I have to live on WHAT?!

Originally posted by Soxgirl9
I know this is a little off-topic, but the divorce rate really is out of control.

When you get married it's supposed to be:

* For Richer or Poorer

* In sickness and in Health

* The Good Times and the Bad

* AS LONG AS YOU BOTH SHALL LIVE


.....that means:

* if you go ABSOLUTELY BANKRUPT, stay together.
* if one of you is sick with the common-cold or in a coma, stay loyal.
* if your partner cheats on you; work it out.
* Good Times and Bad: marriage can be a battle, so fight to protect it, end of story.
* if you just don't love each other anymore... oh well, you made a promise; should have racked your brains before rushing OR if you're married a long time and just fell OUT of love with each other, AGAIN, OH WELL, work it out somehow!
* no matter what, this PROMISE is LIFE-LONG.
* and for those of you who are religious: "Let no man divide what God has brought together"

....I know it's easy for me to say because I haven't been married, but it's just a shame how some people get sucked into society and forget to simply keep their promises.

You are correct. If you haven't been married, or divorced, you cannot judge.
Yes I stood inside a church built by my grandfather, and said "I DO"..to a guy who was drunk at the altar, drunk, high and abusive for 20 years. Didn't give a damn about his kids, and none of us gave a damn when we ALL kicked him out.
Please save your speech.

reply to post by AccessDenied


AMEN sister. I am divorced and still do not know if I want to get married again. After years of abuse and failed relationships you become jaded.

reply to post by AccessDenied


Kudos from me too.

The vows sound pretty to those who haven't been married but the fact is, people change, and some are very good about masking who they are until the vows are taken.

The divorce rate isn't high because there's anything wrong with society, it just mirrors natural human tendancies.

It's foolish to say that someone should just stick in a relationship full of abuse because they swore to stick it out "for better or worse."

I hate that attitude.

No one should be forced to stay in a bad relationship. No one deserves that sort of treatment. Sometimes you just grow apart instead of grow together.

What is total *snip* is the concept of no fault divorce. Obviously there is a reason for getting divorced. Does it not make sense that someone who wants away from an abusive relationship be treated differently than someone who only wants the divorce so they can sleep with the next guy they come across?

Also isn't it logical that if someone is to pay child support to the other party that the other party be accountable for those funds? Also shouldn't it be the responsibility of the party that has custody of the child to keep the lines of communication open and contact the non custodial parent?

Originally posted by whatukno
What is total *snip* is the concept of no fault divorce. Obviously there is a reason for getting divorced. Does it not make sense that someone who wants away from an abusive relationship be treated differently than someone who only wants the divorce so they can sleep with the next guy they come across?

Also isn't it logical that if someone is to pay child support to the other party that the other party be accountable for those funds? Also shouldn't it be the responsibility of the party that has custody of the child to keep the lines of communication open and contact the non custodial parent?

Here I disagree with you.

I think no-fault divorce is invaluable because not all forms of abuse can be proven. For example, mental abuse, emotional abuse, financial abuse, can all take place without a shred of "evidence."

I don't know how you would make the other part accountable for the child support funds without a whole lot of government intrusion... I disagree with the idea because I think it should be at the parents discresion to spend that money how the kid needs it. IT's only going to harm the kids to make an approval list for things that CS money can and can't be spend on. (And I'm talking about the parents who use that money wisely, not the ones that blow it on themselves.)

And I do disagree also that it is by default best to keep the lines of communication open. That is a very slippery slope indeed. First of all there are many cases in which one spouse would want to hurt the other, even hurt the kids too, so forcing that line of communication could be very dangerous. Second there's lots of cases of the noncustodial spouse displaying behaviors that are not condusive to the children, like drug use, alcoholism, ect. Why force the children to be subjected to that just for the sake of having the politically correct two-parent involvement?

Now I'm sorry about your own situion WUK and I think you are absolutely heartfelt in your suggestions, but the fact is that they don't work so well off of paper and if applied as a legal default, would be even more disasterous than what is in place now.

reply to post by asmeone2


I can appreciate your take on this, and you make some good points.

However, one part I do have to disagree. and this is for the children. I am REQUIRED to have my income deducted automatically from each and every paycheck. Then it should also be REQUIRED that receipts be sent in each week from her to Child Support accounting where those funds went.

I would like to know that the money (and this isn't a small amount) that I send in is actually being spent on the well being of the child. (IE food, clothing, shoes, toys, educational materials etc) I want to make sure that my support is going to my son. I don't think that this is unreasonable at all.

What I don't understand is why all the requirements are on me while she is absolutely free to do what she wishes. If I am to be regulated, then honestly she should be as well.

reply to post by whatukno


Agreed. I'm just saying that the regulation shouldn't go to the point that it compromises the child's quality of living.

The logistics of what you suggest would be horrid. How do you prove that the money spent is actually the child support money? Who goes over these receipts? How closely do they have to match and at when do penalties kick in? I think this would only lead to horrid situations like children going without or even seeing a parent jailed because of paperwork errors.

I could see an "approved spending list" having major downsides. For example, suppose Mom's getting the child support and her car breaks down so she can't get to work. The only money she has to spend is CS money, but a car repair isn't "approved" so she can't. The kid would suffer more from the regulations in this case than from not having them.

I can also see a lot of divorces spoused using this vindictively--filing fake child support misuse claims, just as some file face abuse reports to villify their ex.

It's a tough situation any way you look at it, but my opinion is that there should not be more regulations, just a better evaluation of the needs of each case. There's no way to write and enforce divorce laws so that everyone comes out happy.

[edit on 20-10-2008 by asmeone2]

reply to post by asmeone2


Here's the thing. if I am behind in my support payments they take away my license, no matter what the reason. If it gets too far behind they will throw me in jail. So if that is fair, then why isn't it fair for them to make sure that she is spending. Sometimes they don't process my support payments properly, and I am liable for it.

SO why not her? I mean if fair is going to be fair, (and don't believe that the court is even interested in my son's best interest) Then she should be accountable for each and every cent sent to her for his care. If it is not accounted for then why not take her license, or perhaps throw her in jail for failure to comply?

As far as the instance of the car, it's not my problem to pay for her car upkeep and repair. That is not why I am paying child support. I don't want my son's money spent on her car, I don't want my son's money spent on her house, I don't want my son's money spent on anything but the care of my son. If she is found to not be taking care of my son in a manner that is consistent with what is acceptable to me and the court then perhaps I should be the one with full custody.

reply to post by whatukno


I'm not disagreeing with you that the fathers typically are held to a higher standard.

My point is that the child support might not have to be used directly on the child in order for the child to benefit.

It could also be used for rent, utilities, food money, insurance, any number of things that would indirectly benefit the child.

That's why I don't want the govt. saying how CS is to be used, for the sake of being politically correct.

reply to post by asmeone2


I have to disagree, if she cannot support herself obviously she is unfit to care for my son. (This isn't the problem in this case as her new hubby/victim is quite well off so that's a good thing.)

If I had to pay for her car, her house, her utilities that would be called alimony. I absolutely refuse to pay her one red cent. I will send my support for my child, because that is my child.

I do think that it should be regulated. If she cannot afford her bills perhaps she shouldn't be the one that has the child. I think that every dime must be paid to the child for the child's well being. My concern is that of his welfare not hers.

That's supposed to be the benefit of a divorce, the ability to not have to care about the other persons welfare anymore. My concern is to how my son is being raised. That is why they make me pay child support in the first place to ensure that he is able to eat, be clothed, be educated, and be cared for.

Child support is NOT supposed to be an extra paycheck for her. This is why I disagree with you and why I feel that it should be regulated. She should be accountable for every cent spent. Anything unspent or anything that is not adequately accounted for needs to be refunded.

Too often women see having a kid as an extra paycheck, this is wrong. Children are not a means to a wage.

Wow. You sure got the raw deal. I feel for you, especially if you can't see your child. This does explain some of your anger towards women. Many women don't see a dime of child support from their ex's, then there is this other extreme. It doesn't make sense. I hope things get better, and the economy doesn't completely wipe out. So you can try to make your life improve.

Originally posted by whatukno
reply to post by asmeone2

 

I have to disagree, if she cannot support herself obviously she is unfit to care for my son. (This isn't the problem in this case as her new hubby/victim is quite well off so that's a good thing.)

If I had to pay for her car, her house, her utilities that would be called alimony. I absolutely refuse to pay her one red cent. I will send my support for my child, because that is my child.

This is where I'm losing your line of logic. You'd object to hypothetically helping your child have a roof, clean water, food, ect. just because Mom would also be living with him? (My car reference was not supposed to be in relation to your ex directly, but to those who haven't remarried and their ability to get to and from work is directly tangential to the child eating) These are the most basic of provisions, if child support shoudln't be used for that, then what is it good for?

Now as I posted I am divorced and getting no child support, and caring for 2 kids on my own, but if I was, I'd be very upset if my ex would try to say "Here, I'm paying but you can't use that to help you make rent/grocieries/gas bills/electricity."

It would be... just, such a slap in the face, like saying "Nahnah, I'm doing my part to support the kid, but don't you dare try to use it!"

Really, what is more important, imposing regulations on the ex or giving them the ability to care for the child?

reply to post by asmeone2


See there is being self sufficient as a requirement for having custody. Part of child support is the intention that some of it be used to feed the child. So food is part and parcel to child support.

But as I pay bills myself, it is unfair that I should pay two rent payments, two gas payments, two electric payments, etc. These are bills that the one that has custody is required to pay themselves.

If the custodial parent cannot meet these basic needs for herself, then how is it that the custodial parent has custody in the first place. In this instance the court would be negligent towards the welfare of the child in this case as the custodial parent has not the means to support herself.

I am required to pay these bills without the aid of child support, as it is I am required to pay these bills in addition to paying child support.

So to repeat my failed logic, child support is there to pay for the child's welfare, not the mother's, her requirement is to have an adequate environment for the child to live in. If I were required to pay alimony, that money would be earmarked to cover expenses such as rent/mortgage, gas, electricity, car, gas, etc.

This is my argument. Child support is there to support the welfare of the child not to prop up the income of the mother. In all reality this money is not hers to spend on herself for any reason. It's actually my child's money that is paid to her as a guardian for the expressed purpose to make sure that he has the things he needs in order to grow and thrive as a child. She still has responsibility to ensure a safe environment for him.

The things that a child does need includes food clothing, toys, blankets, education. Things that are directly related to his welfare his care and his life.

reply to post by whatukno


I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I've already stated my opinion and I don't want to type it up again.

Ok no problem; just think of it this way. My ability to pay child support is directly dependant on my ability to get to work, I fall behind, the first thing they do is suspend my licence, thus making it more difficult for me to get to work. Now that it's more difficult for me to get to work it's more difficult for me to pay child support.

Does she have to care about that? Nope. It's not her concern how I get to work, her only concern is what she gets from me for the care of our child.

My ability to get to work isn't even a concern for the courts. The sad fact is that I am also required to have life insurance payable to her in the event of my death to guarantee child support. Even death is not an excuse for me to not have the ability to pay child support.

Some women feel that child support is another paycheck, that the fact that they have a child with a person warrants them free money. This isn't alimony, this is child support. Expenses she incurs for the upkeep for her home and her car are not provided in child support. His food, his clothing, his education, his expenses are what is to be paid for with this allotment, not hers.

Now here's a thought, in order to reduce my child support payments to where they need to be in order for me to earn a living I have to take a day off of work, (less income, but that week I still have to pay the required amount) go to the court, pay a fee of $20.00 (Currently I bring home $72.74 a week so now I get to try and live off of $52.74 for that week) and beg the court to reduce the payments in accordance to the state prescribed formula.

Now, this won't go into effect immediately. The court will have to contact my ex, get her to give them an income affidavit (If she doesn't lie on it) then maybe they will decide to reduce my support obligation.

meanwhile, my bills fall behind each and every week, each time my rent falls behind every month that goes by while I try and live off of $290.96 each month. (This is what the court expects me to pay rent, utilities, buy groceries, get back and forth to work on.)





[edit on 10/21/2008 by whatukno]

reply to post by whatukno


I never tried to insinuate that I thought you were being treated fairly, Wuk.

I think you've got a horrible deal there.

It's rediculous how much they're taking from you and you're not the only one.

I don't know how to fix the system but I think the fathers should not be required to pay more than a certain small percentage (depending on the number of children) and the percent amount shoudn't go up if they make more ore less.

I think they should also be given credit on their child support if they have split custody.

What I'm objecting to is your idea--and this is across the whole spectrum, not specific to your situation--is that state governments and the parent that does not have custody of the child (especially cases where they don't see him/her a lot) should be able to step in and say what the money should be spend on. They are not the one caring for and spending the greatest amount of time with the child, and they do not know what is in that kid's best interest.

As a father in a similar situation to the OP i have to agree that we really do get a bum deal. i've just recently had a conversation with my ex about child support. we've been seperated 12 years (she left me), my sons 15. when we seperated i signed over my half of the house (a significant amount of cash) to her so that my son always had a roof over his head. my son has always lived with me 2-4 days a week usually fri to sun, more on holidays. when i've been working i've always given her money to support him. recently, due to ill health i wasn't able to work so couldn't pay. i just started a new job an am trying to get myself back on my feet, and as soon as she knew i was working she was at the door screaming about me giving her money again. i don't have any problem giving money for my son but the courts (and my ex) dont take my situation into account. at the moment i'm only getting aboout £900 per month take home, i rent a 2 bed house so my son has a room when he's with me i pay £700 a month rent, leaving £200 to pay bills, buy food petrol etc. So when she was screaming about money i told her that right now untill my wages go up in a few months (on a sort of probationary period) i cant pay, not i wont pay i just cant. so only solution i could see is for me to move into a bedsit or something thus freeing up some money, but problem with this is my son then doesn't have somewhere to sleep when he's with me. this was relayed back to him from his mum as, your dads threatened you with not seeing him if i go to court, luckily my son asked me the score next time i saw him, and understands the situation totally, and would rather i had a room for him to come to. her situation at the moment? she rents the house out to someone without declaring the money as income, lives with another guy, works full time and gets all the usual child benefits etc. so the way i see it is this aint about money its about screwing me over again and again 12 years later. sorry for the rant on your thread OPbut when i started typing i couldn't stop

reply to post by whoswatchinwho


It's insane, it truly is insane. I mean I completely understand paying child support to help raise my son.

But here's the thing, that's not being a father. A father should have the opportunity to help raise the child.

This is what I don't understand about Child Support. They send me papers that say the court encourages the cooperation between parents but won't enforce the fathers right to be able to help in the raising of the child.

reply to post by whatukno

But here's the thing, that's not being a father. A father should have the opportunity to help raise the child.

Your're absolutely correct whatukno, if the father is a responsible individual. I'd never advocate couples staying together, because of the children. Some laws are unfair and cater to the adverse party. We the citizens have to change this by writing to our congressmen. During election time they seem to listen. I've had one commissioner writing me just about everyday responding to my complaint. I think I'm finally getting my point across.

Originally posted by AccessDenied

Originally posted by Soxgirl9
I know this is a little off-topic, but the divorce rate really is out of control.

When you get married it's supposed to be:

* For Richer or Poorer

* In sickness and in Health

* The Good Times and the Bad

* AS LONG AS YOU BOTH SHALL LIVE


.....that means:

* if you go ABSOLUTELY BANKRUPT, stay together.
* if one of you is sick with the common-cold or in a coma, stay loyal.
* if your partner cheats on you; work it out.
* Good Times and Bad: marriage can be a battle, so fight to protect it, end of story.
* if you just don't love each other anymore... oh well, you made a promise; should have racked your brains before rushing OR if you're married a long time and just fell OUT of love with each other, AGAIN, OH WELL, work it out somehow!
* no matter what, this PROMISE is LIFE-LONG.
* and for those of you who are religious: "Let no man divide what God has brought together"

....I know it's easy for me to say because I haven't been married, but it's just a shame how some people get sucked into society and forget to simply keep their promises.

You are correct. If you haven't been married, or divorced, you cannot judge.
Yes I stood inside a church built by my grandfather, and said "I DO"..to a guy who was drunk at the altar, drunk, high and abusive for 20 years. Didn't give a damn about his kids, and none of us gave a damn when we ALL kicked him out.
Please save your speech.

Pwnt.