Child Support is unfair

[koshergrl]

So did you try and lose?

 

[Luissa]

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.

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]

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.

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"?

 

[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]

$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.

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"?

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]

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]

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"?

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.

$300 is very reasonable.

 

[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?

"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.

 

[Aristotle]

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?

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.

 

[koshergrl]

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.

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.

 

[Katzndogz]

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?

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 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]

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]

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.

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]

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?

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.

 

[Aristotle]

"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.

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?

 

[Aristotle]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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.

Show me the law that says this please...

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

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.