Men and Child support. What is the answer?

reply to post by SevenBeans


Then she also has a right to choose how that child is provided for.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Then she also has a right to choose how that child is provided for.

How so? Please explain.

time.comreply to post by CaDreamer


That is the whole reason for the child support system, there is no equality.

Women still in this day and age only make 77 to the dollar of men if they are lucky. Women are often passed up for promotions and payraises because they cannot stay extra hours due to child care issues and are usually the ones to leave work for child issues such as canceled baby sitters and illness.

What the courts are doing is making things equal. Since women are at a disadvantage for having children, men tend to benefit more in a divorce.

Women are penalized for taking maternity leave.Or a blank in their resume is held against them if they decide to stay home to be a stay at home parent.

A recent study of business school graduates from the University of Chicago found that in the early years after graduating, men and women had “nearly identical labor incomes and weekly hours worked.” Men and women also paid a similar career price for taking off or working part time. Women, however, were vastly more likely to do so.

As a result, 15 years after graduation, the men were making about 75 percent more than the women. The study — done by Marianne Bertrand, Claudia Goldin and Lawrence Katz — did find one subgroup of women whose careers resembled those of men: women who had no children and never took time off.

A Labor Market Punishing to Mothers~ NYTimes

Last year, 40.2 percent of married women with children under 3 years old were outside the labor force, up from a low of 38.6 percent in 1998. The increase, according to a Bureau of Labor Statistics analysis, “occurred across all educational levels and, for most groups, by about the same magnitude.” By contrast, women without children at home have continued to join the work force in growing numbers.

This is why there are more women in welfare:

The researchers found the positive effect on men's finances is so significant that divorce can even lift them out of poverty while women can plunge into destitution.

msn.com

But industry doesn't tell the whole story. Women earned less than men in all 20 industries and 25 occupation groups surveyed by the Census Bureau in 2007 — even in fields in which their numbers are overwhelming. Female secretaries, for instance, earn just 83.4% as much as male ones. And those who pick male-dominated fields earn less than men too: female truck drivers, for instance, earn just 76.5% of the weekly pay of their male counterparts.

(And despite the earnings premium that comes with greater education, women with bachelor's degrees earn less over 15 years than men with a high school diploma or less, according to the IWPR study.)

time.com

So if we lived in a world that is truley equal, the pay gaps wouldn't be a problem, and child support should be 50/50.

The courts only interest is in the welfare of the child. The reason women get awarded custody more is because they care fo the children more. It comes down to basic numbers, who took care of the child? What is in the best interest of the child.

Any man on here whining that he has to pay child support, doesn't deserve custody. Because a truley caring parent would be happy to be able to provide for the child, and to know that child is taken care of.
It is infantile and placing blame everywhere else to say that it is all someone else's fault, and the courts are biased. All I hear is me me me. It is not about you, it is about teh care of your children. And you wonder why you don't have custody.Most of the men who I see complaining about paying child support, don't bother to visit their kids and could care less about them. Instead of being an adult about it, it is everyone else's fault but theirs.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Actually I understand very clearly how child support works. Before a man is ordered to pay,and that IS going to happen,the Mother,90% of the time,gets custody. It would have to be a miracle for the father to get custody,at his custodial hearing. This is all based on Gender bias,and if you went back a bunch of pages you will find link after link after link that supports this 110%. Please,you have come late to this party. We have been debating this,for a long time. I do know each state is different,but the statistics DONT lie. You can do you own homework if you like,or I can do it for you,if you please.

Originally posted by nixie_nox

And you wonder why you don't have custody.Most of the men who I see complaining about paying child support, don't bother to visit their kids and could care less about them. Instead of being an adult about it, it is everyone else's fault but theirs.

Why should the children,be put in a situation where the mother HAS to go on Welfare? If Dad,has been the sole provider for the family,he should continue to be that caring father. He also should have custody,so mother can get off her feet,and find work,if she isnt working already,and get her life together after the divorce. Father is ALREADY established.Mother isnt. How does that help the children? Also,I find it funny you come with NO facts,but can make blanket OPINIONATED statements like the above one. A page back there was a survey done,in California. I posted the WHOLE thing to show you how screed up the system truly is. Fathers love their children,but when courts get involved,and take,but give NOTHING back but grief,how do you expect a father to react ? Its the system that makes this impossible to do it 50/50.You do know the ONLY reason mothers get the child support/custody IS because they can MAKE money of the breadwinner,the MAN. You do get this right? Its in black and white,from state to state hun...................

reply to post by nixie_nox


The U.S. Census Bureau has reported that fathers with joint custody pay 90.2% of all child support ordered; fathers with limited visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of those fathers with NO visitation rights still financially support their children.

30% of custodial mothers not receiving child support have never asked for or do not want child support.

25% of custodial mothers do not receive child support because the father is unable to pay.

20 % of custodial mothers not receiving child support have made other financial arrangements with the father.

11% of custodial mothers not receiving child support do not have a child support order.

Of ten million custodial mothers ONLY 7% (one out of fourteen) do not receive child support because of a deadbeat dad.

LINK

reply to post by nixie_nox

84% of child support providers are men
60% of child supporters provide for one child, 30% support two, and 10% support three or more children
Almost 50% of the people who make child support payments are younger than 40
Men pay a medium of $3,600 annually to support their children, while women pay a medium of $2,400 each year. The median income of a provider of child support is $42,000
76% of the child support payments are due to court order or child support agreement.

LINK

Not that far off in the median,when it comes to paying for the children,by Gender,is it?

Originally posted by nixie_nox
So if we lived in a world that is truley equal, the pay gaps wouldn't be a problem, and child support should be 50/50.

Oh good grief...

When someone decides to leave the workforce (regardless of the reason) they tend to miss out on promotions etc. etc. etc. and make less when they go back than they would be making if they never left.

There is no inequality, this is true for both Men and Women.

The fact that Women stay home more than Men doesn't mean there is any inequality at play (it just means they choose too). Personally I'd love to be a stay at home Dad.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
The courts only interest is in the welfare of the child. The reason women get awarded custody more is because they care fo the children more. It comes down to basic numbers, who took care of the child? What is in the best interest of the child.

That's a good one...

My ex didn't do a damn thing with our kids, literally nothing (she treated them like an annoyance and routinely screamed at them to leave her alone). I tucked them in every night, I read to them, I took them fishing, I gave them their baths, I got them dressed etc. etc. in the morning. Makes no difference.

You're right about one thing, it does come down to numbers... which parent can we force to pay more (and thus get more matching $$ from the Feds).

reply to post by nixie_nox


Since you DONT want to see the true picture of Gender Bias,I will give you the State of Wisconsin,as an example.
Please,lets not trivialize this,and stick to the facts,and these ARE facts hun...........................

A May 1997 report entitled "Physical Custody in Wisconsin Divorce Cases 1980-1992"** prepared for the Institute for Research on Poverty under contract for the Department of Workforce Development by Pat Brown and Prof. Marygold Melli reviewed 9,500 Wisconsin divorce cases initiated during this period. This report provides many statistics, some of which demonstrate the status of gender bias in Wisconsin Family Courts. Some key findings are:

A. Of the primary placement awards in cases initiated in 1992, 73.3% went to mothers, 8.5% went to fathers. Thus 90% of all primary placement awards go to mothers. (Table 2)

B. Over 80% of unequal shared placement awards ( more than 30% but less than 50% placement) give mothers greater placement of the children. (Text, page 11 ).
C. For cases initiated between 1989 and 1992, equal shared physical custody awards represented only 6.7% of all cases. (Table 5)

D. For cases initiated between 1989 and 1992, the shared placement awards varied greatly based on the presiding judge. Some judges awarded shared placement awards in 30% of all divorce cases while others awarded these in 0% of all cases. (Table 12)

E. For cases initiated between 1989 and 1992, 94.5% of mothers with primary placement are awarded child support awards while only 41.9% of fathers with primary placement are awarded support awards. (Table 14)

A Report on Gender Discrimination in the Wisconsin Family Court System

Do you want California's also???????

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Women still in this day and age only make 77 to the dollar of men if they are lucky.

This is a little old, but very much to the point.

victoria.tc.ca...

"Equality" stats and assumptions wrong

Times Colonist, Saturday May 27th., 2000
We write in response to Women's Equality Minister Joan Smallwood's, April 17 letter "Minister contends women still make a lot less than men".

The Victoria Men's Centre is dismayed by her statements; her statistics and assumptions are incorrect and mistaken.

The letter stated that women only made 73 cents to every dollar made by a man. Ministry of Women's Equality staff claimed this statistic came from a Statistics Canada Report published in 1999. But in its most recent report ("The persistent gap: New evidence on the Canadian gender wage gap" , December, 1999), the Income Statistics Division of Statistics Canada acknowledged that their calculation of the 73-cent figure was in error due to a number of incorrect assumptions. They have since re-calculated that the actual number was as high as 89.4 cents.

After reading the report, we came away with the strong impression that if Statistics Canada had actually compared men and women in the same job classification, working the same number of hours per year, they would have found no difference at all.

Although Statistics Canada claims to be sampling full-time, full-year wage earners, this is not the case. Their definition of a full-time, full-year wage earner is "someone who worked 30 hours a week for 6 months in a calendar year on their main job (if they worked at a second job during the same period, it is not considered in this analysis).

Since this report also states that women spend only 75% of their work experience working full-time (vs. 94% for men), it becomes difficult to imagine how this definition can be used objectively to compare wages. This is because for a married man, full-time, full-year employment is exactly that, while for married women it may mean a job, which provided only 720 hours of employment in one year.

It is also difficult to understand how a woman who worked at two or more jobs should have part-time income ignored for the purpose of Statistics Canada's analysis. For example, if a woman worked full-time for 32 hours a week for eight months and part-time at eight hours a week for 12 months, why should the part-time wages be ignored?

Further, Statistics Canada does not consider other sources of income when it calculated these figures. For example, the tips earned by a waiter in a restaurant, are not considered "wages" by Statistics Canada. Neither are commissions, interest, dividends, capital gains, or income earned while on maternity leave.

Another consideration is the fact that Statistics Canada felt that it was important to include those women who are not considered a large component of the employed population and for which there is no real male counterpart. For example widows are included in the sample of Canadian wage earners. However, only 10.5% of the 1.2 million Canadian widows actually work (there are 271,153 widowers in the Canadian population). The other 89.5% of widows get by on other sources of income including their dead husbands' pensions. It may be that if widows worked full time, it was simply to supplement an already existing income and they did not need to earn the kind of wage a married man required to support his wife and children.

A similar argument can be used for divorced women, as the case of the late Darrin White so amply demonstrated. It is not uncommon for divorced men to be ordered by the courts to pay 90% plus of their income to spousal and child support (divorced men also pay the income tax on the child support). Although divorced women may get the house, half the couple's assets and a tax-free income stream, none of this income is factored into Statistics Canada's measure of earned wages for women. In addition, divorced women with custody of children receive family bonus and child tax benefits.

With all these additional sources of income, it is not difficult to understand why some divorced women have little incentive to pursue high wages or take on long workweeks aggressively. Yet Statistics Canada (and the Ministry of Women's Equality) appears to feel that its analytical techniques fairly compare the wages earned by divorced women with those earned by divorced or married men.

These inconsistencies are evident when single male wage earners are compared with single female wage earners. Based on Statistics Canada's old method of comparing wages, the ratio of wages earned by single women vs. single men in 1997 was 92.3%. By simply comparing women and men by their hourly wage rates, one component of Statistics Canada's new method of analysis, this ratio increased to 96.4%. Statistics Canada did not present the ratio it calculated based upon all components of its new analytical method. If they had, we are willing to bet that they would have found no difference, or that women were earning more than men !

One would assume that if there truly were a "gender gap," it would be clearly evident in the wage differences between single men and single women. So why is it that the "gender gap" is not evident in the earned income of this group? The answer is that the "gender gap" is in fact a reflection of the lifestyles which men and women choose to live after they become married, not the result of some vast, systematic and conspiratorial discrimination inflicted on women by the "patriarchy."

reply to post by SevenBeans


So lets say that your concept is that if a woman has a child, she is solely responsible for that child. Then she must provide for said child. Providing for that child means gaining income by whatever means necessary. Whether it is through assistance through the state, retrieving income from the father, or both.
If it is her decision to get pregnant by simply having sex, then it is her decision on how to provide for that child.

Now if a woman should choose to use less morally acceptable ways to provide for that child, you all would be screaming that all mothers sell drugs and are prostitutes. Fact of the matter is, she is providing for her child whether it be working two jobs or receiving child support.

As a previous poster said, this isn't a new concept. And school teaches you in the middle grades that the only fool proof way to prevent pregnancy is through abstaining. I don't care if a woman has had a full hysterectemy, abstinance is the only way to prevent pregnancy. So either sex is responsible for the care of a child if pregnancy should occur.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
reply to post by SevenBeans

 

So lets say that your concept is that if a woman has a child, she is solely responsible for that child. Then she must provide for said child. Providing for that child means gaining income by whatever means necessary. Whether it is through assistance through the state, retrieving income from the father, or both.
If it is her decision to get pregnant by simply having sex, then it is her decision on how to provide for that child.

Now if a woman should choose to use less morally acceptable ways to provide for that child, you all would be screaming that all mothers sell drugs and are prostitutes. Fact of the matter is, she is providing for her child whether it be working two jobs or receiving child support.

As a previous poster said, this isn't a new concept. And school teaches you in the middle grades that the only fool proof way to prevent pregnancy is through abstaining. I don't care if a woman has had a full hysterectemy, abstinance is the only way to prevent pregnancy. So either sex is responsible for the care of a child if pregnancy should occur.

How about getting a job.

reply to post by SevenBeans

That's a good one...

My ex didn't do a damn thing with our kids, literally nothing (she treated them like an annoyance and routinely screamed at them to leave her alone). I tucked them in every night, I read to them, I took them fishing, I gave them their baths, I got them dressed etc. etc. in the morning. Makes no difference.

Good reply, my son is the one who took care of our grand daughter the first two years of her life.

My daughter in law didn't do a darn thing, no diapers, no midnight feedings (my son held a full time job then), nothing........yet she got custody.

Now, at ten, my grand daughter is literally counting off the days until she can live with her father. No I swear we have never ever said anything bad about her to her mother although her mother has openly lied to her about her father.

Woman now days have changed, not all, but many.............they think it's cute to be a spoiled princess, a &*tch, it's looked upon as "cool".

Recently I have seen more men being motherly towards their children than woman.

My grand daughter says they come home and her mother sticks her with her brother's common law wife (4 kids and husband smokes grass in front of the kids) while mom either goes out kareoking, dating or blogging giving paralegal advice.

We gave our grand daughter $500.00 USD worth of clothes for winter, Illinois has very brutal winters............my daughter in law (ex) threw them back at my son in the parking lot.

She also called my son's work when he worked for the IL Tollway Commission and got him fired........she cut her own throat.

If she had been half way nice she would be sitting in a scott free 3 bedroom 1-1/2 bath with deep full basement town house right now....................but she would rather fight.

As stated before, on my grand daughter's tenth birthday we got to celebrate several days late, I said make a wish and she looked at me, smiled and said, "Eight more years, just eight more years of putting up with my mother".

You have to know the full story, so go back and read my other posts............in short, my ex daughter in law left my son because he gained 40 pounds and became "undesirable", her father raised her to fight everyone. My grand daughter has told me, "my mother will die a lonely old woman because she eventually makes everyone around her hate her because she is so mean and unfair in how she deals with people"......................I didn't say or ask for this information, out of the mouth of a then nine year old.

We have on the cooking channel, wedding cake shows, millions of them............how many friggin fancy wedding cake episodes do you need?

Than we have Bridezilla's ......................... women who are encouraged to act like selfish spoiled princessess on a day when they are suppose to not be thinking of me, me, me but we, we, we.

I had a sheet cake from Jewel's, a five minute ceremony in a one bedroom apartment (rained that day we had rented the park), a $50.00 wedding dress and a marriage that has lasted now 38 years as of June 22nd.

My husband says if he won a billion dollars he wouldn't get rid of me for a newer model because they "just don't make em like you anymore".

Most men are like dogs, they're sloppy, sweet, loyal and show what they feel.

Most women are like cats (and I love cats) but they are manipulative, sneaky and self-centered.

Originally posted by ofhumandescent


Most men are like dogs, they're sloppy, sweet, loyal and show what they feel.

Most women are like cats (and I love cats) but they are manipulative, sneaky and self-centered.

edit on 29-6-2011 by ofhumandescent because: grammar

Wish I could star ya a 100 times!!!

Unfortunately,I see that as being almost a FACT.

Originally posted by nixie_nox


As a previous poster said, this isn't a new concept. And school teaches you in the middle grades that the only fool proof way to prevent pregnancy is through abstaining.........

WRONG!!!!!!

Schools teach nothing. They hand out condoms,across the US.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
So lets say that your concept is that if a woman has a child, she is solely responsible for that child. Then she must provide for said child.

It isn't a "concept" it's a simple fact. Only the unilateral choice of a woman can result in a child that requires 20 years of support.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Providing for that child means gaining income by whatever means necessary. Whether it is through assistance through the state, retrieving income from the father, or both.
If it is her decision to get pregnant by simply having sex, then it is her decision on how to provide for that child.

That is the most bassakwards logic that I've ever heard. Since it's MY unilateral decision to create the need for this financial support, that means I gain the right to force someone else to pay it? Interesting.

Originally posted by nixie_nox
Now if a woman should choose to use less morally acceptable ways to provide for that child, you all would be screaming that all mothers sell drugs and are prostitutes. .

Yes, it's very ethical to threaten someone with jail to make them pay for the results of your own unilateral choices.

Bravo!

Originally posted by nixie_nox
As a previous poster said, this isn't a new concept. And school teaches you in the middle grades that the only fool proof way to prevent pregnancy is through abstaining. I don't care if a woman has had a full hysterectemy, abstinance is the only way to prevent pregnancy. So either sex is responsible for the care of a child if pregnancy should occur.

Wrong again, neither sex nor conception results in a child that requires support, only the unilateral choice of a woman can do that.

reply to post by sonnny1


Or is it because the father has left the custodial home, making the mother the primary caregiver? Most states have recently switched to gender neutral decisions, and as for who gets custody, depends on what the parent can provide, the relationship to the child, the education that the parent can provide, and the physical and mental fitness of the parent. Who gets physical custody, who gets legal custody, or both parents have to do both. If both parents are fit, then the courts grant equal custody.
33% of children have absentee fathers. If a father is absent from the child's life, the mother automatically gets custody. Which automatically raises the number of mothers who have full custody.
Many of these statistics also include voluntary decisions for the mother to have full custody, that didnt' involve a court sanction.
And is there gender bias, of course there is. Women give birth to the babies, and are the nurturers. The gender roles have typically been the men work and the women raise the children. Just how nature is designed.
Now most of the men paying child support on here are crying that they are the better parent and the mother is horrible. But if the mother really is that horrible, the courts would see that, and they obviously don't have enough evidence to back up their statements of neglect.
There are two sides to every story, and an emotionally balanced person wouldn't scream that the other parent is an ax murderer, and they are horrible. They would accept responsbility for their demise in the partnership, and also state the values of that other parent.
Because of that parent was really that horrible, they would be able to prove it, and they would have joint custody.

Nobody is going to come on here and confess that they are a bad parent.

reply to post by sonnny1


Your link is from the Father's Support Foundation......

hardly a reliable source

try again!!!

give us a Govt source from 2010-2011 !!!!!!!

Your next link re 84% of child support providers are stats from 2002, it's 2011.....HELLOOOOOOO!

reply to post by sonnny1


We are not interested in 1989-1992

Originally posted by sonnny1

Originally posted by nixie_nox

And you wonder why you don't have custody.Most of the men who I see complaining about paying child support, don't bother to visit their kids and could care less about them. Instead of being an adult about it, it is everyone else's fault but theirs.

Why should the children,be put in a situation where the mother HAS to go on Welfare?

Did you read my post? It is all in there.
The law is that you can't collect cash assistance or child support, or you collect whichever one is higher. If the cash assistance is higher then child support, then the state takes the child support and gives you the difference. But you can't receive both. So if a woman collects cash assistance, it means she has no income and no child support. Food stamps are based on income. Child support can put you over the limit. But if a mother is able to receive food stamps and child support, she is not receiving a lot of child support. Which means the father isn't making much money or working at all. The children lose no matter what in this situation.

If Dad,has been the sole provider for the family,he should continue to be that caring father. He also should have custody,so mother can get off her feet,and find work,if she isnt working already,and get her life together after the divorce. Father is ALREADY established.Mother isnt.

And what if the father isn't fit to have custody? What if he is a drug addict or abusive? What if he doesn't want to share his money? Then the mother needs support while she gets back on her feet. And what if the mother isn't established because she stayed home with the children?

How does that help the children?

It gets them away from an abusive situation.

Also,I find it funny you come with NO facts,but can make blanket OPINIONATED statements like the above one.

You might want to take this off your clipboard, this has been your argument through the whole thread and a rather weak one. I provided plenty of information to back up my claim.
But we don't like in others what we don't like about ourselves.

A page back there was a survey done,in California. I posted the WHOLE thing to show you how screed up the system truly is.

Are you actually using a survey as a source? One from California at that?

Fathers love their children,but when courts get involved,and take,but give NOTHING back but grief,how do you expect a father to react ?

Stop speaking emotionally, many fathers simply don't care. Hence the 33% father absenteeism. Or if it is court ordered full custody, most likely the father didn't care enough to get his act straight to keep his children.

[Its the system that makes this impossible to do it 50/50.

First off, the system only gets involved if the parents involve it. Parents are allowed to make their own custodial arrangements. If one parent feels strongly enough to pay lawyers to get custody, there is probably a good reason why. In my gender neutral state, the other parent has to have screwed up pretty badly for the other parent to get full custody. Even then, both parents are interviewed and interrogated by professionals to see who is more capable of caring for the children.

You go on with your baseless opinions with backing them up with facts. Projecting are we?

You do know the ONLY reason mothers get the child support/custody IS because they can MAKE money of the breadwinner,the MAN. You do get this right? Its in black and white,from state to state hun...................

Yea, all those single mothers working 2 and 3 jobs to squeak by would readily agree with you. Most women I know only get about 200-250 a month for a child. Childcare in my area is 300 + a week. No one is living high off the hog. Again, emotional, baseless opinions. Between rent, food, and clothing, 300 bucks is nothing. It is based on income, if the father is able to pay more because he makes more, then he is not in dire straights.