Child support question

[waggy]

It's called child SUPPORT. It isn't for bday gifts or xmas presents etc. It's about basic needs, i.e. utilities (and food, and clothes)


When it extends even one step beyond utilities it opens up abuse by the mother. I agree with the posters saying it should be on some sort of EBT card that's accountable.


Basically, you can't have your cake and eat it too. If mom wants to get the kids random gifts then she needs to get a job (or education to get a job, or whatever) and then buy them gifts. 'Forcing' the father to give money to his ex-wife for presents from her to the kids? WTF?

..do you know what support means? its more then food/rent/etc.

 

[Pantlegz]

..do you know what support means? its more then food/rent/etc.

not as far as the court is concerned and it's not what most child support os spent on.

 

[Blintok]

yep. those who are for "the system" really have no clue just how bad it can be.

a woman has all the rights when it comes to being a parent.
she can chose abortion. adoption. abandon it (there is a hospital here in Canada to allow that) keep it (and force the father to pay). the father has no rights. a woman can get an abortion if raped. if a man gets raped or "tricked"(yes tricked. "i am on pill" or holes in condom. or woman saves condom and inserts contents later) into parenthood he gets to chose to pay child support for 20yrs or go to jail.

"A Vancouver hospital plans to offer a safe haven for troubled mothers who want to abandon their newborn babies anonymously.

According to St. Paul's Hospital staff, a so-called angel's cradle will be set up in a private area accessible from just outside the entrance of the downtown hospital's emergency room on Burrard Street, as well as from inside the emergency room itself.

The facility, which opens on Monday, will allow a mother to put a baby in the bassinet and leave before hospital staff are notified by an alarm with a 30-second delay, according to a statement released by the hospital on Thursday morning."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-co...ngels-cradle-vancouver-st-pauls-hospital.html

if the mother wants to keep baby, father will be forced (if he does not want to be father) to pay to support "his child". yet, mother can deny him any access or even give "his child" his name. other side of coin, if father wanted to keep baby and mother did not. then too bad. its her choice and her body. a woman has many choices to opt out of parenthood. a man none. (except for turn gay or abstain)

there was a co-worker that wanted to gouge father for more money for support. He was already paying extra over the amount set by court. when she found out she could be dinged for the extra payments she quickly dropped that idea.

its "a mans world" yeah right

 

[borisvodofsky]

It sure would be nice to have a detector which would help me weed out the nutcases. Sure it's easy enough to avoid the obvious whack-jobs, but when you're talking about screwing up the rest of your life even a small risk is too much.

I don't think these "destructive" women are all that difficult to avoid.

Very few are adept enough for a Hollywood sq elaborate scheme to get herself impregnated.

That aside, the rest of the crazies are likely under-educated and pathless, easy to spot, and manipulate if that's your thing.

 

[MotF Bane]

It sure would be nice to have a detector which would help me weed out the nutcases. Sure it's easy enough to avoid the obvious whack-jobs, but when you're talking about screwing up the rest of your life even a small risk is too much.

Problem is they're all crazy.

 

[waggy]

Problem is they're all crazy.

:hmm: i think he is right.

 

[borisvodofsky]

yep. those who are for "the system" really have no clue just how bad it can be.

a woman has all the rights when it comes to being a parent.
she can chose abortion. adoption. abandon it (there is a hospital here in Canada to allow that) keep it (and force the father to pay). the father has no rights. a woman can get an abortion if raped. if a man gets raped or "tricked"(yes tricked. "i am on pill" or holes in condom. or woman saves condom and inserts contents later) into parenthood he gets to chose to pay child support for 20yrs or go to jail.

"A Vancouver hospital plans to offer a safe haven for troubled mothers who want to abandon their newborn babies anonymously.

According to St. Paul's Hospital staff, a so-called angel's cradle will be set up in a private area accessible from just outside the entrance of the downtown hospital's emergency room on Burrard Street, as well as from inside the emergency room itself.

The facility, which opens on Monday, will allow a mother to put a baby in the bassinet and leave before hospital staff are notified by an alarm with a 30-second delay, according to a statement released by the hospital on Thursday morning."

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-co...ngels-cradle-vancouver-st-pauls-hospital.html

if the mother wants to keep baby, father will be forced (if he does not want to be father) to pay to support "his child". yet, mother can deny him any access or even give "his child" his name. other side of coin, if father wanted to keep baby and mother did not. then too bad. its her choice and her body. a woman has many choices to opt out of parenthood. a man none. (except for turn gay or abstain)

there was a co-worker that wanted to gouge father for more money for support. He was already paying extra over the amount set by court. when she found out she could be dinged for the extra payments she quickly dropped that idea.

its "a mans world" yeah right

The world is half and half, and it always will be. It's the girl's fault for not working hard, it is our fault for NOT pushing them to work harder. :hmm:

 

[ichy]

I don't think these "destructive" women are all that difficult to avoid.

Very few are adept enough for a Hollywood sq elaborate scheme to get herself impregnated.

Lying about taking the pill doesn't require a particularly elaborate scheme.

Sure the really toxic ones are pretty easy to spot, but there's always a risk. Is it likely to happen with a woman who isn't trashy or mentally ill? Of course not, but when you're talking about the worst possible thing that could happen to you short of a devastating illness or injury even a small risk is enough to make you pause.

 

[ichy]

a woman has many choices to opt out of parenthood. a man none. (except for turn gay or abstain)

How about condoms that HE buys and stores.

 

[SpatiallyAware]

..do you know what support means? its more then food/rent/etc.

You're going a bit trollish on me waggy..


Absolutely support is more than food, rent, etc. It's clothes, haircuts, school supplies, and so forth.

Your example of gifts and random presents given by the mother but paid for by the father are certainly not 'support'. That mindset is part of what has polluted the system as it is. A father should not have to pay for random gifts the mother gives the child.

 

[SR1729]

Fuck child support. In these days when both mom and dad are working, give the kids to the parent who can actually afford to raise the kids (provided both are fit/suitable parents).

If mom needs $2,000/month from dad to raise the kids, then maybe she's not financially fit for the job.

 

[borisvodofsky]

Fuck child support. In these days when both mom and dad are working, give the kids to the parent who can actually afford to raise the kids (provided both are fit/suitable parents).

If mom needs $2,000/month from dad to raise the kids, then maybe she's not financially fit for the job.

Oooooo good thought here...

 

[waggy]

Fuck child support. In these days when both mom and dad are working, give the kids to the parent who can actually afford to raise the kids (provided both are fit/suitable parents).

If mom needs $2,000/month from dad to raise the kids, then maybe she's not financially fit for the job.

that i can agree with. but many states have it child support is 1/4th the fathers income.

You're going a bit trollish on me waggy..


Absolutely support is more than food, rent, etc. It's clothes, haircuts, school supplies, and so forth.

Your example of gifts and random presents given by the mother but paid for by the father are certainly not 'support'. That mindset is part of what has polluted the system as it is. A father should not have to pay for random gifts the mother gives the child.

I'm not being a troll at all. say the mother spends her paycheck on rent then gets the child support. so by your logic they can't use it to get a gift for the child.

support is more then what you say it is.

I do agree the mother/father shouldnt be useing child support as a bonus and go on vacation with it (without the kids).

 

[EagleKeeper]

Fuck child support. In these days when both mom and dad are working, give the kids to the parent who can actually afford to raise the kids (provided both are fit/suitable parents).

If mom needs $2,000/month from dad to raise the kids, then maybe she's not financially fit for the job.

If the Dad is not socially able to raise the kids, then what?

When there are young kids; it can be very difficult for the mother to work - either cost, experience and/or the desire to take care of the kids.

How much do you think it takes to support a child each month?

 

[waggy]

If the Dad is not socially able to raise the kids, then what?

When there are young kids; it can be very difficult for the mother to work - either cost, experience and/or the desire to take care of the kids.

How much do you think it takes to support a child each month?

it does NOT take 2k a month to raise a child. at that cost she can stay home and do nothing and survive. that is N OT what child support is for.

IF the kids need daycare then both parents should pay 50% of it. then a small "child support" payment to the mother.

 

[SR1729]

If the Dad is not socially able to raise the kids, then what?

I stipulated that both parents were "suitable". In other words, all else being equal, the parent who can afford to raise the children should get custody of the children.

When there are young kids; it can be very difficult for the mother to work - either cost, experience and/or the desire to take care of the kids.

And this is different from fathers how?

Situations where the mother has "sacrificed" her experience and marketability in the labor force in order to raise a family are far fewer than they were in the 50's. Many women of today 1) work, 2) have kids, then 3) go back to work. The question is what should happen at 4) divorce/boredom.

How much do you think it takes to support a child each month?

I can't say for sure, but I don't think it's 1/4 of my salary... and if my ex wife can't pony up half of it, she shouldn't have custody of my children.

 

[Phoenix86]

that i can agree with. but many states have it child support is 1/4th the fathers income.

Income? I generally see "earning potential" thrown around not actual income.

 

[waggy]

Income? I generally see "earning potential" thrown around not actual income.

yeah i have seen both. but its usually 1/4th of it wich in some case's really fucking silly.

 

[SR1729]

Allow me to add that, if society absolutely can't bring itself to trust its fathers to raise children, there is absolutely zero excuse for arguing against holding mom accountable for how she spends her ... err, I mean the kids' ... child support.

This goes for fathers who receive child support too (let's imagine such a thing exists, for the sake of argument). If parent A truly needs $x from parent B in order to support the children, parent A should have no trouble providing an itemized justification. Furthermore, there is no rational argument that can be made against such a requirement, especially since such a simple step would go miles in righting countless injustices and abuses that take place in the system.

 

[waggy]

Allow me to add that, if society absolutely can't bring itself to trust its fathers to raise children, there is absolutely zero excuse for arguing against holding mom accountable for how she spends her ... err, I mean the kids' ... child support.

This goes for fathers who receive child support too (let's imagine such a thing exists, for the sake of argument). If parent A truly needs $x from parent B in order to support the children, parent A should have no trouble providing an itemized justification. Furthermore, there is no rational argument that can be made against such a requirement, especially since such a simple step would go miles in righting countless injustices and abuses that take place in the system.

I never understood why so many feel fathers can't be as good or better main parents.

i take care of my 2 kids (and babysit maybe 5-6 weekly). i stay home and my wife works. the plan was for her to stay home but we found she didn't do very well at it. she has to work or her temper gets the better of her and she starts to get bored.

as for the amount of child care really needed (just a guestimate)

with 2 more kids i would need a 3 bedroom so extra +300 in rent
food for 2 kids? not much more since i would be makeing stuff anyway. so lets say a extra $100 a week?

utility's. well i would have to pay for electricity, cable, etc. so another $100 (doubtfull even that)

the rest clothes/toys/daycare/extra's should be split 50-50 with the other parent.


Also what about 50-50 liveing arrangments? that HAS to play a part (but rarely see it).

 

[SR1729]

as for the amount of child care really needed (just a guestimate) <SNIP>

The amount needed is irrelevant. Alimony has become politically unpopular over the past 10 - 20 years, so "alimony seekers" (read: deadbeat women) now use child support as the vehicle by which to procure it.

Note that I do not include in my "deadbeat women" classification those women who honestly do sacrifice their professional careers to raise a family. Although this mystical creature is scarcely found at a time when both parents must work in order to adequately provide, in such cases, I believe they are entitled to spousal support, though not indefinitely. I would also prefer that there only be specific divorce circumstances under which she would be entitled to this support. For instance, if she's fucking the pool guy and is just tired of hiding it, no dice.

 

[EagleKeeper]

A 2-5 year old will require $300 month in living expenses minimum. If the child is placed into daycare; so the parent can work; that adds between $400-800/month depending on the quality.

Without day case; then you have the support for the custodial parent in terms of transportation/shelter/food/clothing. Figure $700 Min.

So you have the custodial parent requiring support due to the child of $700/Month at a min if they are able to work.

From there, that depends on the quality of life style the child should have expected with both parents around.

 

[SR1729]

A 2-5 year old will require $300 month in living expenses minimum. If the child is placed into daycare; so the parent can work; that adds between $400-800/month depending on the quality.

No argument there, which is why the most financially-able parent (again, all else being equal) should get custody.

Without day case; then you have the support for the custodial parent in terms of transportation/shelter/food/clothing. Figure $700 Min.

Not so at all. I have two children (still married, thankfully), and we don't spend that much on BOTH of them per month, and that's with soccer, baseball, swimming, etc. They are 5 and 7.

So you have the custodial parent requiring support due to the child of $700/Month at a min if they are able to work.

But let's assume $700 is accurate... your typical child support ruling is far beyond $700, and as others have attested (and as I've seen with my own eyes - a family member is actually a divorce attorney), child support is RARELY spent on the child.

This is why I advocate itemized accountability: it promotes accurate/reasonable child support payments, and it helps ensure they are spent on the child. The only downside is that it prevents frivolous, narcissistic behavior on the part of the custodial parent.

From there, that depends on the quality of life style the child should have expected with both parents around.

Again, another reason to assign custody to the more financially-able parent.

What I've been getting at here is that each parent's financial situation should be a factor in their custodial suitability. My wife and I are both very good parents and we share almost identical parenting philosophies. In the divorce, the only discernible difference between her and I would be our incomes: I make $100,000/year and she makes $30,000/year. Yet she would receive custody and I would be paying $25,000/year (> $2,000 monthly) in child support. The virtually "automatic" custody is almost as ridiculous as the incredulous child support payments, which in no way reflect what we spend today raising our children.

 

[EagleKeeper]

No argument there, which is why the most financially-able parent (again, all else being equal) should get custody.

Unless the child is not wanted by the more financial stable parent. Many times; that person wants to take off and start a new life; unencumbered by the "baggage" of the old one.



Not so at all. I have two children (still married, thankfully), and we don't spend that much on BOTH of them per month, and that's with soccer, baseball, swimming, etc. They are 5 and 7.

The cost was for the custodial parent to live - not the child.



But let's assume $700 is accurate... your typical child support ruling is far beyond $700, and as others have attested (and as I've seen with my own eyes - a family member is actually a divorce attorney), child support is RARELY spent on the child.

Much depends on each situation. Within my family;

• ex-SIL was ordered $400/month on a $35K salary for support of the granddaughter. (He originally inidicated to the courts that he was only making $25K) - 2008 He paid for 1 year and then has dropped out of sight.
  
• son was ordered $200/month per child for 3 kids + 15 months of spousal back in 2000. Income was under $30K in the US Coast Guard

This is why I advocate itemized accountability: it promotes accurate/reasonable child support payments, and it helps ensure they are spent on the child. The only downside is that it prevents frivolous, narcissistic behavior on the part of the custodial parent.

Fully agree



Again, another reason to assign custody to the more financially-able parent.

What I've been getting at here is that each parent's financial situation should be a factor in their custodial suitability. My wife and I are both very good parents and we share almost identical parenting philosophies. In the divorce, the only discernible difference between her and I would be our incomes: I make $100,000/year and she makes $30,000/year. Yet she would receive custody and I would be paying $25,000/year (> $2,000 monthly) in child support. The virtually "automatic" custody is almost as ridiculous as the incredulous child support payments, which in no way reflect what we spend today raising our children.

In your hypothetical situation; the courts look at what the lifestyle of the child should be. They do not take into account that the custodial parent could piggyback off the support payments.

 

[Hacp]

Men have no rights. Men have been discriminated against these past 50 years.Its been pretty outrageous imo. I heard someone say it here. If the world were to end tommorow, the newspapers would read:
"World to end, women, children and elderly to suffer most."