It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Men and Child support. What is the answer?

page: 68
52
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:08 PM
link   
i have never denied my children anything, when my son turned 15 i couldn't afford a birthday present for him, i gave him my prized possession, a very expensive, collectable electric guitar. he still hasn't put the damn thing down. lol

hard enough to be involved in your childrens lives when you are commonly referred to as " the sperm donor" just don't need the courts to add insult to injury.




posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:09 PM
link   
If we were to go to court today and my ex were to want a drug test, I would submit voluntarily. As would he. But there are no drug or alcohol issues with us.

I'll just state it again: If you had sex with someone and out of that encounter, a child was born, both parties are responsible. It doesn't matter what your deal is or what her deal is. It doesn't matter. That child is here in this nasty, unforgiving world and they need a fair shot. Someone needs to care and if you have to bite the bullet, then DO IT.

If she has custody and no matter what you do, the courts won't side with you and you cry how unfair it is....just suck it up and do what is best for that child to make sure their life is better than yours. It's all we can do, as parents, is to make sure our kids have a better chance than we did. I have no regrets. If I had regrets, I would wish that I never was with my ex. If that were the case, my kids would not be here today and I would never wish that.

I hate writing a check out every week, pay to the order of---- but it's out of my hands and I will suck it up and make sure my kids are well-cared for.

I love them.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:17 PM
link   
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused
 


I agree with EVERYTHING you say but.........

If she has custody and no matter what you do, the courts won't side with you and you cry how unfair it is....just suck it up and do what is best for that child to make sure their life is better than yours................


Sucking it up,is actually admitting defeat in giving your child the best that life has to offer. I for one,want reform. The same equality YOU and I want,and believe in,for the benefit of ALL children. There are so many poor souls who dont have it good. Both you and the children can have a good life,if you have a system that gives them a fighting chance.


Star for you........

edit on 11-6-2011 by sonnny1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
Stop thinking about what you think you should pay and start thinking about what your kids need. There's a big difference.


Gotta disagree there too. A non-custodial parent should only be REQUIRED to pay the bare minimum at what basically amounts to a just above poverty level. Anything beyond that, the state has no right demanding. Of course, a good parent SHOULD offer to help with things like extra sneakers (that can be a LOT more than $30 for a baller) a new computer for school etc., as they are able to, but again, the state has no right to mandate that.

The only requirement that the state can justly set is that you not neglect your child...


...under New York's Family Court Act, they cited two findings that required them to determine neglect. The first is "proof of actual (or imminent danger of) physical, emotional, or mental impairment to the child." Second is the danger "must be a consequence of the parent's failure to exercise a minimum degree of parental care."

The court noted the statutory test is not best or ideal care for children, but a minimum degree.

Sourced in this article



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:23 PM
link   
reply to post by CoherentlyConfused
 



a child custody battle hurts everyone involved. especially the children. I never fought for custody, you see i had custody of both of the children, they where 4 and 6 when my sister became gravely ill 2k miles away. I was in a position to help, in my state it is required by law that i have the permission of the other parent before i can relocate with my children, even if temporary.
Short version, she said no, my sister was dying so i went and gave custody to my ex so i could care for my sis. I was back within 10 months. you see, when my ex left me she, left the kids too.

the court never "awarded" custody to her she got it by default. I began paying support that same week, without the court. that actually saved me several thousand dollars.

Of course we all want and will provide what our children need, nobody has ever said that is not/ was not the case. that is not relevant to the argument.
edit on 11-6-2011 by CaDreamer because: typo

edit on 11-6-2011 by CaDreamer because: typos



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
reply to post by CaDreamer
 


Is that your way of saying that in four more months, you don't need to support your kids anymore? Because you're in for a surprise.

My oldest is 21 and I am still paying out. She's in college now, living with her boyfriend and works full time. I still give her money when she needs it.

You are a parent until you die.


Admireable, the right thing to do in fact. But NOT a state requirement.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:28 PM
link   
i have been providing for my children for 20 years. the same can not be said of the mother. I have never ever missed a payment of support in nearly 12 years of payments.
That however is not relevant to this issue it has no bearing on the argument that the child support system is broken and needs to be fixed, it is economically hurting many many good hard working, loving parent whose only sin is being abandoned by their mate.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
Stop thinking about what you think you should pay and start thinking about what your kids need. There's a big difference.


Gotta disagree there too. A non-custodial parent should only be REQUIRED to pay the bare minimum at what basically amounts to a just above poverty level. Anything beyond that, the state has no right demanding. Of course, a good parent SHOULD offer to help with things like extra sneakers (that can be a LOT more than $30 for a baller) a new computer for school etc., as they are able to, but again, the state has no right to mandate that.

The only requirement that the state can justly set is that you not neglect your child...


...under New York's Family Court Act, they cited two findings that required them to determine neglect. The first is "proof of actual (or imminent danger of) physical, emotional, or mental impairment to the child." Second is the danger "must be a consequence of the parent's failure to exercise a minimum degree of parental care."

The court noted the statutory test is not best or ideal care for children, but a minimum degree.

Sourced in this article



Is that a two part requirement or an either or requirement?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by CaDreamer
reply to post by CobraCommander
 


my ex accused me of drug use, i did not offer allegation about her, she is a heavy user, i do not / did not use. I asked the court to test us both, the court declined to test either of us.

Those that are guilty often protest the loudest. If a parent makes such an allegation, it should be necessary that the court establish that A. the claim is true/false. ( a childs life is in the balance here)
B. that other parent wasn't a user as well, often its both parents or neither. and often yes its only one parent.

isn't addictive or habitual drug/ alcohol use abuse? if so it applies to your terms for accepting the test for both parents.
I understand your hesitation though, innocent til proven guilty. and agree with that as well.
I wish i knew a proper way to solve this problem.


Unless there is an allegation of neglect or abuse, I don't see a drug test as valid or necessary. Another " I knew a guy story here." I knew a guy who was a weekend crack-bender sort of guy. Great parent and hard worker during the week. He finally burned out on his own and gave it up, never having had any ill effects on his kids. An extreme, rare example perhaps. But I know plenty of pot smokers that are fine parents too.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   
All I can add to this thread is this: If you love your children more than you love your own life, then nothing else matters. Not the petty crap with your ex, not the money you have left in your check, not the food you have on your plate. If you really think your kids are better off with you, really honestly truly, then fight for them. If you think they're okay where they are but you think "the state" or "your ex" aren't being fair to you well....

Whether you think that's fair or not is irrelevant. Nothing in this life is fair.

I have paid $150 per week, nearly (yes, I have come up short!) every week for the past 8 years. I'd do it for the next 30 if necessary. My daughter's 21 and she still calls me. LOL



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

edit on 11-6-2011 by CoherentlyConfused because: double post



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
If we were to go to court today and my ex were to want a drug test, I would submit voluntarily. As would he. But there are no drug or alcohol issues with us.

I'll just state it again: If you had sex with someone and out of that encounter, a child was born, both parties are responsible. It doesn't matter what your deal is or what her deal is. It doesn't matter. That child is here in this nasty, unforgiving world and they need a fair shot. Someone needs to care and if you have to bite the bullet, then DO IT.

If she has custody and no matter what you do, the courts won't side with you and you cry how unfair it is....just suck it up and do what is best for that child to make sure their life is better than yours. It's all we can do, as parents, is to make sure our kids have a better chance than we did. I have no regrets. If I had regrets, I would wish that I never was with my ex. If that were the case, my kids would not be here today and I would never wish that.

I hate writing a check out every week, pay to the order of---- but it's out of my hands and I will suck it up and make sure my kids are well-cared for.

I love them.


You're talking about two different things though. You are talking about what many men (and some women) have been doing all along, because they ARE in fact good parents and good people.

On the other hand, I think the purpose of this thread was to point out that the system is unfair, and that things need to change, if for no other reason than the betterment of society and a better chance for our young people.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:39 PM
link   
reply to post by CaDreamer
 





Is that a two part requirement or an either or requirement?


In that particular ruling the courts decided that Dutchess County Family Court had violated the rights of a level 3 sex offender from seeing his children and co-habitating in the same house with them and his wife.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander
[

You're talking about two different things though. You are talking about what many men (and some women) have been doing all along, because they ARE in fact good parents and good people.

On the other hand, I think the purpose of this thread was to point out that the system is unfair, and that things need to change, if for no other reason than the betterment of society and a better chance for our young people.


Exactly!!!



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CobraCommander
reply to post by CaDreamer
 





Is that a two part requirement or an either or requirement?


In that particular ruling the courts decided that Dutchess County Family Court had violated the rights of a level 3 sex offender from seeing his children and co-habitating in the same house with them and his wife.



Holy F word!!!

I am appalled.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by CoherentlyConfused
All I can add to this thread is this: If you love your children more than you love your own life, then nothing else matters. Not the petty crap with your ex, not the money you have left in your check, not the food you have on your plate. If you really think your kids are better off with you, really honestly truly, then fight for them. If you think they're okay where they are but you think "the state" or "your ex" aren't being fair to you well....

Whether you think that's fair or not is irrelevant. Nothing in this life is fair.

I have paid $150 per week, nearly (yes, I have come up short!) every week for the past 8 years. I'd do it for the next 30 if necessary. My daughter's 21 and she still calls me. LOL



A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. Thomas Paine



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by CaDreamer
 


It's a very interesting article. Enjoy the read when you get the chance. I had a thread on it I think.



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:47 PM
link   
What constitutes as fair? And fair for who, you?
edit on 11-6-2011 by CoherentlyConfused because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 10:49 PM
link   

A long habit of not thinking a thing wrong gives it a superficial appearance of being right. Thomas Paine


Are you saying I'm wrong?



posted on Jun, 11 2011 @ 11:02 PM
link   
I am new to this thread, though I have read a bit and what I am getting is a lot of the same. I am a father in the same predicament.

You guys want to get to the root of the problem? What is the root?

Who wants to take a stab?



new topics

top topics



 
52
<< 65  66  67    69  70  71 >>

log in

join