Men and Child support. What is the answer?

reply to post by CobraCommander


Half of the food, clothing, medical and daycare? Is that all? Are you bloody serious??? And THIS is why we have a problem with you non-custodial parents. THAT DOES'NT COVER HALF OF THE COSTS OF A CHILD from day to day! HELLO!!!!!!!!!!

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Half of the child's food, clothing, medical, and daycare should be covered. That's about it. It is no additional cost for a woman to have the heat on her apartment no matter how many kids are in there with her. It is no additional cost for a mother to let the kid watch the television. It is not the man's responsibility to support YOUR household.

I totally agree with you on this. I am a custodial parent and mother. If not for my kids I would still need to provide housing, heat, electricity, etc. My ex is not responsible for these cost I am. The money a non custodial parent sends should be used for the actual needs of the child not what the custodial parent would be paying for if they had no children.

I don't believe we should be blaming the government for this. Remember who ROOTED the situation of divorce, child abandonment, etc... The PEOPLE/PARENTS that abused common decency and caused the government to step in and enforce parents to support their ex-spouse.

It is in human nature to seek to abuse a system when it is already working for them.

Government is bad, but people are even worse, our species is a disgrace, a disease.

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by TKDRL
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

This kind of stuff is why I will never ever ever hold a joint account, credit cards etc. I don't believe in the credit scam anymore, won't get sucked in again. And there is no possible way I am going to be the only one working in a relationship. Not gonna happen.

I held a joint checking account with one of my exes, and a single joint $500 credit card. Wasn't really a problem. The real problem came from the fact that she came into the relationship with less credit than me and some bad marks on her credit too. So, I wound up being suckered into over-extending myself as poverty set in on both of us. Once my cards were maxed out, she was gone. Went back to live with her mother.

This happens 8 out of 10 times. We are left to dig ourselves out of collective debt with no place to turn while the womens parents take her back in to nurse her wounds from the "abusive" ahole she left. Meanwhile, she is free to go back to school while having a live in babysitter and bill free while we are left to pick up the pieces and pay for there nails the entire time they are on government insurance, food stamps and assistance.

Mind you, not in every case but I have a large amount of first and second hand experience and this would seem to be the rule and not the exception.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

Mate....I'm not ignorant to whats going on in the USA and the amount of mortgagee sales. Don't give me that rubbish you played no hand in signing that bank loan for the house or using that credit card and that you did'nt want that second child to your wife. BS !

We aren't talking about me here. But actually, we can use my best bud as an example, because that is PRECISELY what happened to him. Up to that time, he had been one of the most financially responsible guys I knew. Always had nice things because of it, and an immaculate credit score.

He took this woman in, along with her newborn daughter that was not his. He worked harder and harder, she wanted more and more. She insisted on having the child. Of course he wanted a kid with her, but he wanted to wait until AFTER they bought a house, She didn't want to wait. Then once his son came along, she really pushed for a house they could not afford without working a LOT. But, she promised she would work enough hours to make up for the shortfall. Well, that only lasted just so long and she decided she didn't want to work part-time AND be a mother. And oh yes, she could spend too. New car, new furniture. A few weeks before she left my buddy for some dude she worked with, she went out and bought a $2500 dog that he told her NOT to buy because they already had several other pets she wanted but didn't take care of.

I've got a lot of stories like that.

Originally posted by queenofsheba
reply to post by ldyserenity

 

Of course Child Support Enforcement enforces child support...it's to keep the tax payer's money down. When a woman goes on public assistance, Child Support gets an immediate referral to collect so that welfare monies aren't used to support these kids. And why not? When the obligee has a job there's no reason the state should have to pick up the bill. No? When a woman separates from the father of her children there is an obligation on behalf of the father to support his kids. Questions asked are does he have existing medical coverage that would cover his kid's health care? Why should Medicaid pay for that if the the parent has health insurance? The only way the noncustodial parent gets out of paying child support is if he's hiding, or is on disability or is a threat (domestic violence) issue. Why a man who is a multimillionaire could get out of paying child support is beyond me.

And when a man has children with a woman and opts out of that relationship (whether she is a fat *ss or not) and perhaps has not worked in years, is beside the point. It's about the children...why wouldn't a parent want to help out their kids? That is the question. It's overhead costs such as electrical bills, water, clothing, food and extra-curriculars that all add up....it's the little things.

She opted out of the relationship by spreading her legs all over town, and like many others have mentioned DNA tests are annually if not every 6 months are denied...flatout, and in this case the children in which he is paying for might not even be his(because she was a whore)... Also like many others have posted here, they tacked on CS well above his yearly income even if he had had two jobs (we did have two incomesm matter of fact, in the household with mine) still couldn't afford to pay what was awarded to the lowlife scummy B!tch. Not only that I and he paid into the welfare system all day long every day, well above what we would ever use ($0) of it so, wth????
Every single person who works including my father pays into the welfare system (we are for this sake using only citizens as a reference in this instance, since this is about citizens and not all the other irrelevent groups that recieve) only about 39%(as per Census 2010 reports) of us use it, I think you need to learn some math, that should more than cover one person with two children on it for 18 yrs... Well that would be true IF THEY STOPPED AWARDING TO EVERYONE WHO HAD NEVER WORKED EVER!!!! It's main creation was to help out those in need temporarily not to become a lifestyle, and if fat A$$ had worked at least then maybe the courts would have ruled him less to pay...in fact like I said it probably would not happened at all for me if I left since I can and do work, NOTHING would be enforced AT ALL!!! That's how it's biased... but at least he could feel that he wasn't being treated unfairly and how about the 2 yrs she collected while her kids lived with us, because she was a sorry A$$ loser of a mom, and as I was a better mom to them (my stepdaughter's words, not mine), and he has to pay for those two years too, yet if you have loads of money, you can get out of paying $h!t just because you throw money at the right people...like my father did.
It's all boiling to one thing it's about money not mine or yours or joe the plumbers, but what the government and courts can extort from good people to give to the greedy, face that fact.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

Half of the food, clothing, medical and daycare? Is that all? Are you bloody serious??? And THIS is why we have a problem with you non-custodial parents. THAT DOES'NT COVER HALF OF THE COSTS OF A CHILD from day to day! HELLO!!!!!!!!!!

edit on 2-6-2011 by bluemirage5 because: (no reason given)

Okay, what day-to-day costs?

reply to post by stargate73


If it was'nt for your kids you would'nt need child support PERIOD !

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by Teeky
.I have 3 kids under the age of 7. My x husband gets the kids whenever he chooses maybe a weekend out of the month. It's difficult. Most men know children are annoying and that's why they don't want full custody. Don't get me wrong I love my kids and wouldn't trade them for anything, but having my name called 50 times a day followed by screaming melt downs and tantrums can be stressful.

Plus I know men enjoy their freedom to roam, just imagine having a baby strapped to your back 24/7...

It was YOUR choice to have those kids. You knew what being a mother meant, and no doubt knew the sort of man your husband was after the first one. Not a real "hands on" sort of Dad. A lot of men out there would prefer to be much more involved in their kid's lives, but can't because it interferes with a woman's future prospects. On the other hand, it's no shame for him to not really be a hands-on sort of father either, if that's just the sort of man he is.

But since you were married, I see it as his obligation to pay to support those children.

What do you me my choice?! He and I decided together to have children. He was a hands on Dad when were married but as soon as we broke up being with the kids has not been his top priority. As a matter of fact he's more concerned with trying to be with me, or wanting me to have more babies so I can't leave him.

Originally posted by bluemirage5
reply to post by CobraCommander

 

Half of the food, clothing, medical and daycare? Is that all? Are you bloody serious??? And THIS is why we have a problem with you non-custodial parents. THAT DOES'NT COVER HALF OF THE COSTS OF A CHILD from day to day! HELLO!!!!!!!!!!

edit on 2-6-2011 by bluemirage5 because: (no reason given)

Actually women have been b!t@hing about equality for years! I say hes 100% correct. Maybe if the custodial parent lived within their means,and DIDNT spend the money like they were printing it,non-custodial parents wouldnt be arguing the point!

Originally posted by stargate73

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Half of the child's food, clothing, medical, and daycare should be covered. That's about it. It is no additional cost for a woman to have the heat on her apartment no matter how many kids are in there with her. It is no additional cost for a mother to let the kid watch the television. It is not the man's responsibility to support YOUR household.

I totally agree with you on this. I am a custodial parent and mother. If not for my kids I would still need to provide housing, heat, electricity, etc. My ex is not responsible for these cost I am. The money a non custodial parent sends should be used for the actual needs of the child not what the custodial parent would be paying for if they had no children.

Thanks for the common sense.

Common-sense custodial Moms such as yourself are deserving of certain concessions as well. Like the one friend of mine who voluntarily upped his weekly payment to his wife (a set payment but paid outside of state control, in cash) so that she could move into a bigger house. He wanted his son to have his own room. So when she was out looking for a new house, he agreed to pay the extra $200 a month rent for the larger house that she wanted, and would also guarantee his son would have his own room and not have to share with a step-brother.

Originally posted by eLPresidente
I don't believe we should be blaming the government for this. Remember who ROOTED the situation of divorce, child abandonment, etc... The PEOPLE/PARENTS that abused common decency and caused the government to step in and enforce parents to support their ex-spouse.

It is in human nature to seek to abuse a system when it is already working for them.

Government is bad, but people are even worse, our species is a disgrace, a disease.

Oh no, I don't buy that for a second, Your logic is the reason kids are being molested at airports now.

reply to post by CobraCommander


I listed them earlier

Originally posted by CobraCommander
Let me just jump in here and point out the 800-pound gorilla in the room.

While we bicker amongst ourselves, man pitted against women, the sad fact of the matter is we are all fighting over scraps. For the most part anyway. Someone with a basic high school education cannot even support themselves much less a child. Which then sets the state for what we are seeing today among so many women. They have a child because she knows darn well society will not let her live in the streets if she has a kid. The kid becomes her security blanket, whether it's some random man paying her bills (for the kid's sake supposedly) or the taxpayer.

The system has played us all, so easily, to make this a man vs. women issue. And sadly, it is the women who have fallen for the biggest part of the sham under the guise of feminism.

But at the end of the day, if women could earn a decent living, they would not be resorting to motherhood for profit. And if men were being paid an honest wage, they could actually afford to pay the support without living in abject poverty themselves.

Some food for thought here from my favorite blogger:

US most overworked nation in developed world

Feminism created to destablize society

JP Morgan controls foodstamps, not gov't

Poverty: Play the game now!

Poverty USA

Exactly...If I could I would have starred that a bazillion times!!!!!

This government drives more and more wedges between society until they have us all by the balls (and I am speaking figuritively cause I am a woman).
Heck some women will stay in the unhappy relationship for the kids because they know that they'll never be able to cut it alone and if they work 9/10ths of the time support won't even be enforced because she works.

Originally posted by CaDreamer
My children are nearly fully reached adulthood. my battle is nearing the end i give this advice out of my personal dealings with the system. My kids get it, they struggled too, but because mom was wasteful and threw parties every week for years, not an exaggeration. my kids are now very close to me because they see now that they didn't see me as much as they wanted but i had the same problem there was no time left in the day to be there and keep myself from jail as well .

Congratulations to you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I tell those who are not the custodial parent - - who really care about their kid(s) - "keep the focus where it belongs".

Pay the child support - - send letters/birthday cards/holiday cards. Try to attend special events. Phone if its possible. Just keep in contact with the child as much as possible.

AND - - keep a scrap book. Especially including a copy of every letter/card sent - - - because the child may never see what you send.

I've heard of parents not allowed to see their kids - - find out and attend school events/recitals etc - - and record the event in a blog with details. When the child is finally a legal adult - - they will know you loved them. That seems to be the most important thing to a child.

Condoms, unless you are ready to have a child.

Originally posted by WordPlayJAy
Condoms, unless you are ready to have a child.

ABSTINENCE.


Alot easier.

Originally posted by Teeky


What do you me my choice?! He and I decided together to have children. He was a hands on Dad when were married but as soon as we broke up being with the kids has not been his top priority. As a matter of fact he's more concerned with trying to be with me, or wanting me to have more babies so I can't leave him.

Well, obviously I don't know the intricate interpersonal dynamics of some stranger on the web. But married or not, you knew what it meant to be a mother. You also knew that there may come a time that you would have to go it alone, whether by choice or by tragedy.

EDIT to add:

And if he want to be with you, what's the problem? Be a family like you're supposed to be.

Originally posted by Teeky

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by Teeky
.I have 3 kids under the age of 7. My x husband gets the kids whenever he chooses maybe a weekend out of the month. It's difficult. Most men know children are annoying and that's why they don't want full custody. Don't get me wrong I love my kids and wouldn't trade them for anything, but having my name called 50 times a day followed by screaming melt downs and tantrums can be stressful.

Plus I know men enjoy their freedom to roam, just imagine having a baby strapped to your back 24/7...

It was YOUR choice to have those kids. You knew what being a mother meant, and no doubt knew the sort of man your husband was after the first one. Not a real "hands on" sort of Dad. A lot of men out there would prefer to be much more involved in their kid's lives, but can't because it interferes with a woman's future prospects. On the other hand, it's no shame for him to not really be a hands-on sort of father either, if that's just the sort of man he is.

But since you were married, I see it as his obligation to pay to support those children.

What do you me my choice?! He and I decided together to have children. He was a hands on Dad when were married but as soon as we broke up being with the kids has not been his top priority. As a matter of fact he's more concerned with trying to be with me, or wanting me to have more babies so I can't leave him.

um you left him and he is trying to get you pregnant? you mean you still live together? or are still having sex? that makes no sense

besides there are state and fed programs for help, that's where our taxes go, too.

i have 3 buddies with a combo of 15 kids and 4 xwives and 3 girlfriends!

2 had/have custody, some are over 18, 1 paid, 3 of his are over 18, now.

2 of them i feel bad for because mom took off but they stepped up and are great dads, 1 has 2 that are not his.

the last one i am angry with because he doesn't have no one to blame but himself. (i helped him out a couple times with a gal friend or 2)

he never defaulted and sees them all and is "their dad". it's his choice to burden himself. imo!

lol, i don't have that energy!

one steps up and take resposibility, judgements don't mean a dam if they can't/not enforced.

50/50 is what i believe.