  You think that happens often?  Thought not.  I had a friend that was caught in this situation.  The court is essentially saying the child needs a father and whoever the mother points to, he is it.  Unfortunately, this has other implications that go with it and is not much of an actual solution.  Hence, the system that we have today that is not fair and abuses the men and their rights BUT provides for the children.  The least you can do is recognize this fact.


The child support system is wildly biased in more ways than that though and it needs to be adjusted.  Some states have it right.  The wages of the parents are taken and put through an equation and it spits a number out based on that wage and visitation rights.  Other states not so much.  My father, as a good example, paid about a grand a month for me and my sister.  After gaining full custody of us both, no one paid anything.  Is that fair?  No.  Is it right?  Absolutely not.  If it works one way, it should work in the exact opposite way.  

You also mention single family homes.  I would be willing to bet that a sizable chunk of those receiving child support are NOT single mothers and fathers.  Most people move on and get remarried.  Should a single father that has no visitation be paying for the raising of the child that has a father and a mother?  

The question of child support is rather complicated.  There permutations that this situation can take are endless and each has a thousand different details that should come into play if you want things to actually be fair.  Unfortunately, the world is not fair and though the system is biased against men, what do we replace it with?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Noomi said:


> Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.



If a male thinks he's man enough to fuck and get's a woman pregnant in the process he better be man enough to be a father to the child.


----------



## Care4all

FA_Q2 said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> If the man never wanted a child then the man should have been using rubbers or should have had a vasectomy.  He should be responsible for himself and his own wishes....SHE SHOULD NOT have to be responsible for forefilling his desires of not having a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If a woman does not want a child then she should use protection, take the pill, or not have sex.  She should NOT be able to get an abortion to. Oh wait, your example is meaningless.
> 
> The man is expected to take the responsibility but he does not have a choice.  The woman has that ball by virtue of her sex.  The field is not even nor will it ever be.  I agree with the original statement that a potential mother should not be allowed to force a man to live the next 18 years in servitude if he never wanted the child in the first place as she can opt out through an abortion and he has no say in that decision as well.  She could go have the baby and put it up fpr adoption, all without ever having the father in the loop at all.  All without ever taking one single ounce of responsibility for her own actions and yet we demand that the father should have no options at all, ever, in any set of circumstances.
> 
> Then there are states where a woman can arbitrarily declare a father that is not even present and unless you have the 500 bucks to shell out on the spot for the test you are screwed.  Even of you prove after the fact that you are not the actual father, the court does not care unless you can find the biological father yourself.  You think that happens often?  Thought not.  I had a friend that was caught in this situation.  The court is essentially saying the child needs a father and whoever the mother points to, he is it.  Unfortunately, this has other implications that go with it and is not much of an actual solution.  Hence, the system that we have today that is not fair and abuses the men and their rights BUT provides for the children.  The least you can do is recognize this fact.
> 
> 
> The child support system is wildly biased in more ways than that though and it needs to be adjusted.  Some states have it right.  The wages of the parents are taken and put through an equation and it spits a number out based on that wage and visitation rights.  Other states not so much.  My father, as a good example, paid about a grand a month for me and my sister.  After gaining full custody of us both, no one paid anything.  Is that fair?  No.  Is it right?  Absolutely not.  If it works one way, it should work in the exact opposite way.
> 
> You also mention single family homes.  I would be willing to bet that a sizable chunk of those receiving child support are NOT single mothers and fathers.  Most people move on and get remarried.  Should a single father that has no visitation be paying for the raising of the child that has a father and a mother?
> 
> The question of child support is rather complicated.  There permutations that this situation can take are endless and each has a thousand different details that should come into play if you want things to actually be fair.  Unfortunately, the world is not fair and though the system is biased against men, what do we replace it with?
Click to expand...

If the man does not want a child, he does have a choice and that is to wear protection, have a vasectomy, or abstain from putting himself in a predicament of getting his girlfriend pregnant.

It is true that once pregnant, the woman does have more choices, but this is because it is her that is pregnant and it is her body.....not the father's body....and never ever will be the father's body.

do I think that there are some cases where it seems to be unfair to the father to be?  sure, there are some cases....certainly not the majority of cases though.


----------



## koshergrl

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction



Why should you be able to use it as a tax deduction? I don't get a tax deduction for the money I spend on rent, food, clothing, lessons, medical costs for my children. Why should you?

And Amy is absolutely right...it's not tracked because it's meant to maintain a lifestyle for the children...it's not meant to be spent JUST on the children directly. Whether it's spent on rent, mom's clothing, the car, landscaping the yard, or vacations, those are things that add to the well being of the family and as such benefit the children.


----------



## 007

FA_Q2 said:


> The man is expected to take the responsibility but he does not have a choice.  The woman has that ball by virtue of her sex.  The field is not even nor will it ever be.  I agree with the original statement that a potential mother should not be allowed to &#8216;force&#8217; a man to live the next 18 years in servitude if he never wanted the child in the first place as she can &#8216;opt out&#8217; through an abortion and he has no say in that decision as well.  She could go have the baby and put it up fpr adoption, all without ever having the father in the loop at all.  All without ever taking one single ounce of responsibility for her own actions and yet we demand that the father should have no options at all, ever, in any set of circumstances.



Wrong.... wrong, wrong, wrong... the man is making his "choice" when he elects to stick his pecker in it. If he isn't man enough to suffer the consequences if the woman gets pregnant, then he should have kept his dick in his pants. NO ONE MADE him fuck the woman. That was HIS CHOICE. Get that? HIS *CHOICE*. 

If you don't ever, under any circumstances, in your life, want to get stuck paying for a child YOU FATHERED... THEN DON'T GO AROUND DIPPING YOUR WICK IN EVERY WET CRACK YOU FIND, because sooner or later, you WILL get a woman pregnant.

This argument is as stupid as that moron woman Sandy Fuck who was demanding that taxpayers provide her with free birth control pills because she couldn't keep her fucking legs shut. She saw a dick and she just had to fuck it, and because of that, you and I, the taxpayers had to foot the bill for her ineptitude. Same thing for a man that wants to whine and cry about having to pay child support. He blew the 'he shouldn't have to' argument the  second he stuck his dick in. You play, you pay. I did, and I didn't bitch about it. It's the fucking you get for the fucking you got. Best males remember that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

koshergrl said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should you be able to use it as a tax deduction? I don't get a tax deduction for the money I spend on rent, food, clothing, lessons, medical costs for my children. Why should you?
> 
> And Amy is absolutely right...it's not tracked because it's meant to maintain a lifestyle for the children...it's not meant to be spent JUST on the children directly. Whether it's spent on rent, mom's clothing, the car, landscaping the yard, or vacations, those are things that add to the well being of the family and as such benefit the children.
Click to expand...


Why should the woman be allowed to use child support as an income? And get the tax deduction?


----------



## syrenn

Aristotle said:


> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?



what say me? 


Men should pay for child support if they make a baby. If they dont want to pay child support...they should have kept their sperm to themselves.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

AmyNation said:


> Here the thing, child support is largely based on the income of the non-custodial parent, not the exact costs to care for the child. So, depending on your income you could be sending not near enough to cover expenses, or you could be sending a lot more.



Correct. 

Child support cant be tracked because its unearned income received by the custodial parent; the funds can be used however the CP sees fit. If child abuse or neglect is suspected of the CP, then a referral to child welfare services is made. 



Aristotle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand the feeling, however whether she/he takes that specific check and spends it on nails or beer, is not the other parents business.
> 
> Think of the money for child support as a reimbursement check, for monies the primary parent has already spent that month for the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reimbursement?
> 
> I think when a man participates sexually with a woman there is no such thing as reimbursement. The man has much of a responsibility to the child as the woman. This is 50/50. I'm surprised you had the audacity to write what you wrote.
> 
> I'm not one of those men that thinks delivering a child makes you a demi-god. Sorry, I don't subscribe to that. People make choices. Nobody told women to have a baby. These are choices these women make.
> 
> I also don't subscribe to the notion that women who get child support have a right to spend it on what they need. Spending money on nails does not support the child, it supports personal luxury. Spending child support on beer does not support the child, it supports a potential habit.
Click to expand...


Incorrect. 

Unless there is evidence of neglect or abuse, the custodial parent cannot be compelled to justify the spending of child support. It is assumed by the court that the custodial parent is caring for the child(ren) in an appropriate manner, otherwise the court would not have awarded custody.  

The absent parent is always free to petition the court for a review of the court order should he suspect any violations of that order.


----------



## koshergrl

bigrebnc1775 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should you be able to use it as a tax deduction? I don't get a tax deduction for the money I spend on rent, food, clothing, lessons, medical costs for my children. Why should you?
> 
> And Amy is absolutely right...it's not tracked because it's meant to maintain a lifestyle for the children...it's not meant to be spent JUST on the children directly. Whether it's spent on rent, mom's clothing, the car, landscaping the yard, or vacations, those are things that add to the well being of the family and as such benefit the children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should the woman be allowed to use child support as an income? And get the tax deduction?
Click to expand...


Because the woman has the child.


----------



## Conservative

AmyNation said:


> I can understand the feeling, however *whether she/he takes that specific check and spends it on nails or beer, is not the other parents business.*
> 
> Think of the money for child support as a reimbursement check, for monies the primary parent has already spent that month for the child.



I strongly disagree.

I am divorced, and have been since 2001. I paid child support until my two oldest were emancipated, and my youngest lives with me now (and has for the last few years). While I was paying support I would have freaked if I had discovered my ex spending the money I gave her, to support my children, on beer, nails, hair, etc. 

Luckily she always spent the money on the kids (food, mortgage, clothing, etc.) and only spent her own money on herself. Also, not once did she ever have to ask me for the money. Without fail, it was in her account every 2 weeks, like clockwork. There wasn't a force in the universe that could have prevented me from supporting my children. I'd have lived in a cardboard box before I let them go without.


----------



## Conservative

syrenn said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what say me?
> 
> 
> Men should pay for child support if they make a baby. If they dont want to pay child support...they should have kept their sperm to themselves.
Click to expand...


some of us like to share


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Courts determine child support and custody predicated on the best interests of the child(ren), not whats fair or unfair to either parent.


----------



## Conservative

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Courts determine child support and custody predicated on the best interests of the child(ren), not whats fair or unfair to either parent.



this.


----------



## Full-Auto

Aristotle said:


> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?



Big can of worms there.................

While its true many of our courts award custody to the non bread winner for a piece of the pie. It is also true that the system is very soft on irresponsible women. There wont be a solution. The State is vested in the status quo. IE the easiest place to get their cut.....

If they gave custody to the bread winner, there is no need for state services....Thus the underlying problem.......


----------



## Salt Jones

I was a single parent from my kids ages of 9 and 11 years old, until the youngest was 18. I never received a penny of child support from ex-wife, the court said she didn't have to pay. I was divorced when my youngest was 1.

I started paying child support before the divorce was final and continued until I was awarded sole custody.  The 8 years between divorce and my gaining custody were eventful. I was awarded temporary custody for 2 years. The court ordered me to continue paying my ex-wife child support even though I had the kids. Due to state jurisdictional issues, I had to return my kids to my ex-wife. I did't see them again for 5 years. My ex didn't honor our custody orders and moved or changed phone numbers to keep me from contacting my kids. All the while my child support allotment kept going to her bank, I was active duty Navy during this time. 

I was going to court the entire time to get my visitation enforced and no matter what she did, from leaving the state when visitation dates came or not answering the phone on our scheduled phone visits, I still paid child support.

Every time we went to court the first question I was asked: "Is your child support current?". No matter what she did, I was always asked about child support. The court gave her total disregard of a court ordered custody agreement equal weight with whether or not I missed a payment. In the end, I won sole custody. My ex-wife was ordered to pay 33% of my legal fees, pay me $5,000 and was given 5 years probation for repeatedly and excessively violating the court orders.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Full-Auto said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big can of worms there.................
> 
> While its true many of our courts award custody to the non bread winner for a piece of the pie. It is also true that the system is very soft on irresponsible women. There wont be a solution. The State is vested in the status quo. IE the easiest place to get their cut.....
> 
> If they gave custody to the bread winner, there is no need for state services....Thus the underlying problem.......
Click to expand...


True you do have a point.


----------



## Full-Auto

Salt Jones said:


> I was a single parent from my kids ages of 9 and 11 years old, until the youngest was 18. I never received a penny of child support from ex-wife, the court said she didn't have to pay. I was divorced when my youngest was 1.
> 
> I started paying child support before the divorce was final and continued until I was awarded sole custody.  The 8 years between divorce and my gaining custody were eventful. I was awarded temporary custody for 2 years. The court ordered me to continue paying my ex-wife child support even though I had the kids. Due to state jurisdictional issues, I had to return my kids to my ex-wife. I did't see them again for 5 years. My ex didn't honor our custody orders and moved or changed phone numbers to keep me from contacting my kids. All the while my child support allotment kept going to her bank, I was active duty Navy during this time.
> 
> I was going to court the entire time to get my visitation enforced and no matter what she did, from leaving the state when visitation dates came or not answering the phone on our scheduled phone visits, I still paid child support.
> 
> Every time we went to court the first question I was asked: "Is your child support current?". No matter what she did, I was always asked about child support. The court gave her total disregard of a court ordered custody agreement equal weight with whether or not I missed a payment. In the end, I won sole custody. My ex-wife was ordered to pay 33% of my legal fees, pay me $5,000 and was given 5 years probation for repeatedly and excessively violating the court orders.



That is damn sad Salt......I have heard countless stories just like this......

However you hung tough and never gave up on the kids.

Hat Tip Sir


----------



## Salt Jones

Full-Auto said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big can of worms there.................
> 
> While its true many of our courts award custody to the non bread winner for a piece of the pie. It is also true that the system is very soft on irresponsible women. There wont be a solution. The State is vested in the status quo. IE the easiest place to get their cut.....
> 
> If they gave custody to the bread winner, there is no need for state services....Thus the underlying problem.......
Click to expand...


I agree. I never missed a child support payment in 6 years and started paying before the divorce was final. But, in the final two years of my custody fight the state ordered me to stop paying my ex directly and to start paying into the state's child support system, at a $40 monthly fee. They wanted to make sure I would pay.


----------



## Salt Jones

Full-Auto said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a single parent from my kids ages of 9 and 11 years old, until the youngest was 18. I never received a penny of child support from ex-wife, the court said she didn't have to pay. I was divorced when my youngest was 1.
> 
> I started paying child support before the divorce was final and continued until I was awarded sole custody.  The 8 years between divorce and my gaining custody were eventful. I was awarded temporary custody for 2 years. The court ordered me to continue paying my ex-wife child support even though I had the kids. Due to state jurisdictional issues, I had to return my kids to my ex-wife. I did't see them again for 5 years. My ex didn't honor our custody orders and moved or changed phone numbers to keep me from contacting my kids. All the while my child support allotment kept going to her bank, I was active duty Navy during this time.
> 
> I was going to court the entire time to get my visitation enforced and no matter what she did, from leaving the state when visitation dates came or not answering the phone on our scheduled phone visits, I still paid child support.
> 
> Every time we went to court the first question I was asked: "Is your child support current?". No matter what she did, I was always asked about child support. The court gave her total disregard of a court ordered custody agreement equal weight with whether or not I missed a payment. In the end, I won sole custody. My ex-wife was ordered to pay 33% of my legal fees, pay me $5,000 and was given 5 years probation for repeatedly and excessively violating the court orders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is damn sad Salt......I have heard countless stories just like this......
> 
> However you hung tough and never gave up on the kids.
> 
> Hat Tip Sir
Click to expand...


I was raised to take care of my family and that's what I was trying to do. The best birthday gift I ever received was a letter from my daughter thanking me for not giving up and getting them out of that mess. Of course my ex told all kinds of lies about me forgetting about them and never calling or wanting to visit them.


----------



## Full-Auto

Salt Jones said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big can of worms there.................
> 
> While its true many of our courts award custody to the non bread winner for a piece of the pie. It is also true that the system is very soft on irresponsible women. There wont be a solution. The State is vested in the status quo. IE the easiest place to get their cut.....
> 
> If they gave custody to the bread winner, there is no need for state services....Thus the underlying problem.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. I never missed a child support payment in 6 years and started paying before the divorce was final. But, in the final two years of my custody fight the state ordered me to stop paying my ex directly and to start paying into the state's child support system, at a $40 monthly fee. They wanted to make sure I would pay.
Click to expand...


Yes..................The fee........ Sadly in many cases the State is more concerned with the FEE then the actual welfare of the children.  You have my profound respect Sir. We need more fathers like you..Willing to take on what ever comes our way for the children.....

Now that half of all births here are to single parents...Means...Rough times ahead......


----------



## Salt Jones

Full-Auto said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> Big can of worms there.................
> 
> While its true many of our courts award custody to the non bread winner for a piece of the pie. It is also true that the system is very soft on irresponsible women. There wont be a solution. The State is vested in the status quo. IE the easiest place to get their cut.....
> 
> If they gave custody to the bread winner, there is no need for state services....Thus the underlying problem.......
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I agree. I never missed a child support payment in 6 years and started paying before the divorce was final. But, in the final two years of my custody fight the state ordered me to stop paying my ex directly and to start paying into the state's child support system, at a $40 monthly fee. They wanted to make sure I would pay.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes..................The fee........ Sadly in many cases the State is more concerned with the FEE then the actual welfare of the children.  You have my profound respect Sir. We need more fathers like you..Willing to take on what ever comes our way for the children.....
> 
> Now that half of all births here are to single parents...Means...Rough times ahead......
Click to expand...


I agree. But, I see it from both sides. I experienced the gender bias in the courts and child support system on the way to getting custody of my kids and I see the struggles single parents, mostly mothers, go through with inadequate child support. Buying diapers or clothes every now and then isn't supporting your kid and the single parent buying stuff to make the kid's life better, even though it seems not to directly affect the kid, is supporting the kid.


----------



## Aristotle

syrenn said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what say me?
> 
> 
> Men should pay for child support if they make a baby. If they dont want to pay child support...they should have kept their sperm to themselves.
Click to expand...


So its ok that a woman squander's the money on herself?


----------



## Aristotle

Salt Jones said:


> I was a single parent from my kids ages of 9 and 11 years old, until the youngest was 18. I never received a penny of child support from ex-wife, the court said she didn't have to pay. I was divorced when my youngest was 1.
> 
> I started paying child support before the divorce was final and continued until I was awarded sole custody.  The 8 years between divorce and my gaining custody were eventful. I was awarded temporary custody for 2 years. The court ordered me to continue paying my ex-wife child support even though I had the kids. Due to state jurisdictional issues, I had to return my kids to my ex-wife. I did't see them again for 5 years. My ex didn't honor our custody orders and moved or changed phone numbers to keep me from contacting my kids. All the while my child support allotment kept going to her bank, I was active duty Navy during this time.
> 
> I was going to court the entire time to get my visitation enforced and no matter what she did, from leaving the state when visitation dates came or not answering the phone on our scheduled phone visits, I still paid child support.
> 
> Every time we went to court the first question I was asked: "Is your child support current?". No matter what she did, I was always asked about child support. The court gave her total disregard of a court ordered custody agreement equal weight with whether or not I missed a payment. In the end, I won sole custody. My ex-wife was ordered to pay 33% of my legal fees, pay me $5,000 and was given 5 years probation for repeatedly and excessively violating the court orders.



This is the stuff that pisses me off. You serving our country and this shit happens


----------



## Katzndogz

Aristotle said:


> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what say me?
> 
> 
> Men should pay for child support if they make a baby. If they dont want to pay child support...they should have kept their sperm to themselves.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So its ok that a woman squander's the money on herself?
Click to expand...


Yes it is.

The woman pays rent, buys food, buys clothing, pays the utilities.  If she takes the child support and blows it, she's still paying the bills.


----------



## Intense

Noomi said:


> Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.



Shit happens. Marriages fail. Each Parent has a responsibility to the Children. Adults learn to take responsibility, it's part of being a Grown Up. 

In relation to Parents of an unwanted Pregnancy, should it lead to full term, Sign away those Parental Rights, one could only hope that the Child finds a good adoptive home.


----------



## Salt Jones

Aristotle said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a single parent from my kids ages of 9 and 11 years old, until the youngest was 18. I never received a penny of child support from ex-wife, the court said she didn't have to pay. I was divorced when my youngest was 1.
> 
> I started paying child support before the divorce was final and continued until I was awarded sole custody.  The 8 years between divorce and my gaining custody were eventful. I was awarded temporary custody for 2 years. The court ordered me to continue paying my ex-wife child support even though I had the kids. Due to state jurisdictional issues, I had to return my kids to my ex-wife. I did't see them again for 5 years. My ex didn't honor our custody orders and moved or changed phone numbers to keep me from contacting my kids. All the while my child support allotment kept going to her bank, I was active duty Navy during this time.
> 
> I was going to court the entire time to get my visitation enforced and no matter what she did, from leaving the state when visitation dates came or not answering the phone on our scheduled phone visits, I still paid child support.
> 
> Every time we went to court the first question I was asked: "Is your child support current?". No matter what she did, I was always asked about child support. The court gave her total disregard of a court ordered custody agreement equal weight with whether or not I missed a payment. In the end, I won sole custody. My ex-wife was ordered to pay 33% of my legal fees, pay me $5,000 and was given 5 years probation for repeatedly and excessively violating the court orders.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is the stuff that pisses me off. You serving our country and this shit happens
Click to expand...


That's life. I knew a lot of guys in the military who refused to pay their fair share of child support. The military tries to force you to pay a certain amount, but they have no legal say in the amount of child support you pay. That's up to state courts.


----------



## Katzndogz

One of my clients ended up a father from a one night stand and she assured him that she was on the pill.   He faithfully paid child support for 18 years.   Periodically the mother took him to court to get an increase.  And tried several times to force this man to visit the child, send Christmas and Birthday presents but he never did.   The mother fought for and got a  court order for visitation and shared vacation times.  She just could not get an order forcing him to visit or have the child for six weeks during the summer or alternate holidays.   He paid, every month, what the law said he had to pay.  No more, no less.   He understood that he made a mistake and had to pay for that mistake.  He did it without complaint.   Raising the child was entirely the mother's responsibility.  She chose to get pregnant.  She chose not to take the pill as she said she did.   He bore no responsibility beyond financial restitution for his momentary lapse.  He never saw the child, never spoke to the child, never accepted any letters with regard to the child or from the child when she got old enough.   It was a fair resolution.


----------



## HUGGY

Aristotle said:


> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?



Simple solution...vet your prospective wives better than you do your elected officials.


----------



## Salt Jones

Katzndogz said:


> One of my clients ended up a father from a one night stand and she assured him that she was on the pill.   He faithfully paid child support for 18 years.   Periodically the mother took him to court to get an increase.  And tried several times to force this man to visit the child, send Christmas and Birthday presents but he never did.   The mother fought for and got a  court order for visitation and shared vacation times.  She just could not get an order forcing him to visit or have the child for six weeks during the summer or alternate holidays.   He paid, every month, what the law said he had to pay.  No more, no less.   He understood that he made a mistake and had to pay for that mistake.  He did it without complaint.   Raising the child was entirely the mother's responsibility.  She chose to get pregnant.  She chose not to take the pill as she said she did.   He bore no responsibility beyond financial restitution for his momentary lapse.  He never saw the child, never spoke to the child, never accepted any letters with regard to the child or from the child when she got old enough.   It was a fair resolution.



If that gets him through the night, more power to him. I think it was a coward's way out. He had sex, pregnancy can result from sex. He punished a kid because of his weakness. That is the sign of a pussy.


----------



## Katzndogz

Salt Jones said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of my clients ended up a father from a one night stand and she assured him that she was on the pill.   He faithfully paid child support for 18 years.   Periodically the mother took him to court to get an increase.  And tried several times to force this man to visit the child, send Christmas and Birthday presents but he never did.   The mother fought for and got a  court order for visitation and shared vacation times.  She just could not get an order forcing him to visit or have the child for six weeks during the summer or alternate holidays.   He paid, every month, what the law said he had to pay.  No more, no less.   He understood that he made a mistake and had to pay for that mistake.  He did it without complaint.   Raising the child was entirely the mother's responsibility.  She chose to get pregnant.  She chose not to take the pill as she said she did.   He bore no responsibility beyond financial restitution for his momentary lapse.  He never saw the child, never spoke to the child, never accepted any letters with regard to the child or from the child when she got old enough.   It was a fair resolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that gets him through the night, more power to him. I think it was a coward's way out. He had sex, pregnancy can result from sex. He punished a kid because of his weakness. That is the sign of a pussy.
Click to expand...


He actually paid his child support, every month, without complaint.  That's hardly punishment.    It seems like a quite reasonable resolution.   I don't see any punishment to the child at all.  

Should men be forced to be a secondary custodial parent to children they never wanted?   Aside from child support, how would such an order be enforced.   We know, already that child support is increased based on a reduction in parental visitation time.  So my client was paying top dollar.  Paying for all the time he never spent with the child.   Where is the punishment?


----------



## Salt Jones

Katzndogz said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of my clients ended up a father from a one night stand and she assured him that she was on the pill.   He faithfully paid child support for 18 years.   Periodically the mother took him to court to get an increase.  And tried several times to force this man to visit the child, send Christmas and Birthday presents but he never did.   The mother fought for and got a  court order for visitation and shared vacation times.  She just could not get an order forcing him to visit or have the child for six weeks during the summer or alternate holidays.   He paid, every month, what the law said he had to pay.  No more, no less.   He understood that he made a mistake and had to pay for that mistake.  He did it without complaint.   Raising the child was entirely the mother's responsibility.  She chose to get pregnant.  She chose not to take the pill as she said she did.   He bore no responsibility beyond financial restitution for his momentary lapse.  He never saw the child, never spoke to the child, never accepted any letters with regard to the child or from the child when she got old enough.   It was a fair resolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that gets him through the night, more power to him. I think it was a coward's way out. He had sex, pregnancy can result from sex. He punished a kid because of his weakness. That is the sign of a pussy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He actually paid his child support, every month, without complaint.  That's hardly punishment.    It seems like a quite reasonable resolution.   I don't see any punishment to the child at all.
> 
> Should men be forced to be a secondary custodial parent to children they never wanted?   Aside from child support, how would such an order be enforced.   We know, already that child support is increased based on a reduction in parental visitation time.  So my client was paying top dollar.  Paying for all the time he never spent with the child.   Where is the punishment?
Click to expand...


Like I said, if that gets him through the night. I have no respect for him. The punishment is not providing love to a child you created. Giving money too, but not wanting to be a part of the kid's life sends a message to that kid.


----------



## Provocateur

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child *and can't use it as a deduction*



If you ever go back to court, make sure that this is taken into consideration.  An adjustment should be made.


----------



## Katzndogz

Salt Jones said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> If that gets him through the night, more power to him. I think it was a coward's way out. He had sex, pregnancy can result from sex. He punished a kid because of his weakness. That is the sign of a pussy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He actually paid his child support, every month, without complaint.  That's hardly punishment.    It seems like a quite reasonable resolution.   I don't see any punishment to the child at all.
> 
> Should men be forced to be a secondary custodial parent to children they never wanted?   Aside from child support, how would such an order be enforced.   We know, already that child support is increased based on a reduction in parental visitation time.  So my client was paying top dollar.  Paying for all the time he never spent with the child.   Where is the punishment?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, if that gets him through the night. I have no respect for him. The punishment is not providing love to a child you created. Giving money too, but not wanting to be a part of the kid's life sends a message to that kid.
Click to expand...


I take it you are against abortion.


----------



## koshergrl

Salt Jones said:


> I was a single parent from my kids ages of 9 and 11 years old, until the youngest was 18. I never received a penny of child support from ex-wife, the court said she didn't have to pay. I was divorced when my youngest was 1.
> 
> I started paying child support before the divorce was final and continued until I was awarded sole custody.  The 8 years between divorce and my gaining custody were eventful. I was awarded temporary custody for 2 years. The court ordered me to continue paying my ex-wife child support even though I had the kids. Due to state jurisdictional issues, I had to return my kids to my ex-wife. I did't see them again for 5 years. My ex didn't honor our custody orders and moved or changed phone numbers to keep me from contacting my kids. All the while my child support allotment kept going to her bank, I was active duty Navy during this time.
> 
> I was going to court the entire time to get my visitation enforced and no matter what she did, from leaving the state when visitation dates came or not answering the phone on our scheduled phone visits, I still paid child support.
> 
> Every time we went to court the first question I was asked: "Is your child support current?". No matter what she did, I was always asked about child support. The court gave her total disregard of a court ordered custody agreement equal weight with whether or not I missed a payment. In the end, I won sole custody. My ex-wife was ordered to pay 33% of my legal fees, pay me $5,000 and was given 5 years probation for repeatedly and excessively violating the court orders.


Custody/visitation and child support are two completely different issues. You don't pay child support to buy time with your kids. You pay child support to support your children, and those children need to be supported whether or not you get to see them. They don't cease to exist when they are out of your sight, nor do you get to punish them and your ex because you don't like the custody/visitation arrangement (or even if the custody arrangement is violated).


----------



## Steelplate

koshergrl said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a single parent from my kids ages of 9 and 11 years old, until the youngest was 18. I never received a penny of child support from ex-wife, the court said she didn't have to pay. I was divorced when my youngest was 1.
> 
> I started paying child support before the divorce was final and continued until I was awarded sole custody.  The 8 years between divorce and my gaining custody were eventful. I was awarded temporary custody for 2 years. The court ordered me to continue paying my ex-wife child support even though I had the kids. Due to state jurisdictional issues, I had to return my kids to my ex-wife. I did't see them again for 5 years. My ex didn't honor our custody orders and moved or changed phone numbers to keep me from contacting my kids. All the while my child support allotment kept going to her bank, I was active duty Navy during this time.
> 
> I was going to court the entire time to get my visitation enforced and no matter what she did, from leaving the state when visitation dates came or not answering the phone on our scheduled phone visits, I still paid child support.
> 
> Every time we went to court the first question I was asked: "Is your child support current?". No matter what she did, I was always asked about child support. The court gave her total disregard of a court ordered custody agreement equal weight with whether or not I missed a payment. In the end, I won sole custody. My ex-wife was ordered to pay 33% of my legal fees, pay me $5,000 and was given 5 years probation for repeatedly and excessively violating the court orders.
> 
> 
> 
> Custody/visitation and child support are two completely different issues. You don't pay child support to buy time with your kids. You pay child support to support your children, and those children need to be supported whether or not you get to see them. They don't cease to exist when they are out of your sight, nor do you get to punish them and your ex because you don't like the custody/visitation arrangement (or even if the custody arrangement is violated).
Click to expand...


and just where did he say anything like that?


----------



## AmyNation

Katzndogz said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> what say me?
> 
> 
> Men should pay for child support if they make a baby. If they dont want to pay child support...they should have kept their sperm to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So its ok that a woman squander's the money on herself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> The woman pays rent, buys food, buys clothing, pays the utilities.  If she takes the child support and blows it, she's still paying the bills.
Click to expand...


This.

Whether she or he takes that specific check and spends it on something you don't like isn't the point because, its assumed, they are still caring for the child. Like others have said, it's not just about food or clothes but rent and heat and upkeep of the home and everything else that goes into that. That is why the more you make the more you send, because it's about providing a home and lifestyle for your child, not just diapers and school clothes.


----------



## koshergrl

I don't think he said that, but he did point out that he was paying child support despite not getting visitation, and it is a standard complaint among dead beats not only that they shouldn't have to pay child support if they can't dictate how the money is spent, but that they shouldn't have to pay child support if they don't see the kids as much as they would like, or as much as they are allowed.


----------



## nitroz

Care4all said:


> the cost of taking care of YOUR CHILD 24/7 is more than a dollar figure....the man can easily run off with any woman and marry again...the man can have a full time career and add to his retirement for old age, the mother is limited to such full time good paying careers, as the single parent caring for your child, again 24/7....she has much less opportunity to remarry and to add to her own retirement and to succeed in life with a good career, *mainly because she is the 24/7 parent for your child, while you are free as a bird....
> *
> there is more to this than buying your kid a hot dog for dinner....who cooks it for them, who cleans the dishes afterwards, who puts your child to bed at night, who washes them in the tub every night, who takes them to the doctor when sick and who has to miss work in order to do it, who dresses your kid and who has to take them to school or make certain they make it safe to school?





She can put out and get with some rich dude, ending up with more opportunity.
Women are just as capable as men, if not, more capable.


----------



## AmyNation

nitroz said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> the cost of taking care of YOUR CHILD 24/7 is more than a dollar figure....the man can easily run off with any woman and marry again...the man can have a full time career and add to his retirement for old age, the mother is limited to such full time good paying careers, as the single parent caring for your child, again 24/7....she has much less opportunity to remarry and to add to her own retirement and to succeed in life with a good career, *mainly because she is the 24/7 parent for your child, while you are free as a bird....
> *
> there is more to this than buying your kid a hot dog for dinner....who cooks it for them, who cleans the dishes afterwards, who puts your child to bed at night, who washes them in the tub every night, who takes them to the doctor when sick and who has to miss work in order to do it, who dresses your kid and who has to take them to school or make certain they make it safe to school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She can put out and get with some rich dude, ending up with more opportunity.
> Women are just as capable as men, if not, more capable.
Click to expand...

The point is she is burdened with a child, and expends extra money that the other parent does not.


----------



## HUGGY

Provocateur said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Simple solution...vet your prospective wives better than you do your elected officials.  That way you will not end up with a pregnant skank.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, because all divorces are the fault of the woman.
> 
> *Could you possibly be a bigger idiot?*
> 
> 
> I don't think so.
Click to expand...


My bad...I wasn't thinking of the gals that pay child support.

OH I could be...that's why I am on a strict diet.


----------



## Salt Jones

koshergrl said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a single parent from my kids ages of 9 and 11 years old, until the youngest was 18. I never received a penny of child support from ex-wife, the court said she didn't have to pay. I was divorced when my youngest was 1.
> 
> I started paying child support before the divorce was final and continued until I was awarded sole custody.  The 8 years between divorce and my gaining custody were eventful. I was awarded temporary custody for 2 years. The court ordered me to continue paying my ex-wife child support even though I had the kids. Due to state jurisdictional issues, I had to return my kids to my ex-wife. I did't see them again for 5 years. My ex didn't honor our custody orders and moved or changed phone numbers to keep me from contacting my kids. All the while my child support allotment kept going to her bank, I was active duty Navy during this time.
> 
> I was going to court the entire time to get my visitation enforced and no matter what she did, from leaving the state when visitation dates came or not answering the phone on our scheduled phone visits, I still paid child support.
> 
> Every time we went to court the first question I was asked: "Is your child support current?". No matter what she did, I was always asked about child support. The court gave her total disregard of a court ordered custody agreement equal weight with whether or not I missed a payment. In the end, I won sole custody. My ex-wife was ordered to pay 33% of my legal fees, pay me $5,000 and was given 5 years probation for repeatedly and excessively violating the court orders.
> 
> 
> 
> Custody/visitation and child support are two completely different issues. You don't pay child support to buy time with your kids. You pay child support to support your children, and those children need to be supported whether or not you get to see them. They don't cease to exist when they are out of your sight, nor do you get to punish them and your ex because you don't like the custody/visitation arrangement (or even if the custody arrangement is violated).
Click to expand...


What are you talking about? I had temporary custody of my kids for two years, because my ex married someone who was abusive towards them. I was stationed in one state and my wife had moved to another state. I got my kids for my summer visitation and took them to my home state, where I had recently been stationed. There I found evidence of abuse, contacted authorities and subsequently was given temporary custody while the court case played out. After two years of hearings and  CPS interviews the court ruled that the state in which I resided didn't have jurisdiction, since the abuse happened in my ex-wive's state. I was forced to return my kids to my ex-wife and her husband. 

During those 2 years, I paid for my kids counseling, childcare, sports fees, everything they needed. I sold my car to get rid of the car payments and bought a cheaper car and more importantly I never missed a child support payment to my ex-wife, even though I was providing all the care for my kids during that time.

I never used child support as a weapon and that's the reason I ended up winning my court case. That and the fact the abuse of my kids continued once they were returned and I finally was able to prove it.


----------



## Aristotle

Katzndogz said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> syrenn said:
> 
> 
> 
> what say me?
> 
> 
> Men should pay for child support if they make a baby. If they dont want to pay child support...they should have kept their sperm to themselves.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So its ok that a woman squander's the money on herself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> The woman pays rent, buys food, buys clothing, pays the utilities.  If she takes the child support and blows it, she's still paying the bills.
Click to expand...


It's obvious your neither a lawyer nor understand the concept of law. No, its not ok for a woman to blow money on herself. There are many women who are alcoholics and drug addicts who have irrational behavior. The fact that you can accept a possible drug addict who is irresponsible to accept money and misuse that money for personal reasons is telling of your character.


----------



## Aristotle

AmyNation said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So its ok that a woman squander's the money on herself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> The woman pays rent, buys food, buys clothing, pays the utilities.  If she takes the child support and blows it, she's still paying the bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This.
> 
> Whether she or he takes that specific check and spends it on something you don't like isn't the point because, its assumed, they are still caring for the child. Like others have said, it's not just about food or clothes but rent and heat and upkeep of the home and everything else that goes into that. That is why the more you make the more you send, because it's about providing a home and lifestyle for your child, not just diapers and school clothes.
Click to expand...




You're justifying irresponsible behavior.


----------



## AmyNation

Aristotle said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So its ok that a woman squander's the money on herself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> The woman pays rent, buys food, buys clothing, pays the utilities.  If she takes the child support and blows it, she's still paying the bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious your neither a lawyer nor understand the concept of law. No, its not ok for a woman to blow money on herself. There are many women who are alcoholics and drug addicts who have irrational behavior. The fact that you can accept a possible drug addict who is irresponsible to accept money and misuse that money for personal reasons is telling of your character.
Click to expand...

If the primary parent is a drug addict or otherwise unfit then it's the other parents responsibility to report him/her and file for custody. 

However "mom is a crack head", is not the norm, it's a bit of a red herring. In the majority of situations, the primary parent is your average responsible adult who provides food shelter, and the 101 other things that the non-custodial parent does not.


----------



## AmyNation

Aristotle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> The woman pays rent, buys food, buys clothing, pays the utilities.  If she takes the child support and blows it, she's still paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This.
> 
> Whether she or he takes that specific check and spends it on something you don't like isn't the point because, its assumed, they are still caring for the child. Like others have said, it's not just about food or clothes but rent and heat and upkeep of the home and everything else that goes into that. That is why the more you make the more you send, because it's about providing a home and lifestyle for your child, not just diapers and school clothes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You're justifying irresponsible behavior.
Click to expand...


What irresponsible behavior?


----------



## koshergrl

Aristotle said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So its ok that a woman squander's the money on herself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> The woman pays rent, buys food, buys clothing, pays the utilities.  If she takes the child support and blows it, she's still paying the bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's obvious your neither a lawyer nor understand the concept of law. No, its not ok for a woman to blow money on herself. There are many women who are alcoholics and drug addicts who have irrational behavior. The fact that you can accept a possible drug addict who is irresponsible to accept money and misuse that money for personal reasons is telling of your character.
Click to expand...


Actually, katz is EXACTLY correct, and that is exactly the way a judge interprets the law. I know because that is exactly the way a relative of mine, who is a judge, explained it. If a woman is an addict and irrational, then THAT is grounds for custody review...but so long as those children are in her care, she is the one who determines how she spends the money. Yes, she can spend money on herself, because her well being and contentment affects the children directly.

Give up the control. You are no longer married, and once you write that check, the money is no longer yours.


----------



## koshergrl

AmyNation said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> This.
> 
> Whether she or he takes that specific check and spends it on something you don't like isn't the point because, its assumed, they are still caring for the child. Like others have said, it's not just about food or clothes but rent and heat and upkeep of the home and everything else that goes into that. That is why the more you make the more you send, because it's about providing a home and lifestyle for your child, not just diapers and school clothes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you even understand the shit your writing?
> 
> You're justifying irresponsible behavior.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What irresponsible behavior?
Click to expand...


 He thinks that he can justify his desire to withhold support, or alternately determine how it is spent, by pretending that if he doesn't, mom is going to (*gasp*) spend the money ON HERSELF for her own pleasure (or, apparently, to fund her addiction to drugs)....it seems the judge in this case thought a crack addict was the better parent and gave custody of the children to an addict, and he is being forced to buy her drugs via child support.


----------



## Plasmaball

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction



Your child is not a charity...


----------



## Noomi

Care4all said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> If the man never wanted a child then the man should have been using rubbers or should have had a vasectomy.  He should be responsible for himself and his own wishes....SHE SHOULD NOT have to be responsible for forefilling his desires of not having a child.
Click to expand...


Sometimes a man WILL use condoms and the woman tells him that she is taking birth control. But she isn't, and she punches holes in his condoms, gets pregnant, and demands he pay money for the baby.

What right does she have to force him to become a father?


----------



## Noomi

What about the men who pay child support to children they rarely get to see? If the woman has full custody and he only gets to see the kids every second weekend, why should he pay child support when he isn't even allowed to see his kids when he wants? And why can't the woman get a job and provide for HER kids herself, without seeing the man as a cash cow?

And what about those men right now who are paying child support for a child that isn't even biologically theirs? Men should be allowed to request paternity tests at the birth to make sure they are not going to be forced into paying thousands to raise someone else's child.

Years ago I heard of a man who had four children. He was paying support for all of them, equaling thousands of dollars. He discovered that only ONE of those children was his, the other three were fathered by his best friend - his neighbor. He took the ex to court but the judge decided that because he had been paying support for so many years, it would be harmful to the kids for this to stop, so he was ordered to continue paying child support to all of those children.

How the hell is that fair?


----------



## Salt Jones

Noomi said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> If the man never wanted a child then the man should have been using rubbers or should have had a vasectomy.  He should be responsible for himself and his own wishes....SHE SHOULD NOT have to be responsible for forefilling his desires of not having a child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes a man WILL use condoms and the woman tells him that she is taking birth control. But she isn't, and she punches holes in his condoms, gets pregnant, and demands he pay money for the baby.
> 
> What right does she have to force him to become a father?
Click to expand...


Sometimes a man will rape a woman, thus impregnating her, and the state she lives in may force her to leave to get an abortion. If she has the child, some states will award custody rights to the rapist.

What rights does a rapist have as a father?


----------



## Ravi

these threads always seem to have a common point: women are evil.


----------



## Noomi

Salt Jones said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the man never wanted a child then the man should have been using rubbers or should have had a vasectomy.  He should be responsible for himself and his own wishes....SHE SHOULD NOT have to be responsible for forefilling his desires of not having a child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes a man WILL use condoms and the woman tells him that she is taking birth control. But she isn't, and she punches holes in his condoms, gets pregnant, and demands he pay money for the baby.
> 
> What right does she have to force him to become a father?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes a man will rape a woman, thus impregnating her, and the state she lives in may force her to leave to get an abortion. If she has the child, some states will award custody rights to the rapist.
> 
> What rights does a rapist have as a father?
Click to expand...


None, and the government is fucked up if it allows a rapist to come near the woman he raped.


----------



## Noomi

Ravi said:


> these threads always seem to have a common point: women are evil.



Not saying women are evil -but the fact is, there ARE some women out there who have taken advantage of men.

I am a woman, and I am opposed to men paying child support if they made it clear they didn't want children.


----------



## Aristotle

AmyNation said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> The woman pays rent, buys food, buys clothing, pays the utilities.  If she takes the child support and blows it, she's still paying the bills.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious your neither a lawyer nor understand the concept of law. No, its not ok for a woman to blow money on herself. There are many women who are alcoholics and drug addicts who have irrational behavior. The fact that you can accept a possible drug addict who is irresponsible to accept money and misuse that money for personal reasons is telling of your character.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If the primary parent is a drug addict or otherwise unfit then it's the other parents responsibility to report him/her and file for custody.
> 
> However "mom is a crack head", is not the norm, it's a bit of a red herring. In the majority of situations, the primary parent is your average responsible adult who provides food shelter, and the 101 other things that the non-custodial parent does not.
Click to expand...


Sure but I am talking about irresponsible behavior. You stated that it was acceptable for a woman to blow money because she is paying rent. Seriously, paying rent? How do you even know that this is so? You don't. No case is typical. You just decimated your entire case by justifying selfish behavior which is atypical of supporting the child.


----------



## Aristotle

Salt Jones said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a single parent from my kids ages of 9 and 11 years old, until the youngest was 18. I never received a penny of child support from ex-wife, the court said she didn't have to pay. I was divorced when my youngest was 1.
> 
> I started paying child support before the divorce was final and continued until I was awarded sole custody.  The 8 years between divorce and my gaining custody were eventful. I was awarded temporary custody for 2 years. The court ordered me to continue paying my ex-wife child support even though I had the kids. Due to state jurisdictional issues, I had to return my kids to my ex-wife. I did't see them again for 5 years. My ex didn't honor our custody orders and moved or changed phone numbers to keep me from contacting my kids. All the while my child support allotment kept going to her bank, I was active duty Navy during this time.
> 
> I was going to court the entire time to get my visitation enforced and no matter what she did, from leaving the state when visitation dates came or not answering the phone on our scheduled phone visits, I still paid child support.
> 
> Every time we went to court the first question I was asked: "Is your child support current?". No matter what she did, I was always asked about child support. The court gave her total disregard of a court ordered custody agreement equal weight with whether or not I missed a payment. In the end, I won sole custody. My ex-wife was ordered to pay 33% of my legal fees, pay me $5,000 and was given 5 years probation for repeatedly and excessively violating the court orders.
> 
> 
> 
> Custody/visitation and child support are two completely different issues. You don't pay child support to buy time with your kids. You pay child support to support your children, and those children need to be supported whether or not you get to see them. They don't cease to exist when they are out of your sight, nor do you get to punish them and your ex because you don't like the custody/visitation arrangement (or even if the custody arrangement is violated).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? I had temporary custody of my kids for two years, because my ex married someone who was abusive towards them. I was stationed in one state and my wife had moved to another state. I got my kids for my summer visitation and took them to my home state, where I had recently been stationed. There I found evidence of abuse, contacted authorities and subsequently was given temporary custody while the court case played out. After two years of hearings and  CPS interviews the court ruled that the state in which I resided didn't have jurisdiction, since the abuse happened in my ex-wive's state. I was forced to return my kids to my ex-wife and her husband.
> 
> During those 2 years, I paid for my kids counseling, childcare, sports fees, everything they needed. I sold my car to get rid of the car payments and bought a cheaper car and more importantly I never missed a child support payment to my ex-wife, even though I was providing all the care for my kids during that time.
> 
> I never used child support as a weapon and that's the reason I ended up winning my court case. That and the fact the abuse of my kids continued once they were returned and I finally was able to prove it.
Click to expand...


You my friend are an excellent example of what it is to be an adult.


----------



## beagle9

AmyNation said:


> I can understand the feeling, however whether she/he takes that specific check and spends it on nails or beer, is not the other parents business.
> 
> Think of the money for child support as a reimbursement check, for monies the primary parent has already spent that month for the child.


Wrong, because as he said, it is for the child and it's well being, not for the mother to buy things while the child is found to be lacking afterwards.


----------



## beagle9

Aristotle said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Custody/visitation and child support are two completely different issues. You don't pay child support to buy time with your kids. You pay child support to support your children, and those children need to be supported whether or not you get to see them. They don't cease to exist when they are out of your sight, nor do you get to punish them and your ex because you don't like the custody/visitation arrangement (or even if the custody arrangement is violated).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What are you talking about? I had temporary custody of my kids for two years, because my ex married someone who was abusive towards them. I was stationed in one state and my wife had moved to another state. I got my kids for my summer visitation and took them to my home state, where I had recently been stationed. There I found evidence of abuse, contacted authorities and subsequently was given temporary custody while the court case played out. After two years of hearings and  CPS interviews the court ruled that the state in which I resided didn't have jurisdiction, since the abuse happened in my ex-wive's state. I was forced to return my kids to my ex-wife and her husband.
> 
> During those 2 years, I paid for my kids counseling, childcare, sports fees, everything they needed. I sold my car to get rid of the car payments and bought a cheaper car and more importantly I never missed a child support payment to my ex-wife, even though I was providing all the care for my kids during that time.
> 
> I never used child support as a weapon and that's the reason I ended up winning my court case. That and the fact the abuse of my kids continued once they were returned and I finally was able to prove it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You my friend are an excellent example of what it is to be an adult.
Click to expand...

And a loving caring parent.. Good deal..


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

beagle9 said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand the feeling, however whether she/he takes that specific check and spends it on nails or beer, is not the other parents business.
> 
> Think of the money for child support as a reimbursement check, for monies the primary parent has already spent that month for the child.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong, because as he said, it is for the child and it's well being, not for the mother to buy things while the child is found to be lacking afterwards.
Click to expand...


Youre confusing two separate issues; as long as there is no evidence of abuse or neglect, no one can compel the CP to earmark each child support dollar and require it be spent on the child(ren) only. 

If there is evidence of abuse or neglect, however, that evidence can be brought to the attention of child welfare services, the police, the court, or all three for action in accordance with a given states laws.


----------



## AmyNation

Aristotle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's obvious your neither a lawyer nor understand the concept of law. No, its not ok for a woman to blow money on herself. There are many women who are alcoholics and drug addicts who have irrational behavior. The fact that you can accept a possible drug addict who is irresponsible to accept money and misuse that money for personal reasons is telling of your character.
> 
> 
> 
> If the primary parent is a drug addict or otherwise unfit then it's the other parents responsibility to report him/her and file for custody.
> 
> However "mom is a crack head", is not the norm, it's a bit of a red herring. In the majority of situations, the primary parent is your average responsible adult who provides food shelter, and the 101 other things that the non-custodial parent does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sure but I am talking about irresponsible behavior. You stated that it was acceptable for a woman to blow money because she is paying rent. Seriously, paying rent? How do you even know that this is so? You don't. No case is typical. You just decimated your entire case by justifying selfish behavior which is atypical of supporting the child.
Click to expand...


The bottom line is, you would like to monitor how the mother of your child spend her child support money. I say, that's a great idea, as long as every month she spends more then you send, you send her more money.


----------



## AmyNation

"What about the men who pay child support to children they rarely get to see? If the woman has full custody and he only gets to see the kids every second weekend, why should he pay child support when he isn't even allowed to see his kids when he wants? "

*Because his child doesn't stop eating simply because he isn't there.*


"And why can't the woman get a job and provide for HER kids herself, without seeing the man as a cash cow?"

*Who says the mother doesn't have a job?*

"And what about those men right now who are paying child support for a child that isn't even biologically theirs? "

*That's very rare, and I personally think it should be up to the man and not the courts.*

"Men should be allowed to request paternity tests at the birth to make sure they are not going to be forced into paying thousands to raise someone else's child."

*Paternity tests are done before child support orders are set, as long as the father requests one.*

"Years ago I heard of a man who had four children. He was paying support for all of them, equaling thousands of dollars. He discovered that only ONE of those children was his, the other three were fathered by his best friend - his neighbor. He took the ex to court but the judge decided that because he had been paying support for so many years, it would be harmful to the kids for this to stop, so he was ordered to continue paying child support to all of those children.

How the hell is that fair?"


*It's not fair. However child cases put the needs of the children above the man and the woman. He was their father, and it would have been devastating for those children to lose him at that point simply because he doesn't want to pay child support anymore.*


----------



## Noomi

He wasn't their father. The father was the neighbor who wasn't paying a red cent. Whether the kids would have been upset or not doesn't matter. The man shouldn't be paying a penny for kids he didn't father.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Aristotle said:


> I believe if child support is in the best interest of the child and if the state wants the father (or mother) to pay, it should be in the form of a card like an EBT to check how the money is being spent. It makes no sense for fathers to cut a woman a check, only to have her do as she wish. I hear to many stories of men payingan arm and a leg yet, the woman is buying Channel gift bags while her child has a dirty shirt and a snotty nose.



When the American people decided to invite the government into their family affairs, this is the can of worms that was opened, for better or for worse.


----------



## AmyNation

Noomi said:


> He wasn't their father. The father was the neighbor who wasn't paying a red cent. Whether the kids would have been upset or not doesn't matter. The man shouldn't be paying a penny for kids he didn't father.



He was their father in every other way. 

I agree with you in that I don't agree with forcing men to continue to parent and pay for children that aren't biologically theirs.

But again, when it comes to children, the courts put the well being of the child above all else, above the mother, the father, and what's fair or just.


----------



## Aristotle

AmyNation said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> If the primary parent is a drug addict or otherwise unfit then it's the other parents responsibility to report him/her and file for custody.
> 
> However "mom is a crack head", is not the norm, it's a bit of a red herring. In the majority of situations, the primary parent is your average responsible adult who provides food shelter, and the 101 other things that the non-custodial parent does not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sure but I am talking about irresponsible behavior. You stated that it was acceptable for a woman to blow money because she is paying rent. Seriously, paying rent? How do you even know that this is so? You don't. No case is typical. You just decimated your entire case by justifying selfish behavior which is atypical of supporting the child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The bottom line is, you would like to monitor how the mother of your child spend her child support money. I say, that's a great idea, as long as every month she spends more then you send, you send her more money.
Click to expand...


If I am paying money yes as a taxpaying citizen and responsible adult, I want to make sure my money is going to my child, not funding another adult's lifestyle.


----------



## AmyNation

Aristotle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure but I am talking about irresponsible behavior. You stated that it was acceptable for a woman to blow money because she is paying rent. Seriously, paying rent? How do you even know that this is so? You don't. No case is typical. You just decimated your entire case by justifying selfish behavior which is atypical of supporting the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is, you would like to monitor how the mother of your child spend her child support money. I say, that's a great idea, as long as every month she spends more then you send, you send her more money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If I am paying money yes as a taxpaying citizen and responsible adult, I want to make sure my money is going to my child, not funding another adult's lifestyle.
Click to expand...



I can't really comment on your case, as I have no idea what you pay for how many children. 

However, my ex brother in law pays $300 a month for my niece who is 13. That doesn't come close to averaging half of her expenses.


----------



## Aristotle

AmyNation said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> The bottom line is, you would like to monitor how the mother of your child spend her child support money. I say, that's a great idea, as long as every month she spends more then you send, you send her more money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If I am paying money yes as a taxpaying citizen and responsible adult, I want to make sure my money is going to my child, not funding another adult's lifestyle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> I can't really comment on your case, as I have no idea what you pay for how many children.
> 
> However, my ex brother in law pays $300 a month for my niece who is 13. That doesn't come close to averaging half of her expenses.
Click to expand...


What makes you think I have a child? I was just making a general comment.


----------



## AmyNation

Aristotle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I am paying money yes as a taxpaying citizen and responsible adult, I want to make sure my money is going to my child, not funding another adult's lifestyle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't really comment on your case, as I have no idea what you pay for how many children.
> 
> However, my ex brother in law pays $300 a month for my niece who is 13. That doesn't come close to averaging half of her expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think I have a child? I was just making a general comment.
Click to expand...


Well if you don't have a child, this thread makes much more sense.


----------



## Aristotle

AmyNation said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't really comment on your case, as I have no idea what you pay for how many children.
> 
> However, my ex brother in law pays $300 a month for my niece who is 13. That doesn't come close to averaging half of her expenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I have a child? I was just making a general comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well if you don't have a child, this thread makes much more sense.
Click to expand...


So I need a child to believe child support is unfair? LOL


----------



## koshergrl

Aristotle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If I am paying money yes as a taxpaying citizen and responsible adult, I want to make sure my money is going to my child, not funding another adult's lifestyle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can't really comment on your case, as I have no idea what you pay for how many children.
> 
> However, my ex brother in law pays $300 a month for my niece who is 13. That doesn't come close to averaging half of her expenses.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What makes you think I have a child? I was just making a general comment.
Click to expand...


Whether or not you pay taxes or are a responsible adult doesn't matter. Your child support isn't supposed to go directly to your child. It's to support the child's household. What you want is irrelevant.


----------



## koshergrl

AmyNation said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't their father. The father was the neighbor who wasn't paying a red cent. Whether the kids would have been upset or not doesn't matter. The man shouldn't be paying a penny for kids he didn't father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was their father in every other way.
> 
> I agree with you in that I don't agree with forcing men to continue to parent and pay for children that aren't biologically theirs.
> 
> But again, when it comes to children, the courts put the well being of the child above all else, above the mother, the father, and what's fair or just.
Click to expand...


When a man accepts children as his own, regardless of whether or not they're his biologically, he doesn't get to drop them when he gets tired of playing house. Once you openly accept the responsibility for a child, the law recognizes you as responsible for that child for good.


----------



## Aristotle

koshergrl said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't really comment on your case, as I have no idea what you pay for how many children.
> 
> However, my ex brother in law pays $300 a month for my niece who is 13. That doesn't come close to averaging half of her expenses.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I have a child? I was just making a general comment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Whether or not you pay taxes or are a responsible adult doesn't matter. Your child support isn't supposed to go directly to your child. It's to support the child's household. What you want is irrelevant.
Click to expand...


This is nonsensical. There are documented incidents where child support money was used for personal luxuries. What I want for myself and other men is to have a balanced system where the child is cared for.

Getting $500 hand bags is not supporting the child. Getting new clothes for yourself is not supporting your child. Buying the new boyfriend a car is not supporting the child. If a man is paying child support he has every right to know where his money is going.


----------



## koshergrl

"undocumented incidents". Well that will get you a long ways in a court of law.

It doesn't matter. What you want is irrelevant and a mother receiving child support is in no way obligated to spend the child support in a manner that you approve, nor is she obligated to provide you an accounting.


----------



## AmyNation

Aristotle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I have a child? I was just making a general comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well if you don't have a child, this thread makes much more sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I need a child to believe child support is unfair? LOL
Click to expand...


No, you just seem to have no idea how much it costs to raise a child.


----------



## Steelplate

koshergrl said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't their father. The father was the neighbor who wasn't paying a red cent. Whether the kids would have been upset or not doesn't matter. The man shouldn't be paying a penny for kids he didn't father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was their father in every other way.
> 
> I agree with you in that I don't agree with forcing men to continue to parent and pay for children that aren't biologically theirs.
> 
> But again, when it comes to children, the courts put the well being of the child above all else, above the mother, the father, and what's fair or just.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a man accepts children as his own, regardless of whether or not they're his biologically, he doesn't get to drop them when he gets tired of playing house. Once you openly accept the responsibility for a child, the law recognizes you as responsible for that child for good.
Click to expand...


that's not true.....unless the man legally adopts them.

But, as a guy with lots of first hand experience....being a step parent is a tough gig. It's not for everyone. You have all the responsibilities as a biological parent and very little authority. First off, you get it from the kids themselves..."you're not my Dad!". They challenge you...a lot. Then, if you stand firm....they run to their mother, who more often than not, takes their side and renders you impotent as a parent.

No....the piece of advise I can give any prospective step-parent is this......Learn to take a passive role. Support your wife/husband in their decisions....discuss those decisions at a later time when the kids aren't around, and when you do have that discussion....do it in a non-confrontational manner.

Like, instead of saying...."You give them anything they want!".....say, "I'm just worried that if WE keep providing to them their every whim, they aren't going to be very well prepared for life when they get older" Notice the word "we", instead of "you"? That goes a long way.

Oh....and BTW....just as an aside.....if you are a step dad.....prepare for the inevitable fights between your step kids and the mother. It usually happens on nights that you have thoughts of intimacy running through your head.....especially during the teenage years.

It does get better....but you have to think long term....Kids grow up and eventually get more mature in their thought processes.

Sorry for the unsolicited advise....But I thought it important.


----------



## Ravi

Aristotle said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What makes you think I have a child? I was just making a general comment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not you pay taxes or are a responsible adult doesn't matter. Your child support isn't supposed to go directly to your child. It's to support the child's household. What you want is irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is nonsensical. There are documented incidents where child support money was used for personal luxuries. What I want for myself and other men is to have a balanced system where the child is cared for.
> 
> Getting $500 hand bags is not supporting the child. Getting new clothes for yourself is not supporting your child. Buying the new boyfriend a car is not supporting the child. If a man is paying child support he has every right to know where his money is going.
Click to expand...


Why don't you just concentrate on being the best father you can be to your children? They're the ones that matter. It isn't your kids fault that you had them with such a shallow person. The answer is NOT to become a petty, shallow person yourself.


----------



## Borillar

"It's the fucking you get for the fucking you got. Best males remember that."

More like 20 minutes of pleasure, 20 years of pain (servitude). Definitely something oversexed adolescents should ponder before they hop in the sack with their latest "conquests". The state isn't interested in who caused a breakup, who would be a better parent, who was at fault, etc. They just want to figure out how much they can squeeze out of you. Don't complain about how much you pay, because they'll probably make it even worse. Your money going to support drug habits, other boyfriends, etc? Judging from personal experience, it probably happens a lot more than some people think.


----------



## Katzndogz

koshergrl said:


> Salt Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was a single parent from my kids ages of 9 and 11 years old, until the youngest was 18. I never received a penny of child support from ex-wife, the court said she didn't have to pay. I was divorced when my youngest was 1.
> 
> I started paying child support before the divorce was final and continued until I was awarded sole custody.  The 8 years between divorce and my gaining custody were eventful. I was awarded temporary custody for 2 years. The court ordered me to continue paying my ex-wife child support even though I had the kids. Due to state jurisdictional issues, I had to return my kids to my ex-wife. I did't see them again for 5 years. My ex didn't honor our custody orders and moved or changed phone numbers to keep me from contacting my kids. All the while my child support allotment kept going to her bank, I was active duty Navy during this time.
> 
> I was going to court the entire time to get my visitation enforced and no matter what she did, from leaving the state when visitation dates came or not answering the phone on our scheduled phone visits, I still paid child support.
> 
> Every time we went to court the first question I was asked: "Is your child support current?". No matter what she did, I was always asked about child support. The court gave her total disregard of a court ordered custody agreement equal weight with whether or not I missed a payment. In the end, I won sole custody. My ex-wife was ordered to pay 33% of my legal fees, pay me $5,000 and was given 5 years probation for repeatedly and excessively violating the court orders.
> 
> 
> 
> Custody/visitation and child support are two completely different issues. You don't pay child support to buy time with your kids. You pay child support to support your children, and those children need to be supported whether or not you get to see them. They don't cease to exist when they are out of your sight, nor do you get to punish them and your ex because you don't like the custody/visitation arrangement (or even if the custody arrangement is violated).
Click to expand...


The amount of time a non-custodial parents spends with the children can certainly and absolutely reduce the child support obligation.


----------



## koshergrl

Sure...based on the custody/visitation order.

HOwever, parents who don't get to see their kids at all, whether by court mandate or just because the custodial parent won't let the kids visit, still have a child support obligation.


----------



## koshergrl

I worked in an office that specialized in divorce/custody for 5 years. I can't tell you how many of our clients came in trying to justify the fact they were withholding support by saying "She won't let me see the kids so I don't pay child support!"

The first thing my attorney did...had a come to Jesus meeting with them to explain that their obligation did not decrease because they didn't see the kids, and get them on a payment schedule to eliminate those arrears.


----------



## Katzndogz

I specialized in Family Law for years.  Decades.   She doesn't let me see the kids is followed closely by she doesn't spend the money on the kids.   Judges care about neither when it comes to child support.


----------



## koshergrl

Exactly.


----------



## auditor0007

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction



Why should you get a tax deduction for this?  I can't deduct the money I spend on my kids.  Do you think that everyone should be able to get a tax deduction for every dollar they spend on their kids?


----------



## Luissa

auditor0007 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should you get a tax deduction for this?  I can't deduct the money I spend on my kids.  Do you think that everyone should be able to get a tax deduction for every dollar they spend on their kids?
Click to expand...


Don't you get a child credit on your taxes? And can't you claim daycare costs?


----------



## koshergrl

I think you only get that credit if you're under a certain income?

And daycare costs are a tiny fraction of the cost of having children in your home.

I paid $1100 one month in child care alone for my two when I was working as a reporter. Cripes it was insane.


----------



## Katzndogz

auditor0007 said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should you get a tax deduction for this?  I can't deduct the money I spend on my kids.  Do you think that everyone should be able to get a tax deduction for every dollar they spend on their kids?
Click to expand...


You don't get to claim your children as dependents on your taxes?  

Child support is not tax deductible because it is not taxable income.  Now if you want child support to be tax deductible, go back to court and have the support designation changed to family support.   Then you can deduct it and the mother has to claim it as income.


----------



## Borillar

Katzndogz said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should you get a tax deduction for this?  I can't deduct the money I spend on my kids.  Do you think that everyone should be able to get a tax deduction for every dollar they spend on their kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to claim your children as dependents on your taxes?
> 
> Child support is not tax deductible because it is not taxable income.  Now if you want child support to be tax deductible, go back to court and have the support designation changed to family support.   Then you can deduct it and the mother has to claim it as income.
Click to expand...


That is brilliant advice if true! Wish I knew about that 20 years ago when it mattered!


----------



## Luissa

Katzndogz said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should you get a tax deduction for this?  I can't deduct the money I spend on my kids.  Do you think that everyone should be able to get a tax deduction for every dollar they spend on their kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to claim your children as dependents on your taxes?
> 
> Child support is not tax deductible because it is not taxable income.  Now if you want child support to be tax deductible, go back to court and have the support designation changed to family support.   Then you can deduct it and the mother has to claim it as income.
Click to expand...


It shouldn't be taxable income.


----------



## Politico

AmyNation said:


> I can understand the feeling, however whether she/he takes that specific check and spends it on nails or beer, is not the other parents business.
> 
> Think of the money for child support as a reimbursement check, for monies the primary parent has already spent that month for the child.



Nails? Money for beer already spent on the child? 

Yes the system is fucked up and this is a perfect case in point.


----------



## AmyNation

Any parent who doesn't like the way their child support is spent, can petition for joint custody.


----------



## AmyNation

Is the child healthy? Clean? Clothes on their back, food in their belly, a roof over their heads? Then the primary parent is spending the child support correctly.


----------



## Luissa

Politico said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand the feeling, however whether she/he takes that specific check and spends it on nails or beer, is not the other parents business.
> 
> Think of the money for child support as a reimbursement check, for monies the primary parent has already spent that month for the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nails? Money for beer already spent on the child?
> 
> Yes the system is fucked up and this is a perfect case in point.
Click to expand...


Right now I am getting an average of 30 bucks a month in child support. Yes that goes back to paying for what I spend on my child a month. I don't usually buy beer with my child support but I did, I would feel fine in the fact I spent more than 30 dollars on my child this month. 
The courts should make idiots actually get a job where they can pay their support.


----------



## naturegirl

If dads and moms would understand they are not paying for anything, they are supporting kids.  If a kid lived with you in your home, would you only spend $100.00 per week on that child??  Would you and your wife only spend $200.00 per week on that child??  

Quit thinking of it as payment and think of it's intended use, support as in a place to live, a bed to sleep in, clothes, shoes, school supplies........you know the things it takes a child to live.  Moms can't always spend child support checks on the kids, sometimes they have to pay the light bill with it.


----------



## JakeStarkey

The Only Rule

If a parent is going to pay court-order child support, the parent should have the lawyer convince the judge that the child and custodial parent cannot leave the judicial district for any signficant amount of time or prepare to move elsewhere without the prior approval of the court.

The welfare of the child supercedes the custodial or non-custodial parent's desire to relocate elsewhere.  Future marriage has nothing to with the order.

The children remains in the district until the judge says otherwise.


----------



## Luissa

JakeStarkey said:


> The Only Rule
> 
> If a parent is going to pay court-order child support, the parent should have the lawyer convince the judge that the child and custodial parent cannot leave the judicial district for any signficant amount of time or prepare to move elsewhere without the prior approval of the court.
> 
> The welfare of the child supercedes the custodial or non-custodial parent's desire to relocate elsewhere.  Future marriage has nothing to with the order.
> 
> The children remains in the district until the judge says otherwise.



Here you can't move to another school district without the other parents approval. I have no clue where my kid's dad is right now, he hasn't seen my son since last spring and I haven't talked to him in almost two months but I still have to have his approval to move school districts. Of course he doesn't reply to the courts when they notify him, which takes awhile especially if he ignores the notices I can move but that usually takes months. 
It took my friend I think four months to get approval from the courts after her kids dad wouldn't respond to be able to move to another town within the same state.


----------



## The Professor

Children are unfair.

You can hate me, but you know it's true.


----------



## Aristotle

I can't believe some of you actually think its ok to spend child support money on yourself. How does personal luxury equate ti child support?


----------



## Steelplate

Aristotle said:


> I can't believe some of you actually think its ok to spend child support money on yourself. How does personal luxury equate ti child support?



Dude...you don't get it. Your child support dollars are a drop in the bucket compared to the actual cost of raising one. Child care while the custodial parent alone can and does bleed single moms(or dads) dry.

I'll tell you what....have her itemize every expenditure on that child for a month...especially August when people are doing the "back to school" thing....and offer to pay half of that every month......believe me....you're getting off cheap.


----------



## koshergrl

You've had it explained to you repeatedly, by a variety of people including at least one attorney. You can't understand it because you are so focused on your desire to control you are completely blinded to reality.


----------



## The Professor

Katzndogz said:


> auditor0007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should you get a tax deduction for this?  I can't deduct the money I spend on my kids.  Do you think that everyone should be able to get a tax deduction for every dollar they spend on their kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You don't get to claim your children as dependents on your taxes?
> 
> Child support is not tax deductible because it is not taxable income.  Now if you want child support to be tax deductible, go back to court and have the support designation changed to family support.   Then you can deduct it and the mother has to claim it as income.
Click to expand...


It is impossible to change child support payments, which are not tax deductible, to alimony payments which are.  One may be ordered to pay alimony in addition to child support, but the courts are required to assess child support and there is no way to get around that obligation.

Now you may TRY to petition the court to designate statutory  child support as alimony, but you get bet your ass that the wife will have an attorney on her said that will make your lawyer look like a fool.  I wouldn't even by surprised if the court imposed sanctions on your lawyer.   

This I know:  What you suggest has never been done and never will be done.  Please look for links to support your argument, because you will not find a single one.

PS:  Here is some advice on the subject from your friendly IRS:

Publication 17 (2011), Your Federal Income Tax


----------



## JakeStarkey

Then the system works.  Have your attorney file to remove the restriction.  Parenting is a two way street, and if the non custodial parent won't cooperate, he or she does not want to parent.



Luissa said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Only Rule
> 
> If a parent is going to pay court-order child support, the parent should have the lawyer convince the judge that the child and custodial parent cannot leave the judicial district for any signficant amount of time or prepare to move elsewhere without the prior approval of the court.
> 
> The welfare of the child supercedes the custodial or non-custodial parent's desire to relocate elsewhere.  Future marriage has nothing to with the order.
> 
> The children remains in the district until the judge says otherwise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here you can't move to another school district without the other parents approval. I have no clue where my kid's dad is right now, he hasn't seen my son since last spring and I haven't talked to him in almost two months but I still have to have his approval to move school districts. Of course he doesn't reply to the courts when they notify him, which takes awhile especially if he ignores the notices I can move but that usually takes months.
> It took my friend I think four months to get approval from the courts after her kids dad wouldn't respond to be able to move to another town within the same state.
Click to expand...


----------



## JakeStarkey

Oh, the irony of this.  



koshergrl said:


> You've had it explained to you repeatedly, by a variety of people including at least one attorney. You can't understand it because you are so focused on your desire to control you are completely blinded to reality.


----------



## koshergrl

I think the school is giving you the runaround, Luissa.

A lot of times they CLAIM they can/can't do something with regards to custody and generally they're full of shit.

I had a parent call me once to say the school would not release his son to him, after the kids' custodial parent, the mom, went missing. His son was at school, had a bb gun shot that was infected, and the school was trying to locate the mom to send him home for treatment...and couldn't find her. They called a FRIEND of hers, and told the dad (who tried to pick the child up...there was no restraining order in place) that they couldn't release the child to him without something from the court. But they COULD release the child to a *friend* of the mom's.

I called the school and told them that our client was going to pick up the child, that there were no restrictions on his contact with the child, and if they didn't like it we would send a police officer with him. 

Don't assume the school knows what the hell they're talking about when they tell you you *aren't allowed* to do something.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Aristotle said:


> I believe if child support is in the best interest of the child and if the state wants the father (or mother) to pay, it should be in the form of a card like an EBT to check how the money is being spent. It makes no sense for fathers to cut a woman a check, only to have her do as she wish. I hear to many stories of men payingan arm and a leg yet, the woman is buying Channel gift bags while her child has a dirty shirt and a snotty nose.



Well then, we should also assign a dollar amount worth of such things as sitting up all night with a sick child why the child's father is out partying. How about making sure the child gets "well child" check ups and vaccines on time? Whether you know it or not, she pays much more for clothing, school supplies, food, and all the rest than what dad pays in support. Or, as in the case of our National Dead Beat Dad, Joe Walsh, how about he be forced to pay for the child's health insurance if he refuses to allow the mother to carry the child on hers via ObamaCare?

Edited because I said what I really think and that's not allowed in this forum.


----------



## Aristotle

Steelplate said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe some of you actually think its ok to spend child support money on yourself. How does personal luxury equate ti child support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you don't get it. Your child support dollars are a drop in the bucket compared to the actual cost of raising one. Child care while the custodial parent alone can and does bleed single moms(or dads) dry.
> 
> I'll tell you what....have her itemize every expenditure on that child for a month...especially August when people are doing the "back to school" thing....and offer to pay half of that every month......believe me....you're getting off cheap.
Click to expand...


You're talking as if every woman out here is responsible. Remember majority of the single mothers are young. In addition to that, a lot of these single mothers are getting help from mommy or daddy or grand.mother. Spare me the sob story of what women pay. The system is unfair and I have challenged that and you have not demonstrated otherwise, you can't come through with the answer, typical of a steelers fan.


----------



## Aristotle

koshergrl said:


> You've had it explained to you repeatedly, by a variety of people including at least one attorney. You can't understand it because you are so focused on your desire to control you are completely blinded to reality.



First off whoever said they were a lawyer I missed it because I don't recall anyone declaring themselves a lawyer and if they are, do they practice marital law?

Also, I made it clear that spending money on oneself does not count as child suppprt so far, nobody has countered that.


----------



## Steelplate

Aristotle said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe some of you actually think its ok to spend child support money on yourself. How does personal luxury equate ti child support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you don't get it. Your child support dollars are a drop in the bucket compared to the actual cost of raising one. Child care while the custodial parent alone can and does bleed single moms(or dads) dry.
> 
> I'll tell you what....have her itemize every expenditure on that child for a month...especially August when people are doing the "back to school" thing....and offer to pay half of that every month......believe me....you're getting off cheap.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're talking as if every woman out here is responsible. Remember majority of the single mothers are young. In addition to that, a lot of these single mothers are getting help from mommy or daddy or grand.mother. Spare me the sob story of what women pay. The system is unfair and I have challenged that and you have not demonstrated otherwise, you can't come through with the answer, typical of a steelers fan.
Click to expand...


typical Steelers fan? What does that mean? You do realize that attacks are not allowed here. What they get from mommy and daddy is NONE of your business.

The system is NOT unfair. You shot the wad....you help pay for your kid...it's real....REAL simple. If you don't like it?  well, like I said....masturbation is cheaper(you don't have to take your hand out for dinner and a movie), and there's ZERO chance for putting yourself into a situation you obviously don't want to.have to contend with.

It's also pretty obvious that no matter what ANYONE says, you have your mind made up....you come up with all of these ridiculous scenarios.....nails, beer, crack, $500 handbags, etc.....you remind me of some conservatives who do.the "welfare mom with a Mercedes and a 60" LED TV" thing.....they don't want an honest discussion or even a debate....they just want to feign outrage.


----------



## koshergrl

Aristotle said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've had it explained to you repeatedly, by a variety of people including at least one attorney. You can't understand it because you are so focused on your desire to control you are completely blinded to reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off whoever said they were a lawyer I missed it because I don't recall anyone declaring themselves a lawyer and if they are, do they practice marital law?
> 
> Also, I made it clear that spending money on oneself does not count as child suppprt so far, nobody has countered that.
Click to expand...

 
Yes, several people countered it...if what you're saying (it's hard to tell) is that child support shouldn't be spent on oneself.


----------



## Steelplate

BTW.....what exactly do you want? You want the mother to be damn near destitute? Seems to me that way.....

One other thing.....how do you know that those nails that she bought came out of YOUR money?....which really isn't YOUR money, but your kid's money.

The bottom line, once again.....if you don't want this type of thing to happen, don't have sex. You seem very young.....life isn't fair. It's not fair for the single mom or dad forced to raise these kids on their own....to complain about having no other responsibility than a garnishment of your wages as "unfair" is an immature outlook, and the Steelers dig only further illustrates that.

Just the magical thinking involved with the idea that a person's favorite sports team has anything to do with their intelligence or mindset is ludicrous.

BTW, you want to know WHY I'm a Steelers fan? First off, I'm from PA....But beyond that.....The Pittsburgh Steelers represent hard working, blue collar people with integrity. People that honor their responsibilities....not to try to duck from them by dreaming up scenarios to try to prove a non-point.


----------



## koshergrl

He wants to be able to act punitively towards the mother; in other words, to continue to exert control of her. This isn't about the well being of kids. It's about control.


----------



## Aristotle

Steelplate said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude...you don't get it. Your child support dollars are a drop in the bucket compared to the actual cost of raising one. Child care while the custodial parent alone can and does bleed single moms(or dads) dry.
> 
> I'll tell you what....have her itemize every expenditure on that child for a month...especially August when people are doing the "back to school" thing....and offer to pay half of that every month......believe me....you're getting off cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking as if every woman out here is responsible. Remember majority of the single mothers are young. In addition to that, a lot of these single mothers are getting help from mommy or daddy or grand.mother. Spare me the sob story of what women pay. The system is unfair and I have challenged that and you have not demonstrated otherwise, you can't come through with the answer, typical of a steelers fan.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> typical Steelers fan? What does that mean? You do realize that attacks are not allowed here. What they get from mommy and daddy is NONE of your business.
> 
> The system is NOT unfair. You shot the wad....you help pay for your kid...it's real....REAL simple. If you don't like it?  well, like I said....masturbation is cheaper(you don't have to take your hand out for dinner and a movie), and there's ZERO chance for putting yourself into a situation you obviously don't want to.have to contend with.
> 
> It's also pretty obvious that no matter what ANYONE says, you have your mind made up....you come up with all of these ridiculous scenarios.....nails, beer, crack, $500 handbags, etc.....you remind me of some conservatives who do.the "welfare mom with a Mercedes and a 60" LED TV" thing.....they don't want an honest discussion or even a debate....they just want to feign outrage.
Click to expand...



Are you that uptight you can't take a friendly poke at your team? I was attacking your football team not you personally.

Let me say that your notion of "you get her pregnant its your choice" is a ridiculous cop out to cover the irresponsibility of some women who misuse child support. Any reasonable man understands the risk of unprotected sex but that is not the issue here. The issue here is a flawed system that many women take advantage of. A lot of women use the money on themselves and not for their kid. A lot of men with good paying jobs shell out cash monthly because there are women who are too lazy to get a damn job. Most of you are making it sound like women do all this work. First off statistics show that women younger 18 are parents and are recipients of government assistance. Most reside in the Bible belt, and a lot of them come from low socioeconomic backgrounds so please save the "women do x, y, and z" argument. A lot of these girls have unprotected sex due to risky sexual behavior and no home training.

So no, its not just some guy sticking his dick in a woman. Its two young idiots procreating painting the human gene pool. Its these kind of huma who create kids like "Honey Boo Bo." You're speaking as if these single mothers are 30 year old. Please spare me.


----------



## Aristotle

Steelplate said:


> BTW.....what exactly do you want? You want the mother to be damn near destitute? Seems to me that way.....
> 
> One other thing.....how do you know that those nails that she bought came out of YOUR money?....which really isn't YOUR money, but your kid's money.
> 
> The bottom line, once again.....if you don't want this type of thing to happen, don't have sex. You seem very young.....life isn't fair. It's not fair for the single mom or dad forced to raise these kids on their own....to complain about having no other responsibility than a garnishment of your wages as "unfair" is an immature outlook, and the Steelers dig only further illustrates that.
> 
> Just the magical thinking involved with the idea that a person's favorite sports team has anything to do with their intelligence or mindset is ludicrous.
> 
> BTW, you want to know WHY I'm a Steelers fan? First off, I'm from PA....But beyond that.....The Pittsburgh Steelers represent hard working, blue collar people with integrity. People that honor their responsibilities....not to try to duck from them by dreaming up scenarios to try to prove a non-point.




This comment is the reason why I act arrogant. I made it clear in my original post. Go back and re-read it.


----------



## jillian

Aristotle said:


> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?



would you prefer that she ask permission? money is fungible... what is spent on the house and food and everything else... can come from either pocket.

get over it.


----------



## Aristotle

jillian said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> would you prefer that she ask permission? money is fungible... what is spent on the house and food and everything else... can come from either pocket.
> 
> get over it.
Click to expand...


Does anyone read anymore?


----------



## Ravi

Aristotle said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ratti,
> 
> Thanks for the violation....
> 
> Do the world a favor and kill yourself. We need less racist pricks.
> 
> 
> 
> You claim to be black, right? You aren't fooling anyone. You're a stormfront tool.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I've never been on that sight. Heard more about it being a member here. I don't subscribe to racist tenets. Shall I post the racist comment you made in the Racism section?
Click to expand...

Be my guest. But first answer the question.


----------



## Steelplate

koshergrl said:


> He wants to be able to act punitively towards the mother; in other words, to continue to exert control of her. This isn't about the well being of kids. It's about control.



Pos Rep for you KG....we don't often agree...but on this? we are of one mind.

I know people who get so jaded from a bad relationship that the kids get used as pawns. When my first wife and I split up, a co-worker was also going through a divorce...we rented a place together and shared expenses. He was very bitter towards his ex.....both of us went through similar marriages.....domineering, controlling wives.....both of whom were....how do I say it kindly? monogamously challenged?

Anyway....both of us were pretty messed up emotionally. But one thing I noticed in myself.....the anxiety was gone.....I was having fun again.....it wasn't real long before I forgave her and wished her nothing but the best....I still feel that way. But my buddy was bitter for a long time.....still is to some extent. The only difference I can think of is this.....my ex and I never had kids....my friend had four with his ex, so he had a lot more pain to deal with.....so I don't judge him....just glad that he let a lot of it go......but he ALWAYS made his payments without complaint and tried to be as involved in his kids' lives as much as possible....That's maturity. That's putting your anger, pain and heartache aside and manning up.

Which is what REAL men do.


----------



## jillian

Ravi said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Aristool, you should do the world a favor and let any woman you sleep with know how much you despise women and personal responsibility.
> 
> That way women at least have an idea of what a low life you are. Yeah, I said that in the CDZ. Bite me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ratti,
> 
> Thanks for the violation....
> 
> Do the world a favor and kill yourself. We need less racist pricks.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You claim to be black, right? You aren't fooling anyone. You're a stormfront tool.
Click to expand...


absolutely


----------



## Aristotle

My issue with child support stems from the lack of tracking of how monies are spent. There is noguarantee that any deducted money (from levies or established payment systems) actually go to the support of the child. If there is a payment plan, all plans should be tracked. A man who works has every right to know how his money is spent on the child.  Like the EBT system the government can track any money that are spent in accordance to state defined support for the child. Not only does that cut down on misuse of monies spent, it declogs our court system.


----------



## Annie

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction



I'm guessing that is because of divorce agreement. Mine gave an 'every other year' claim. One year I got 1 deduction, the next two. Ex got the same.


----------



## Aristotle

Ravi said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> You claim to be black, right? You aren't fooling anyone. You're a stormfront tool.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've never been on that sight. Heard more about it being a member here. I don't subscribe to racist tenets. Shall I post the racist comment you made in the Racism section?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Be my guest. But first answer the question.
Click to expand...


Ok what was the question..."You claim to be black right?" I cannot claim a phenotypical trait, I am African-American


----------



## Intense

Noomi said:


> He wasn't their father. The father was the neighbor who wasn't paying a red cent. Whether the kids would have been upset or not doesn't matter. The man shouldn't be paying a penny for kids he didn't father.



He should not be forced to pay support for kids that he did not Father. If he willingly chooses to step up, it's been done before.


----------



## AmyNation

The ebt doesn't track like you seem to think it does.

How does it declog our court system?

Who's going to pay for this new system of tracking you want?

And if the monies the primary parent spend far exceed the amount the other parent sends, are they then required to reimburse the primary parent?


----------



## jillian

Intense said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't their father. The father was the neighbor who wasn't paying a red cent. Whether the kids would have been upset or not doesn't matter. The man shouldn't be paying a penny for kids he didn't father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He should not be forced to pay support for kids that he did not Father. If he willingly chooses to step up, it's been done before.
Click to expand...


in some unusual and rare cases, people have to pay support because they're the psychological parent of the child.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

> Also, I made it clear that spending money on oneself does not count as child suppprt so far, nobody has countered that.



Does the mother have that luxury?

Can she say, "I've divided up the money and even though its only the 20th of the month, I refuse to spend any of "MY" money on my children"?

The courts NEVER award any where near what is fair. I agree with the poster who said that no matter how much the father is supposed to pay, he's getting off easy because the awarded amount is never half. Instead, its based on what the father can afford to pay. 

Is the amount that the mother has to pay every month based on what she can afford? Nope.


----------



## Annie

KissMy said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand the feeling, however whether she/he takes that specific check and spends it on nails or beer, is not the other parents business.
> 
> Think of the money for child support as a reimbursement check, for monies the primary parent has already spent that month for the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What if she did not spend any on the child & blew all the money on crack?
Click to expand...


I'm thinking the dad would be back in court, demanding full custody? 

Face it, most women with custody and men for that matter that are collecting child support are having problems with their own income. 

It's been years since I received child support, all 3 are over 18. My ex had to pay $1800 per per month, $600 each child until each reached 18. The oldest was 12, the youngest 9, when it went into effect. I never requested alimony and never an increase in child support. The first year he tried to pawn it off as 'unallocated support' and I faced a tax bill of over $10k. That was reversed to child support, based upon his income. I got the refund and he got the tax bill. That was based upon his 'income' of $52k at the time of the divorce. Within a month of the decree, his income went to over $150k. 

After that, we divided up the deductions, as per agreement. In spite of his income of over $200k per year by the time the kids were hitting college, he paid 0 for their college costs. Same with orthodontia, etc. If I wouldn't 'split' the costs, he was out of that. I couldn't, making around $20k to start. Never got over $30k before youngest was 18. So I helped where I could, but for the most part they had to pay for themselves, they did through scholarships and working. 

Until our divorce, the kids attended private schools, were in traveling leagues and private music lessons. They were used to nice vacations, clothes, and museum/zoo memberships. That all ended, but did figure into child support and his ability to pay. 

Unless the custodial parent is willing to repeatedly go to court, after a few years child support is far less for most than trying to raise the children. All of the 'support' was used to keep housing, food, clothing, and school fees paid.


----------



## Steelplate

Aristotle said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're talking as if every woman out here is responsible. Remember majority of the single mothers are young. In addition to that, a lot of these single mothers are getting help from mommy or daddy or grand.mother. Spare me the sob story of what women pay. The system is unfair and I have challenged that and you have not demonstrated otherwise, you can't come through with the answer, typical of a steelers fan.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> typical Steelers fan? What does that mean? You do realize that attacks are not allowed here. What they get from mommy and daddy is NONE of your business.
> 
> The system is NOT unfair. You shot the wad....you help pay for your kid...it's real....REAL simple. If you don't like it?  well, like I said....masturbation is cheaper(you don't have to take your hand out for dinner and a movie), and there's ZERO chance for putting yourself into a situation you obviously don't want to.have to contend with.
> 
> It's also pretty obvious that no matter what ANYONE says, you have your mind made up....you come up with all of these ridiculous scenarios.....nails, beer, crack, $500 handbags, etc.....you remind me of some conservatives who do.the "welfare mom with a Mercedes and a 60" LED TV" thing.....they don't want an honest discussion or even a debate....they just want to feign outrage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Are you that uptight you can't take a friendly poke at your team? I was attacking your football team not you personally.
> 
> Let me say that your notion of "you get her pregnant its your choice" is a ridiculous cop out to cover the irresponsibility of some women who misuse child support. Any reasonable man understands the risk of unprotected sex but that is not the issue here. The issue here is a flawed system that many women take advantage of. A lot of women use the money on themselves and not for their kid. A lot of men with good paying jobs shell out cash monthly because there are women who are too lazy to get a damn job. Most of you are making it sound like women do all this work. First off statistics show that women younger 18 are parents and are recipients of government assistance. Most reside in the Bible belt, and a lot of them come from low socioeconomic backgrounds so please save the "women do x, y, and z" argument. A lot of these girls have unprotected sex due to risky sexual behavior and no home training.
> 
> So no, its not just some guy sticking his dick in a woman. Its two young idiots procreating painting the human gene pool. Its these kind of huma who create kids like "Honey Boo Bo." You're speaking as if these single mothers are 30 year old. Please spare me.
Click to expand...


First off.....re-read your post. you said "typical of a Steelers fan" That was not a friendly poke at the team.....that was a dig on me.

anyway....those young idiots? Which do you think is learning about life faster? The one who gets $100 or so taken out of his/her check, or the one who is raising the child?

I do agree with the "no home training" thing. You bring up a good point. But there it's not just rednecks that have unprotected sex. There is also a subculture in our inner cities where having a baby young is a status symbol. Young people these days are woefully unprepared for parenthood. The current environment is one of instant gratification where the concept of putting yourself in a position of secondary importance/priority is getting more and more alien to young people.


----------



## Steelplate

Aristotle said:


> My issue with child support stems from the lack of tracking of how monies are spent. There is noguarantee that any deducted money (from levies or established payment systems) actually go to the support of the child. If there is a payment plan, all plans should be tracked. A man who works has every right to know how his money is spent on the child.  Like the EBT system the government can track any money that are spent in accordance to state defined support for the child. Not only does that cut down on misuse of monies spent, it declogs our court system.



The problem is the assumption that they're not using that money on the child without proof. What if she uses the EBT card that you suggest to pay rent or to pay the heat or electric bill, and then gets her nails done with her wages from her job?

That's the problem....the household does support the child....it's not a matter of "my money/your money".


----------



## Annie

Steelplate said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> My issue with child support stems from the lack of tracking of how monies are spent. There is noguarantee that any deducted money (from levies or established payment systems) actually go to the support of the child. If there is a payment plan, all plans should be tracked. A man who works has every right to know how his money is spent on the child.  Like the EBT system the government can track any money that are spent in accordance to state defined support for the child. Not only does that cut down on misuse of monies spent, it declogs our court system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is the assumption that they're not using that money on the child without proof. What if she uses the EBT card that you suggest to pay rent or to pay the heat or electric bill, and then gets her nails done with her wages from her job?
> 
> That's the problem....the household does support the child....it's not a matter of "my money/your money".
Click to expand...


I know that all the years my kids were under my care, there wasn't a problem in paying for housing and food. It sometimes got dicey for school/sports fees and clothes for them, but not the essentials. That was with me working too. 

Through those years, I bought no new clothes, none. One pair of gym shoes. I still have underwear, sweaters, and shoes that I had when married, 18 years ago. No joke. It's been 8 years since my youngest turned 18 and child support stopped. For about 5 years I was able to do somethings for me. That stopped when I was riffed. 

That I fell upon hard times hasn't anything to do with ex, though the fact that I had to go through my 1/2 of 401k proceeds to let the kids have orthodontia and participate in sports, music, was. 

I don't regret the divorce, I do regret that I didn't heed the advice for alimony, since I am functionally deaf and it's coming into play regarding hiring. But that wasn't my ex's fault, my own.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

> ... the household does support the child....it's not a matter of "my money/your money".



That's true for the custodial parent or for two parent households but the op is correct that he gets to pay a much "discounted", if you will, amount of money and then walk away until next month. 

Its not a fair system to the mother or to the children.


----------



## Steelplate

Annie said:


> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> My issue with child support stems from the lack of tracking of how monies are spent. There is noguarantee that any deducted money (from levies or established payment systems) actually go to the support of the child. If there is a payment plan, all plans should be tracked. A man who works has every right to know how his money is spent on the child.  Like the EBT system the government can track any money that are spent in accordance to state defined support for the child. Not only does that cut down on misuse of monies spent, it declogs our court system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is the assumption that they're not using that money on the child without proof. What if she uses the EBT card that you suggest to pay rent or to pay the heat or electric bill, and then gets her nails done with her wages from her job?
> 
> That's the problem....the household does support the child....it's not a matter of "my money/your money".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know that all the years my kids were under my care, there wasn't a problem in paying for housing and food. It sometimes got dicey for school/sports fees and clothes for them, but not the essentials. That was with me working too.
> 
> Through those years, I bought no new clothes, none. One pair of gym shoes. I still have underwear, sweaters, and shoes that I had when married, 18 years ago. No joke. It's been 8 years since my youngest turned 18 and child support stopped. For about 5 years I was able to do somethings for me. That stopped when I was riffed.
> 
> That I fell upon hard times hasn't anything to do with ex, though the fact that I had to go through my 1/2 of 401k proceeds to let the kids have orthodontia and participate in sports, music, was.
> 
> I don't regret the divorce, I do regret that I didn't heed the advice for alimony, since I am functionally deaf and it's coming into play regarding hiring. But that wasn't my ex's fault, my own.
Click to expand...


Did you ever consider looking at the Civil Service lists in your state? The Public Sector is much more accommodating to physical challenges than the private sector.

But back to the topic...That's what I don't think Aristotle gets.....that it's not just young teenieboppers that get stuck in a single parent situation. It's also responsible people who get married with the best intentions but for one reason or another, things don't work out. What's the statistic....half of the marriages in the US end in divorce? That goes way beyond sticky fumblings in the back seat of a car by two kids.

God bless ya, and I hope things turn around for you soon....from what you've said in this post, you deserve it.


----------



## Steelplate

luddly.neddite said:


> ... the household does support the child....it's not a matter of "my money/your money".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true for the custodial parent or for two parent households but the op is correct that he gets to pay a much "discounted", if you will, amount of money and then walk away until next month.
> 
> Its not a fair system to the mother or to the children.
Click to expand...


Oh, I agree....or....to be fair, in this day and age....it's not as uncommon as it used to be to have a woman leave her husband with the kids....it's not fair to him either.

But, what in your opinion would be a fair system for the single parent?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Steelplate said:


> luddly.neddite said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... the household does support the child....it's not a matter of "my money/your money".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's true for the custodial parent or for two parent households but the op is correct that he gets to pay a much "discounted", if you will, amount of money and then walk away until next month.
> 
> Its not a fair system to the mother or to the children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I agree....or....to be fair, in this day and age....it's not as uncommon as it used to be to have a woman leave her husband with the kids....it's not fair to him either.
> 
> But, what in your opinion would be a fair system for the single parent?
Click to expand...


Actually, I was just thinking about that and decided not to post because I really don't know. 

As hard as it is to support one household with two checks, supporting two is almost impossible. But, one thing that has never changed is that divorce puts women in the poor house. It really is the woman who loses the most. 

I know a couple of women who tell very similar stories to Annie's. One woman I know stayed in an abusive marriage because of money. She's well into middle age and has no way to support herself. 

I'm sure that many judges have tried to answer that question too.


----------



## Annie

Steelplate said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Steelplate said:
> 
> 
> 
> The problem is the assumption that they're not using that money on the child without proof. What if she uses the EBT card that you suggest to pay rent or to pay the heat or electric bill, and then gets her nails done with her wages from her job?
> 
> That's the problem....the household does support the child....it's not a matter of "my money/your money".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that all the years my kids were under my care, there wasn't a problem in paying for housing and food. It sometimes got dicey for school/sports fees and clothes for them, but not the essentials. That was with me working too.
> 
> Through those years, I bought no new clothes, none. One pair of gym shoes. I still have underwear, sweaters, and shoes that I had when married, 18 years ago. No joke. It's been 8 years since my youngest turned 18 and child support stopped. For about 5 years I was able to do somethings for me. That stopped when I was riffed.
> 
> That I fell upon hard times hasn't anything to do with ex, though the fact that I had to go through my 1/2 of 401k proceeds to let the kids have orthodontia and participate in sports, music, was.
> 
> I don't regret the divorce, I do regret that I didn't heed the advice for alimony, since I am functionally deaf and it's coming into play regarding hiring. But that wasn't my ex's fault, my own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you ever consider looking at the Civil Service lists in your state? The Public Sector is much more accommodating to physical challenges than the private sector.
> 
> But back to the topic...That's what I don't think Aristotle gets.....that it's not just young teenieboppers that get stuck in a single parent situation. It's also responsible people who get married with the best intentions but for one reason or another, things don't work out. What's the statistic....half of the marriages in the US end in divorce? That goes way beyond sticky fumblings in the back seat of a car by two kids.
> 
> God bless ya, and I hope things turn around for you soon....from what you've said in this post, you deserve it.
Click to expand...


Thanks, perhaps good advice. At 57 though, functionally deaf, but a terrific teacher, who knows? 

How good am I as a teacher? I'm booked for next 3 weeks as a sub, different schools, even districts. Mostly high school, but a few middle schools thrown in. Why? i adhere to lesson plans and can adjust when they are goofed. Meaning a sick teacher sends lesson plans they've already covered. I don't sub in general in subjects I'm unqualified for, meaning PE, Math above geometry. Anything else? I can deal with.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Good Luck, Annie.


----------



## Aristotle

AmyNation said:


> The ebt doesn't track like you seem to think it does.
> 
> How does it declog our court system?
> 
> Who's going to pay for this new system of tracking you want?
> 
> And if the monies the primary parent spend far exceed the amount the other parent sends, are they then required to reimburse the primary parent?



The State can track what you spend and limit spending on items that are non-essential to sustenance. For example, with the EBT card you can track your balance and purchases you've made. I propose the same with child support. Have the state set standards of what is essential to the welfare of the child. Making purchases of alcohol and/or items not essential to the well-being of the child off limits.

Example:

The primary custodian must indicate how much rent they pay a month, have whatever amount that is agreed upon, and allow any monies to be deducted to go towards the rent and/or utilities. The purchasing of any or new items which causes debt, non-essential to the welfare of the child is off limits. The purchasing of alcohol or tabacco is off limits. The purchasing of adult clothing and/or gift bags is off limits. Any money that is taken out via ATM transaction must have follow up documentation as to why monies were taken out.

Sounds like work doesn't it? I gurantee you, if you employ this standard in divorce decrees or custody disputes the courts would be less clogged with domestic issues than they are now. As far as exceeding the amount all you have to do is come to an agreeable standard of payment per month or bi-weekly, put that amount on the card and have that person use that amount on that card.

If additional money is needed, social workers must be contacted, the person requesting an additional amount must document why he/she needs additional money and based on the request, the one paying child support must provide additional financial support. This eliminates custody disputes regarding finances.


----------



## AmyNation

1st, what you purpose is a huge burden on the state, added layers of government we dont need, intrusiveness/loss of privacy from both the government and the other parent, and the cost would be very high for something I see as unnecessary.

2nd, you seem to be under the impression non-custodial parents are often sending excessive amounts of money that need to be accounted for.

I seriously think you need to invest some time in researching how much it cost to care for a child, because your lack of knowledge in this topic is glaring.


----------



## Aristotle

My mentioning of the mother spending child support money partially comes from the following:

"Sean Combs, a.k.a. "P.Diddy," agreed to pony up more than $4.5 million in child support for his youngest son, Christian, 3, the "New York Post" reported. The hip-hop star and the child's mother, model Kim Porter, reportedly reached a settlement on their own, and Porter and lawyers for both sides appeared in family court in New York Wednesday to make it official. *Though terms of the settlement were not disclosed, the "Post" reported that Porter will receive a lump sum of $150,000, plus $20,000 per month until Christian turns 21.* In addition, Combs, 32, will pay for Christian's college and insurance costs as well as Porter's legal fees. Combs also took out a $2 million life insurance policy, to which Christian is beneficiary, the "Post" reported."

See: Pay-Out for 'P. Diddy' in Child Support - Sean \P. Diddy\ Combs : People.com

SAN FRANCISCO &#8212; "Just like thousands of other out-of-work Americans, Barry Bonds went to court to lighten the load of his child-support payments.

Bonds, having to make do without his $4.75 million salary during the baseball strike, obtained a court order cutting his $15,000-per-month child- and spousal-support payments in half."

See: Bonds Signs After Getting Break - Chicago Tribune

Now of course these are high profile entertainer/athletes but in reading these cases I ask the following question: How much it does it cost to raise a child?

Sources I've read state:

"A middle-income family may spend $234,900 to raise a child born in 2011 to the age of 18, a 3.5 percent increase in a year, according to a government report. Expenses for child care and education, transportation and food represented the biggest jumps, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said today in a report. Adjusted for anticipated inflation, a child in a middle-class family would cost $295,560 to raise, the department said."

See: http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20120614/FREE/120619948

If these numbers are correct, Barry Bonds and Sean "Puffy" Combs provide more than enough financial support for their kids. I believe folks of this caliber pay these extraordinary amounts because:

1) They can afford it

2) Its not just about sustaining the lifestyle of the child, its also sustaining the lifestyle of both the child and the mother.

If a woman is getting $15,000 per month even in the most affluent community in California the woman can live off of that and then some. I have to question whether luxury is essential in raising a child.


----------



## Aristotle

My mentioning of the mother spending child support money partially comes from the following:

"Sean Combs, a.k.a. "P.Diddy," agreed to pony up more than $4.5 million in child support for his youngest son, Christian, 3, the "New York Post" reported. The hip-hop star and the child's mother, model Kim Porter, reportedly reached a settlement on their own, and Porter and lawyers for both sides appeared in family court in New York Wednesday to make it official. *Though terms of the settlement were not disclosed, the "Post" reported that Porter will receive a lump sum of $150,000, plus $20,000 per month until Christian turns 21.* In addition, Combs, 32, will pay for Christian's college and insurance costs as well as Porter's legal fees. Combs also took out a $2 million life insurance policy, to which Christian is beneficiary, the "Post" reported."

See: Pay-Out for 'P. Diddy' in Child Support - Sean \P. Diddy\ Combs : People.com

SAN FRANCISCO  "Just like thousands of other out-of-work Americans, Barry Bonds went to court to lighten the load of his child-support payments.

Bonds, having to make do without his $4.75 million salary during the baseball strike, obtained a court order cutting his $15,000-per-month child- and spousal-support payments in half."

See: Bonds Signs After Getting Break - Chicago Tribune

Now of course these are high profile entertainer/athletes but in reading these cases I ask the following question: How much it does it cost to raise a child?

Sources I've read state:

"A middle-income family may spend $234,900 to raise a child born in 2011 to the age of 18, a 3.5 percent increase in a year, according to a government report. Expenses for child care and education, transportation and food represented the biggest jumps, the U.S. Department of Agriculture said today in a report. Adjusted for anticipated inflation, a child in a middle-class family would cost $295,560 to raise, the department said."

See: http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20120614/FREE/120619948

If these numbers are correct, Barry Bonds and Sean "Puffy" Combs provide more than enough financial support for their kids. I believe folks of this caliber pay these extraordinary amounts because:

1) They can afford it

2) Its not just about sustaining the lifestyle of the child, its also sustaining the lifestyle of both the child and the mother.

If a woman is getting $15,000 per month even in the most affluent community in California the woman can live off of that and then some. I have to question whether luxury is essential in raising a child.


----------



## Aristotle

AmyNation said:


> 1st, what you purpose is a huge burden on the state, added layers of government we dont need, intrusiveness/loss of privacy from both the government and the other parent, and the cost would be very high for something I see as unnecessary.
> 
> 2nd, you seem to be under the impression non-custodial parents are often sending excessive amounts of money that need to be accounted for.
> 
> I seriously think you need to invest some time in researching how much it cost to care for a child, because your lack of knowledge in this topic is glaring.



I never indicated non-custodial parents are sending excessive amounts. I am aware that the court system looks at it from what both parents make. I am merely suggesting that if the non-custodial parent is paying child support, there is should be a cap, and a tracking of items being purchased. This elminates financial disputes as there is clear documentation of purchased items. This also eliminates a lot of the custody battles allowing the courts to be more available for other issues.


----------



## Annie

Aristotle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1st, what you purpose is a huge burden on the state, added layers of government we dont need, intrusiveness/loss of privacy from both the government and the other parent, and the cost would be very high for something I see as unnecessary.
> 
> 2nd, you seem to be under the impression non-custodial parents are often sending excessive amounts of money that need to be accounted for.
> 
> I seriously think you need to invest some time in researching how much it cost to care for a child, because your lack of knowledge in this topic is glaring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never indicated non-custodial parents are sending excessive amounts. I am aware that the court system looks at it from what both parents make. I am merely suggesting that if the non-custodial parent is paying child support, there is should be a cap, and a tracking of items being purchased. This elminates financial disputes as there is clear documentation of purchased items. This also eliminates a lot of the custody battles allowing the courts to be more available for other issues.
Click to expand...


Not to be argumentative here, but your position seems to favor the non-custodial parent. Often the reason they are non-custodial, or refused joint custody is for their controlling behavior before and during divorce process. You wish to give them a hammer, when they already have been found with problems.


----------



## AmyNation

You sited a stat that says on average it costs over $1,000 a month to raise a child in middle income families. 

The cases you sites are not middle income families.

Who's to say how much security p. diddy's child may need or other costs that middle American children dont have.

The mother goes with the child, I'm sorry there is no way to ensure that the child only benefits and not the mother.

Non-custodial parents pay a portion of their income, so they aren't overburdened with child support costs. For most people, this works rather well as no one wants to pay the actual costs of raising a child.


----------



## Aristotle

Annie said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> 1st, what you purpose is a huge burden on the state, added layers of government we dont need, intrusiveness/loss of privacy from both the government and the other parent, and the cost would be very high for something I see as unnecessary.
> 
> 2nd, you seem to be under the impression non-custodial parents are often sending excessive amounts of money that need to be accounted for.
> 
> I seriously think you need to invest some time in researching how much it cost to care for a child, because your lack of knowledge in this topic is glaring.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never indicated non-custodial parents are sending excessive amounts. I am aware that the court system looks at it from what both parents make. I am merely suggesting that if the non-custodial parent is paying child support, there is should be a cap, and a tracking of items being purchased. This elminates financial disputes as there is clear documentation of purchased items. This also eliminates a lot of the custody battles allowing the courts to be more available for other issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not to be argumentative here, but your position seems to favor the non-custodial parent. Often the reason they are non-custodial, or refused joint custody is for their controlling behavior before and during divorce process. You wish to give them a hammer, when they already have been found with problems.
Click to expand...


Well I did begin this thread stating that my position is to not defend irresponsible men (or women). I believe mishandled money can be the devastator of all relationships.


----------



## Annie

Aristotle said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never indicated non-custodial parents are sending excessive amounts. I am aware that the court system looks at it from what both parents make. I am merely suggesting that if the non-custodial parent is paying child support, there is should be a cap, and a tracking of items being purchased. This elminates financial disputes as there is clear documentation of purchased items. This also eliminates a lot of the custody battles allowing the courts to be more available for other issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not to be argumentative here, but your position seems to favor the non-custodial parent. Often the reason they are non-custodial, or refused joint custody is for their controlling behavior before and during divorce process. You wish to give them a hammer, when they already have been found with problems.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well I did begin this thread stating that my position is to not defend irresponsible men (or women). I believe mishandled money can be the devastator of all relationships.
Click to expand...


problems with money handling would be evidenced during the divorce proceedings. If those were an issue, one would think the court would step in. When not, excessive controls are not only not appropriate, but uncalled for and insulting.


----------



## Aristotle

AmyNation said:


> You sited a stat that says on average it costs over $1,000 a month to raise a child in middle income families.
> 
> The cases you sites are not middle income families.
> 
> Who's to say how much security p. diddy's child may need or other costs that middle American children dont have.
> 
> The mother goes with the child, I'm sorry there is no way to ensure that the child only benefits and not the mother.
> 
> Non-custodial parents pay a portion of their income, so they aren't overburdened with child support costs. For most people, this works rather well as no one wants to pay the actual costs of raising a child.



I used P. Diddy and Barry Bonds as examples because those are tremendous amount of money.


----------



## Aristotle

Annie said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to be argumentative here, but your position seems to favor the non-custodial parent. Often the reason they are non-custodial, or refused joint custody is for their controlling behavior before and during divorce process. You wish to give them a hammer, when they already have been found with problems.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well I did begin this thread stating that my position is to not defend irresponsible men (or women). I believe mishandled money can be the devastator of all relationships.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> problems with money handling would be evidenced during the divorce proceedings. If those were an issue, one would think the court would step in. When not, excessive controls are not only not appropriate, but uncalled for and insulting.
Click to expand...


Well with the rate of single mothers mostly young, I believe control is what's needed.


----------



## Annie

Aristotle said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I did begin this thread stating that my position is to not defend irresponsible men (or women). I believe mishandled money can be the devastator of all relationships.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> problems with money handling would be evidenced during the divorce proceedings. If those were an issue, one would think the court would step in. When not, excessive controls are not only not appropriate, but uncalled for and insulting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well with the rate of single mothers mostly young, I believe control is what's needed.
Click to expand...


Why 'single mothers'? Why 'young?'' You are talking about divorce, not paternity.


----------



## Aristotle

Annie said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> problems with money handling would be evidenced during the divorce proceedings. If those were an issue, one would think the court would step in. When not, excessive controls are not only not appropriate, but uncalled for and insulting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well with the rate of single mothers mostly young, I believe control is what's needed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why 'single mothers'? Why 'young?'' You are talking about divorce, not paternity.
Click to expand...


Eh, I don't think my intent was to focus on divorce per say, but if that is what's being implied I apologize for the confusion.

As far as single mothers they are the most common in the U.S as far as having babies out of wedlock and are the most common recipients of state/federal mandated assistance programs.


----------



## koshergrl

Aristotle said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well I did begin this thread stating that my position is to not defend irresponsible men (or women). I believe mishandled money can be the devastator of all relationships.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> problems with money handling would be evidenced during the divorce proceedings. If those were an issue, one would think the court would step in. When not, excessive controls are not only not appropriate, but uncalled for and insulting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well with the rate of single mothers mostly young, I believe control is what's needed.
Click to expand...


Control by both parties, before a pregnancy ensues.

But control of one party by another, nope. You are divorced. You don't get to control from afar.


----------



## koshergrl

Aristotle said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well with the rate of single mothers mostly young, I believe control is what's needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why 'single mothers'? Why 'young?'' You are talking about divorce, not paternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh, I don't think my intent was to focus on divorce per say, but if that is what's being implied I apologize for the confusion.
> 
> As far as single mothers they are the most common in the U.S as far as having babies out of wedlock and are the most common recipients of state/federal mandated assistance programs.
Click to expand...


Except that's not what this conversation is about. This conversation is about how you think child support is unfair because non-custodial parents don't get to dictate how child support is applied in the household it's paid to.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Aristotle said:


> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ebt doesn't track like you seem to think it does.
> 
> How does it declog our court system?
> 
> Who's going to pay for this new system of tracking you want?
> 
> And if the monies the primary parent spend far exceed the amount the other parent sends, are they then required to reimburse the primary parent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The State can track what you spend and limit spending on items that are non-essential to sustenance.* For example, with the EBT card you can track your balance and purchases you've made. _I propose the same with child support. _Have the state set standards of what is essential to the welfare of the child. Making purchases of alcohol and/or items not essential to the well-being of the child off limits.
> 
> Example:
> 
> The primary custodian must indicate how much rent they pay a month, have whatever amount that is agreed upon, and allow any monies to be deducted to go towards the rent and/or utilities. The purchasing of any or new items which causes debt, non-essential to the welfare of the child is off limits. The purchasing of alcohol or tabacco is off limits. The purchasing of adult clothing and/or gift bags is off limits. Any money that is taken out via ATM transaction must have follow up documentation as to why monies were taken out.
> 
> Sounds like work doesn't it? I gurantee you, if you employ this standard in divorce decrees or custody disputes the courts would be less clogged with domestic issues than they are now. As far as exceeding the amount all you have to do is come to an agreeable standard of payment per month or bi-weekly, put that amount on the card and have that person use that amount on that card.
> 
> If additional money is needed, social workers must be contacted, the person requesting an additional amount must document why he/she needs additional money and based on the request, the one paying child support must provide additional financial support. This eliminates custody disputes regarding finances.
Click to expand...


The state cannot track private funds paid from one private citizen to another absent evidence of abuse, neglect, or some other criminal activity. That would violate due process doctrine and constitute a presumption of guilt on the part of the CP; citizens are not required to prove theyre not doing anything wrong. 

Youre also confusing public assistance with private party child support; the state can track the former as stewards of public monies. 

And yet again: if the non-custodial parent believes there is abuse, neglect, or other inappropriate activity on the part of the CP, he/she can bring that evidence to the authorities and petition the court for a modification of the order. 

Otherwise, its nonsense to propose a CP be subject to tracking because he/she might do something wrong. 

And the anecdotal evidence you provided in subsequent posts does not justify creation of a blanket tracking policy for all custodial parents.


----------



## Aristotle

koshergrl said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why 'single mothers'? Why 'young?'' You are talking about divorce, not paternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, I don't think my intent was to focus on divorce per say, but if that is what's being implied I apologize for the confusion.
> 
> As far as single mothers they are the most common in the U.S as far as having babies out of wedlock and are the most common recipients of state/federal mandated assistance programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Except that's not what this conversation is about. This conversation is about how you think child support is unfair because non-custodial parents don't get to dictate how child support is applied in the household it's paid to.
Click to expand...


Right and as I stated, any person who works for a living ought to have some say so as to how their money is being spent. I don't know any rational man who pays child support is careless as to how their money is being spent.


----------



## koshergrl

That doesn't make sense. Anyway, you have control over your money until the moment you send it off. Then it isn't your money anymore, and your power over it ends. As has already been pointed out, if your children are being abuse or neglected, THEN you may have a leg to stand on when it comes to custody...but that is a separate issue from child support, except as it applies to re-calculating.

You aren't going to find  a judge in this country that will maintain that you have a *right* to tell your ex how to spend the child support income.


----------



## Annie

Aristotle said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well with the rate of single mothers mostly young, I believe control is what's needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why 'single mothers'? Why 'young?'' You are talking about divorce, not paternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh, I don't think my intent was to focus on divorce per say, but if that is what's being implied I apologize for the confusion.
> 
> As far as single mothers they are the most common in the U.S as far as having babies out of wedlock and are the most common recipients of state/federal mandated assistance programs.
Click to expand...


No argument, thought has not a twit to do with child support and divorce.


----------



## earthmuffin

Noomi said:


> Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.



I don't think it's discrimination. As they say, it takes two to tango.


----------



## earthmuffin

FA_Q2 said:


> If a woman does not want a child then she should use protection, take the pill, or not have sex.  She should NOT be able to get an abortion to. Oh wait, your example is meaningless



When men start getting pregnant and have to face everything that comes with it, this argument will be valid.


----------



## earthmuffin

Katzndogz said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So its ok that a woman squander's the money on herself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> The woman pays rent, buys food, buys clothing, pays the utilities.  If she takes the child support and blows it, she's still paying the bills.
Click to expand...


This, times a million. 

Child support is not about budgeting exactly what it costs to raise a child, if that were the case, everyone would get the same amount, regardless of any other factors.

And who's to say that a mother getting her nails done can't benefit the child. Contributing to peace of mind contributes to good parenting also.


----------



## earthmuffin

Salt Jones said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> One of my clients ended up a father from a one night stand and she assured him that she was on the pill.   He faithfully paid child support for 18 years.   Periodically the mother took him to court to get an increase.  And tried several times to force this man to visit the child, send Christmas and Birthday presents but he never did.   The mother fought for and got a  court order for visitation and shared vacation times.  She just could not get an order forcing him to visit or have the child for six weeks during the summer or alternate holidays.   He paid, every month, what the law said he had to pay.  No more, no less.   He understood that he made a mistake and had to pay for that mistake.  He did it without complaint.   Raising the child was entirely the mother's responsibility.  She chose to get pregnant.  She chose not to take the pill as she said she did.   He bore no responsibility beyond financial restitution for his momentary lapse.  He never saw the child, never spoke to the child, never accepted any letters with regard to the child or from the child when she got old enough.   It was a fair resolution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If that gets him through the night, more power to him. I think it was a coward's way out. He had sex, pregnancy can result from sex. He punished a kid because of his weakness. That is the sign of a pussy.
Click to expand...


It's shitty, but if he wants nothing to do with the child, they are probably better off without him, anyway. Definitely a cruel thing to not even answers letters from the child, however. I could see not wanting to be involved during childhood, but refusing all contact just seems cold.


----------



## earthmuffin

Aristotle said:


> *You're talking as if every woman out here is responsible.* Remember majority of the single mothers are young. In addition to that, a lot of these single mothers are getting help from mommy or daddy or grand.mother. Spare me the sob story of what women pay. The system is unfair and I have challenged that and you have not demonstrated otherwise, you can't come through with the answer, typical of a steelers fan.



And you're speaking as if the average MOTHER doesn't put her CHILD first.


----------



## earthmuffin

Aristotle said:


> Well with the rate of single mothers mostly young, I believe control is what's needed.



So essentially, young mothers cannot be trusted? And we should invade their privacy purely because of that?


----------



## koshergrl

Actually, he's asserting that once a woman marries someone, even if they are divorced, if she gets the children, he shouldn't have to pay child support unless he can determine what it's spent on.

It's a control thing.


----------



## koshergrl

What's more, it's based on his insistence that single mothers are crack addicts and otherwise irresponsible if they don't have the father of the children in the household telling them what to do.

Apparently divorce causes them to become depraved individuals...but they craftily hide this from the courts so that only their exes are aware of it...and we should take their exes' word for it, and allow them to handle the finances from afar.

Sounds like sharia.


----------



## earthmuffin

koshergrl said:


> What's more, it's based on his insistence that single mothers are crack addicts and otherwise irresponsible if they don't have the father of the children in the household telling them what to do.
> 
> Apparently divorce causes them to become depraved individuals...but they craftily hide this from the courts so that only their exes are aware of it...and we should take their exes' word for it, and allow them to handle the finances from afar.
> 
> Sounds like sharia.



It's just ridiculous. If the mother has an addiction that impacts the lives of her children, or she simply isn't providing... report her to CPS.

If they are other reasons the father doesn't like what she does with the money, tough. His kids are being taken care of and that's the point of the whole thing.


----------



## lareinedumonde

I say, castration would make it easier for all.


----------



## Noomi

AmyNation said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't their father. The father was the neighbor who wasn't paying a red cent. Whether the kids would have been upset or not doesn't matter. The man shouldn't be paying a penny for kids he didn't father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was their father in every other way.
> 
> I agree with you in that I don't agree with forcing men to continue to parent and pay for children that aren't biologically theirs.
> 
> But again, when it comes to children, the courts put the well being of the child above all else, above the mother, the father, and what's fair or just.
Click to expand...


I understand the need to put the children first, but having the kids receive money from a man who isn't even their real father is just wrong. The biological father should have been made to pay child support.

The man had said that he didn't even want to see the kids anymore, he was so devastated that he had to get away from them.


----------



## Noomi

jillian said:


> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> He wasn't their father. The father was the neighbor who wasn't paying a red cent. Whether the kids would have been upset or not doesn't matter. The man shouldn't be paying a penny for kids he didn't father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He should not be forced to pay support for kids that he did not Father. If he willingly chooses to step up, it's been done before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> in some unusual and rare cases, people have to pay support because they're the psychological parent of the child.
Click to expand...


Only because in those cases, the mother has lied to the man in order to get his money.


----------



## koshergrl

If he took on the duties of a father and acted as their father, then he has taken on ongoing responsibility for them.

Let *stepfathers* and boyfriends take heed...you move into a household and start playing house, you have taken on that responsibility forever. It doesn't end when you stop banging mama. So think about it before you insert yourself into a kid's life.


----------



## koshergrl

c





Noomi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intense said:
> 
> 
> 
> He should not be forced to pay support for kids that he did not Father. If he willingly chooses to step up, it's been done before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in some unusual and rare cases, people have to pay support because they're the psychological parent of the child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only because in those cases, the mother has lied to the man in order to get his money.
Click to expand...


Not true at all.

I've seen many child support cases where an unrelated male is paying child support for children that are not his own. Sometimes it's because he met the mom when she was pregnant, sometimes it's because he portrayed himself as a parent to the community, and behaved in that capacity towards the children.


----------



## Noomi

earthmuffin said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's discrimination. As they say, it takes two to tango.
Click to expand...


Sure it is.

Consider this:

Scenario one: Woman gets pregnant, doesn't want the baby. Man does want baby and is prepared to provide financial support. Woman has the right to choose, she has an abortion. Man is prevented from becoming a father because of her choices.

Scenario two: Woman gets pregnant. Man does not want child, had made it clear that he was not ready to be a father, was using birth control the whole time. Woman decides she wants to be a mother after all, has the baby and forces the man to become a father.

How is it fair to force a man to become a father, but he cannot force her to become a mother?


----------



## Noomi

koshergrl said:


> c
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> in some unusual and rare cases, people have to pay support because they're the psychological parent of the child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only because in those cases, the mother has lied to the man in order to get his money.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not true at all.
> 
> I've seen many child support cases where an unrelated male is paying child support for children that are not his own. Sometimes it's because he met the mom when she was pregnant, sometimes it's because he portrayed himself as a parent to the community, and behaved in that capacity towards the children.
Click to expand...


But in those cases, he would have known he wasn't the father. I am speaking of men who believed they were the father of the child, but the woman had screwed around behind his back and lied about who the father was. Those are the women who should be dragged before the courts and given a roasting.


----------



## koshergrl

Yes indeed.

This is what happens when you make murder a *right* of one set of people only. By it's nature as a human rights violation, that *right* naturally violates the rights of others.


----------



## koshergrl

Noomi said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> c
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only because in those cases, the mother has lied to the man in order to get his money.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not true at all.
> 
> I've seen many child support cases where an unrelated male is paying child support for children that are not his own. Sometimes it's because he met the mom when she was pregnant, sometimes it's because he portrayed himself as a parent to the community, and behaved in that capacity towards the children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But in those cases, he would have known he wasn't the father. I am speaking of men who believed they were the father of the child, but the woman had screwed around behind his back and lied about who the father was. Those are the women who should be dragged before the courts and given a roasting.
Click to expand...

What happens is the alleged fathers simply contest the allegation, and a simple test clears it up.


----------



## Noomi

koshergrl said:


> Yes indeed.
> 
> This is what happens when you make murder a *right* of one set of people only. By it's nature as a human rights violation, that *right* naturally violates the rights of others.



I gather you refer to abortion...and while I fully support the right of women to opt out of motherhood, I wish it was as easy for men to opt out of fatherhood.



koshergrl said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> c
> 
> Not true at all.
> 
> I've seen many child support cases where an unrelated male is paying child support for children that are not his own. Sometimes it's because he met the mom when she was pregnant, sometimes it's because he portrayed himself as a parent to the community, and behaved in that capacity towards the children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But in those cases, he would have known he wasn't the father. I am speaking of men who believed they were the father of the child, but the woman had screwed around behind his back and lied about who the father was. Those are the women who should be dragged before the courts and given a roasting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What happens is the alleged fathers simply contest the allegation, and a simple test clears it up.
Click to expand...


Some men may have no idea they are not the father until years down the track, and by then they have paid child support for decades. That is why I think paternity tests should be compulsory at birth.


----------



## earthmuffin

Noomi said:


> Sure it is.
> 
> Consider this:
> 
> Scenario one: Woman gets pregnant, doesn't want the baby. Man does want baby and is prepared to provide financial support. Woman has the right to choose, she has an abortion. Man is prevented from becoming a father because of her choices.
> 
> Scenario two: Woman gets pregnant. Man does not want child, had made it clear that he was not ready to be a father, was using birth control the whole time. Woman decides she wants to be a mother after all, has the baby and forces the man to become a father.
> 
> How is it fair to force a man to become a father, but he cannot force her to become a mother?



Because financial responsibility is not the same as being pregnant for nine months. One affects your paycheck, the other affects your body. Apples and oranges, really.


----------



## koshergrl

Abortion should never be easy...and men try to opt out of fatherhood all the time. That's why we have court mandated child support.


----------



## Noomi

earthmuffin said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure it is.
> 
> Consider this:
> 
> Scenario one: Woman gets pregnant, doesn't want the baby. Man does want baby and is prepared to provide financial support. Woman has the right to choose, she has an abortion. Man is prevented from becoming a father because of her choices.
> 
> Scenario two: Woman gets pregnant. Man does not want child, had made it clear that he was not ready to be a father, was using birth control the whole time. Woman decides she wants to be a mother after all, has the baby and forces the man to become a father.
> 
> How is it fair to force a man to become a father, but he cannot force her to become a mother?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because financial responsibility is not the same as being pregnant for nine months. One affects your paycheck, the other affects your body. Apples and oranges, really.
Click to expand...


And I understand that completely. But at the same time, you cannot deny that the law favors women over men on this issue.


----------



## earthmuffin

Noomi said:


> And I understand that completely. But at the same time, you cannot deny that the law favors women over men on this issue.



Well, yes and no.

You have to keep in mind that abortion is a separate choice. It's simply not an option for a lot of women. It's not any sort of default position. And opting to end a child's life before it's really begun is vastly different than ducking out of financial responsibility for a child that exists.

The fact of the matter is that women may receive a second chance at making a decision, but men KNOW, going into it that they only have one. If they squander it, too bad. No one can force a man to become a father unless he's been raped or had his sperm stolen.


----------



## Ravi

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AmyNation said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ebt doesn't track like you seem to think it does.
> 
> How does it declog our court system?
> 
> Who's going to pay for this new system of tracking you want?
> 
> And if the monies the primary parent spend far exceed the amount the other parent sends, are they then required to reimburse the primary parent?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The State can track what you spend and limit spending on items that are non-essential to sustenance.* For example, with the EBT card you can track your balance and purchases you've made. _I propose the same with child support. _Have the state set standards of what is essential to the welfare of the child. Making purchases of alcohol and/or items not essential to the well-being of the child off limits.
> 
> Example:
> 
> The primary custodian must indicate how much rent they pay a month, have whatever amount that is agreed upon, and allow any monies to be deducted to go towards the rent and/or utilities. The purchasing of any or new items which causes debt, non-essential to the welfare of the child is off limits. The purchasing of alcohol or tabacco is off limits. The purchasing of adult clothing and/or gift bags is off limits. Any money that is taken out via ATM transaction must have follow up documentation as to why monies were taken out.
> 
> Sounds like work doesn't it? I gurantee you, if you employ this standard in divorce decrees or custody disputes the courts would be less clogged with domestic issues than they are now. As far as exceeding the amount all you have to do is come to an agreeable standard of payment per month or bi-weekly, put that amount on the card and have that person use that amount on that card.
> 
> If additional money is needed, social workers must be contacted, the person requesting an additional amount must document why he/she needs additional money and based on the request, the one paying child support must provide additional financial support. This eliminates custody disputes regarding finances.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The state cannot track private funds paid from one private citizen to another absent evidence of abuse, neglect, or some other criminal activity. That would violate due process doctrine and constitute a presumption of guilt on the part of the CP; citizens are not required to prove theyre not doing anything wrong.
> 
> Youre also confusing public assistance with private party child support; the state can track the former as stewards of public monies.
> 
> And yet again: if the non-custodial parent believes there is abuse, neglect, or other inappropriate activity on the part of the CP, he/she can bring that evidence to the authorities and petition the court for a modification of the order.
> 
> Otherwise, its nonsense to propose a CP be subject to tracking because he/she might do something wrong.
> 
> And the anecdotal evidence you provided in subsequent posts does not justify creation of a blanket tracking policy for all custodial parents.
Click to expand...


Exactly. The OP is more interested in punishing the mother than helping the children.

A sad excuse for a human being, imo.


----------



## koshergrl

And he may be perfectly justified in his disdain of her...the point is, that doesn't warrant changing the system. You cannot allow non-custodial parents to exert that sort of control over their exes. It is bad juju.


----------



## MisterBeale

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction



I have a disability and I raise my child, as such I make no income other than what I get through disability.  (You can't claim the child care exemption/deduction on disability.)  I looked into it though, as it turns out, since I am not claiming the deduction, (since I cannot claim one), my son's mother can, but only if I sign a form waiving my right to.  

In the end, we look at it all as one big pool that benefits our boy, so I gladly signed the exemption.  It enabled her to take him on a road trip to Disney world this December (assuming the fabric of society doesn't unravel.   )

So anyway, it might be best to see who's exemption/deduction would be larger for your child, your ex's, or yours.  If it turn's out that your exemption is larger, talk to your ex, see if she would let you take the exemption and see if you could both split the benefit, maybe even if you don't have a very trusting relationship, you could pay her cash up front for your half.    Sometimes, if the father's half of an exemption is larger than the mother's entire whole exemption, the mother will clearly see that it is in the child's best interest to sign over the tax credit.  It is, after all, about getting as much money as possible into the kids life.


----------



## Steelplate

earthmuffin said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So its ok that a woman squander's the money on herself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.
> 
> The woman pays rent, buys food, buys clothing, pays the utilities.  If she takes the child support and blows it, she's still paying the bills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This, times a million.
> 
> Child support is not about budgeting exactly what it costs to raise a child, if that were the case, everyone would get the same amount, regardless of any other factors.
> 
> And who's to say that a mother getting her nails done can't benefit the child. Contributing to peace of mind contributes to good parenting also.
Click to expand...


or preparing for a job interview, or the woman's employment in and of itself....perhaps she works in a field where she has to look professional and well groomed....Your appearance is one of the things that employers look at when you walk in their door for a job.


----------



## Katzndogz

Aristotle said:


> I can't believe some of you actually think its ok to spend child support money on yourself. How does personal luxury equate ti child support?



You don't understand the whole concept of money.   Money is fungible.   A mother who works pays rent, maybe she pays rent on a two bedroom apartment instead of a one bedroom if she lived alone.   She buys food and Froot Loops for the kid's breakfast.   She pays the electric bill, so the kid can do his or her homework at night.  Maybe she buys the kid new shoes instead of getting herself a new dress.  She's paying for all these things.   When she gets child support it is really reimbursement for all the expenses she has already paid so she can spend the money on anything she likes.


----------



## Katzndogz

Some jurisdictions will accept shared child custody by nesting.    In a nesting agreement, both parents contribute an equal amount of money to maintain  a separate home for the child.  The child has one address and never moves.  The parents transition in and out of the apartment on a weekly basis, maintaining some cheaper alternative of their own.    The parents split the rent and utilities, when they are the parent in residence, they buy the food.  Whatever the child needs or wants is paid for by the parent in residence.    Some expenses are split.   Sports, extracirricular activities are all split evenly.   Religious instruction is satisfied by the parent taking the child to a house of worship in their week.

For those who can afford it, it works out quite well.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

AmyNation said:


> 1st, what you purpose is a huge burden on the state, added layers of government we dont need, intrusiveness/loss of privacy from both the government and the other parent, and the cost would be very high for something I see as unnecessary.
> 
> 2nd, you seem to be under the impression non-custodial parents are often sending excessive amounts of money that need to be accounted for.
> 
> I seriously think you need to invest some time in researching how much it cost to care for a child, because your lack of knowledge in this topic is glaring.



The R's would love another excuse to add even more government. Its what they do - bigger and bigger government with the goal of taking away freedom.


----------



## Aristotle

Ravi said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The State can track what you spend and limit spending on items that are non-essential to sustenance.* For example, with the EBT card you can track your balance and purchases you've made. _I propose the same with child support. _Have the state set standards of what is essential to the welfare of the child. Making purchases of alcohol and/or items not essential to the well-being of the child off limits.
> 
> Example:
> 
> The primary custodian must indicate how much rent they pay a month, have whatever amount that is agreed upon, and allow any monies to be deducted to go towards the rent and/or utilities. The purchasing of any or new items which causes debt, non-essential to the welfare of the child is off limits. The purchasing of alcohol or tabacco is off limits. The purchasing of adult clothing and/or gift bags is off limits. Any money that is taken out via ATM transaction must have follow up documentation as to why monies were taken out.
> 
> Sounds like work doesn't it? I gurantee you, if you employ this standard in divorce decrees or custody disputes the courts would be less clogged with domestic issues than they are now. As far as exceeding the amount all you have to do is come to an agreeable standard of payment per month or bi-weekly, put that amount on the card and have that person use that amount on that card.
> 
> If additional money is needed, social workers must be contacted, the person requesting an additional amount must document why he/she needs additional money and based on the request, the one paying child support must provide additional financial support. This eliminates custody disputes regarding finances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The state cannot track private funds paid from one private citizen to another absent evidence of abuse, neglect, or some other criminal activity. That would violate due process doctrine and constitute a presumption of guilt on the part of the CP; citizens are not required to &#8216;prove&#8217; they&#8217;re not doing anything wrong.
> 
> You&#8217;re also confusing public assistance with private party child support; the state can track the former as stewards of public monies.
> 
> And yet again: if the non-custodial parent believes there is abuse, neglect, or other inappropriate activity on the part of the CP, he/she can bring that evidence to the authorities and petition the court for a modification of the order.
> 
> Otherwise, it&#8217;s nonsense to propose a CP be subject to &#8216;tracking&#8217; because he/she &#8216;might&#8217; do something wrong.
> 
> And the anecdotal &#8216;evidence&#8217; you provided in subsequent posts does not justify creation of a blanket tracking policy for all custodial parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. The OP is more interested in punishing the mother than helping the children.
> 
> A sad excuse for a human being, imo.
Click to expand...


Wait how is me calling for the tracking of money and the desire for the primary custodial parent to allocate funds to the ppropriate destination punishment?


----------



## Aristotle

Katzndogz said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe some of you actually think its ok to spend child support money on yourself. How does personal luxury equate ti child support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the whole concept of money.   Money is fungible.   A mother who works pays rent, maybe she pays rent on a two bedroom apartment instead of a one bedroom if she lived alone.   She buys food and Froot Loops for the kid's breakfast.   She pays the electric bill, so the kid can do his or her homework at night.  Maybe she buys the kid new shoes instead of getting herself a new dress.  She's paying for all these things.   When she gets child support it is really reimbursement for all the expenses she has already paid so she can spend the money on anything she likes.
Click to expand...


Sometimes its hard to not insult some of you guys as many of you do not express common sense and simple reading comprehension.

Where in the world did I say the mother cannot spend money on rent? I clearly stated that the issue here is that there are women (or primary custodian of the child(rend), spend their money on personal luxury. Do you understand what personal luxury is?

Personal luxury is not child support.

Do you need me to put this in subtitles?

Example:

A mom using money spending child support on Disneyland tickets is not child support its a personal luxury and a temporary gratification for the child. Why is it temporary gratification? Because at some point the theme park closes and you leave.

A mom spending money getting her hair and nails done is not child support as none of the aforementioned supports the child at all.....Get it?


----------



## Katzndogz

Aristotle said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe some of you actually think its ok to spend child support money on yourself. How does personal luxury equate ti child support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the whole concept of money.   Money is fungible.   A mother who works pays rent, maybe she pays rent on a two bedroom apartment instead of a one bedroom if she lived alone.   She buys food and Froot Loops for the kid's breakfast.   She pays the electric bill, so the kid can do his or her homework at night.  Maybe she buys the kid new shoes instead of getting herself a new dress.  She's paying for all these things.   When she gets child support it is really reimbursement for all the expenses she has already paid so she can spend the money on anything she likes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes its hard to not insult some of you guys as many of you do not express common sense and simple reading comprehension.
> 
> Where in the world did I say the mother cannot spend money on rent? I clearly stated that the issue here is that there are women (or primary custodian of the child(rend), spend their money on personal luxury. Do you understand what personal luxury is?
> 
> Personal luxury is not child support.
> 
> 
> Do you need me to put this in subtitles?
> 
> Example:
> 
> A mom using money spending child support on Disneyland tickets is not child support its a personal luxury and a temporary gratification for the child. Why is it temporary gratification? Because at some point the theme park closes and you leave.
> 
> A mom spending money getting her hair and nails done is not child support as none of the aforementioned supports the child at all.....Get it?
Click to expand...


Oh boy, I know I can't explain the concept of child support to you.   All the judges who award child support and tell people they have no right to say how that support is spent haven't been able to explain it to you.

Child support becomes part of the general pool of money that belongs to the mother as the provider.  She might spend the money she has on new school clothes and then spend the child support on getting her hair and nails done, or new shoes.   She gets to do that because she has already spent her own money on the child, in the form of maintenance.  She pays rent, she pays utilities, she buys food.   Think of child support as reimbursement for the money she has already paid for the child's well being.   There is no requirement at all, that people sequester child support outside of household expenditures.  

Whether you think I'm wrong, or this is silly, or doesn't make sense has no bearing on the situation as it exists.   People who pay child support have absolutely no say in how that money is spent.   That's the reality in every family law court in the country.

The issue is NOT whether women should be prohibited from spending their money on personal luxuries.  It's their money, they can spend it any way they want.   After all once a man sends off his child support check is HE prohibited from spending his money on personal luxuries?    If he can afford to go out for a beer with the guys or buy a ticket to the ball game isn't that proof that he's not paying enough in child support?


----------



## koshergrl

Aristotle said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can't believe some of you actually think its ok to spend child support money on yourself. How does personal luxury equate ti child support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the whole concept of money. Money is fungible. A mother who works pays rent, maybe she pays rent on a two bedroom apartment instead of a one bedroom if she lived alone. She buys food and Froot Loops for the kid's breakfast. She pays the electric bill, so the kid can do his or her homework at night. Maybe she buys the kid new shoes instead of getting herself a new dress. She's paying for all these things. When she gets child support it is really reimbursement for all the expenses she has already paid so she can spend the money on anything she likes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sometimes its hard to not insult some of you guys as many of you do not express common sense and simple reading comprehension.
> 
> Where in the world did I say the mother cannot spend money on rent? I clearly stated that the issue here is that there are women (or primary custodian of the child(rend), spend their money on personal luxury. Do you understand what personal luxury is?
> 
> Personal luxury is not child support.
> 
> Do you need me to put this in subtitles?
> 
> Example:
> 
> A mom using money spending child support on Disneyland tickets is not child support its a personal luxury and a temporary gratification for the child. Why is it temporary gratification? Because at some point the theme park closes and you leave.
> 
> A mom spending money getting her hair and nails done is not child support as none of the aforementioned supports the child at all.....Get it?
Click to expand...

 
You're wrong.


----------



## High_Gravity

Aristotle said:


> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?



"Child" support is the biggest scam going, hardly any of that money goes to take care of that particular child.


----------



## jillian

Ravi said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> *The State can track what you spend and limit spending on items that are non-essential to sustenance.* For example, with the EBT card you can track your balance and purchases you've made. _I propose the same with child support. _Have the state set standards of what is essential to the welfare of the child. Making purchases of alcohol and/or items not essential to the well-being of the child off limits.
> 
> Example:
> 
> The primary custodian must indicate how much rent they pay a month, have whatever amount that is agreed upon, and allow any monies to be deducted to go towards the rent and/or utilities. The purchasing of any or new items which causes debt, non-essential to the welfare of the child is off limits. The purchasing of alcohol or tabacco is off limits. The purchasing of adult clothing and/or gift bags is off limits. Any money that is taken out via ATM transaction must have follow up documentation as to why monies were taken out.
> 
> Sounds like work doesn't it? I gurantee you, if you employ this standard in divorce decrees or custody disputes the courts would be less clogged with domestic issues than they are now. As far as exceeding the amount all you have to do is come to an agreeable standard of payment per month or bi-weekly, put that amount on the card and have that person use that amount on that card.
> 
> If additional money is needed, social workers must be contacted, the person requesting an additional amount must document why he/she needs additional money and based on the request, the one paying child support must provide additional financial support. This eliminates custody disputes regarding finances.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The state cannot track private funds paid from one private citizen to another absent evidence of abuse, neglect, or some other criminal activity. That would violate due process doctrine and constitute a presumption of guilt on the part of the CP; citizens are not required to &#8216;prove&#8217; they&#8217;re not doing anything wrong.
> 
> You&#8217;re also confusing public assistance with private party child support; the state can track the former as stewards of public monies.
> 
> And yet again: if the non-custodial parent believes there is abuse, neglect, or other inappropriate activity on the part of the CP, he/she can bring that evidence to the authorities and petition the court for a modification of the order.
> 
> Otherwise, it&#8217;s nonsense to propose a CP be subject to &#8216;tracking&#8217; because he/she &#8216;might&#8217; do something wrong.
> 
> And the anecdotal &#8216;evidence&#8217; you provided in subsequent posts does not justify creation of a blanket tracking policy for all custodial parents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Exactly. The OP is more interested in punishing the mother than helping the children.
> 
> A sad excuse for a human being, imo.
Click to expand...


it's a giant temper tantrum because he doesn't get to continue to tell her what to do now that they're divorced.

here's a hint for him, though:

ex spouses don't like each other, generally, or they'd still be married.

asking one to "agree" with the other on allocating anything is a recipe for disaster

women are grown ups who shouldn't have to ask for permission about how to spend money... that's why a PERCENTAGE of income is ordered and courts don't preside over every squabble about every expenditure.

and yes, in  some instances, trust gets abused... but not most. in most cases, people learn to be grown ups and work together.


----------



## Ravi

jillian said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> The state cannot track private funds paid from one private citizen to another absent evidence of abuse, neglect, or some other criminal activity. That would violate due process doctrine and constitute a presumption of guilt on the part of the CP; citizens are not required to prove theyre not doing anything wrong.
> 
> Youre also confusing public assistance with private party child support; the state can track the former as stewards of public monies.
> 
> And yet again: if the non-custodial parent believes there is abuse, neglect, or other inappropriate activity on the part of the CP, he/she can bring that evidence to the authorities and petition the court for a modification of the order.
> 
> Otherwise, its nonsense to propose a CP be subject to tracking because he/she might do something wrong.
> 
> And the anecdotal evidence you provided in subsequent posts does not justify creation of a blanket tracking policy for all custodial parents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. The OP is more interested in punishing the mother than helping the children.
> 
> A sad excuse for a human being, imo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> it's a giant temper tantrum because he doesn't get to continue to tell her what to do now that they're divorced.
> 
> here's a hint for him, though:
> 
> ex spouses don't like each other, generally, or they'd still be married.
> 
> asking one to "agree" with the other on allocating anything is a recipe for disaster
> 
> women are grown ups who shouldn't have to ask for permission about how to spend money... that's why a PERCENTAGE of income is ordered and courts don't preside
> 
> and yes, in  some instances, trust gets abused... but not most. in most cases, people learn to be grown ups and work together.
Click to expand...

Yep, unless they are emotionally immature and let their vendettas harm their children's lives.


----------



## koshergrl

"Many associations of noncustodial parents emerged after the 1980s to express their belief that awards were burdensome to the payers, benefited only the custodial parent, or did not provide payers with enough in return. At the same time, more single parents with children slipped into poverty than had at any other point in the nation's history."

Child Support legal definition of Child Support. Child Support synonyms by the Free Online Law Dictionary.


----------



## High_Gravity

Katzndogz said:


> One of my clients ended up a father from a one night stand and she assured him that she was on the pill.   He faithfully paid child support for 18 years.   Periodically the mother took him to court to get an increase.  And tried several times to force this man to visit the child, send Christmas and Birthday presents but he never did.   The mother fought for and got a  court order for visitation and shared vacation times.  She just could not get an order forcing him to visit or have the child for six weeks during the summer or alternate holidays.   He paid, every month, what the law said he had to pay.  No more, no less.   He understood that he made a mistake and had to pay for that mistake.  He did it without complaint.   Raising the child was entirely the mother's responsibility.  She chose to get pregnant.  She chose not to take the pill as she said she did.   He bore no responsibility beyond financial restitution for his momentary lapse.  He never saw the child, never spoke to the child, never accepted any letters with regard to the child or from the child when she got old enough.   It was a fair resolution.



Plenty of women would have no problem with that arrangement as long as they get their check.


----------



## koshergrl

Why shouldn't they get a check?

Birth control fails. I've gotten pregnant while on the pill, I've gotten pregnant using a condom...that's 2 out of my 4 children, accidental.

My best friend got pregnant while on the pill.

My sister in law got pregnant while on the pill.

There's always a chance of birth control failing, and if it does, it's the responsibility of both parties to support the baby that comes of it.


----------



## High_Gravity

koshergrl said:


> Why shouldn't they get a check?
> 
> Birth control fails. I've gotten pregnant while on the pill, I've gotten pregnant using a condom...that's 2 out of my 4 children, accidental.
> 
> My best friend got pregnant while on the pill.
> 
> My sister in law got pregnant while on the pill.
> 
> There's always a chance of birth control failing, and if it does, it's the responsibility of both parties to support the baby that comes of it.



I have no problem with the child being supported, but some of these ludicrous amount of child support I hear of are out there. A man can't be much good for his child if he hands over all his cash to his ex and has to live on a friends couch.


----------



## koshergrl

Why not? Custodial parents fork over most of their income for the kids as well.


----------



## koshergrl

Why shouldn't I get half of what I spend on my kids every month? It would be about $1000.


----------



## High_Gravity

koshergrl said:


> Why shouldn't I get half of what I spend on my kids every month? It would be about $1000.



$1000 is fine but does the father even have the money though? thats my thing the child support figure has to be realistic, if I don't make that much money I couldn't give you $1000 a month even if I wanted to.


----------



## koshergrl

Do I have the money?

No, I don't. But I find it because I have to. Why should he get a pass?


----------



## koshergrl

And in the event he doesn't, then we hit arrears, and he can pay me back later.


----------



## PaulS1950

The state can't take more than 50% of a man's income for the support of any one family (same mother). If you get multiple women pregnant then they can take it all.....

Having been a paying member for my two beautiful children (now grown with their own families) I can say that paying support money to a drug addict is not fun. When my daughter moved away from home I paid a support check to her directly and to her mother because the state was not "made aware" (by mom) that the child was no longer living with her. I gladly paid the extra money to my daughter but I resented paying the money to her mother because she was / is a practicing addict paying multiple doctors to deal out narcotics via multiple pharmacies.
This was long ago and it was impossible for me to get custody of my kids - even though my ex was in a detox center when the divorce was filed. I can't speak on what it is like today but an addict should be reported to CPS until they do the tests. If she is using then the father should be able to get custody - it was different "in the old days".


----------



## koshergrl

So did you try and lose?


----------



## Luissa

High_Gravity said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't I get half of what I spend on my kids every month? It would be about $1000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $1000 is fine but does the father even have the money though? thats my thing the child support figure has to be realistic, if I don't make that much money I couldn't give you $1000 a month even if I wanted to.
Click to expand...


I don't know about a 1000 but the father should get a job where he can pay his share. I do not feel bad for my child's father when he can't pay the little he has to. We do what we need to do to take care of our responsibilities. 
You think I do what I dreamed to do? Or work overtime because I like it? I do this and my child's father gets to party his life away. So I don't feel bad for him when he has to pay his support and has nothing much left over. He should get a second job or a better one.


----------



## High_Gravity

Luissa said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why shouldn't I get half of what I spend on my kids every month? It would be about $1000.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $1000 is fine but does the father even have the money though? thats my thing the child support figure has to be realistic, if I don't make that much money I couldn't give you $1000 a month even if I wanted to.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know about a 1000 but the father should get a job where he can pay his share. I do not feel bad for my child's father when he can't pay the little he has to. We do what we need to do to take care of our responsibilities.
> You think I do what I dreamed to do? Or work overtime because I like it? I do this and my child's father gets to party his life away. So I don't feel bad for him when he has to pay his support and has nothing much left over. He should get a second job or a better one.
Click to expand...


Getting a better job isn't really a choice, its hard to even find a decent steady job right now. I guess the amount is different for everyone, what exactly is the "fair share"?


----------



## Katzndogz

The calculation of child support is done by a computer program.  It's not arbitrary.  The data that's input is the salary of the mother, the salary of the father and now much custodial time there is.   Visitation, vacation times, split holidays, it all goes into the program and what the computer says goes.  The court may figure in a non economic factor like deliberate under employment.   A doctor can't quit his job as surgeon and take a job as an orderly just to reduce his child support for instance.  If you think that you can pay child support directly to the child, I would urge you to look that up because mother can come back at any time, and get that back child support.  There's tons of case law on mothers who have come back after 20 years (no statute of limitations) and getting back child support.


----------



## koshergrl

High_Gravity said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> $1000 is fine but does the father even have the money though? thats my thing the child support figure has to be realistic, if I don't make that much money I couldn't give you $1000 a month even if I wanted to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about a 1000 but the father should get a job where he can pay his share. I do not feel bad for my child's father when he can't pay the little he has to. We do what we need to do to take care of our responsibilities.
> You think I do what I dreamed to do? Or work overtime because I like it? I do this and my child's father gets to party his life away. So I don't feel bad for him when he has to pay his support and has nothing much left over. He should get a second job or a better one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting a better job isn't really a choice, its hard to even find a decent steady job right now. I guess the amount is different for everyone, what exactly is the "fair share"?
Click to expand...


A "fair share" would be 1/2 of what it actually costs.

However, that very seldom is what is actually ordered. I have an order for my two children for about $300 a month total. I don't get it, and even if I did, it's probably about 1/4 of what I actually spend, in reality, for the kids. And that is comparable to a lot of the child support I see for working class families. He's a laborer and not a big money maker, his order takes that into consideration. 

That $300 would make a huge difference in our lives. That would just about pay their food bill.


----------



## Katzndogz

All this jabber about fairness is gibberish.  No one thinks that child support is fair.  That's why no one makes the judgment but the computer.  It was a nightmare before child support calculations were developed.   Now everyone may grumble about it, but they can't say it's unfair.

If you want to fall right through the fairness floor, a divorced spouse who marries UP is the most unfair of all.   Imagine that laborer husband who has to pick his children up at their mansion, they go to private schools, they were designer clothing, they have the maid make their meals, and he STILL has to kick in his child support.


----------



## High_Gravity

Katzndogz said:


> All this jabber about fairness is gibberish.  No one thinks that child support is fair.  That's why no one makes the judgment but the computer.  It was a nightmare before child support calculations were developed.   Now everyone may grumble about it, but they can't say it's unfair.
> 
> If you want to fall right through the fairness floor, a divorced spouse who marries UP is the most unfair of all.   Imagine that laborer husband who has to pick his children up at their mansion, they go to private schools, they were designer clothing, they have the maid make their meals, and he STILL has to kick in his child support.



You know, this whole thing is enough to make a brother never want to have kids.


----------



## High_Gravity

koshergrl said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about a 1000 but the father should get a job where he can pay his share. I do not feel bad for my child's father when he can't pay the little he has to. We do what we need to do to take care of our responsibilities.
> You think I do what I dreamed to do? Or work overtime because I like it? I do this and my child's father gets to party his life away. So I don't feel bad for him when he has to pay his support and has nothing much left over. He should get a second job or a better one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a better job isn't really a choice, its hard to even find a decent steady job right now. I guess the amount is different for everyone, what exactly is the "fair share"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "fair share" would be 1/2 of what it actually costs.
> 
> However, that very seldom is what is actually ordered. I have an order for my two children for about $300 a month total. I don't get it, and even if I did, it's probably about 1/4 of what I actually spend, in reality, for the kids. And that is comparable to a lot of the child support I see for working class families. He's a laborer and not a big money maker, his order takes that into consideration.
> 
> That $300 would make a huge difference in our lives. That would just about pay their food bill.
Click to expand...


$300 is very reasonable.


----------



## Aristotle

High_Gravity said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Child" support is the biggest scam going, hardly any of that money goes to take care of that particular child.
Click to expand...


That is my point.

The women here arent understanding that fact.


----------



## Aristotle

Katzndogz said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't understand the whole concept of money.   Money is fungible.   A mother who works pays rent, maybe she pays rent on a two bedroom apartment instead of a one bedroom if she lived alone.   She buys food and Froot Loops for the kid's breakfast.   She pays the electric bill, so the kid can do his or her homework at night.  Maybe she buys the kid new shoes instead of getting herself a new dress.  She's paying for all these things.   When she gets child support it is really reimbursement for all the expenses she has already paid so she can spend the money on anything she likes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes its hard to not insult some of you guys as many of you do not express common sense and simple reading comprehension.
> 
> Where in the world did I say the mother cannot spend money on rent? I clearly stated that the issue here is that there are women (or primary custodian of the child(rend), spend their money on personal luxury. Do you understand what personal luxury is?
> 
> Personal luxury is not child support.
> 
> 
> Do you need me to put this in subtitles?
> 
> Example:
> 
> A mom using money spending child support on Disneyland tickets is not child support its a personal luxury and a temporary gratification for the child. Why is it temporary gratification? Because at some point the theme park closes and you leave.
> 
> A mom spending money getting her hair and nails done is not child support as none of the aforementioned supports the child at all.....Get it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh boy, I know I can't explain the concept of child support to you.   All the judges who award child support and tell people they have no right to say how that support is spent haven't been able to explain it to you.
> 
> Child support becomes part of the general pool of money that belongs to the mother as the provider.  She might spend the money she has on new school clothes and then spend the child support on getting her hair and nails done, or new shoes.   She gets to do that because she has already spent her own money on the child, in the form of maintenance.  She pays rent, she pays utilities, she buys food.   Think of child support as reimbursement for the money she has already paid for the child's well being.   There is no requirement at all, that people sequester child support outside of household expenditures.
> 
> Whether you think I'm wrong, or this is silly, or doesn't make sense has no bearing on the situation as it exists.   People who pay child support have absolutely no say in how that money is spent.   That's the reality in every family law court in the country.
> 
> The issue is NOT whether women should be prohibited from spending their money on personal luxuries.  It's their money, they can spend it any way they want.   After all once a man sends off his child support check is HE prohibited from spending his money on personal luxuries?    If he can afford to go out for a beer with the guys or buy a ticket to the ball game isn't that proof that he's not paying enough in child support?
Click to expand...


This is a silly reaponse and yes your right it is silly.

Just because a man cuts a woman a check for the interest of the child does not mean its her money. The money is for the child even if she is using it to pay rent. The idea of child support is based on the ideology that all distributed monies are for the benefit of the child. You are defining child support as a "gift" and not as support for the child. No, once a woman receives money she is obligated to appropriately use that money for the welfare of the child. If a man gives a woman money (not court ordered) on the side and indicates that its "extra" then sure, she can do what she wants because its a gift.

Understand the difference?

Women taking care of kids is nothing special. Humans have done it for thousands of years without the luxury of a hospital or child support. Its called being responsible and that is the whole premise of what child support is, doing responsible acts to support the child.

Sorry your argument again fails.


----------



## koshergrl

Aristotle said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Child" support is the biggest scam going, hardly any of that money goes to take care of that particular child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> The women here arent understanding that fact.
Click to expand...

 
The women here have raised/are raising kids despite the fact that the kids' dads are dead beats. You'll excuse us if we look askance at non-custodial fathers who are complaining about how child support is spent, because we've heard those complaints a lot, and they usually come from men who either don't pay, or wouldn't pay anything at all if their feet weren't held to the coals.


----------



## Katzndogz

Aristotle said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes its hard to not insult some of you guys as many of you do not express common sense and simple reading comprehension.
> 
> Where in the world did I say the mother cannot spend money on rent? I clearly stated that the issue here is that there are women (or primary custodian of the child(rend), spend their money on personal luxury. Do you understand what personal luxury is?
> 
> Personal luxury is not child support.
> 
> 
> Do you need me to put this in subtitles?
> 
> Example:
> 
> A mom using money spending child support on Disneyland tickets is not child support its a personal luxury and a temporary gratification for the child. Why is it temporary gratification? Because at some point the theme park closes and you leave.
> 
> A mom spending money getting her hair and nails done is not child support as none of the aforementioned supports the child at all.....Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, I know I can't explain the concept of child support to you.   All the judges who award child support and tell people they have no right to say how that support is spent haven't been able to explain it to you.
> 
> Child support becomes part of the general pool of money that belongs to the mother as the provider.  She might spend the money she has on new school clothes and then spend the child support on getting her hair and nails done, or new shoes.   She gets to do that because she has already spent her own money on the child, in the form of maintenance.  She pays rent, she pays utilities, she buys food.   Think of child support as reimbursement for the money she has already paid for the child's well being.   There is no requirement at all, that people sequester child support outside of household expenditures.
> 
> Whether you think I'm wrong, or this is silly, or doesn't make sense has no bearing on the situation as it exists.   People who pay child support have absolutely no say in how that money is spent.   That's the reality in every family law court in the country.
> 
> The issue is NOT whether women should be prohibited from spending their money on personal luxuries.  It's their money, they can spend it any way they want.   After all once a man sends off his child support check is HE prohibited from spending his money on personal luxuries?    If he can afford to go out for a beer with the guys or buy a ticket to the ball game isn't that proof that he's not paying enough in child support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a silly reaponse and yes your right it is silly.
> 
> Just because a man cuts a woman a check for the interest of the child does not mean its her money. The money is for the child even if she is using it to pay rent. The idea of child support is based on the ideology that all distributed monies are for the benefit of the child. You are defining child support as a "gift" and not as support for the child. No, once a woman receives money she is obligated to appropriately use that money for the welfare of the child. If a man gives a woman money (not court ordered) on the side and indicates that its "extra" then sure, she can do what she wants because its a gift.
> 
> Understand the difference?
> 
> Women taking care of kids is nothing special. Humans have done it for thousands of years without the luxury of a hospital or child support. Its called being responsible and that is the whole premise of what child support is, doing responsible acts to support the child.
> 
> Sorry your argument again fails.
Click to expand...


I'm trying to tell you what IS, and you're still stuck on what you think it should be.  See the difference?  The law is that child support can be used for anything the recipient wants to use it for.   You can ask 100 lawyers and 100 judges and get the same answer.   

IF you think that child support is being misused you can complain to DFS.  In that case a social worker will come down to mother's home.  They will evaluate the following criteria.  Are the premises spacious enough according to the child support calculations and income?  Is there food in the refrigerator?  Does the child have adequate clothing?  Does the child have age appropriate toys?   If all these requirements are filled, mother can spend child support on her boyfriend.  

This is one of the reasons I quit Family Law!   Too many dunderheads out there.


----------



## koshergrl

He's stuck on justifying why he shouldn't have to pay child support. It's pretty basic.


----------



## Katzndogz

koshergrl said:


> He's stuck on justifying why he shouldn't have to pay child support. It's pretty basic.



It doesn't matter HOW much justification he comes up with or how angry he is.  The law is what it is.   I can understand railing against it, but not that it is something other than what it is.

It's one thing to say that the child support laws are wrong, that custodial parents should be required to provide a monthly financial report of where child support goes.  It's quite another to say that custodial parent IS already required to spend child support specifically on the child.


----------



## High_Gravity

Katzndogz said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's stuck on justifying why he shouldn't have to pay child support. It's pretty basic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter HOW much justification he comes up with or how angry he is.  The law is what it is.   I can understand railing against it, but not that it is something other than what it is.
> 
> It's one thing to say that the child support laws are wrong, that custodial parents should be required to provide a monthly financial report of where child support goes.  It's quite another to say that custodial parent IS already required to spend child support specifically on the child.
Click to expand...


Well this is alot of information to have thrown at you all at once, especially if you are new to the system. They need to teach a class on this in high school, although I don't know how much good it would do since no one really pays attention anyways.


----------



## Katzndogz

Aristotle said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sometimes its hard to not insult some of you guys as many of you do not express common sense and simple reading comprehension.
> 
> Where in the world did I say the mother cannot spend money on rent? I clearly stated that the issue here is that there are women (or primary custodian of the child(rend), spend their money on personal luxury. Do you understand what personal luxury is?
> 
> Personal luxury is not child support.
> 
> 
> Do you need me to put this in subtitles?
> 
> Example:
> 
> A mom using money spending child support on Disneyland tickets is not child support its a personal luxury and a temporary gratification for the child. Why is it temporary gratification? Because at some point the theme park closes and you leave.
> 
> A mom spending money getting her hair and nails done is not child support as none of the aforementioned supports the child at all.....Get it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, I know I can't explain the concept of child support to you.   All the judges who award child support and tell people they have no right to say how that support is spent haven't been able to explain it to you.
> 
> Child support becomes part of the general pool of money that belongs to the mother as the provider.  She might spend the money she has on new school clothes and then spend the child support on getting her hair and nails done, or new shoes.   She gets to do that because she has already spent her own money on the child, in the form of maintenance.  She pays rent, she pays utilities, she buys food.   Think of child support as reimbursement for the money she has already paid for the child's well being.   There is no requirement at all, that people sequester child support outside of household expenditures.
> 
> Whether you think I'm wrong, or this is silly, or doesn't make sense has no bearing on the situation as it exists.   People who pay child support have absolutely no say in how that money is spent.   That's the reality in every family law court in the country.
> 
> The issue is NOT whether women should be prohibited from spending their money on personal luxuries.  It's their money, they can spend it any way they want.   After all once a man sends off his child support check is HE prohibited from spending his money on personal luxuries?    If he can afford to go out for a beer with the guys or buy a ticket to the ball game isn't that proof that he's not paying enough in child support?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is a silly reaponse and yes your right it is silly.
> 
> Just because a man cuts a woman a check for the interest of the child does not mean its her money. The money is for the child even if she is using it to pay rent. The idea of child support is based on the ideology that all distributed monies are for the benefit of the child. You are defining child support as a "gift" and not as support for the child. No, once a woman receives money she is obligated to appropriately use that money for the welfare of the child. If a man gives a woman money (not court ordered) on the side and indicates that its "extra" then sure, she can do what she wants because its a gift.
> 
> Understand the difference?
> 
> Women taking care of kids is nothing special. Humans have done it for thousands of years without the luxury of a hospital or child support. Its called being responsible and that is the whole premise of what child support is, doing responsible acts to support the child.
> 
> Sorry your argument again fails.
Click to expand...


I'm going to try one more time.  When a man cuts a woman a check for child support it IS her money.  It is not the child's money.  It is her money.  That's why child support orders say Father is to pay to Mother the sum of whatever it is.  That's why courts do not recognize any money given directly to a child as payment of child support.   If you do not believe this, then you will have to extend yourself an look up the actual law.


----------



## Aristotle

koshergrl said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Child" support is the biggest scam going, hardly any of that money goes to take care of that particular child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> The women here arent understanding that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The women here have raised/are raising kids despite the fact that the kids' dads are dead beats. You'll excuse us if we look askance at non-custodial fathers who are complaining about how child support is spent, because we've heard those complaints a lot, and they usually come from men who either don't pay, or wouldn't pay anything at all if their feet weren't held to the coals.
Click to expand...




Excuse me while I bust out my Tom Lyekis 101

Nobody asked the women here to open their legs and get pregnant. If you got pregnant to a deadbeat man, thats your fault. If condom or birth control fails thats your fault, especially if it wasnt planned. 

All I am saying is the woman has no right to accept money given in the interest of the child to spend it on herself therefore, if such is the case and it is, the state should track it like an EBT and document how monies are spent.

What part are you not understanding?


----------



## Aristotle

koshergrl said:


> He's stuck on justifying why he shouldn't have to pay child support. It's pretty basic.



Where in the fuck of this entire thread did I say men should not pay?

Scroll back, quote me verbatim on exactly where I said or imply men shouldnt pay....


----------



## Aristotle

Katzndogz said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh boy, I know I can't explain the concept of child support to you.   All the judges who award child support and tell people they have no right to say how that support is spent haven't been able to explain it to you.
> 
> Child support becomes part of the general pool of money that belongs to the mother as the provider.  She might spend the money she has on new school clothes and then spend the child support on getting her hair and nails done, or new shoes.   She gets to do that because she has already spent her own money on the child, in the form of maintenance.  She pays rent, she pays utilities, she buys food.   Think of child support as reimbursement for the money she has already paid for the child's well being.   There is no requirement at all, that people sequester child support outside of household expenditures.
> 
> Whether you think I'm wrong, or this is silly, or doesn't make sense has no bearing on the situation as it exists.   People who pay child support have absolutely no say in how that money is spent.   That's the reality in every family law court in the country.
> 
> The issue is NOT whether women should be prohibited from spending their money on personal luxuries.  It's their money, they can spend it any way they want.   After all once a man sends off his child support check is HE prohibited from spending his money on personal luxuries?    If he can afford to go out for a beer with the guys or buy a ticket to the ball game isn't that proof that he's not paying enough in child support?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a silly reaponse and yes your right it is silly.
> 
> Just because a man cuts a woman a check for the interest of the child does not mean its her money. The money is for the child even if she is using it to pay rent. The idea of child support is based on the ideology that all distributed monies are for the benefit of the child. You are defining child support as a "gift" and not as support for the child. No, once a woman receives money she is obligated to appropriately use that money for the welfare of the child. If a man gives a woman money (not court ordered) on the side and indicates that its "extra" then sure, she can do what she wants because its a gift.
> 
> Understand the difference?
> 
> Women taking care of kids is nothing special. Humans have done it for thousands of years without the luxury of a hospital or child support. Its called being responsible and that is the whole premise of what child support is, doing responsible acts to support the child.
> 
> Sorry your argument again fails.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm going to try one more time.  When a man cuts a woman a check for child support it IS her money.  It is not the child's money.  It is her money.  That's why child support orders say Father is to pay to Mother the sum of whatever it is.  That's why courts do not recognize any money given directly to a child as payment of child support.   If you do not believe this, then you will have to extend yourself an look up the actual law.
Click to expand...


Show me the law that says this please...

Use google, ask a lawyer but show me something that says exactly what you just wrote


----------



## High_Gravity

Aristotle said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is a silly reaponse and yes your right it is silly.
> 
> Just because a man cuts a woman a check for the interest of the child does not mean its her money. The money is for the child even if she is using it to pay rent. The idea of child support is based on the ideology that all distributed monies are for the benefit of the child. You are defining child support as a "gift" and not as support for the child. No, once a woman receives money she is obligated to appropriately use that money for the welfare of the child. If a man gives a woman money (not court ordered) on the side and indicates that its "extra" then sure, she can do what she wants because its a gift.
> 
> Understand the difference?
> 
> Women taking care of kids is nothing special. Humans have done it for thousands of years without the luxury of a hospital or child support. Its called being responsible and that is the whole premise of what child support is, doing responsible acts to support the child.
> 
> Sorry your argument again fails.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to try one more time.  When a man cuts a woman a check for child support it IS her money.  It is not the child's money.  It is her money.  That's why child support orders say Father is to pay to Mother the sum of whatever it is.  That's why courts do not recognize any money given directly to a child as payment of child support.   If you do not believe this, then you will have to extend yourself an look up the actual law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Show me the law that says this please...
> 
> Use google, ask a lawyer but show me something that says exactly what you just wrote
Click to expand...


Well, Katz is right. When that child support goes into a womans account she can do whatever she wants with it, whether that be buy her son some diapers or go out to an all male review. Its her cash.


----------



## Katzndogz

Aristotle said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is my point.
> 
> The women here arent understanding that fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The women here have raised/are raising kids despite the fact that the kids' dads are dead beats. You'll excuse us if we look askance at non-custodial fathers who are complaining about how child support is spent, because we've heard those complaints a lot, and they usually come from men who either don't pay, or wouldn't pay anything at all if their feet weren't held to the coals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me while I bust out my Tom Lyekis 101
> 
> Nobody asked the women here to open their legs and get pregnant. If you got pregnant to a deadbeat man, thats your fault. If condom or birth control fails thats your fault, especially if it wasnt planned.
> 
> All I am saying is the woman has no right to accept money given in the interest of the child to spend it on herself therefore, if such is the case and it is, the state should track it like an EBT and document how monies are spent.
> 
> What part are you not understanding?
Click to expand...


The part that says LEGALLY her RIGHT is to spend it on anything she likes.   You are not accepting the fact that child support is ordered by the court for the respondent to pay to the petitioner the sum of whatever it is.   You may WISH that the state track it to document how the money is spent but there is nothing that mandates this be done.   None.   

Some states do not permit direct payment.   In some states all child support goes to the state and the state sends the child support.  In some states if mother is receiving state aid the child support goes to the state who then distributes the child support.   In no case, whatsoever, even when paid directly by the state is there any tracking to make sure child support is used solely for the child.  There is no tracking that makes sure the specific money paid to the state is used specifically for that child because money is fungible.

You just don't like it.  You wish it were different.  But it's not different so suck it up.


----------



## Aristotle

This is to help Katz out 

What Is Child Support - Child Support Order | Lawyers.com


----------



## High_Gravity

Katzndogz said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> The women here have raised/are raising kids despite the fact that the kids' dads are dead beats. You'll excuse us if we look askance at non-custodial fathers who are complaining about how child support is spent, because we've heard those complaints a lot, and they usually come from men who either don't pay, or wouldn't pay anything at all if their feet weren't held to the coals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me while I bust out my Tom Lyekis 101
> 
> Nobody asked the women here to open their legs and get pregnant. If you got pregnant to a deadbeat man, thats your fault. If condom or birth control fails thats your fault, especially if it wasnt planned.
> 
> All I am saying is the woman has no right to accept money given in the interest of the child to spend it on herself therefore, if such is the case and it is, the state should track it like an EBT and document how monies are spent.
> 
> What part are you not understanding?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The part that says LEGALLY her RIGHT is to spend it on anything she likes.   You are not accepting the fact that child support is ordered by the court for the respondent to pay to the petitioner the sum of whatever it is.   You may WISH that the state track it to document how the money is spent but there is nothing that mandates this be done.   None.
> 
> Some states do not permit direct payment.   In some states all child support goes to the state and the state sends the child support.  In some states if mother is receiving state aid the child support goes to the state who then distributes the child support.   In no case, whatsoever, even when paid directly by the state is there any tracking to make sure child support is used solely for the child.  There is no tracking that makes sure the specific money paid to the state is used specifically for that child because money is fungible.
> 
> You just don't like it.  You wish it were different.  But it's not different so suck it up.
Click to expand...


Thats fine but we should still be able to talk about it for discussion.


----------



## Luissa

High_Gravity said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> $1000 is fine but does the father even have the money though? thats my thing the child support figure has to be realistic, if I don't make that much money I couldn't give you $1000 a month even if I wanted to.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about a 1000 but the father should get a job where he can pay his share. I do not feel bad for my child's father when he can't pay the little he has to. We do what we need to do to take care of our responsibilities.
> You think I do what I dreamed to do? Or work overtime because I like it? I do this and my child's father gets to party his life away. So I don't feel bad for him when he has to pay his support and has nothing much left over. He should get a second job or a better one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Getting a better job isn't really a choice, its hard to even find a decent steady job right now. I guess the amount is different for everyone, what exactly is the "fair share"?
Click to expand...


Get two jobs then. Work at McDonalds, work a weekend job. Right now because my kid's dad is too good for jobs like McDonalds I got about 13 bucks this month because he can't pay both me and the other mom. Of course she gets more money because she lives off the government. 
I work a crappy job but it pays the bills, and I work overtime when I can. I don't see him or the other mom doing that. 

Fair share would be near half of what I pay for my son a month. I would be happy with a 1/3. I used to not care about the money but since he hasn't seen him in over six months, his family never sees my son either, and the fact he can't seem to earn enough to pay the 73 he is suppose to pay me a month, I stopped feeling bad for the loser. 

My dad paid his child support and covered my brothers and sisters medical no problem. And when he lost his job, he got two jobs so he could keep supporting them. He also didn't have to have the state take it out of his pay check. He also saw them often even with them living across the state. I doubt my dad ever bitched about it being fair or not.


----------



## Luissa

Aristotle said:


> This is to help Katz out
> 
> What Is Child Support - Child Support Order | Lawyers.com



Are you a single parent raising a child on your own?


----------



## koshergrl

No, he's a divorced father who wants to control how his ex spends the child support she receives.


----------



## High_Gravity

Luissa said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know about a 1000 but the father should get a job where he can pay his share. I do not feel bad for my child's father when he can't pay the little he has to. We do what we need to do to take care of our responsibilities.
> You think I do what I dreamed to do? Or work overtime because I like it? I do this and my child's father gets to party his life away. So I don't feel bad for him when he has to pay his support and has nothing much left over. He should get a second job or a better one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a better job isn't really a choice, its hard to even find a decent steady job right now. I guess the amount is different for everyone, what exactly is the "fair share"?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get two jobs then. Work at McDonalds, work a weekend job. Right now because my kid's dad is too good for jobs like McDonalds I got about 13 bucks this month because he can't pay both me and the other mom. Of course she gets more money because she lives off the government.
> I work a crappy job but it pays the bills, and I work overtime when I can. I don't see him or the other mom doing that.
> 
> Fair share would be near half of what I pay for my son a month. I would be happy with a 1/3. I used to not care about the money but since he hasn't seen him in over six months, his family never sees my son either, and the fact he can't seem to earn enough to pay the 73 he is suppose to pay me a month, I stopped feeling bad for the loser.
> 
> My dad paid his child support and covered my brothers and sisters medical no problem. And when he lost his job, he got two jobs so he could keep supporting them. He also didn't have to have the state take it out of his pay check. He also saw them often even with them living across the state. I doubt my dad ever bitched about it being fair or not.
Click to expand...


I am sorry you are going through that, everyones situation is different here. I sent you a PM on this.


----------



## Katzndogz

High_Gravity said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Excuse me while I bust out my Tom Lyekis 101
> 
> Nobody asked the women here to open their legs and get pregnant. If you got pregnant to a deadbeat man, thats your fault. If condom or birth control fails thats your fault, especially if it wasnt planned.
> 
> All I am saying is the woman has no right to accept money given in the interest of the child to spend it on herself therefore, if such is the case and it is, the state should track it like an EBT and document how monies are spent.
> 
> What part are you not understanding?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The part that says LEGALLY her RIGHT is to spend it on anything she likes.   You are not accepting the fact that child support is ordered by the court for the respondent to pay to the petitioner the sum of whatever it is.   You may WISH that the state track it to document how the money is spent but there is nothing that mandates this be done.   None.
> 
> Some states do not permit direct payment.   In some states all child support goes to the state and the state sends the child support.  In some states if mother is receiving state aid the child support goes to the state who then distributes the child support.   In no case, whatsoever, even when paid directly by the state is there any tracking to make sure child support is used solely for the child.  There is no tracking that makes sure the specific money paid to the state is used specifically for that child because money is fungible.
> 
> You just don't like it.  You wish it were different.  But it's not different so suck it up.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Thats fine but we should still be able to talk about it for discussion.
Click to expand...


The discussion isn't that mothers are required to use child support solely for the benefit of the child.  The discussion is then how fucked up the law is that doesn't put any restrictions on how the money is spent.  It's a different discussion.

I must have had this same discussion thousands of times.   It's almost impossible to inject reality into a family law situation.   Spouses just don't get it.  Because they don't get it, they get confused that the law doesn't at all work the way they think it should.   It causes way too much pain as non custodial parents realize that the money they pay might well be used for purposes having nothing to do with their child.


----------



## High_Gravity

Katzndogz said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The part that says LEGALLY her RIGHT is to spend it on anything she likes.   You are not accepting the fact that child support is ordered by the court for the respondent to pay to the petitioner the sum of whatever it is.   You may WISH that the state track it to document how the money is spent but there is nothing that mandates this be done.   None.
> 
> Some states do not permit direct payment.   In some states all child support goes to the state and the state sends the child support.  In some states if mother is receiving state aid the child support goes to the state who then distributes the child support.   In no case, whatsoever, even when paid directly by the state is there any tracking to make sure child support is used solely for the child.  There is no tracking that makes sure the specific money paid to the state is used specifically for that child because money is fungible.
> 
> You just don't like it.  You wish it were different.  But it's not different so suck it up.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thats fine but we should still be able to talk about it for discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The discussion isn't that mothers are required to use child support solely for the benefit of the child.  The discussion is then how fucked up the law is that doesn't put any restrictions on how the money is spent.  It's a different discussion.
> 
> I must have had this same discussion thousands of times.   It's almost impossible to inject reality into a family law situation.   Spouses just don't get it.  Because they don't get it, they get confused that the law doesn't at all work the way they think it should.   It causes way too much pain as non custodial parents realize that the money they pay might well be used for purposes having nothing to do with their child.
Click to expand...


This conversation makes me just want to go get a vasectomy to avoid these kinds of situationd altogether to be honest.


----------



## Katzndogz

IF you are paying an unfair amount of child support because you aren't making as much money as you did or you lost your job, then your obligation is to go back to court and modify the original child support order.  Don't sit around and take it.  Change it.  The Judge will open up the child support calculator from the computer on his bench, put in the new figures and as if by magic, you will get a new child support order.


----------



## koshergrl

Good. Think very carefully before you sleep with people, and don't move women into your house without considering what it will be like if they have care and control of future children.


----------



## Luissa

High_Gravity said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Getting a better job isn't really a choice, its hard to even find a decent steady job right now. I guess the amount is different for everyone, what exactly is the "fair share"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get two jobs then. Work at McDonalds, work a weekend job. Right now because my kid's dad is too good for jobs like McDonalds I got about 13 bucks this month because he can't pay both me and the other mom. Of course she gets more money because she lives off the government.
> I work a crappy job but it pays the bills, and I work overtime when I can. I don't see him or the other mom doing that.
> 
> Fair share would be near half of what I pay for my son a month. I would be happy with a 1/3. I used to not care about the money but since he hasn't seen him in over six months, his family never sees my son either, and the fact he can't seem to earn enough to pay the 73 he is suppose to pay me a month, I stopped feeling bad for the loser.
> 
> My dad paid his child support and covered my brothers and sisters medical no problem. And when he lost his job, he got two jobs so he could keep supporting them. He also didn't have to have the state take it out of his pay check. He also saw them often even with them living across the state. I doubt my dad ever bitched about it being fair or not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry you are going through that, everyones situation is different here. I sent you a PM on this.
Click to expand...


I understand everyone's situation is different. And some dad's do have to pay a lot. I just don't feel bad for the ones who are paying a reasonable amount and bitch about it.


----------



## Luissa

Katzndogz said:


> IF you are paying an unfair amount of child support because you aren't making as much money as you did or you lost your job, then your obligation is to go back to court and modify the original child support order.  Don't sit around and take it.  Change it.  The Judge will open up the child support calculator from the computer on his bench, put in the new figures and as if by magic, you will get a new child support order.



I think that is fine if they are still working, or trying to bring in a certain income. If they are not they need to get two jobs.


----------



## Katzndogz

High_Gravity said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thats fine but we should still be able to talk about it for discussion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion isn't that mothers are required to use child support solely for the benefit of the child.  The discussion is then how fucked up the law is that doesn't put any restrictions on how the money is spent.  It's a different discussion.
> 
> I must have had this same discussion thousands of times.   It's almost impossible to inject reality into a family law situation.   Spouses just don't get it.  Because they don't get it, they get confused that the law doesn't at all work the way they think it should.   It causes way too much pain as non custodial parents realize that the money they pay might well be used for purposes having nothing to do with their child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This conversation makes me just want to go get a vasectomy to avoid these kinds of situationd altogether to be honest.
Click to expand...


One of my clients was being dinged for child support.   At 23, he had five children by four women.  He was on his way to being another Octodad!   I sat him down, put him through the numbers as a counter worker at McDonalds, including salary increases and promotions with projections for the next eighteen years for just the five children he already had.   The poor boy had no future, but he did go down and get a vasectomy.


----------



## Katzndogz

Luissa said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF you are paying an unfair amount of child support because you aren't making as much money as you did or you lost your job, then your obligation is to go back to court and modify the original child support order.  Don't sit around and take it.  Change it.  The Judge will open up the child support calculator from the computer on his bench, put in the new figures and as if by magic, you will get a new child support order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is fine if they are still working, or trying to bring in a certain income. If they are not they need to get two jobs.
Click to expand...


Get two jobs, and have mom go right back to court to modify the child support upwards because Dad is now working two jobs.


----------



## jillian

Katzndogz said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF you are paying an unfair amount of child support because you aren't making as much money as you did or you lost your job, then your obligation is to go back to court and modify the original child support order.  Don't sit around and take it.  Change it.  The Judge will open up the child support calculator from the computer on his bench, put in the new figures and as if by magic, you will get a new child support order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is fine if they are still working, or trying to bring in a certain income. If they are not they need to get two jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get two jobs, and have mom go right back to court to modify the child support upwards because Dad is now working two jobs.
Click to expand...


if dad is making more money he SHOULD pay more. no?

same as if he's making less money he should pay less money.

i'm not sure i see a problem there.


----------



## High_Gravity

koshergrl said:


> Good. Think very carefully before you sleep with people, and don't move women into your house without considering what it will be like if they have care and control of future children.



Damn good point.


----------



## High_Gravity

Katzndogz said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion isn't that mothers are required to use child support solely for the benefit of the child.  The discussion is then how fucked up the law is that doesn't put any restrictions on how the money is spent.  It's a different discussion.
> 
> I must have had this same discussion thousands of times.   It's almost impossible to inject reality into a family law situation.   Spouses just don't get it.  Because they don't get it, they get confused that the law doesn't at all work the way they think it should.   It causes way too much pain as non custodial parents realize that the money they pay might well be used for purposes having nothing to do with their child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This conversation makes me just want to go get a vasectomy to avoid these kinds of situationd altogether to be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of my clients was being dinged for child support.   At 23, he had five children by four women.  He was on his way to being another Octodad!   I sat him down, put him through the numbers as a counter worker at McDonalds, including salary increases and promotions with projections for the next eighteen years for just the five children he already had.   The poor boy had no future, but he did go down and get a vasectomy.
Click to expand...


See by the time he figured it out his life was pretty much over. This is a very eye opening experience to go through all at once.


----------



## jillian

koshergrl said:


> Good. Think very carefully before you sleep with people, and don't move women into your house without considering what it will be like if they have care and control of future children.



stop it allie... not everything in life is doing lifetime penance for mistakes we may have made.

the world has never appreciated martyrs... especially when the martyrdom is self-inflicted.

you have this bizarre idea that we're supposed to suffer for everything. 

why?


----------



## koshergrl

You just really can't abide by the premise of the CDZ, can you, jillian...


----------



## Ravi

jillian said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is fine if they are still working, or trying to bring in a certain income. If they are not they need to get two jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Get two jobs, and have mom go right back to court to modify the child support upwards because Dad is now working two jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> if dad is making more money he SHOULD pay more. no?
> 
> same as if he's making less money he should pay less money.
> 
> i'm not sure i see a problem there.
Click to expand...


Me either. You would hope that the father would want to contribute to the well-being of his children.


----------



## Luissa

Katzndogz said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> IF you are paying an unfair amount of child support because you aren't making as much money as you did or you lost your job, then your obligation is to go back to court and modify the original child support order.  Don't sit around and take it.  Change it.  The Judge will open up the child support calculator from the computer on his bench, put in the new figures and as if by magic, you will get a new child support order.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think that is fine if they are still working, or trying to bring in a certain income. If they are not they need to get two jobs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Get two jobs, and have mom go right back to court to modify the child support upwards because Dad is now working two jobs.
Click to expand...


Or mom will finally get the hundreds or thousands that is owed to her in back child support.


----------



## Luissa

Ravi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get two jobs, and have mom go right back to court to modify the child support upwards because Dad is now working two jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if dad is making more money he SHOULD pay more. no?
> 
> same as if he's making less money he should pay less money.
> 
> i'm not sure i see a problem there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me either. You would hope that the father would want to contribute to the well-being of his children.
Click to expand...


One would hope.


----------



## Luissa

On my last statement I was owed around 800 in back support. He only has to pay 73 a month. What does that tell you? When he can only get 13 to 30 a month, it means he should probably get another job or a second job.


----------



## Katzndogz

Ravi said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Get two jobs, and have mom go right back to court to modify the child support upwards because Dad is now working two jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if dad is making more money he SHOULD pay more. no?
> 
> same as if he's making less money he should pay less money.
> 
> i'm not sure i see a problem there.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Me either. You would hope that the father would want to contribute to the well-being of his children.
Click to expand...


Fathers generally (with exceptions) want to contribute to the well being of their children.   Unfortunately they also want to see their ex punished and rationalizes child support as a form of punishment.  Women do it too, but for this discussion, it's men.   Mother spends too much money on herself.  She can go without her little luxuries or personal expenses.   Men think that if their ex gets her hair done, he's paying too much in child support.


----------



## Borillar

Katzndogz said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> if dad is making more money he SHOULD pay more. no?
> 
> same as if he's making less money he should pay less money.
> 
> i'm not sure i see a problem there.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Me either. You would hope that the father would want to contribute to the well-being of his children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Fathers generally (with exceptions) want to contribute to the well being of their children.   Unfortunately they also want to see their ex punished and rationalizes child support as a form of punishment.  Women do it too, but for this discussion, it's men.   Mother spends too much money on herself.  She can go without her little luxuries or personal expenses.   Men think that if their ex gets her hair done, he's paying too much in child support.
Click to expand...


Mom can use her own money to get her hair or nails done. Why should a man have to slave away for years to provide support only for it to be squandered away on crap that doesn't benefit the kid(s)?


----------



## koshergrl

Child support is REIMBURSEMENT for money mom spends on the kids.

So when you pay child support, you are REIMBURSING for money/effort that has been expended on your behalf for the children. Extra effort and money that would not be expended if you were there in person. 

So if mom gets her hair done, and you pay your child support, you are not reimbursing her for her hair, you're reimbursing her for the fact that if she wants to get her hair done, she has to pay a sitter. Or you're reimbursing her for the knee pads she bought so your daughter could participate in volleyball. You're reimbursing her for the time off she had from work when she was called by the school and had to go pick up your son because he developed a rash. 

BTW, having a presentable mother is beneficial to your children.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Katzndogz said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The discussion isn't that mothers are required to use child support solely for the benefit of the child.  The discussion is then how fucked up the law is that doesn't put any restrictions on how the money is spent.  It's a different discussion.
> 
> I must have had this same discussion thousands of times.   It's almost impossible to inject reality into a family law situation.   Spouses just don't get it.  Because they don't get it, they get confused that the law doesn't at all work the way they think it should.   It causes way too much pain as non custodial parents realize that the money they pay might well be used for purposes having nothing to do with their child.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This conversation makes me just want to go get a vasectomy to avoid these kinds of situationd altogether to be honest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One of my clients was being dinged for child support.   At 23, he had five children by four women.  He was on his way to being another Octodad!   I sat him down, put him through the numbers as a counter worker at McDonalds, including salary increases and promotions with projections for the next eighteen years for just the five children he already had.   The poor boy had no future, but he did go down and get a vasectomy.
Click to expand...


"POOR BOY" ???

Typical that you side with this irresponsible jerk. In case you don't know it, its takes TWO (2) to make a pregnancy. That means the father is HALF responsible. But, all you ****************  think the woman should take 100% of the responsibility even though you want to deny her the RIGHT to control her own body.

What he needed (iin the past) is a lifetime supply of condoms and some one who is intelligent enough to show him how they are used. 

Glad the little twit got a vasectomy.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Borillar said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me either. You would hope that the father would want to contribute to the well-being of his children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fathers generally (with exceptions) want to contribute to the well being of their children.   Unfortunately they also want to see their ex punished and rationalizes child support as a form of punishment.  Women do it too, but for this discussion, it's men.   Mother spends too much money on herself.  She can go without her little luxuries or personal expenses.   Men think that if their ex gets her hair done, he's paying too much in child support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mom can use her own money to get her hair or nails done. Why should a man have to slave away for years to provide support only for it to be squandered away on crap that doesn't benefit the kid(s)?
Click to expand...


It seems like you and other MEN envision stacks of dollars on the table, marked "kids" and "her". 

That's silly but really, the fact is, she will always spend more on YOUR kids than your piddly child support. Its just a fact of life.


----------



## Bigfoot

Aristotle said:


> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?



The entire child-support system is a crock of government shit aimed at taxing the American people, in this case men. It's has very little to do with helping a child and very much to do with raising more government revenue. It's a crooked and weighted system and should be abolished.


----------



## koshergrl

luddly.neddite said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> This conversation makes me just want to go get a vasectomy to avoid these kinds of situationd altogether to be honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of my clients was being dinged for child support. At 23, he had five children by four women. He was on his way to being another Octodad! I sat him down, put him through the numbers as a counter worker at McDonalds, including salary increases and promotions with projections for the next eighteen years for just the five children he already had. The poor boy had no future, but he did go down and get a vasectomy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "POOR BOY" ???
> 
> Typical that you side with this irresponsible jerk. In case you don't know it, its takes TWO (2) to make a pregnancy. That means the father is HALF responsible. But, all you whiny rw's think the woman should take 100% of the responsibility even though you want to deny her the RIGHT to control her own body.
> 
> What he needed (iin the past) is a lifetime supply of condoms and some one who is intelligent enough to show him how they are used.
> 
> Glad the little twit got a vasectomy.
Click to expand...

 
Wait..I'm a rightwinger and Rav and I and katz are the primary holdouts supporting a child's right to support from both parents, and a limit to control by the non-custodial parent over how the support is spent.


----------



## Politico

luddly.neddite said:


> It seems like you and other MEN envision stacks of dollars on the table, marked "kids" and "her".



That's because for some reason the women seem to forget they would have to have a car and rent and groceries whether they had a kid or not.


----------



## koshergrl

Not necessarily, and the fact of the matter is, they share that car, rent and groceries with their children.

If I didn't have kids, I wouldn't need a Ford Explorer, I wouldn't spend $400 a month on groceries, and I certainly wouldn't need a 3-bedroom house with 2 bathrooms.


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Bigfoot said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire child-support system is a crock of government shit aimed at taxing the American people, in this case men. It's has very little to do with helping a child and very much to do with raising more government revenue. It's a crooked and weighted system and should be abolished.
Click to expand...


Where's the "tax" on "the American people"?
And replaced with what?


----------



## Luddly Neddite

Please note that I attempted to edit my post above so that I would be within the rules for this forum .


----------



## jillian

luddly.neddite said:


> Bigfoot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The entire child-support system is a crock of government shit aimed at taxing the American people, in this case men. It's has very little to do with helping a child and very much to do with raising more government revenue. It's a crooked and weighted system and should be abolished.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where's the "tax" on "the American people"?
> And replaced with what?
Click to expand...


i wouldn't pay much attention to him. cause that post has dead-beat dad written all over it.


----------



## elvis

Aristotle said:


> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?



child support is unfair?  

It's a risk you take when making love.  

simple really.


----------



## Ravi

Someone, I think it was HG, said $300 a month was a fair amount for child support.

WTF?

That's 3,600 a year. You can't care for yourself on that. That doesn't even come close to poverty level heights.


----------



## elvis

Ravi said:


> Someone, I think it was HG, said $300 a month was a fair amount for child support.
> 
> WTF?
> 
> That's 3,600 a year. You can't care for yourself on that. That doesn't even come close to poverty level heights.



Is that child support taxable?   and no it's not nearly enough.


----------



## Luissa

Borillar said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me either. You would hope that the father would want to contribute to the well-being of his children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fathers generally (with exceptions) want to contribute to the well being of their children.   Unfortunately they also want to see their ex punished and rationalizes child support as a form of punishment.  Women do it too, but for this discussion, it's men.   Mother spends too much money on herself.  She can go without her little luxuries or personal expenses.   Men think that if their ex gets her hair done, he's paying too much in child support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mom can use her own money to get her hair or nails done. Why should a man have to slave away for years to provide support only for it to be squandered away on crap that doesn't benefit the kid(s)?
Click to expand...


Yea mothers just get their hair done and don't pay for clothes, daycare, medical, and food for their child.


----------



## jillian

Borillar said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me either. You would hope that the father would want to contribute to the well-being of his children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fathers generally (with exceptions) want to contribute to the well being of their children.   Unfortunately they also want to see their ex punished and rationalizes child support as a form of punishment.  Women do it too, but for this discussion, it's men.   Mother spends too much money on herself.  She can go without her little luxuries or personal expenses.   Men think that if their ex gets her hair done, he's paying too much in child support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Mom can use her own money to get her hair or nails done. Why should a man have to slave away for years to provide support only for it to be squandered away on crap that doesn't benefit the kid(s)?
Click to expand...


yeah, women don't do anything but use their husband's money on themselves while their kids run around barefoot and starving...


----------



## Avatar4321

Aristotle said:


> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?



I've got a simple solution. Chastity before marriage and fidelity afterwards. That way, you dont have to worry about court awarded child support payments because your child will have mother and father married and taking care of the child or children as they should be.

I think we do our children a great disservice by encouraging divorce and immoral activity outside of marriage. I understand that not everyone is perfect and not every marriage is ideal. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't be working for the ideal. There may be some legitimate reasons for divorce, but that doesn't mean every marriage that ends in divorce should.

The system as it is now is unfair to everyone.


----------



## Ravi

elvis said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone, I think it was HG, said $300 a month was a fair amount for child support.
> 
> WTF?
> 
> That's 3,600 a year. You can't care for yourself on that. That doesn't even come close to poverty level heights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that child support taxable?   and no it's not nearly enough.
Click to expand...

I don't know. Luckily, I've never been in that boat.


----------



## Luissa

Ravi said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone, I think it was HG, said $300 a month was a fair amount for child support.
> 
> WTF?
> 
> That's 3,600 a year. You can't care for yourself on that. That doesn't even come close to poverty level heights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that child support taxable?   and no it's not nearly enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't know. Luckily, I've never been in that boat.
Click to expand...


It's not.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Borillar said:


> Katzndogz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Me either. You would hope that the father would want to contribute to the well-being of his children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fathers generally (with exceptions) want to contribute to the well being of their children.   Unfortunately they also want to see their ex punished and rationalizes child support as a form of punishment.  Women do it too, but for this discussion, it's men.   Mother spends too much money on herself.  She can go without her little luxuries or personal expenses.   Men think that if their ex gets her hair done, he's paying too much in child support.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Mom can use her own money to get her hair or nails done.* Why should a man have to slave away for years to provide support only for it to be squandered away on crap that doesn't benefit the kid(s)?
Click to expand...


The child support is her own money.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Aristotle said:


> Let me get personal
> 
> I am neither married.nor divorced nor have kids.
> 
> I am a college student and I work. Both are my priorities right now, not women.
> 
> But when I decide to deal with women on the sexual tip, I use Magnum XL condoms so please whoever is the individual that names themselves after halakhic law, cut your bullshit.
> 
> To the women that constantly bring up their experiences with deadbeat men, four words: that's your fucking fault. Alas need I remind you women it takes two. Unless he raped you, you decided to open up the nasty snatch and get preggo. Please don't give me that shit about men using condoms. First off contraceptive responsibility is a two way street.
> 
> Women: "Oh he should've used a rubber then he wouldnt be in this mess."
> 
> Aristotle: No bitch you shouldn't put your legs on his shoulders and let him penetrate you. Or how about taking a depo shot. Or how about abstaining from sex to make sure he is the right one.
> 
> Please spare me the shit about men should've used a condom. Because judging by some of the complaints hete, its your fault you decide to have a kid by an irresppnsible.
> 
> As for this college student with a huge penis and self control, excuse me while I laugh at you women complaining about your dealings with your kids.
> 
> For the record I do understand what its like for single motherhood, I was a product of one. I know what its like when a man abandons his responsibility. I was apart of that. One thing I learned from my mom was that she didnt bitch and moan and she worked her ass off to have sustainable income. My mother knew that her bad choices with men put her in that emotional situation but she arose from the ashes only to come out on top. She also understood that its more important for a man to be in his kids life than his money. As you can see there are plenty of men who pay their child support like a car note but dont take time to see their kids.
> 
> But on an ending note to you women bringing up your child support experiences I have two words: HA HA. Stop picking up men at bars.



Again, the bulk of child support issues is in the context of divorce, where the parents made a decision and commitment to have and raise children together as a married couple.


----------



## Politico

koshergrl said:


> Not necessarily, and the fact of the matter is, they share that car, rent and groceries with their children.
> 
> If I didn't have kids, I wouldn't need a Ford Explorer, I wouldn't spend $400 a month on groceries, and I certainly wouldn't need a 3-bedroom house with 2 bathrooms.



Not necessarily? So you are saying as an adult you wouldn't need a place to live and wouldn't have the internet connection you used to type this? That's stupid. Of course you would. The difference lies between what you need and what you choose to have. You dont need a Ford Explorer. That point aside the difference is what it would cost you to normally live and the cost added with additional people in the household. Before you respond be warned I have been in this situation and know what the difference is.


----------



## koshergrl

I am saying exactly what I said. I wouldn't need a 3 bedroom home, I could live in a studio apartment. I wouldn't need a vehicle large enough for my two-four children and their various accoutrements, I could get by with a Geo. I wouldn't have a water bill that is $100/month, I would have a water bill less than $50. I wouldn't have an electric bill that is $86, I would have an electric bill of $50.  I wouldn't need $400/month for groceries, I would need about $150. Be warned yourself. I have been in this situation and know the lay of the land as well. My internet costs $30/month. We have one computer, and the children use it until bedtime as they need/wish. So, if i actually did receive $300 in child support, and went directly to the spa with it on the day I received it...I have already spent $300 on the kids for food alone. The kids are cared for, their needs are met, I don't have to give up any and all extras just because their father pays his child support and views all expenditures that aren't directly for the children as a waste of "his" money.


----------



## Politico

So you acknowledge your additional expenses are around $400 a month. That is the number you would be asking for then.


----------



## koshergrl

Changing the topic, I see. Your point was that I would have all those things anyway...and as I've pointed out 3 times..wait, 4 times, now, no, I wouldn't have all those things anyway. Your initial insistence that they don't cost anything  because I have to live in a house and drive a car is ridiculous.


----------



## koshergrl

I don't know,  he may hate women and children more than he hates blacks.


----------



## High_Gravity

elvis said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone, I think it was HG, said $300 a month was a fair amount for child support.
> 
> WTF?
> 
> That's 3,600 a year. You can't care for yourself on that. That doesn't even come close to poverty level heights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that child support taxable?   and no it's not nearly enough.
Click to expand...


So what is enough? should the man just hand over his whole paycheck?


----------



## Katzndogz

The democrat solution and one that men buy into is that parents are not responsible, neither one, for child support.  The answer is to raise taxes on both working men and women and use the tax money for child support.  Sort of like the way welfare works.  If you need a Ford Explorer the government will give you one since you can't afford it on your own.   Housing will be allocated on a sq ft per person basis.


----------



## Avatar4321

High_Gravity said:


> So what is enough? should the man just hand over his whole paycheck?



If a man married a woman and has a child with her, the child would get any support they need. To be a parent, you sacrifice for your child. 

That's the problem with our current culture. Everyone is short changed by the system. The Mother feels like she isnt getting enough to support the child. The father feels like the mother is trying to take more money than the child needs. And the child ends up being short changed by the parents.


----------



## Katzndogz

High_Gravity said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone, I think it was HG, said $300 a month was a fair amount for child support.
> 
> WTF?
> 
> That's 3,600 a year. You can't care for yourself on that. That doesn't even come close to poverty level heights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that child support taxable?   and no it's not nearly enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what is enough? should the man just hand over his whole paycheck?
Click to expand...


As I said, the numbers are all put into a computer program called Child Support Calculator, and whatever the number is, that's what's ordered.


----------



## Katzndogz

Here is something you can use to get an approximation of what child support should be paid.  It isn't as sophisticated as the programs used by legal professionals, but it will give you a ball park figure and perhaps you will understand how child support is calculated.

Child Support Calculators


----------



## koshergrl

We used to use the uniform child support guidelines sheet, and submit it with the child support/custody order.


----------



## Katzndogz

koshergrl said:


> We used to use the uniform child support guidelines sheet, and submit it with the child support/custody order.



That's OLD SCHOOL!


----------



## High_Gravity

Avatar4321 said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> So what is enough? should the man just hand over his whole paycheck?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If a man married a woman and has a child with her, the child would get any support they need. To be a parent, you sacrifice for your child.
> 
> That's the problem with our current culture. Everyone is short changed by the system. The Mother feels like she isnt getting enough to support the child. The father feels like the mother is trying to take more money than the child needs. And the child ends up being short changed by the parents.
Click to expand...


I understand all that but what good can a father be to the child if he hands over all the cash to the ex and sleeps on a friends couch?


----------



## koshergrl

As a person with no children in the home, why would he NEED a big house? He just NEEDS shelter. That's Politico's stance...at least with regard to mom. A woman would have shelter regardless of whether her children are with her, so they should all be happy with shelter for one person..I imagine that goes for dad, too. He has no "need" of a private residence, he just "needs" shelter...so long as he has that, all his money should go directly to the kids.

And no, he shouldn't be paying for haircuts either. He doesn't *need* haircuts.


----------



## High_Gravity

koshergrl said:


> As a person with no children in the home, why would he NEED a big house? He just NEEDS shelter. That's Politico's stance...at least with regard to mom. A woman would have shelter regardless of whether her children are with her, so they should all be happy with shelter for one person..I imagine that goes for dad, too. He has no "need" of a private residence, he just "needs" shelter...so long as he has that, all his money should go directly to the kids.
> 
> And no, he shouldn't be paying for haircuts either. He doesn't *need* haircuts.



I'm not saying the guy needs a big house but he at least needs a residence an apartment or something to take the kid to for visits, kind of hard to do on a couch or a homeless shelter.


----------



## koshergrl

Lol..yes I agree.

I promise you, the majority of men who pay their child support are not living in homeless shelters. That's just a fantasy spun by men who don't want to, or actually don't, pay child support.


----------



## Borillar

High_Gravity said:


> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Someone, I think it was HG, said $300 a month was a fair amount for child support.
> 
> WTF?
> 
> That's 3,600 a year. You can't care for yourself on that. That doesn't even come close to poverty level heights.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that child support taxable?   and no it's not nearly enough.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what is enough? should the man just hand over his whole paycheck?
Click to expand...


Might as well... We're just treated as wallets anyway.


----------



## koshergrl

No, you view yourselves as wallets. You can't conceptualize the value of providing support to a household where your children are spending the majority of their time, if you are not in it as well.


----------



## Borillar

We have a perfectly equitable system. Mom meets old boyfriend, decides grass is greener on the other side. Decides to leave dad. Everything is split evenly down the middle. Mom gets house, dad gets payments. Mom gets car, dad gets payments. Mom gets kids, dad gets payments. Mom gets diamond mine, dad gets shaft. If dad doesn't like this turn of events, he's a deadbeat.


----------



## Avatar4321

High_Gravity said:


> I understand all that but what good can a father be to the child if he hands over all the cash to the ex and sleeps on a friends couch?



I can't answer that. That's something he needs to figure out with alot of planning and prayer.


----------



## Meister

*Keep it civil in this forum, please*


----------



## Luissa

Borillar said:


> We have a perfectly equitable system. Mom meets old boyfriend, decides grass is greener on the other side. Decides to leave dad. Everything is split evenly down the middle. Mom gets house, dad gets payments. Mom gets car, dad gets payments. Mom gets kids, dad gets payments. Mom gets diamond mine, dad gets shaft. If dad doesn't like this turn of events, he's a deadbeat.



Yes, because that is usually what happens.


----------



## Avatar4321

Borillar said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> elvis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that child support taxable?   and no it's not nearly enough.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what is enough? should the man just hand over his whole paycheck?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Might as well... We're just treated as wallets anyway.
Click to expand...


If you dont want to be just a wallet, Step up and take responsibility for your children.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

Aristotle said:


> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?



If they were to do so, then they'd be accused of starting a war on women.  Actually, here in Louisiana, you can bring an action against a parent for misuse of child support... but it is a tough nut to crack.  You'd better have pretty damning evidence or it's going to be dismissed.  Or worse, it could be ordered that the parent just isn't receiving enough, that's why the kids aren't being taken care of properly.


----------



## Soggy in NOLA

I have a buddy who's ex was a raging alcoholic and drug abuser.. he still couldn't get custody... only when she committed suicide did he gain custody.

Damn shame, all the way around.


----------



## Aristotle

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get personal
> 
> I am neither married.nor divorced nor have kids.
> 
> I am a college student and I work. Both are my priorities right now, not women.
> 
> But when I decide to deal with women on the sexual tip, I use Magnum XL condoms so please whoever is the individual that names themselves after halakhic law, cut your bullshit.
> 
> To the women that constantly bring up their experiences with deadbeat men, four words: that's your fucking fault. Alas need I remind you women it takes two. Unless he raped you, you decided to open up the nasty snatch and get preggo. Please don't give me that shit about men using condoms. First off contraceptive responsibility is a two way street.
> 
> Women: "Oh he should've used a rubber then he wouldnt be in this mess."
> 
> Aristotle: No bitch you shouldn't put your legs on his shoulders and let him penetrate you. Or how about taking a depo shot. Or how about abstaining from sex to make sure he is the right one.
> 
> Please spare me the shit about men should've used a condom. Because judging by some of the complaints hete, its your fault you decide to have a kid by an irresppnsible.
> 
> As for this college student with a huge penis and self control, excuse me while I laugh at you women complaining about your dealings with your kids.
> 
> For the record I do understand what its like for single motherhood, I was a product of one. I know what its like when a man abandons his responsibility. I was apart of that. One thing I learned from my mom was that she didnt bitch and moan and she worked her ass off to have sustainable income. My mother knew that her bad choices with men put her in that emotional situation but she arose from the ashes only to come out on top. She also understood that its more important for a man to be in his kids life than his money. As you can see there are plenty of men who pay their child support like a car note but dont take time to see their kids.
> 
> But on an ending note to you women bringing up your child support experiences I have two words: HA HA. Stop picking up men at bars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the bulk of child support issues is in the context of divorce, where the parents made a decision and commitment to have and raise children together as a married couple.
Click to expand...


Well that remains to be seen and if you havw statistics to back this claim up I am interested in seeing it. 

The issue is that the states get a cut of the child support provided by a parent or both parents. The state sees children as items than human beings. Which is why paying cash and keeping receipts is not sufficient in family court. Any money has to go to the state and the state dispurses it. If a man goes deliquent on child support, he goes deliquent on the state not the child. Even if the man is providing the necessary aid for their child. Simply put, a man taking care of his child without the mediation.of the court is not going to offshoot any/or deliquency he mY have because the state didn't get its cut.


----------



## High_Gravity

Soggy in NOLA said:


> I have a buddy who's ex was a raging alcoholic and drug abuser.. he still couldn't get custody... only when she committed suicide did he gain custody.
> 
> Damn shame, all the way around.



Thats usually the only way, that or if the female gets incarcerated.


----------



## koshergrl

Aristotle said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get personal
> 
> I am neither married.nor divorced nor have kids.
> 
> I am a college student and I work. Both are my priorities right now, not women.
> 
> But when I decide to deal with women on the sexual tip, I use Magnum XL condoms so please whoever is the individual that names themselves after halakhic law, cut your bullshit.
> 
> To the women that constantly bring up their experiences with deadbeat men, four words: that's your fucking fault. Alas need I remind you women it takes two. Unless he raped you, you decided to open up the nasty snatch and get preggo. Please don't give me that shit about men using condoms. First off contraceptive responsibility is a two way street.
> 
> Women: "Oh he should've used a rubber then he wouldnt be in this mess."
> 
> Aristotle: No bitch you shouldn't put your legs on his shoulders and let him penetrate you. Or how about taking a depo shot. Or how about abstaining from sex to make sure he is the right one.
> 
> Please spare me the shit about men should've used a condom. Because judging by some of the complaints hete, its your fault you decide to have a kid by an irresppnsible.
> 
> As for this college student with a huge penis and self control, excuse me while I laugh at you women complaining about your dealings with your kids.
> 
> For the record I do understand what its like for single motherhood, I was a product of one. I know what its like when a man abandons his responsibility. I was apart of that. One thing I learned from my mom was that she didnt bitch and moan and she worked her ass off to have sustainable income. My mother knew that her bad choices with men put her in that emotional situation but she arose from the ashes only to come out on top. She also understood that its more important for a man to be in his kids life than his money. As you can see there are plenty of men who pay their child support like a car note but dont take time to see their kids.
> 
> But on an ending note to you women bringing up your child support experiences I have two words: HA HA. Stop picking up men at bars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the bulk of child support issues is in the context of divorce, where the parents made a decision and commitment to have and raise children together as a married couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that remains to be seen and if you havw statistics to back this claim up I am interested in seeing it.
> 
> The issue is that the states get a cut of the child support provided by a parent or both parents. The state sees children as items than human beings. Which is why paying cash and keeping receipts is not sufficient in family court. Any money has to go to the state and the state dispurses it. If a man goes deliquent on child support, he goes deliquent on the state not the child. Even if the man is providing the necessary aid for their child. Simply put, a man taking care of his child without the mediation.of the court is not going to offshoot any/or deliquency he mY have because the state didn't get its cut.
Click to expand...

 
Everything you just wrote there is demonstrably false.


----------



## Aristotle

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they were to do so, then they'd be accused of starting a war on women.  Actually, here in Louisiana, you can bring an action against a parent for misuse of child support... but it is a tough nut to crack.  You'd better have pretty damning evidence or it's going to be dismissed.  Or worse, it could be ordered that the parent just isn't receiving enough, that's why the kids aren't being taken care of properly.
Click to expand...



I don't see how its a war on women.

I don't see what wrong if I am paying child support in addition to joint custody that I want to know how my money is spent. There are many couples with nasty breakups and unfortunately the children ultimately suffer. Not every woman is responsible and unfortunately many are vindictive. Using the money on themselves.

I have a social worker friend who works for DCSS (Dept. Of Children Social Services) who tells me that especially in the urban areas, many females use child support to support their drug habits, or are buying clothing for themselves. These girls eventually get their children taken away because the child is malnourished.

I spoke to her recently regarding.my thoughts and she actually think making child support payment in the form of a card in theory is a good idea, but depending on the state it would require more money and in some states budgets are low.

I don't see how my theory is against women.

If a woman is awarded sole custody and is to receive child support what is wrong with giving her a card like a drbit card where she buys: food, clothing, helps pay for rent, utilities and upon request a man can find out through the court what items are being bought. I also believe this can readdure the parent paying child support that the other is spending the money responsibly avoiding unnecessary court battles on "what ifs" 

This in my opinion works for both the man and the woman. Best freggin theory in my opinion


----------



## Aristotle

koshergrl said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the bulk of child support issues is in the context of divorce, where the parents made a decision and commitment to have and raise children together as a married couple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that remains to be seen and if you havw statistics to back this claim up I am interested in seeing it.
> 
> The issue is that the states get a cut of the child support provided by a parent or both parents. The state sees children as items than human beings. Which is why paying cash and keeping receipts is not sufficient in family court. Any money has to go to the state and the state dispurses it. If a man goes deliquent on child support, he goes deliquent on the state not the child. Even if the man is providing the necessary aid for their child. Simply put, a man taking care of his child without the mediation.of the court is not going to offshoot any/or deliquency he mY have because the state didn't get its cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Everything you just wrote there is demonstrably false.
Click to expand...


Show me. The state of California does take a portion of child support can you show me where me saying that is false. Please present proof


----------



## jillian

Aristotle said:


> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well with the rate of single mothers mostly young, I believe control is what's needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why 'single mothers'? Why 'young?'' You are talking about divorce, not paternity.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eh, I don't think my intent was to focus on divorce per say, but if that is what's being implied I apologize for the confusion.
> 
> As far as single mothers they are the most common in the U.S as far as having babies out of wedlock and are the most common recipients of state/federal mandated assistance programs.
Click to expand...


so the women are responsible because the man didn't use protection or because the protection failed?

seems like a joint endeavor.


----------



## Aristotle

Hey look what I found

Read the Shorter Answer section....I found this by accident

Child support and Kickbacks


----------



## jillian

Aristotle said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me get personal
> 
> I am neither married.nor divorced nor have kids.
> 
> I am a college student and I work. Both are my priorities right now, not women.
> 
> But when I decide to deal with women on the sexual tip, I use Magnum XL condoms so please whoever is the individual that names themselves after halakhic law, cut your bullshit.
> 
> To the women that constantly bring up their experiences with deadbeat men, four words: that's your fucking fault. Alas need I remind you women it takes two. Unless he raped you, you decided to open up the nasty snatch and get preggo. Please don't give me that shit about men using condoms. First off contraceptive responsibility is a two way street.
> 
> Women: "Oh he should've used a rubber then he wouldnt be in this mess."
> 
> Aristotle: No bitch you shouldn't put your legs on his shoulders and let him penetrate you. Or how about taking a depo shot. Or how about abstaining from sex to make sure he is the right one.
> 
> Please spare me the shit about men should've used a condom. Because judging by some of the complaints hete, its your fault you decide to have a kid by an irresppnsible.
> 
> As for this college student with a huge penis and self control, excuse me while I laugh at you women complaining about your dealings with your kids.
> 
> For the record I do understand what its like for single motherhood, I was a product of one. I know what its like when a man abandons his responsibility. I was apart of that. One thing I learned from my mom was that she didnt bitch and moan and she worked her ass off to have sustainable income. My mother knew that her bad choices with men put her in that emotional situation but she arose from the ashes only to come out on top. She also understood that its more important for a man to be in his kids life than his money. As you can see there are plenty of men who pay their child support like a car note but dont take time to see their kids.
> 
> But on an ending note to you women bringing up your child support experiences I have two words: HA HA. Stop picking up men at bars.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the bulk of child support issues is in the context of divorce, where the parents made a decision and commitment to have and raise children together as a married couple.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that remains to be seen and if you havw statistics to back this claim up I am interested in seeing it.
> 
> The issue is that the states get a cut of the child support provided by a parent or both parents. The state sees children as items than human beings. Which is why paying cash and keeping receipts is not sufficient in family court. Any money has to go to the state and the state dispurses it. If a man goes deliquent on child support, he goes deliquent on the state not the child. Even if the man is providing the necessary aid for their child. Simply put, a man taking care of his child without the mediation.of the court is not going to offshoot any/or deliquency he mY have because the state didn't get its cut.
Click to expand...


not that i've ever heard of. do you mean social services liens when the mother is collecting assistance?


----------



## Aristotle

jillian said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Annie said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why 'single mothers'? Why 'young?'' You are talking about divorce, not paternity.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eh, I don't think my intent was to focus on divorce per say, but if that is what's being implied I apologize for the confusion.
> 
> As far as single mothers they are the most common in the U.S as far as having babies out of wedlock and are the most common recipients of state/federal mandated assistance programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> so the women are responsible because the man didn't use protection or because the protection failed?
> 
> seems like a joint endeavor.
Click to expand...



Did you read what I wrote? I am saying child support is unfair because there is one-sided regulation. Has nothing to do with punoshing women or blaming women. Its about regulating both sides. Not all women are responsible parents and therefore since this is a fact why not regulate both the payer and the spender?


----------



## Aristotle

jillian said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Again, the bulk of child support issues is in the context of divorce, where the parents made a decision and commitment to have and raise children together as a married couple.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that remains to be seen and if you havw statistics to back this claim up I am interested in seeing it.
> 
> The issue is that the states get a cut of the child support provided by a parent or both parents. The state sees children as items than human beings. Which is why paying cash and keeping receipts is not sufficient in family court. Any money has to go to the state and the state dispurses it. If a man goes deliquent on child support, he goes deliquent on the state not the child. Even if the man is providing the necessary aid for their child. Simply put, a man taking care of his child without the mediation.of the court is not going to offshoot any/or deliquency he mY have because the state didn't get its cut.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> not that i've ever heard of. do you mean social services liens when the mother is collecting assistance?
Click to expand...


Not sure of your question, can you rephrase it?


----------



## jillian

Aristotle said:


> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that remains to be seen and if you havw statistics to back this claim up I am interested in seeing it.
> 
> The issue is that the states get a cut of the child support provided by a parent or both parents. The state sees children as items than human beings. Which is why paying cash and keeping receipts is not sufficient in family court. Any money has to go to the state and the state dispurses it. If a man goes deliquent on child support, he goes deliquent on the state not the child. Even if the man is providing the necessary aid for their child. Simply put, a man taking care of his child without the mediation.of the court is not going to offshoot any/or deliquency he mY have because the state didn't get its cut.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> not that i've ever heard of. do you mean social services liens when the mother is collecting assistance?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not sure of your question, can you rephrase it?
Click to expand...



sorry. i was saying that i've never heard of the state taking a vig on child support payments. so i was wondering if, perhaps, in those instances, assuming they exist, the state was taking money from dad's child support payments to pay back the state for public assistance payments they had given to mom.


----------



## Aristotle

jillian said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jillian said:
> 
> 
> 
> not that i've ever heard of. do you mean social services liens when the mother is collecting assistance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure of your question, can you rephrase it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> sorry. i was saying that i've never heard of the state taking a vig on child support payments. so i was wondering if, perhaps, in those instances, assuming they exist, the state was taking money from dad's child support payments to pay back the state for public assistance payments they had given to mom.
Click to expand...


Yes this is the case.

From my understanding speaking to my friend the state does get a what I personally call a "maintanence kickback." If you read the link I found by accident it explains that.

Here is a link that explains it in detail

http://fathersunite.org/ChildSupport/child_support_or_child_extortion.html


----------



## Aristotle

Here is a YouTube video that is perfect for this thread

 [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGGhKkzkSo8&feature=youtube_gdata_player]Are Child Support Rules Unfair to Fathers? - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Aristotle

Another good video:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=drI1YdbTSx8&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## Aristotle

Hey ladies think the rest of you women are fair when it comes to child support?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hfRM3NbzwI&feature=youtube_gdata_player


----------



## Aristotle

Here is my final argument since my videos have shown actual fathers who are responsible and get the low end of the stick.

Only reasons states put men in jail is because of deliquency due to failure to receive a kickback. Of course you won't know that because it obviously doesn't say kickback but do enough research the states get a percentage from the federal government.

Women say "he should've worn a condom" but comments like these vindicate women who have bad breakups justifying their vindictiveness in going to court. A man in jail or homeless is no good to the child because he thus becomes apart of the system and is an absentee father.


----------



## High_Gravity

Aristotle said:


> Here is my final argument since my videos have shown actual fathers who are responsible and get the low end of the stick.
> 
> Only reasons states put men in jail is because of deliquency due to failure to receive a kickback. Of course you won't know that because it obviously doesn't say kickback but do enough research the states get a percentage from the federal government.
> 
> Women say "he should've worn a condom" but comments like these vindicate women who have bad breakups justifying their vindictiveness in going to court. A man in jail or homeless is no good to the child because he thus becomes apart of the system and is an absentee father.



Its like you said though the system doesn't really care about the child involved, this is all about one thing.


----------



## Borillar

Soggy in NOLA said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If they were to do so, then they'd be accused of starting a war on women.  Actually, here in Louisiana, you can bring an action against a parent for misuse of child support... but it is a tough nut to crack.  You'd better have pretty damning evidence or it's going to be dismissed.  Or worse, it could be ordered that the parent just isn't receiving enough, that's why the kids aren't being taken care of properly.
Click to expand...


Exactly what happened to me. Ex ran off with an old boyfriend and took the kids with her. She used my child support money to buy crack and beer. The state wouldn't even look into this. All they wanted to know was how much money I made and then upped my support payments. They didn't care about morality, the welfare of the children, right or wrong. It was just all about $$$ and that's it. I had my kids back in my custody when they were 16 after the bastard who wrecked my marriage turned around and left my ex. Even while I had my kids living with me, the state continued to take my money and gave it to my ex. I had to fight to end that.

If it is all about the welfare of the children, then why aren't more men awarded custody of their kids? Why is it automatically assumed that women are better parents? Why are kids treated as the sole property of the mother? Why is it that the mother can do any damn thing she wants to do, and there isn't anything the dad can do about it unless he wants to bring in a lawyer (which he probably can't afford due to the massive "child support" payments he has to make)?


----------



## koshergrl

Aristotle said:


> Here is my final argument since my videos have shown actual fathers who are responsible and get the low end of the stick.
> 
> Only reasons states put men in jail is because of deliquency due to failure to receive a kickback. Of course you won't know that because it obviously doesn't say kickback but do enough research the states get a percentage from the federal government.
> 
> Women say "he should've worn a condom" but comments like these vindicate women who have bad breakups justifying their vindictiveness in going to court. A man in jail or homeless is no good to the child because he thus becomes apart of the system and is an absentee father.


 
All those points have already been dealt with. In great detail.


----------



## koshergrl

High_Gravity said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my final argument since my videos have shown actual fathers who are responsible and get the low end of the stick.
> 
> Only reasons states put men in jail is because of deliquency due to failure to receive a kickback. Of course you won't know that because it obviously doesn't say kickback but do enough research the states get a percentage from the federal government.
> 
> Women say "he should've worn a condom" but comments like these vindicate women who have bad breakups justifying their vindictiveness in going to court. A man in jail or homeless is no good to the child because he thus becomes apart of the system and is an absentee father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its like you said though the system doesn't really care about the child involved, this is all about one thing.
Click to expand...

 
If you had ever raised a child on your own, you would know exactly how much of that it takes to do it. People seem to think women should be able to raise children without any support. I promise you, children can't be raised without money. Poverty leads to failure in children, but I guess most of the guys on this thread are okay with keeping kids in poverty.


----------



## Borillar

koshergrl said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my final argument since my videos have shown actual fathers who are responsible and get the low end of the stick.
> 
> Only reasons states put men in jail is because of deliquency due to failure to receive a kickback. Of course you won't know that because it obviously doesn't say kickback but do enough research the states get a percentage from the federal government.
> 
> Women say "he should've worn a condom" but comments like these vindicate women who have bad breakups justifying their vindictiveness in going to court. A man in jail or homeless is no good to the child because he thus becomes apart of the system and is an absentee father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its like you said though the system doesn't really care about the child involved, this is all about one thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had ever raised a child on your own, you would know exactly how much of that it takes to do it. People seem to think women should be able to raise children without any support. I promise you, children can't be raised without money. Poverty leads to failure in children, but I guess most of the guys on this thread are okay with keeping kids in poverty.
Click to expand...


Maybe the kids should go live with dad then, since according to women, he has an endless supply of money.


----------



## koshergrl

Which women say that?


----------



## Bigfoot

I raised my kid on my own with no child support. I didn't want any.


----------



## koshergrl

I have raised 4 of my own, and at times 2 extras on my own with no child support.

I would like to be able to feed my kids something besides beans and rice, but hey, apparently that makes me money hungry.


----------



## Borillar

koshergrl said:


> Which women say that?



I apologize for my hyperbole. This discussion opened up some old wounds, a very painful chapter in my life. Even though the events happened almost 20 years ago, it still pisses me off.

I still recall the pain of my ex leaving. The worry I felt over my kids. The anger of having to fund her life choices. In all the things she did, the welfare of our kids was pretty far down the list. None of that mattered to the state. All that mattered was how much $$$ they could extract. For years, I had to live in crappy apartments and drive old beater cars and wear thrift store clothes because it was all I could afford. I had to go through bankruptcy for our debts, which of course, she didn't have to pay a penny of. 

The capper came a few years later after her boyfriend left her and the kids came home to live with me. Even though I had the kids, I still had to pay her child support. I had to fight to end the support payments. She never had to pay me a thin dime of child support. Where was the welfare of the children in all this? Seems like "child support" has less to do with the children and more to do with spousal lifestyle support. YMMV.


----------



## Bigfoot

koshergrl said:


> I have raised 4 of my own, and at times 2 extras on my own with no child support.
> 
> I would like to be able to feed my kids something besides beans and rice, but hey, apparently that makes me money hungry.



We have seven kids between us. I raised one and three step-kids at the same time without aid. I don't think anyone is singling you out as you have proven what a good person you are on this forum. I think that it is more the overall perception of the weighted child-support system that regularly and often unfairly targets fathers. Government programs can not solve everything and the child support program (to me) is geared more as a revenue generating apparatus for government then a system to help children while playing fairly to both parents.


----------



## sealadaigh

koshergrl said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my final argument since my videos have shown actual fathers who are responsible and get the low end of the stick.
> 
> Only reasons states put men in jail is because of deliquency due to failure to receive a kickback. Of course you won't know that because it obviously doesn't say kickback but do enough research the states get a percentage from the federal government.
> 
> Women say "he should've worn a condom" but comments like these vindicate women who have bad breakups justifying their vindictiveness in going to court. A man in jail or homeless is no good to the child because he thus becomes apart of the system and is an absentee father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its like you said though the system doesn't really care about the child involved, this is all about one thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had ever raised a child on your own, you would know exactly how much of that it takes to do it. People seem to think women should be able to raise children without any support. I promise you, children can't be raised without money. Poverty leads to failure in children, but I guess most of the guys on this thread are okay with keeping kids in poverty.
Click to expand...


i raised my son on my own and the court's awarded me $25.00/month child support. i didn't take it.

if you have ever raised a child on your own as a single father without the many safety nets made available to women, you wouldn't be so flippant.


----------



## koshergrl

Uh...what safety nets are available to mothers that aren't available to mothers?


----------



## sealadaigh

Borillar said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which women say that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I apologize for my hyperbole. This discussion opened up some old wounds, a very painful chapter in my life. Even though the events happened almost 20 years ago, it still pisses me off.
> 
> I still recall the pain of my ex leaving. The worry I felt over my kids. The anger of having to fund her life choices. In all the things she did, the welfare of our kids was pretty far down the list. None of that mattered to the state. All that mattered was how much $$$ they could extract. For years, I had to live in crappy apartments and drive old beater cars and wear thrift store clothes because it was all I could afford. I had to go through bankruptcy for our debts, which of course, she didn't have to pay a penny of.
> 
> The capper came a few years later after her boyfriend left her and the kids came home to live with me. Even though I had the kids, I still had to pay her child support. I had to fight to end the support payments. She never had to pay me a thin dime of child support. Where was the welfare of the children in all this? Seems like "child support" has less to do with the children and more to do with spousal lifestyle support. YMMV.
Click to expand...


been there. i got custody of my son when he was three years old and continued to have pay child support to his mom for two years after that. i had to go to court and saaid "here, i cannot afford to provide or this child anymore" and they finally stopped.


----------



## paravani

... the custodial parent.

According to IRS tax code, the parent who pays more than 50% towards the support of the child gets the deduction.  That may very well be the non-custodial parent.

Whoever gets the deduction, it's wise to work it out in advance.  You can agree -- at least, if you're civil to each other -- who gets the tax deduction, and the IRS will never step in with questions unless both of you insist on claiming it.

When I was raising our daughter, my ex- sent custodial payments that were significantly smaller than the courts would have decided, but were what he felt he could comfortably pay.  My new husband was her primary support, so we all agreed that he should be able to claim her as a dependent.

...  but then, my ex- and I have always got along well, and managed to divorce amicably without the aid of a lawyer.  (I did talk to one; but all she wanted was for us to fight about money.  I wasn't into that game.)  

-- Paravani




bigrebnc1775 said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should you be able to use it as a tax deduction? I don't get a tax deduction for the money I spend on rent, food, clothing, lessons, medical costs for my children. Why should you?
> 
> And Amy is absolutely right...it's not tracked because it's meant to maintain a lifestyle for the children...it's not meant to be spent JUST on the children directly. Whether it's spent on rent, mom's clothing, the car, landscaping the yard, or vacations, those are things that add to the well being of the family and as such benefit the children.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why should the woman be allowed to use child support as an income? And get the tax deduction?
Click to expand...



.


----------



## sealadaigh

koshergrl said:


> Uh...what safety nets are available to mothers that aren't available to mothers?



to fathers, and 25 years ago, quite a few. nthey didn't even have changing tables in men's rooms, which i raised hell aabout to everybody i could until they started potting them in.

how about paternity leave. i was given custody and had like four days to set things up.


----------



## koshergrl

Name some. And I don't know what you mean when you say "how about maternity leave" or "I had four days to set things up". No clue.


----------



## sealadaigh

paravani said:


> ... the custodial parent.
> 
> According to IRS tax code, the parent who pays more than 50% towards the support of the child gets the deduction.  That may very well be the non-custodial parent.
> Whoever gets the deduction, it's wise to work it out in advance.  You can agree -- at least, if you're civil to each other -- who gets the tax deduction, and the IRS will never step in with questions unless both of you insist on claiming it.
> 
> When I was raising our daughter, my ex- sent custodial payments that were significantly smaller than the courts would have decided, but were what he felt he could comfortably pay.  My new husband was her primary support, so we all agreed that he should be able to claim her as a dependent.
> 
> ...  but then, my ex- and I have always got along well, and managed to divorce amicably without the aid of a lawyer.  (I did talk to one; but all she wanted was for us to fight about money.  I wasn't into that game.)
> 
> -- Paravani
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should you be able to use it as a tax deduction? I don't get a tax deduction for the money I spend on rent, food, clothing, lessons, medical costs for my children. Why should you?
> 
> And Amy is absolutely right...it's not tracked because it's meant to maintain a lifestyle for the children...it's not meant to be spent JUST on the children directly. Whether it's spent on rent, mom's clothing, the car, landscaping the yard, or vacations, those are things that add to the well being of the family and as such benefit the children.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the woman be allowed to use child support as an income? And get the tax deduction?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


and sometime the court costs entailed to win the right to claim that tax dedustion outweigh the cost of the deduction so it makes it worth it not to even pursue the deduction.


----------



## jillian

Aristotle said:


> Hey look what I found
> 
> Read the Shorter Answer section....I found this by accident
> 
> Child support and Kickbacks



not a legitimate source.

nice try though. was that *your* blog?


----------



## koshergrl

What court costs? If you want to change your child support order, you don't even need an attorney, and I don't believe there's even a filing fee. 

You're just spouting a bunch of excuses.


----------



## sealadaigh

koshergrl said:


> Name some. And I don't know what you mean when you say "how about maternity leave" or "I had four days to set things up". No clue.



i wasn't eligible for the WIC program when i first got custody. i didn't get any kind of paternity leave.

you no what. i was a single father before anyone had even thought that waas possible when the cases were disputed. it makes me so angry what the government has deprived my son of, i really don't even waant to talk about it. they could take me out a shoot me for all i care, but the price my son had to pay is unforgiveable.


----------



## sealadaigh

koshergrl said:


> What court costs? If you want to change your child support order, you don't even need an attorney, and I don't believe there's even a filing fee.
> 
> You're just spouting a bunch of excuses.



have you ever been through it. i am not spouting anything.


----------



## paravani

paravani said:


> According to IRS tax code, the parent who pays more than 50% towards the support of the child gets the deduction.  That may very well be the non-custodial parent.
> 
> Whoever gets the deduction, it's wise to work it out in advance.  You can agree -- at least, if you're civil to each other -- who gets the tax deduction, and the IRS will never step in with questions unless both of you insist on claiming it.
> 
> When I was raising our daughter, my ex- sent custodial payments that were significantly smaller than the courts would have decided, but were what he felt he could comfortably pay.  My new husband was her primary support, so we all agreed that he should be able to claim her as a dependent.
> 
> ...  but then, my ex- and I have always got along well, and managed to divorce amicably without the aid of a lawyer.  (I did talk to one; but all she wanted was for us to fight about money.  I wasn't into that game.)
> 
> -- Paravani
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why should the woman be allowed to use child support as an income? And get the tax deduction?
Click to expand...




reabhloideach said:


> and sometime the court costs entailed to win the right to claim that tax dedustion outweigh the cost of the deduction so it makes it worth it not to even pursue the deduction.



We didn't have to worry about court costs, because we were always able to agree on things without involving courts or lawyers any more than necessary to file our paperwork.

I'm always sorry to hear that a parent and their ex- can't talk about anything together. It must make it really hard on the kids. 

-- Paravani


----------



## koshergrl

Read the thread. You made a claim, the standard in the CDZ is if you make a claim and you are asked to support it, you do so.

Or not. Whether or not I have been through *it*, whatever *it* is, is not an answer to the question...WHAT safety nets are (or were) available to mothers AREN'T available to fathers. Aside from the changing tables. And please clarify the other things I asked you about as well. You aren't making a lot of sense.

As far as WIC goes, yes men can access those services, though not for themselves unless they are pregnant or breastfeeding:

"
*WIC Eligibility *




Who is eligible and who can apply?

Pregnant women
Women who are breastfeeding a baby under 1 year of age
Women who have had a baby in the past six months
Parents, step-parents, guardians, and foster parents of infants and children under the age of 5 can apply for their children "
WIC Eligibility

"Fathers of children under the age of 5 are encouraged to enroll their children in the WIC program. Just like any other parent or guardian, fathers can bring their children to appointments, attend nutrition classes, and receive and redeem benefits for their children. Active participation by fathers is a great help in keeping WIC children healthy. "

I suspect you are not a very good advocate for yourself or your children, if you are unable to articulate how you were abused any better than you have so far. I don't say that as an insult, I say that because I suspect you were overwhelmed by what it took to access assistance for yourself and your kids. You appear to remain overwhelmed, just talking about it.

When you ask me if I've ever been through *it* you are referring to single parenthood (I really have no way of knowing what you mean, but that seems a good guess) then absolutely yes, I have been through *it* and continue to go through *it*. In addition, I helped to raise my ex's two older children, including supporting him when he was a single dad, before we had our children. I continue to help with these older children, though he does not pay child support for the two that we share and certainly has never provided for the older boys. 

So again, yes, I've been through it. I've also administered the programs that assist single parents, male and female alike, and worked as a legal assistant in a law office that specialized in custody/child support/divorce cases.


----------



## Aristotle

koshergrl said:


> High_Gravity said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is my final argument since my videos have shown actual fathers who are responsible and get the low end of the stick.
> 
> Only reasons states put men in jail is because of deliquency due to failure to receive a kickback. Of course you won't know that because it obviously doesn't say kickback but do enough research the states get a percentage from the federal government.
> 
> Women say "he should've worn a condom" but comments like these vindicate women who have bad breakups justifying their vindictiveness in going to court. A man in jail or homeless is no good to the child because he thus becomes apart of the system and is an absentee father.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its like you said though the system doesn't really care about the child involved, this is all about one thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you had ever raised a child on your own, you would know exactly how much of that it takes to do it. People seem to think women should be able to raise children without any support. I promise you, children can't be raised without money. Poverty leads to failure in children, but I guess most of the guys on this thread are okay with keeping kids in poverty.
Click to expand...


You fail to see our point. You constantly bring up your experiences. Look, no offense, I am not concerned about your experience, you may be the exception, not the rule.

I am concerned about the fathers who are on the ball with child support payment, and.my concern with the women who misuse that money to support habits or non-essential items. You've read the stories of men here. Nobody is telling the woman to do it alone, we are talking about accountability. The man is accountable by the state to pay. The statr doesn't matter if you don't see your kid as long as you pay. 

Hey do.men go to jail for failure to see their kids? No. They go to jail for failure to pay. Society is concerned about money. The state does not regulate the primary custodian's spending habits. As you read a man's ex spent child support on crack and beer. Come on! The system needs to change. The system needs to be more balanced. It is not balanced. The videos I showed are physical proof.

I think you just don't want to agree and are just being difficult.


----------



## koshergrl

My experiences are pertinent, just as yours and borillar's and katz's and everyone else's. Particularly my experiences in the legal and human services fields are pertinent, which deal specifically with single parents and their children. My PERSONAL information has not so much been dragged out by me as by others, who insist that any criticism of fathers who don't want to pay reasonable support is a criticism of ALL fathers. It isn't. You want to dismiss the legal information that has been posted on here about the particulars of child support and custody, and how the courts approach those issues..but at the same time you expect to be taken seriously when you ignore that information, and provide nothing but unsupported opinion.  You continue to carp about un-specified bias against fathers, but we have nothing but youtube vids and vague stories about friends, relatives, etc., to support them...while at the same time you dismiss the valid information that has been provided that specifically addresses exactly how child support is determined and considered by the courts, and how it plays out in single parent families.

It's not news to us that you don't care about the experiences of single mothers who are not receiving adequate child support. You've made that abundantly clear from your first post in this thread.


----------



## sealadaigh

koshergrl said:


> Read the thread. You made a claim, the standard in the CDZ is if you make a claim and you are asked to support it, you do so.
> 
> Or not. Whether or not I have been through *it*, whatever *it* is, is not an answer to the question...WHAT safety nets are (or were) available to mothers AREN'T available to fathers. Aside from the changing tables. And please clarify the other things I asked you about as well. You aren't making a lot of sense.
> 
> As far as WIC goes, yes men can access those services, though not for themselves unless they are pregnant or breastfeeding:
> 
> "
> *WIC Eligibility *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is eligible and who can apply?
> 
> Pregnant women
> Women who are breastfeeding a baby under 1 year of age
> Women who have had a baby in the past six months
> Parents, step-parents, guardians, and foster parents of infants and children under the age of 5 can apply for their children "
> WIC Eligibility
> 
> "Fathers of children under the age of 5 are encouraged to enroll their children in the WIC program. Just like any other parent or guardian, fathers can bring their children to appointments, attend nutrition classes, and receive and redeem benefits for their children. Active participation by fathers is a great help in keeping WIC children healthy. "
> 
> I suspect you are not a very good advocate for yourself or your children, if you are unable to articulate how you were abused any better than you have so far. I don't say that as an insult, I say that because I suspect you were overwhelmed by what it took to access assistance for yourself and your kids. You appear to remain overwhelmed, just talking about it.
> 
> When you ask me if I've ever been through *it* you are referring to single parenthood (I really have no way of knowing what you mean, but that seems a good guess) then absolutely yes, I have been through *it* and continue to go through *it*. In addition, I helped to raise my ex's two older children, including supporting him when he was a single dad, before we had our children. I continue to help with these older children, though he does not pay child support for the two that we share and certainly has never provided for the older boys.
> 
> So again, yes, I've been through it. I've also administered the programs that assist single parents, male and female alike, and worked as a legal assistant in a law office that specialized in custody/child support/divorce cases.



and again, things have changed in the past twenty-five years. what should i document.

this was before even guardian ad litum progrsms kicked in.

at the time, custody was almost always awarded to the mother.

can i document it, no i can't. and if i ccould, i wouldn't. it isn't worth it to me to relive that particular part of my life.

back then, men were held hostages for all intents and purposes.


----------



## koshergrl

So you can't relate one example of support given to women but not men. Noted.

You could relive it to the point that you could make a specious claim about it, I  note. You just find it too traumatizing to relate SPECIFIC examples of support provided to moms but not dads.


----------



## koshergrl

I was raising children by myself 25 years ago as well. I know perfectly well what was available and there was nothing to my knowledge that was available only to women with children.


----------



## Katzndogz

koshergrl said:


> What court costs? If you want to change your child support order, you don't even need an attorney, and I don't believe there's even a filing fee.
> 
> You're just spouting a bunch of excuses.



There is a filing fee to file the motion for modification.  While you don't need an attorney since the calculation is done by computer, it is always wise to have one.


----------



## Katzndogz

koshergrl said:


> My experiences are pertinent, just as yours and borillar's and katz's and everyone else's. Particularly my experiences in the legal and human services fields are pertinent, which deal specifically with single parents and their children. My PERSONAL information has not so much been dragged out by me as by others, who insist that any criticism of fathers who don't want to pay reasonable support is a criticism of ALL fathers. It isn't. You want to dismiss the legal information that has been posted on here about the particulars of child support and custody, and how the courts approach those issues..but at the same time you expect to be taken seriously when you ignore that information, and provide nothing but unsupported opinion.  You continue to carp about un-specified bias against fathers, but we have nothing but youtube vids and vague stories about friends, relatives, etc., to support them...while at the same time you dismiss the valid information that has been provided that specifically addresses exactly how child support is determined and considered by the courts, and how it plays out in single parent families.
> 
> It's not news to us that you don't care about the experiences of single mothers who are not receiving adequate child support. You've made that abundantly clear from your first post in this thread.



Plenty of women aren't receiving adequate child support.   The young man who has 30 children doesn't pay adequate child support to any one of them.   The woman getting the largest share of child support gets $1.49 a month in child support.   No child support order can exceed 50% of the man's salary.  To a guy making minimum wage it's never going to be adequate child support.  

Every time a man gets primary custody he gets child support from mother.   Paternal custody used to be exceedingly rare and only under exceptional circumstances.   It isn't rare anymore.  It is uncommon, but not rare.   Many times when a father that is doing well gets custody and the mother isn't working, or makes so little that it's not worth it, father doesn't even ask for child support.


----------



## koshergrl

Courts require that child support be ordered if there is a custody order.


----------



## Aristotle

Koshergrl below your name you said "Always correct"

So far you have not presented one shred of a rebuttal to my comment. You consistently put words in my mouth or grossly misinterpret my view. You fail to acknowledge the fact that there are irresponsible women. You keep using your experiences. Oh, for the record, no your experiences are not pertinent it was your fault you had a failed relationship because you had a kid by an irresponsible person. Like I said, you may be a good parent but your an exception, not the rule.

So keep on grossly misinterpreting my view. As far as my responses to you henceforth, its over. I peovided evidence for my argument videos and links. You have provided anecdotal evidence which cannot be verified so alas you again fail in your rebuttal. In the future when you debate have hard facts ready, not stories.


----------



## sealadaigh

koshergrl said:


> So you can't relate one example of support given to women but not men. Noted.
> 
> You could relive it to the point that you could make a specious claim about it, I  note. You just find it too traumatizing to relate SPECIFIC examples of support provided to moms but not dads.



i gave you WIC. there were also a number of non-profits, not federal programs, for housing assistance and the like that catered exclousively to women.

i stopped playing.

and yes, it was pretty traumatic if you must know. i had physicaal custody of my child since he was three. his mother left him with me. her boyfriend was a millionaire. i was paying child support, child care, his care, working, etc. i said this has got to stop so i decided to seek custody legally. the judge says "a child belongs with his mother" (she had broken up with her boyfriend at this time.) three years later, he was so messed up in his life, her grandparents were hiding him from me,, she was back with her boyfriend and who knows where. finally i found out what was going on...and i was given legal custody.

and yeah, a whole lot of other bad stuff too so it was pretty traumatic and i really don't even like to talk about it...and i stopped playing the game and accepted thaat i would have to do it myself.

the law says women should et equal pay. they don't. 

the law says no discrimination because of race. it still goes on.

you can say single parents, the law can, but de facto discrimination against fathers still occurs, even today, and i was, at the time, in a state that a father seeking custody of their child would only get it about one percent of the time.

the saddest part. he joined the navy and the postcard home was now a big letter. it contained his insurance and benificiary information and on the box that said "mother" it said "no mother named." i never wanted him to say that.

gender bias doesn't only happen to women.


----------



## Aristotle

reabhloideach said:


> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't relate one example of support given to women but not men. Noted.
> 
> You could relive it to the point that you could make a specious claim about it, I  note. You just find it too traumatizing to relate SPECIFIC examples of support provided to moms but not dads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i gave you WIC. there were also a number of non-profits, not federal programs, for housing assistance and the like that catered exclousively to women.
> 
> i stopped playing.
> 
> and yes, it was pretty traumatic if you must know. i had physicaal custody of my child since he was three. his mother left him with me. her boyfriend was a millionaire. i was paying child support, child care, his care, working, etc. i said this has got to stop so i decided to seek custody legally. the judge says "a child belongs with his mother" (she had broken up with her boyfriend at this time.) three years later, he was so messed up in his life, her grandparents were hiding him from me,, she was back with her boyfriend and who knows where. finally i found out what was going on...and i was given legal custody.
> 
> and yeah, a whole lot of other bad stuff too so it was pretty traumatic and i really don't even like to talk about it...and i stopped playing the game and accepted thaat i would have to do it myself.
> 
> the law says women should et equal pay. they don't.
> 
> the law says no discrimination because of race. it still goes on.
> 
> you can say single parents, the law can, but de facto discrimination against fathers still occurs, even today, and i was, at the time, in a state that a father seeking custody of their child would only get it about one percent of the time.
> 
> the saddest part. he joined the navy and the postcard home was now a big letter. it contained his insurance and benificiary information and on the box that said "mother" it said "no mother named." i never wanted him to say that.
> 
> gender bias doesn't only happen to women.
Click to expand...


I am sorry this happened to you bro. I commend you for doing your best. Any advice you would give me as a young man with no kids?


----------



## koshergrl

And I proved you incorrect about WIC. Wic is certainly available to single fathers. They cannot access it for THEMSELVES because they don't get pregnant or breast feed, and WIC is in a nutritional program meant to supplement the diets of pregnant/breastfeeding women and children. That's not support being denied to fathers because fathers don't get pregnant or breastfeed.

But they can certainly get all the benefits for the children. 

As far as you, Aristotle, I (and others) have shown you to be short on knowledge and long on prejudice and urban legend when it comes to this topic. You continue to bloviate about how women who have primary custody should be penalized for that, and all the reasons why men shouldn't have to shoulder a reasonable portion of financial responsibility for their offspring. You can claim victory, but you haven't proven anything at all, except that you're interested in nothing so much as penalizing women and excusing deadbeats.


----------



## koshergrl

Aristotle said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't relate one example of support given to women but not men. Noted.
> 
> You could relive it to the point that you could make a specious claim about it, I note. You just find it too traumatizing to relate SPECIFIC examples of support provided to moms but not dads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i gave you WIC. there were also a number of non-profits, not federal programs, for housing assistance and the like that catered exclousively to women.
> 
> i stopped playing.
> 
> and yes, it was pretty traumatic if you must know. i had physicaal custody of my child since he was three. his mother left him with me. her boyfriend was a millionaire. i was paying child support, child care, his care, working, etc. i said this has got to stop so i decided to seek custody legally. the judge says "a child belongs with his mother" (she had broken up with her boyfriend at this time.) three years later, he was so messed up in his life, her grandparents were hiding him from me,, she was back with her boyfriend and who knows where. finally i found out what was going on...and i was given legal custody.
> 
> and yeah, a whole lot of other bad stuff too so it was pretty traumatic and i really don't even like to talk about it...and i stopped playing the game and accepted thaat i would have to do it myself.
> 
> the law says women should et equal pay. they don't.
> 
> the law says no discrimination because of race. it still goes on.
> 
> you can say single parents, the law can, but de facto discrimination against fathers still occurs, even today, and i was, at the time, in a state that a father seeking custody of their child would only get it about one percent of the time.
> 
> the saddest part. he joined the navy and the postcard home was now a big letter. it contained his insurance and benificiary information and on the box that said "mother" it said "no mother named." i never wanted him to say that.
> 
> gender bias doesn't only happen to women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry this happened to you bro. I commend you for doing your best. Any advice you would give me as a young man with no kids?
Click to expand...

 
Ask him why her family wanted to hide the child from him, and why the child doesn't know who his mom is? 

If he has custody, then it's all him.


----------



## Vast LWC

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction



Now that is a good point.

If your paying child support, then that child is surely a dependent, by any definition of the word.

In addition, if you are forced to pay alimony, then your ex-wife should certainly count as a dependent for tax purposes as well.


----------



## koshergrl

No, the child is not a dependent, unless you are actually paying 1/2 of all costs associated with the kid and the kid lives in your household. This eliminates the eligibility of the majority of non-custodial parents since they are, by definition, non-custodial so the child doesn't reside in their household.


----------



## Borillar

Aristotle said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't relate one example of support given to women but not men. Noted.
> 
> You could relive it to the point that you could make a specious claim about it, I  note. You just find it too traumatizing to relate SPECIFIC examples of support provided to moms but not dads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i gave you WIC. there were also a number of non-profits, not federal programs, for housing assistance and the like that catered exclousively to women.
> 
> i stopped playing.
> 
> and yes, it was pretty traumatic if you must know. i had physicaal custody of my child since he was three. his mother left him with me. her boyfriend was a millionaire. i was paying child support, child care, his care, working, etc. i said this has got to stop so i decided to seek custody legally. the judge says "a child belongs with his mother" (she had broken up with her boyfriend at this time.) three years later, he was so messed up in his life, her grandparents were hiding him from me,, she was back with her boyfriend and who knows where. finally i found out what was going on...and i was given legal custody.
> 
> and yeah, a whole lot of other bad stuff too so it was pretty traumatic and i really don't even like to talk about it...and i stopped playing the game and accepted thaat i would have to do it myself.
> 
> the law says women should et equal pay. they don't.
> 
> the law says no discrimination because of race. it still goes on.
> 
> you can say single parents, the law can, but de facto discrimination against fathers still occurs, even today, and i was, at the time, in a state that a father seeking custody of their child would only get it about one percent of the time.
> 
> the saddest part. he joined the navy and the postcard home was now a big letter. it contained his insurance and benificiary information and on the box that said "mother" it said "no mother named." i never wanted him to say that.
> 
> gender bias doesn't only happen to women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry this happened to you bro. I commend you for doing your best. Any advice you would give me as a young man with no kids?
Click to expand...


1.) About half of all marriages end in divorce. Be very careful in picking a mate.
2.) Decide whether or not you want to have kids. If not, get a vasectomy. If yes, then always use birth control unless you are prepared to have that child.
3.) Don't believe anyone telling you they are on the pill, or need fertility, etc. Always use protection. The 20 minutes of pleasure isn't worth the 20 years of pain if it results in an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.
4.) If you do father a child, then man up and take responsibility and support your kid. Don't expect anyone else to do it for you.


----------



## Aristotle

Borillar said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> i gave you WIC. there were also a number of non-profits, not federal programs, for housing assistance and the like that catered exclousively to women.
> 
> i stopped playing.
> 
> and yes, it was pretty traumatic if you must know. i had physicaal custody of my child since he was three. his mother left him with me. her boyfriend was a millionaire. i was paying child support, child care, his care, working, etc. i said this has got to stop so i decided to seek custody legally. the judge says "a child belongs with his mother" (she had broken up with her boyfriend at this time.) three years later, he was so messed up in his life, her grandparents were hiding him from me,, she was back with her boyfriend and who knows where. finally i found out what was going on...and i was given legal custody.
> 
> and yeah, a whole lot of other bad stuff too so it was pretty traumatic and i really don't even like to talk about it...and i stopped playing the game and accepted thaat i would have to do it myself.
> 
> the law says women should et equal pay. they don't.
> 
> the law says no discrimination because of race. it still goes on.
> 
> you can say single parents, the law can, but de facto discrimination against fathers still occurs, even today, and i was, at the time, in a state that a father seeking custody of their child would only get it about one percent of the time.
> 
> the saddest part. he joined the navy and the postcard home was now a big letter. it contained his insurance and benificiary information and on the box that said "mother" it said "no mother named." i never wanted him to say that.
> 
> gender bias doesn't only happen to women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry this happened to you bro. I commend you for doing your best. Any advice you would give me as a young man with no kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 1.) About half of all marriages end in divorce. Be very careful in picking a mate.
> 2.) Decide whether or not you want to have kids. If not, get a vasectomy. If yes, then always use birth control unless you are prepared to have that child.
> 3.) Don't believe anyone telling you they are on the pill, or need fertility, etc. Always use protection. The 20 minutes of pleasure isn't worth the 20 years of pain if it results in an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.
> 4.) If you do father a child, then man up and take responsibility and support your kid. Don't expect anyone else to do it for you.
Click to expand...


Good advice.


----------



## Care4all

nitroz said:


> Care4all said:
> 
> 
> 
> the cost of taking care of YOUR CHILD 24/7 is more than a dollar figure....the man can easily run off with any woman and marry again...the man can have a full time career and add to his retirement for old age, the mother is limited to such full time good paying careers, as the single parent caring for your child, again 24/7....she has much less opportunity to remarry and to add to her own retirement and to succeed in life with a good career, *mainly because she is the 24/7 parent for your child, while you are free as a bird....
> *
> there is more to this than buying your kid a hot dog for dinner....who cooks it for them, who cleans the dishes afterwards, who puts your child to bed at night, who washes them in the tub every night, who takes them to the doctor when sick and who has to miss work in order to do it, who dresses your kid and who has to take them to school or make certain they make it safe to school?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She can put out and get with some rich dude, ending up with more opportunity.
> Women are just as capable as men, if not, more capable.
Click to expand...

not that easy when she's got a kid, stuck to her hip....most all women 'put out' now a days, why would the rich sugar daddy you think she can get, want her kid as baggage when plenty of hot women that are single are available?


----------



## koshergrl

If it were true, all single moms would have rich sugar daddies.

Rich men typically aren't all that keen to raise the children of deadbeat fathers.


----------



## sealadaigh

Aristotle said:


> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> koshergrl said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you can't relate one example of support given to women but not men. Noted.
> 
> You could relive it to the point that you could make a specious claim about it, I  note. You just find it too traumatizing to relate SPECIFIC examples of support provided to moms but not dads.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i gave you WIC. there were also a number of non-profits, not federal programs, for housing assistance and the like that catered exclousively to women.
> 
> i stopped playing.
> 
> and yes, it was pretty traumatic if you must know. i had physicaal custody of my child since he was three. his mother left him with me. her boyfriend was a millionaire. i was paying child support, child care, his care, working, etc. i said this has got to stop so i decided to seek custody legally. the judge says "a child belongs with his mother" (she had broken up with her boyfriend at this time.) three years later, he was so messed up in his life, her grandparents were hiding him from me,, she was back with her boyfriend and who knows where. finally i found out what was going on...and i was given legal custody.
> 
> and yeah, a whole lot of other bad stuff too so it was pretty traumatic and i really don't even like to talk about it...and i stopped playing the game and accepted thaat i would have to do it myself.
> 
> the law says women should et equal pay. they don't.
> 
> the law says no discrimination because of race. it still goes on.
> 
> you can say single parents, the law can, but de facto discrimination against fathers still occurs, even today, and i was, at the time, in a state that a father seeking custody of their child would only get it about one percent of the time.
> 
> the saddest part. he joined the navy and the postcard home was now a big letter. it contained his insurance and benificiary information and on the box that said "mother" it said "no mother named." i never wanted him to say that.
> 
> gender bias doesn't only happen to women.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sorry this happened to you bro. I commend you for doing your best. Any advice you would give me as a young man with no kids?
Click to expand...


thank you.

the only advice i would give is to get the situation out of the courts and have a guardian ad litum appointed, whether things are amicable at the time or not.

the courts are adversarial and positioned based and while all the legal judgements come from them, they listen to the guardian ad litum, who is interest based and solution oriented. the main focus of the guardian ad litum is on the child but he or she also realises that two parents co-operating is in the child's very best interest.

things have changed dramatically since i went through this, and at the time, most agencies and non profits had no idea as to what to do with a single custodial father and most of us just went our own ways and kept quiet.

losher girl acts like it wasn't traumatic. i was an older father, i was 35 when my son was born and he is just shy of his 28th birthday now. i haven't really dealt with a lot of the bad stuff that went on, there really was no need. i try focusing on things like how i taught him how to ride his bike and stuff becaause who needs to feel bad and dwell on unhappy times, but i can tell you this. nothing in my life has benn more traumatic,and i was in southeast asia once with a lot of other american kids in the early seventies.


----------



## koshergrl

I don't know if it was traumatic or not. I can't get any specifics out of you. It isn't debate to say "it's true but I can't tell you what it is."

And if you can't debate, you shouldn't be in here.


----------



## sealadaigh

koshergrl said:


> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> reabhloideach said:
> 
> 
> 
> i gave you WIC. there were also a number of non-profits, not federal programs, for housing assistance and the like that catered exclousively to women.
> 
> i stopped playing.
> 
> and yes, it was pretty traumatic if you must know. i had physicaal custody of my child since he was three. his mother left him with me. her boyfriend was a millionaire. i was paying child support, child care, his care, working, etc. i said this has got to stop so i decided to seek custody legally. the judge says "a child belongs with his mother" (she had broken up with her boyfriend at this time.) three years later, he was so messed up in his life, her grandparents were hiding him from me,, she was back with her boyfriend and who knows where. finally i found out what was going on...and i was given legal custody.
> 
> and yeah, a whole lot of other bad stuff too so it was pretty traumatic and i really don't even like to talk about it...and i stopped playing the game and accepted thaat i would have to do it myself.
> 
> the law says women should et equal pay. they don't.
> 
> the law says no discrimination because of race. it still goes on.
> 
> you can say single parents, the law can, but de facto discrimination against fathers still occurs, even today, and i was, at the time, in a state that a father seeking custody of their child would only get it about one percent of the time.
> 
> the saddest part. he joined the navy and the postcard home was now a big letter. it contained his insurance and benificiary information and on the box that said "mother" it said "no mother named." i never wanted him to say that.
> 
> gender bias doesn't only happen to women.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sorry this happened to you bro. I commend you for doing your best. Any advice you would give me as a young man with no kids?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ask him why her family wanted to hide the child from him, and why the child doesn't know who his mom is?
> 
> If he has custody, then it's all him.
Click to expand...


the mother was in a rprivate rehab/mental health facility at the time, her boyfriend paid for it.

she "escaped" from that acility.

the mother was later in her life diagnosed with histrionic and narcissistic personality disorder.

her family did not want to hide my son from me. they apologised. she had told them she would lose custody and, frankly, they were afraid of her. they caame clean because i had to ile a contempt motion so i could have my visitation.

my child does know who his mom is. i never spoke ill of her and when he was old enough, i non-judgementally and gently explained her personality disorder to him. i still haven't told him everything. i probably won't. he doesn't need to know. occasionally, he will call her a "bitch" and i tell him "don't use that word around me and do not refer to your mom that way."

all this occurred between 20-25 years ago...there abouts. men didn't get custody of their children, computer use was not common  in the rural area where i lived, and yes, when i went into DSHS, they told me i was ineligble for WIC and sent me to a few non-profits where i was also told "sorry.' that is fine and i understand. most of them dealt wirth women who had come out of a bad relationship or something. the country wasn't set up for single custodial fathers to be honest with you, i had never even met one myself before until several years later.

now, if you want to approach this as a "right" v "wrong" fine. i tend to actually not approach issues that way and willingly acknowledge that you are "right" and i am "wrong" because i don't think that really matters as to child support and the fair adjudication to these matters.

personally, i think you are opening a big can of worms that need not be opened. i would prefer to see calmer heads prevail.


----------



## koshergrl

And, as has already been pointed out to you, WIC serves children and pregnant/nursing women. YOU couldn't receive wic, but the children could have. If you were told they were ineligible because they were with you, whoever told you that was wrong. DHS has nothing to do with WIC except as a reference. You should have called the WIC people yourself. 

And again, you're not specific about what services you were denied. 

The problem that we came up against when it came to winning custody for fathers (which we did) was that fathers who would come in to pursue custody often hadn't paid support for their kids, had missed visitations, hadn't been the primary care provider during the marriage. The court looks at those situations and determines the mother is the more committed parent, and the one the children are most comfortable with. 

We did have cases where the mother was crazy, and for whatever reason we couldn't get full custody...but in every one that I can think of, the father didn't show well, either, because he got drawn into playing these horrific games with the mom over the children. In those cases, you have a really hard time getting the kids away from the parent they are already placed with.

And that is a universal truth...the parent who initially gets custody is most likely to keep custody. So fathers who don't file first and ask for custody initially are not likely to be able to wrest custody away from the mom a year later, when the divorce/custody arrangement is finalized, and the kids have settled in with mom. 

I do feel for you and your experience, but it is impossible to make a point if you are unwilling to cite specifics. This is a debate forum. You make the claim repeatedly that men are denied benefits provided to women, but getting you to clarify is like pulling teeth. I appreciate the reasons for your reticent, but it just has no place here. If you're going to make a claim, you need to specify what it is, and back it up...or recognize that you aren't prepared to debate.


----------



## koshergrl

Specifics about the claims you make.

I'm old enough that I was helping with custody trial prep, cross examination in the courtroom, drafting visitation and custody orders, and interviewing clients and witnesses in custody cases 25 years ago..while raising my own two boys on my own.


----------



## saveliberty

I think statistics bear out that all other factors being equal, women get custody koshergrl.  I was fortunate to have nearly equal custody.  I took me pay child support (she made more by far than me) and all the tax deductions to her as well.  Oh, I also paid until they graduated COLLEGE.  Small price to pay in my opinion.

I disagree with the statement child support is unfair though.  Divorce is usually unfair to the kids.  Using child support as a weapon against an ex spouse is wrong.


----------



## SuMar

Noomi said:


> Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.





Whether the man wanted a child or not, he still did the deed which makes him equally responsible. Why punish the child? Makes more sense for both parents to do there part in taking care of the child than to waste tax dollars in raising the child.


----------



## sealadaigh

Noomi said:


> Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.



while i may disagree with you on some things, i am remarkably impressed by the consistancy of your thought and your commitment to egalitarian principles and beliefs.


----------



## sealadaigh

SuMar said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the man wanted a child or not, he still did the deed which makes him equally responsible. Why punish the child? Makes more sense for both parents to do there part in taking care of the child than to waste tax dollars in raising the child.
Click to expand...


now we will get into the can of worms that i had mentioned earlier.

a woman has a right to decide whether to terminate the pregnancy or not.

so far, men do not have any part in thet decision.

get ready. that issue is coming and will be argued in the courts some  way or another, i am sure.


----------



## koshergrl

SuMar said:


> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the man wanted a child or not, he still did the deed which makes him equally responsible. Why punish the child? Makes more sense for both parents to do there part in taking care of the child than to waste tax dollars in raising the child.
Click to expand...


The courts won't punish the child based on a man's desire not to be responsible. It's an extremist and anti-child view that thankfully only deadbeats and their apologists will ever support.


----------



## sealadaigh

koshergrl said:


> SuMar said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Noomi said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fathers shouldn't have to pay child support if they made it clear they never wanted a child, but the woman got pregnant anyway. A woman should have no right to force a man to become a father, because he has no legal right to force her to become a mother. Its reverse discrimination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whether the man wanted a child or not, he still did the deed which makes him equally responsible. Why punish the child? Makes more sense for both parents to do there part in taking care of the child than to waste tax dollars in raising the child.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The courts won't punish the child based on a man's desire not to be responsible. It's an extremist and anti-child view that thankfully only deadbeats and their apologists will ever support.
Click to expand...


i think a man who realizes that he cannot financially provide for a child and makes the fact that he doesn't want a child is being responsible.

i question your "only deadbeats and their apologists will ever support." that certainly seems like a statement of "global truth" to me.

are you at all familiar with child custody cases. they are handled at the state court level and it really might be best to confine your statements to the particular state you have had experience in. also, family courts really don't mete out punishment, per se, other than for contempt. as a para-legal you really should be aware of that.


----------



## Aristotle

saveliberty said:


> I think statistics bear out that all other factors being equal, women get custody koshergrl.  I was fortunate to have nearly equal custody.  I took me pay child support (she made more by far than me) and all the tax deductions to her as well.  Oh, I also paid until they graduated COLLEGE.  Small price to pay in my opinion.
> 
> I disagree with the statement child support is unfair though.  Divorce is usually unfair to the kids.  Using child support as a weapon against an ex spouse is wrong.



But I wasn't talking about divorce....If you read page, after page, my argument was about male accountability to pay, and no accountability of the women to maintain support for the child. I also established that all women are not responsible and that the greater portion of single mothers are young and under the age of 18, not only that these young kids still live at home and are either working part-time or do not have a full-time job.

Let me rephrase that this has nothing to do with divorce.

If I have sex with a woman and she gets pregnant and she decides to get me for child support I have to pay and maintain whatever established payment I am ordered to pay. As was demonstrated here by the women:

When a man cuts a woman a check through the mediation of the state, it is so-called "her money." But the idea of child support is not about "her money" the money is invested towards the welfare of the child. I believe I've already covered my argument with links and videos if you cared to read and look at them.


----------



## koshergrl

You've had it explained repeatedly by a variety of people, including an attorney, and me, both who have experience with the courts and specifically child support and custody. Your stance is that men should be able to control the mothers of their children by dictating to them where and how child support is spent. You have ignored the fact that child support is in fact reimbursement, because your motivation is to establish control. It isn't about the children; it's about exerting that control. Everyone else has left the discussion because you refuse to acknowledge the reality of child support; you just stick to the hardline that men should be able to take the children if they want them based on nothing except their desire to have them (or perhaps their income) and that if they do allow the children to go with the mother, they should be able to monitor and approve all expenditures made using the child support.

This is the way men control women, and it's actually recognized as abuse when it's put into play. You can continue to bloviate about how awful single mothers are, how they must be monitored and closely watched; how they should live strictly hand to mouth and not spend a penny of their child support on anything except that which is approved by their ex...but when you do that, you're just cementing the image of yourself as someone who despises women. Now I am out of this conversation as well. There's no point in continuing with someone whose only motivation is to control and degrade single mothers.


----------



## koshergrl

"The father&#8217;s rights movement seeks to destroy the legal protections of  women and children, primarily custodial mothers. Fathers&#8217; rights groups  are not male-only groups. A large number of these groups are lead and  supported by the second wives, girlfriends, grandparents and former  in-laws of the men who are taking their ex-wives back to court. This  article details the agenda of the fathers&#8217; rights lobby, which despite  its claims, is not concerned about the welfare of children. Even though  it is a worldwide movement, this article focuses on the movement in the  Chesapeake region, particularly Maryland. Fathers&#8217; rights groups in  America are national groups with satellite chapters in each state. These  chapters meet in church basements, rented halls, and members&#8217; homes.  They also meet on the Internet, Usenet, America Online, and CompuServe.  The leaders of these groups often have obtained custody of their  children by taking the mothers back to court repeatedly over an average  of five years. Financially and emotionally exhausted, the mother  eventually loses custody by court order."
MOTHERS UNDER SIEGE: TACTICS OF THE FATHERS&rsquo; RIGHTS MOVEMENT- HOW CAN A &ldquo;GOOD ENOUGH MOTHER&rdquo; PROTECT HERSELF? « Crisis In The Family Courts


----------



## koshergrl

The story that men have a hard time getting custody is a lie. I know that from my experience, but since my experience is ignored and the lie that men couldn't obtain custody 25 years ago is going to continue to be voiced:

" fathers who custodially challenge mothers win their cases 50%-70% of  the time, regardless of proof of paternal domestic violence, drug and  alcohol abuse, child abuse, or sexual abuse. Even a &#8220;fit&#8221; mother &#8211; one  who was the primary caregiver of the children during and after the  marriage, who has had no history of drug/alcohol abuse or mental  illness, and under whose care the children were thriving &#8211; stands a good  chance of losing custody simply because her ex-husband has remarried  and has more money at his disposal than she."

That was in 1996.

MOTHERS UNDER SIEGE: TACTICS OF THE FATHERS&rsquo; RIGHTS MOVEMENT- HOW CAN A &ldquo;GOOD ENOUGH MOTHER&rdquo; PROTECT HERSELF? « Crisis In The Family Courts


----------



## koshergrl

It is also a myth that most fathers do pay their child support in full, and that the awards are "too high". The story of the wonderful, responsible fathers who pay all their child support and are therefore reduced to homelessness is a fantasy;

"Fathers&#8217; rights supporters insist that the reason some men pay little or  no child support is that they are financially unable to do so. They  claim that the child support guidelines are unfairly high, as high as  70% of a father&#8217;s income. Therefore, a true &#8220;deadbeat dad&#8221; &#8211; one who has  the ability to pay yet refuses to do so &#8211; is rare. These statements are  easily refutable. Child support is calculated by gross monthly income,  not net income. In 1989-90 the average amount of child support due per  custodial mother totaled $3,292; the average amount received was $2,252,  half of which was paid through social services and court-ordered  garnishment. The Child Support Recovery Act and state laws urging  garnishment of paychecks are responsible for the increasing levels of  child support monies being received by the custodial mothers. Federal  law prevents child support calculations from going over 50% of both  parent&#8217;s gross monthly income &#8211; 55% in some cases. When asked to provide  sources for the dubious 70% figure, the father&#8217;s rights supporters are  silent."

MOTHERS UNDER SIEGE: TACTICS OF THE FATHERS&rsquo; RIGHTS MOVEMENT- HOW CAN A &ldquo;GOOD ENOUGH MOTHER&rdquo; PROTECT HERSELF? « Crisis In The Family Courts


----------



## koshergrl

"According to the Maryland Special Joint Committee report on &#8220;Gender Bias  in The Courts (May 1989),&#8221; between a quarter and a half of the male and  female lawyers surveyed believe that child support awards rarely or  never &#8220;reflect a realistic understanding of a particular child&#8217;s needs.  Underestimating expenses attributable to a child&#8217;s needs is more likely  to occur than overestimating, so the result of inaccurate determinations  will be to overburden the custodial parent with uncompensated expenses  for the child. Since most custodial parents are women, overburdening the  custodial parent means requiring women to pay an unfair amount of child  support.&#8221;

MOTHERS UNDER SIEGE: TACTICS OF THE FATHERS&rsquo; RIGHTS MOVEMENT- HOW CAN A &ldquo;GOOD ENOUGH MOTHER&rdquo; PROTECT HERSELF? « Crisis In The Family Courts


----------



## koshergrl

"
*Myth #6: Women Do Not Use Child Support to Support The Children. They Spend The Money On Themselves.*
 Fathers&#8217; rights supporters insist that custodial mothers want money  in order to fund vacations or buy a fine new set of clothes. Child  support is necessary to buy school supplies, books and food, pay for  rent, electricity, the water and sewage bill, heat and air conditioning,  and to contribute toward doctor and dental visits. Considering that the  average yearly child support received by the mother is $2,252, it is  highly unlikely that she&#8217;s catching some rays at a Jamaican beach or  purchasing dressing gowns from Victoria&#8217;s Secret."


----------



## ScienceRocks

Nothing unfair about paying for what you helped make. *Men need to step the fuck up!*


----------



## Luissa

I received $11 two days ago. Yeah, child support is so unfair. 
What is unfair is my child asking to see his dad and me telling him he is out of town. He isn't but I can't tell my kid his dad is a piece of crap.


----------



## sealadaigh

Luissa said:


> I received $11 two days ago. Yeah, child support is so unfair.
> What is unfair is my child asking to see his dad and me telling him he is out of town. He isn't but I can't tell my kid his dad is a piece of crap.



that's sad and i am very sorry that has happened to you and your son. 

i know it is hard and i really hope things turn out alright.


----------



## sealadaigh

koshergrl said:


> The only conspiracy theory going in this thread is the one perpetrated by deadbeat fathers who claim there's a conspiracy against non-custodial fathers, and who claim that all single mothers are just out to ream their exes, and so must be carefully monitored when it comes to the spending of all these vast monies they're receiving as child support.



some women abuse the system and some men abuse the system. to paint either those abusive fathers or those abusive mothers as representative of their genders only hurts the child, be they a little boy or a little girl.


----------



## sealadaigh

koshergrl said:


> that's right. This is where men come to lie about exes and complain about the fact that they have to pay child support.



oh c'mon. i haven't read every single post but i haven't seen any where men complain about having to pay child support. i think some are saying that the administration and the methods of determining it need to be changed to be more fair.


----------



## koshergrl

I view it differently.


----------



## VolSmile

koshergrl said:


> You've had it explained repeatedly by a variety of people, including an attorney, and me, both who have experience with the courts and specifically child support and custody. Your stance is that men should be able to control the mothers of their children by dictating to them where and how child support is spent. You have ignored the fact that child support is in fact reimbursement, because your motivation is to establish control. It isn't about the children; it's about exerting that control. Everyone else has left the discussion because you refuse to acknowledge the reality of child support; you just stick to the hardline that men should be able to take the children if they want them based on nothing except their desire to have them (or perhaps their income) and that if they do allow the children to go with the mother, they should be able to monitor and approve all expenditures made using the child support.
> 
> This is the way men control women, and it's actually recognized as abuse when it's put into play. You can continue to bloviate about how awful single mothers are, how they must be monitored and closely watched; how they should live strictly hand to mouth and not spend a penny of their child support on anything except that which is approved by their ex...but when you do that, you're just cementing the image of yourself as someone who despises women. Now I am out of this conversation as well. There's no point in continuing with someone whose only motivation is to control and degrade single mothers.



I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, but I don't think that people are advocating not spending a penny of child support on anything except that which is approved by their ex. If someone did advocate that then I would disagree. I think that the point is that if one parent pays child support to the other then the money should be spent on the child and that is completely reasonable. I don't see how this has anything to do with despising women.


----------



## koshergrl

you need to read the thread.


----------



## koshergrl

1 in 5 isn't too bad, since  about 2 in five actually file for custody.


----------



## koshergrl

There's actually more documented evidence of bias against females.


----------



## sealadaigh

Salt Jones said:


> Full-Auto said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Aristotle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Big can of worms there.................
> 
> While its true many of our courts award custody to the non bread winner for a piece of the pie. It is also true that the system is very soft on irresponsible women. There wont be a solution. The State is vested in the status quo. IE the easiest place to get their cut.....
> 
> If they gave custody to the bread winner, there is no need for state services....Thus the underlying problem.......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I agree. I never missed a child support payment in 6 years and started paying before the divorce was final. But, in the final two years of my custody fight the state ordered me to stop paying my ex directly and to start paying into the state's child support system, at a $40 monthly fee. They wanted to make sure I would pay.
Click to expand...


i went through the same thing. i was sending money directly to my son's mom for the first year of his life. (she left before he was a month old because she wanted to feed him yougurt and i said "we have a doctor's appointment tomorrow. lets ask the doctor.")  she decided to take me to court for more child suppoert. they ordered me to pay by check to DSHS...for a lesser amount than what i had been giving her.

i paid DSHS for six years, even though or most of the time after three years i had physical custody. i was awarded legal custody when he was seven. i sent it in like clockwork and i felt good about it, actually. i was on time for four years but i was late once. i called them and let them know i would be aa week late. thay garnished my checks after that. i mean, this was something i liked doing, writing out a check to care for my son. i called to complain and they said "there really isn't anything you can do about it. it will be easier for you." all i could think was "yeah, if you can't do anything about it, lay back and enoy it."

i ust don't think the courts should put anyone in these positions, moms or dads, but especially children. thank god they are getting better.


----------



## koshergrl

That link was provided as if it supported a statement.

Anyway, your post just confirms what I said previously. You want to control custodial mothers by controlling how they spend child support.


----------



## PaulS1950

In 1984, in Washington State, the only way for a father to get custody of his children was to prove, in court that she was an unfit mother. The fact that my ex was in a drug rehab center was an indication that she was, in fact, getting the help she needed.
The fact that she has been a practicing addict for the last 28 years shows they were wrong.
I paid my child support and I paid more because the state said I had to pay even after my children moved out because they couldn't live with an addict any more. She was fired from a nursing training center for "tapping into patients meds", She was not prosecuted because she went into treatment. Again, "doing what she needed to do" to be a responsible parent. She left our kids with her sister while she was partying to the point where she ended up in the hospital. but again she was "doing what was necessary" to clean up.
My mail was not delivered to my kids. They were threatened that she would commit suicide if they went to live with me. I called and sometimes got to talk to them. I travelled the 300 miles to visit and sometimes got to see them. Once they were of age and they got to know me things changed drastically. I gave them copies of the letters that I had sent, poems I had written and let them look through my journal. we have an excellent relationship now and they have quit believing the things their mom said about me because it just doesn't fit. My daughter, with her own family now, can't understand how her mother could do the things she does. She never did get the duality of the addict. I always told her that there were two people there - one was her mother and the other was the addict. As long as the addict is in control the mother is absent. She still doesn't understand that and cries when her mother flakes out on remembering days they are supposed to spend together or time when my daughter is in the hospital. "how can a mother forget that her daughter has surgery?" is what she asks. I try to remind her about the addict but she can't understand. My son and I have a good relationship - maybe better than my daughter and I because he understands that his mother is absent. He hopes for the day she returns but knows it is one of those things he has no control over. 
I was fortunate - I raised my kids for the first nine years and tried to see them every other week. There was no summers or Christmas vacations with them just visit when their mother didn't say they were sick and could come outside. There was lots of worry and many phone calls and letters to Child Protective Services but none of that was real to them. I was, after all, just a father who was vindictive toward an ex-wife.
Supporting my children was never a burden to me - it was my right and responsibility. It wasn't always easy and I was late with payments twice in the 11 years of payments. I did have to separately pay back the welfare my ex was on between our separation and the final decree even though the decree called out the separation date it didn't matter. As long as we weren't legally divorced I had to repay what the state paid - in addition to the support I paid in the interim. So we all supported her habit and remarkably she is still alive - but not well. She probably won't live long enough to collect the SS benefits the court awarded her. My daughter still wants her mother and my son is losing hope. I have two of the best kids I could ever hope to have and they love me too. I am so proud of who they have become inspite of the way the system condemned them to live with an absentee mother and a drug addict. 

Child support is not fair; it doesn't make up for all that you and your children lose because you are not there to share their lives. The system is not fair because it allows bad things to happen to children who are already in  shambles because two adults can't put their kids first and do what is best for them.


----------



## koshergrl

So do you suggest men should be able to just take custody from custodial mother's at their say-so?

Yes it is difficult to get custody away from someone who has already been awarded custody, or who has been the primary caregiver. And it's reasonable that a parent not be able to walk into a child's life and just take them away from the parent they are accustomed to living with on a whim. There has to be a reason for doing it. A drug addict is usually an unfit parent; however I suspect there's much, much more to this story. There always is.


----------



## PaulS1950

koshergrl said:


> So do you suggest men should be able to just take custody from custodial mother's at their say-so?
> 
> Yes it is difficult to get custody away from someone who has already been awarded custody, or who has been the primary caregiver. And it's reasonable that a parent not be able to walk into a child's life and just take them away from the parent they are accustomed to living with on a whim. There has to be a reason for doing it. A drug addict is usually an unfit parent; however I suspect there's much, much more to this story. There always is.



Yes, there is much more to the story - it has been on-going for 28 years. Don't be obtuse!

Before she was the primary caregiver, I was. She was an addict. I stayed with her for 13 years before I realized that no matter how much I gave she was still an addict and it wasn't going to change until she needed it to change. I tried to get custody but the court saw fit to award the custody of our children to a practicing addict - even against the testimony of two care-givers at the treatment center. I raised my kids, I was the active parent, I was the one who took them places and did things with them. There is a lot more to the story but it revolves around people who had the same attitude that you represent here - there has to be a reason that a man wants to take his kids out of harms way - IF they are in harms way. The court could not believe that a mother could want drugs more than her children even when it was pointed out many times throughout the 11 year period. 

you give yourself away with this: *"A drug addict is usually an unfit parent; however I suspect there's much, much more to this story. There always is."*

Really? ALWAYS? She is a drug addict, that pretty much sums it up. Everything in her life revolved around her next dose. Her kids were secondary to the drugs. She was involved in an accident and stumbled away to go find her license - leaving the scene of an accident because she was so high she couldn't walk. Falling "asleep" in her dinner plate at her daughter's thanksgiving dinner. Stealing alcohol from her family members to supplement her drugs until they told her to stop putting water in to replace the alcohol because it ruined the drink for everyone else. Yep, you're right there is more, a lot more but nothing to justify placing her in control of two beautiful children during the their adolescent years.

Sometimes the dad is the BEST person to raise the kids. Not all women are "mothers". 
I can't honestly think of any reason that a thinking individual would award the custody of children to an addict - EVER!


----------



## JeannieD

Be careful what you ask for. For the sake of this discussion, let's say a parent has custody of one child and the child has their own room in a 2 bedroom apartment. Custodial parent is responsible for 1/2 the rent for their room, 25% of the remainder and the non custodial parent pays the remaining 25% of the rent for the child to have their own room. Apply this math to all of the utilities in the household. Then we come to the monthly food bill - split the same way. Medical and dental are 50/50. Same for clothes, same for entertainment/extracurricular activities the child is engaged in. 

If all these expenses were put into a spreadsheet format and submitted to the family court I think that the court ordered child support payments would often fall short of covering all of that. 

If you suggest that a custodial parent should submit receipts every time the kid consumes a Happy Meal, yes, that is an attempt to control. Little things add up. As much as it would suit your purpose to believe she is lavishing her new boyfriend with gifts on your dime, or getting her nails done with your money, it probably is not the case.


----------



## sealadaigh

PaulS1950 said:


> In 1984, in Washington State, the only way for a father to get custody of his children was to prove, in court that she was an unfit mother. The fact that my ex was in a drug rehab center was an indication that she was, in fact, getting the help she needed.
> The fact that she has been a practicing addict for the last 28 years shows they were wrong.
> I paid my child support and I paid more because the state said I had to pay even after my children moved out because they couldn't live with an addict any more. She was fired from a nursing training center for "tapping into patients meds", She was not prosecuted because she went into treatment. Again, "doing what she needed to do" to be a responsible parent. She left our kids with her sister while she was partying to the point where she ended up in the hospital. but again she was "doing what was necessary" to clean up.
> My mail was not delivered to my kids. They were threatened that she would commit suicide if they went to live with me. I called and sometimes got to talk to them. I travelled the 300 miles to visit and sometimes got to see them. Once they were of age and they got to know me things changed drastically. I gave them copies of the letters that I had sent, poems I had written and let them look through my journal. we have an excellent relationship now and they have quit believing the things their mom said about me because it just doesn't fit. My daughter, with her own family now, can't understand how her mother could do the things she does. She never did get the duality of the addict. I always told her that there were two people there - one was her mother and the other was the addict. As long as the addict is in control the mother is absent. She still doesn't understand that and cries when her mother flakes out on remembering days they are supposed to spend together or time when my daughter is in the hospital. "how can a mother forget that her daughter has surgery?" is what she asks. I try to remind her about the addict but she can't understand. My son and I have a good relationship - maybe better than my daughter and I because he understands that his mother is absent. He hopes for the day she returns but knows it is one of those things he has no control over.
> I was fortunate - I raised my kids for the first nine years and tried to see them every other week. There was no summers or Christmas vacations with them just visit when their mother didn't say they were sick and could come outside. There was lots of worry and many phone calls and letters to Child Protective Services but none of that was real to them. I was, after all, just a father who was vindictive toward an ex-wife.
> Supporting my children was never a burden to me - it was my right and responsibility. It wasn't always easy and I was late with payments twice in the 11 years of payments. I did have to separately pay back the welfare my ex was on between our separation and the final decree even though the decree called out the separation date it didn't matter. As long as we weren't legally divorced I had to repay what the state paid - in addition to the support I paid in the interim. So we all supported her habit and remarkably she is still alive - but not well. She probably won't live long enough to collect the SS benefits the court awarded her. My daughter still wants her mother and my son is losing hope. I have two of the best kids I could ever hope to have and they love me too. I am so proud of who they have become inspite of the way the system condemned them to live with an absentee mother and a drug addict.
> 
> Child support is not fair; it doesn't make up for all that you and your children lose because you are not there to share their lives. The system is not fair because it allows bad things to happen to children who are already in  shambles because two adults can't put their kids first and do what is best for them.



i live in washington state too. i still have a hard time talking about it.

you're right.


----------



## saveliberty

JeannieD said:


> Be careful what you ask for. For the sake of this discussion, let's say a parent has custody of one child and the child has their own room in a 2 bedroom apartment. Custodial parent is responsible for 1/2 the rent for their room, 25% of the remainder and the non custodial parent pays the remaining 25% of the rent for the child to have their own room. Apply this math to all of the utilities in the household. Then we come to the monthly food bill - split the same way. Medical and dental are 50/50. Same for clothes, same for entertainment/extracurricular activities the child is engaged in.
> 
> If all these expenses were put into a spreadsheet format and submitted to the family court I think that the court ordered child support payments would often fall short of covering all of that.
> 
> If you suggest that a custodial parent should submit receipts every time the kid consumes a Happy Meal, yes, that is an attempt to control. Little things add up. As much as it would suit your purpose to believe she is lavishing her new boyfriend with gifts on your dime, or getting her nails done with your money, it probably is not the case.



I think you missed my point entirely.  My ex made three times my income and we had joint custody.  I paid her support.  It would have been nice to provide that for my kids directly, instead of it looking like mom provided everything and dad nothing.


----------



## saveliberty

Should we start counting the times visitation and custody have been used as a weapon against fathers?


----------



## PaulS1950

Koshergrl,
Why is it that your posts all have the common theme that the dads are always the bad guys?
We are just people too. Most of us pay the support to our children regardless of whether mom is or is not providing a decent home. Some don't - some women are lousy mothers or abusive or whatever. People are people. There are good and bad in every aspect of life. No group, No catagory is free from bad. 
You sound a bit vindictive....


----------



## saveliberty

koshergrl you sound like a less than objective individual on this subject and really have no business being involved in such decisions due to your obvious bias.  I can probably show you just as many women who use visitation as a weapon against the father.  That side of the equation is well protected.  Visitation is at best a crap shoot for the dad.  Please show me the number of women brought up on charges by the CPS people against moms for failure to provide visitation.


----------



## Intense

*Reminder. The CDZ Vision is Civil Discourse. This takes precedence over subject matter. Threads in constant Violation are at risk of being Closed and Trashed. Hint.... Learn to state your positions without insulting each other. No Ridicule, No Name Calling, No Put Downs of other Posters.*


----------



## saveliberty

Correct as usual Intense.  I will withdraw from this subject.


----------



## Katzndogz

Luissa said:


> I received $11 two days ago. Yeah, child support is so unfair.
> What is unfair is my child asking to see his dad and me telling him he is out of town. He isn't but I can't tell my kid his dad is a piece of crap.



Is Dad under any obligation at all to see your son?   This is an opportunity for you to teach your son that life is unfair and we don't always get what we want.  We can't force other people do anything they don't want to do.  And, you might explain to him how it happened that you had sex with a man that was a piece of crap.  

Dad refusing to see his son is NOT unfair.  It simply IS.  It is a circumstance beyond the control of either of you.   Children need to deal with these circumstances now so that they can deal with it later in life when they find out their control over what other people do is severely limited.


----------



## High_Gravity

Katzndogz said:


> Luissa said:
> 
> 
> 
> I received $11 two days ago. Yeah, child support is so unfair.
> What is unfair is my child asking to see his dad and me telling him he is out of town. He isn't but I can't tell my kid his dad is a piece of crap.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is Dad under any obligation at all to see your son?   This is an opportunity for you to teach your son that life is unfair and we don't always get what we want.  We can't force other people do anything they don't want to do.  *And, you might explain to him how it happened that you had sex with a man that was a piece of crap.*
> 
> Dad refusing to see his son is NOT unfair.  It simply IS.  It is a circumstance beyond the control of either of you.   Children need to deal with these circumstances now so that they can deal with it later in life when they find out their control over what other people do is severely limited.
Click to expand...


Well depending on the age of the child, that conversation would have to be at a later time.


----------



## Aristotle

saveliberty said:


> koshergrl you sound like a less than objective individual on this subject and really have no business being involved in such decisions due to your obvious bias.  I can probably show you just as many women who use visitation as a weapon against the father.  That side of the equation is well protected.  Visitation is at best a crap shoot for the dad.  Please show me the number of women brought up on charges by the CPS people against moms for failure to provide visitation.



Right which is why I am withdrawing from the discussion. There are too many moms referring to their own situation and not looking st the other end of the spectrum. The OP is clear.


----------



## Aristotle

******Warning profanity is used in video******

The following video is proof that demonstrates that the state does get a percentage from men who pay child support. In the following video, this man was to pay child support in the amount of $250 but was able to get it down to $25 a month.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7Hog_upvX8&feature=youtube_gdata_player]Fighting Greedy Mother's And The Unfair Child Support System And Winning - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Aristotle

Still think child support is fair? In the following video this man found out he is the father of a 15 year-old girl and ended up in over $10k in the rear, and even spent one night in jail. He later got a DNA test proving he is not the father and even got a notorized letter with the mother's signature and acknowledging his exclusion from child support....Guess what happened next? (I apologize for the low quality)

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1nQH8sfV3Q&feature=youtube_gdata_player]Corrupt Child Support System in the United States - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Aristotle

This is the same guy as the previous video.....

You guys still think child support system is fair? Watch this video

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O7NCIL2F1w&feature=youtube_gdata_player"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O7NCIL2F1w&feature=youtube_gdata_player[/ame]


----------



## koshergrl

What I see evidenced here is an example of people being unable to see anything except in absolutes. If they don't like the way their custody/child support arrangement has worked out, the system needs to be revamped and there is prejudice. If someone points out the reasons the system works the way it does, then that person hates dads. 

That's not the way it is at all, at least on not on my side. I've said, and I mean it when I say it, I don't dislike dads. But my experiences in this field, both personal and professional, mean I have a better understanding than most of what the reality of child support and custody is. The reality is not what these few guys are painting it as. When I ask for particulars about things like the SPECIFIC services they've been denied (as they claim) then that cues a personal attack ('you just hate dads'). When I ask whether or not a person who is bemoaning the fact that he doesn't have custody actually FILED for custody, I get silence. When I provide evidence that the climate 25 years ago most certainly did NOT favor women, my evidence is touted as "conspiracy" (despite the multiple studies that were referenced in the article). 

The fact of the matter is...men don't file for custody as often as women do. Does that indicate a bias towards women? No. It indicates a lack of motivation in men, if anything.  Who may later apply for custody, and be denied by the courts as the children are already situation and comfortable in their situation. Does that indicate bias? No, that indicates that the best interests of the child take precedence over the desires of fathers who weren't interested in custody previously.

Do only 1 in five dads have custody? Probably that's somewhat accurate. Does that represent a bias towards mothers? No, considering only 2 out of five dads ever file for custody. That works out to about 50 percent of dads who ask for custody actually getting it, and that doesn't illustrate any bias at all.

There is a network of *support* for non-custody dads that touts the myth of bias against fathers, but those groups are largely populated by disgruntled fathers who have been denied custody for very valid reasons. Perhaps the mothers are a mess...but the court has determined that for whatever reason, the children are happier and safer with her than with the dads. 

Child support, even when it is paid, is typically nowhere near enough to pay 1/2 the expense of raising a child. This means that custodial parents are typically always playing catch up....they get the child support check which goes into the pot...the idea that non-custodial parents should be able to dictate to the custodial parent how, what, and when that money is spent is ludicrous, and everybody..the courts, attorneys, and reasonable people, recognize that. It's just a way to exert control over the custodial parent by a parent who is frustrated and angry.

When there is abuse and when the children are neglected then the non custodial parent has a leg to stand on when they petition the court to take a look at the situation. But just because you resent the fact that you pay child support and mom took a vacation to go to Barbados with her boyfriend is not indicative of any abuse of children, nor does it indicate that child support is being used "inappropriately". And it never will be. Thankfull, the courts understand that.


----------



## JeannieD

saveliberty said:


> JeannieD said:
> 
> 
> 
> Be careful what you ask for. For the sake of this discussion, let's say a parent has custody of one child and the child has their own room in a 2 bedroom apartment. Custodial parent is responsible for 1/2 the rent for their room, 25% of the remainder and the non custodial parent pays the remaining 25% of the rent for the child to have their own room. Apply this math to all of the utilities in the household. Then we come to the monthly food bill - split the same way. Medical and dental are 50/50. Same for clothes, same for entertainment/extracurricular activities the child is engaged in.
> 
> If all these expenses were put into a spreadsheet format and submitted to the family court I think that the court ordered child support payments would often fall short of covering all of that.
> 
> If you suggest that a custodial parent should submit receipts every time the kid consumes a Happy Meal, yes, that is an attempt to control. Little things add up. As much as it would suit your purpose to believe she is lavishing her new boyfriend with gifts on your dime, or getting her nails done with your money, it probably is not the case.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think you missed my point entirely.  My ex made three times my income and we had joint custody.  I paid her support.  It would have been nice to provide that for my kids directly, instead of it looking like mom provided everything and dad nothing.
Click to expand...


I wasn't replying directly to you or addressing your specific situation; if I had been, I would have quoted you in my response. When kids are little, they don't (or at least shouldn't) have any concept of who pays for what - they take it for granted that things just _are_. When they get old enough to understand such things, hopefully a conversation can be had with them. I believe I was 12 or 13  when I became aware of these things.


----------



## koshergrl

Aristotle said:


> ******Warning profanity is used in video******
> 
> The following video is proof that demonstrates that the state does get a percentage from men who pay child support. In the following video, this man was to pay child support in the amount of $250 but was able to get it down to $25 a month.
> 
> Fighting Greedy Mother's And The Unfair Child Support System And Winning - YouTube


 
The state gets a percentage of the child support when the mothers are on assistance. If a mom is on tanf or accrues a shitload of medical bills while on medicaid, the state will attach arrears paid by the non-custodial parent to go towards those bills...and that is addressed in the application that she fills out when she applies for aid.


----------



## Aristotle

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zxfJfW9fqo0&feature=youtube_gdata_player]Wife&#39;s Affair and Paternity Fraud - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Aristotle

Ah yes I've shown how child support is unfair. To responsible men both in marriages and to a non-custodial parent

Koshergrl what exactly do you do?


----------



## koshergrl

No, you haven't. You've shown that there are people who think  their particular cases are unfair. And they might be.


----------



## Aristotle

koshergrl said:


> No, you haven't. You've shown that there are people who think  their particular cases are unfair. And they might be.



Yes...Just particular cases out how many in the U.S?

Anyway I asked what you do professionally that makes you an expert in family law. You avoided that question. Anyway I will leave my thread with this quote:



PaulS1950 said:


> Koshergrl,
> Why is it that your posts all have the common theme that the dads are always the bad guys?
> We are just people too. Most of us pay the support to our children regardless of whether mom is or is not providing a decent home. Some don't - some women are lousy mothers or abusive or whatever. People are people. There are good and bad in every aspect of life. No group, No catagory is free from bad.
> You sound a bit vindictive....


----------



## koshergrl

I already addressed that, and I listed my creds earlier in the thread.


----------



## PaulS1950

Koshergrl,
If you are talking about your first post after mine, you did not address it, you dismissed it. There is no way you could address it because you have none of the information in the file or the court records. I did fight for custody - in spite of what my lawyer said. I got two of the counselors to testify about my ex - and it was all ignored by the judge. He granted custody to the addict.
I can accept that working with the worst of dead-beat dads can taint you - lets face it, you have little contact with the fathers that dutifully pay their support. My bet is that you rarely check out the living conditions of most of the kids involved because you are too busy dealing with the dead-beat dads.
I get that - cops have issues with trusting people who are not cops because they instantly assume they are being lied to. They deal with slime every day too.  You should at least admit that most dads (the ones you have no contact with ) are good about paying the court ordered amount. You should also at least entertain the idea that some of the fathers do more than the court ordered support. It happens a lot more often than you are willing to admit.
I know that there are good moms out there but I also know there are lousey mothers, abusive mothers just as often as there are lousey dads and abusive dads. People are people and there are good and bad in all groups. You seem to forget that there are good dads.


----------



## koshergrl

I'm not a cop.

In THIS thread, the contention is that the system is woefully unfair to wonderful fathers who always pay more than their fair share of support and who have no idea why they don't have custody of their children....the mothers are all flaky, abusive, addicted, slutty, and neglectful. The non custodial dads are all sterling examples of everything a father ought to be and yet their income is unfairly depleted and they are hideously abused by everyone around them.

I don't buy it. When did you initially petition the court for custody? Were you the primary caregiver when you split? Why did you split? What was the situation of the children when you were together? Do you have a criminal record? Did your family have CSD involvement before you split? How much child support do you pay, and has it always been current? What do you earn? Was your wife working when you split up, and is she working now? Has CSD been involved with the children since you split?

And again, I've never said that all non-custodial dads are scum. I don't believe that, I've worked with dads attempting to get custody who were great dads, and still had difficulty getting custody...

But despite the fact that they hadn't necessarily done anything WRONG, they just weren't awarded custody. The courts decided (and it was reasonable) that although mom might have been a bitch, she was the one who had always been most involved with the kids and who was most likely to be able to continue with the least amount of upheaval in their lives. Dad wasn't happy, but that's the way it goes when you essentially hand over all care and control of the kids during your marriage..and then the marriage doesn't work out. Care and control is going to most likely stay right where it was.


----------



## PaulS1950

koshergrl said:


> I don't buy it. When did you initially petition the court for custody? Were you the primary caregiver when you split? Why did you split? What was the situation of the children when you were together? Do you have a criminal record? Did your family have CSD involvement before you split? How much child support do you pay, and has it always been current? What do you earn? Was your wife working when you split up, and is she working now? Has CSD been involved with the children since you split?



I don't expect yo to "buy it".
I petitioned the court for custody when I filed for divorce. I was the primary caregiver up to that point. My wife was gone a lot the last three years of our marriage and her addiction nearly cost me the home that we lived in. I filed for divorce when her addiction became a danger to my family and our lives. She left with the kids to "visit her mom" and "get her head on straight" but she dropped the kids off at her sister's (unknown to me) and had an affair with a guy who kept her well supplied (not the first time) with opiates. She was admitted to a hospital where they tricked into signing an admitting form to a rehab center. When that happened I found out where the children were and brought them home. The next day I filed for divorce and custody. The children were in school, had friends and did a lot of things with me. Mom was too high to do much of anything when she was home. I paid $400 in support, my wife never worked - it cut into her drug use. In the 11 years that I paid support I was late twice, when my daughter was almost 17 she moved in with some friends (a pastor and his family). I told OSE that my daughter was not living with her mother and said that I would be sending support directly to the child. They said I could send whatever I wanted to to the child but I still had to pay support to the ex. I did. I have no criminal record and at the time I was making around $40000 a year.
I don't know what CSD is but if it is the same a child protective services, to the best of my knowledge they never chose to get involved even after repeated calls and letters. By repeated I mean that I contacted them many times a year over a seven year span. That is when I found out that my ex had threatened to kill herself (to the kids) if they ever left to live with me. Before we split there was no government involvement at all. I have a large and supportive family that gave me the support I needed to keep going.
The only time my ex worked was in conjunction with a nurse training program which fell through when she was caught taking the patients pain pills. The self admitted into a detox center to avoid prosecution. This was a couple years after our divorce.

I don't expect you to change your judgement because although you are not a cop you do deal with the dead-beat dads and don't get to see the rest of the world. Some of us are better parents than the courts give us credit for.

as I said earlier my kids are both grown and have families of their own so this is in the distant past. We all turned out OK except for the ex as she is still abusing pain pills and has multiple health problems as a result. Kidney, liver and bowel problems - some life threatening at times. She has been known to undergo surgery just to get the pain meds and then she keeps taking them as prescribed from many different doctors and over the internet. It would be a lie to call her a functioning addict because she rarely leaves her home, has no friends and little family support.


----------



## koshergrl

I honestly don't know why you think I don't see the rest of the world. 

It's comments like that that make me doubt the veracity of the rest of your testimony. It's based on nothing and it's disparaging. I have been in court with fathers seeking custody as well. And in fact, have helped win custody for fathers who had kids placed with unfit/addicted mothers. 

And again, I know it happens that the wrong person gets custody sometimes. But the fact that your wife eloped with the kids and established herself as primary care provider has nothing to do with the system being geared towards mothers. 

But your story is still confusing me..you say you filed for divorce and custody...after mom took off with the kids? While she was out of the house with the kids? And you glean over the part about her being home with them while you were together, so it sounds like she WAS the primary care provider, if you were working and she was home with them, and taking them around with her and such. It sounds like you filed for divorce/custody when she was out of the home with the children...no CSD involvement so it doesn't sound like the kids were neglected at all...then you skip forward 11 years..so I presume you weren't awarded custody at the time of the divorce; no csd involvement so no documented abuse/neglect....

It just sounds like a typical contested case. I don't see anything there to indicate bias on behalf of mothers in general. 

In all the time she was addicted and taking care of the kids in your home, did you guys have any dom violence incidents?


----------



## PaulS1950

She took the kids with her to visit mom - which didn't happen. The kids were dropped off at her sister's house and she didn't elope - she partied with a guy who kept her drugs available - while our kids were at her sisters. I was sending living money to the tune of $150 a week so the kids were not a burden on her mother.... but she was using that money for herself. It wasn't until I found out where the kids were and brought them home that I filed for divorce. At that time she was in detox. I paid her sister back for supporting my kids (what a joke that was) They looked like little orphans in dirty clothes and no shoes. They were used to being treated like real people by me.

Is a mother who lies in bed all day a primary care giver?

Or is the dad that fixes meals, works with the kids on their homework, takes them to the zoo, park and fishing the primary caregiver. Is it the dad who does the laundry, dishes and puts them to bed each night or the mother who leaves and comes back too high to even be a person?

Maybe my jumping around in the time line confused you. 
1. I took care of my kids , they went to school in the morning after breakfast with lunches I made for them, they came home at 3:00 after school to a house that I left clean for them. They did their homework and when I got home we spend a few moments together just talking about how the day went. I checked the final homework results. I fixed dinner, fed them made sure the were bathed and ready for bed. On the weekend we did all kinds of stuff together. Mom was welcome to join but rarely did. I have a lot of wonderful memories of those years with my kids.
After I got them home from my ex's sister is when I filed for divorce. They were with me and the ex was in detox sobering up and refusing to give up her prescription meds. I filed for custody and a divorce at the same time that she was in a detox center half a state away. The problem is that after 30 days she got out and got a lawyer to draw up papers allowing her to take the kids - there was no court order yet so the court in Yakima gave her temp custody. She came and got the kids and a quick call to my lawyer  and he said I had to let her have them. So my hell began.
I never reported her violent side. I thought I was protecting the kids. I was the only one she ever hit and I got help from a therapist so I could deal with it without returning the blows.
Anyway, I had filed for divorce and custody but the court in Yakima granted her temporary custody until the final judgement was made. When the final judgement was handed down she was rewarded half the value of the house, the better of the two cars (which I had to complete the payments on) and those belongings in the house that were hers and the kids - she had been granted custody! She cleaned the house out - leaving me one plate, one pot and one set of flatware. She even took the washer and dryer.
I walked into that empty house and realized that my kids were gone. I looked into the visitation section and saw that I could see them every other weekend and I was devistated. They were and still are my life.  skipping forward 11 years my kids and I are reunited and it was tortuous for all of us I think, until I pulled out the photo album and the copies of the letters. we talked about all the cards I sent and they were clueless. I got out my journal and we laughed and cried together until it was very late. 
I have to stop. sorry. I can't relive this


----------



## koshergrl

Anyway, that still doesn't prove that the system is biased against fathers. The courts hear stories all the time about how horrible the other parent is, and they have to make a determination based on the evidence they have...and sometimes it happens that they find one party more believable than another, or they toss the proverbial coin.

You say she laid around in bed all day and she might have...but that is just you saying that. You say there were dv incidents that you didn't report..but that's you reporting it....she could say that you abused her, or that you wouldn't let her do anything...my point isn't that you're a bad dad who deserved to have his kids taken away. My point is that your story, which is sad, is not evidence of any bias against fathers.


----------



## alan1

Thread title,  





> Child Support is unfair





Aristotle said:


> I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?



I've avoided responding to this thread so far, but I'm going to take the leap now.
I'll start with some cliff notes of my background in regards to child support.

When I first got divorced, my wife and I managed to work out custody and support agreements without any attorneys.  Both of us had the children's best interest in mind, so it wasn't difficult.  We did an exact 50/50 custody, and since we both made about the same income, there was no need for a support agreement.  I made slightly more than her and medical insurance was cheaper through my employer than through hers.
A few years went by and she decided to relocate to another city, leaving me as the custodial parent.  Again, without attorneys, we agreed to an equitable and fair amount of child support for her to pay.  The problem arose when she failed to pay what we had agreed upon.

I was forced to hire an attorney so that I could get court ordered child support.
And, you are damn straight, Aristotle, child support isn't fair.  The amount of child support that my attorney and my state said that my ex-wife was obligated to pay was ridiculously high.  The ex-wife and I were still making about the same income, and I knew that If I was responsible for making the child support payments they were telling me that she had to make, I'd lose my house and have to live like a pauper to pay them.  My attorney thought I was crazy, the family court judge thought I was crazy, because I only asked for a reasonable amount of child support that was about 60% of what the court system deemed as reasonable.

The unfairness in child support is the amount the courts seem to think is reasonable, not the child support itself.

My ex-wife paid her child support, I'm not sure she would have paid the (or could afford) the unreasonable amount the state determined with it's screwed up formula.


----------



## koshergrl

They've adopted the universal child support guildelines now so there's less of the extremes going on. 

Alaska used to REAM non-custodial parents.


----------



## brandinsmith

The system is completely messed up. I am the wife of a man who was just incarcerated when money was coming out of his check. I can't get him out unless I have $10,300. I have a campaign explaining my story. If you have the heart to check it out, contribute, or even simply spread on your social medias or around the web I would greatly appreciate it. Thank you *ADMIN EDIT...against forum policy to solicit*


----------



## High_Gravity

Oh mother of Christ.


----------



## Katzndogz

It was certainly unfair of your husband to have children with a woman and then refuse to support those children.  It was certainly and absolutely unfair of your husband to marry you and have yet more babies that he knew he could not support.  It was absolutely unfair of YOU to have children with a man known not to support the child he already has.

What IS fair?  The mother of his child to just accept that he moved on, has another family to support and she is shit out of luck?   Or, maybe that telling men to support their children  at all is unfair.   

Unfortunately for you, is that this is a bed that you made yourself.   Your predicament comes entirely from bad decisions that you made.   We all make bad decisions.  It's not up to others to correct our mistakes.


----------



## auditor0007

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The only unfair thing about child support the one who is paying it can't use it as a tax deduction I pay a thousand a month for one child and can't use it as a deduction



I'm assuming you get to at least split the tax credit for the kid?  The money itself should not be tax deductible.  The kid is not a business expense.


----------



## ScienceRocks

If you fuck and a woman has your child = paying for your child.

Fucking dead beats.


----------

