child support

Heh. This thread is a pretty hit home thing for me.

I just recently turned 18 this last year in April.

I've been through all this you're talking about. My parents divorced when I was 13, and my mom royally fucked my dad over. I chose to live with him because of what she did. You know what? He fucking did everything in his power to provide for me.

No mother or father should do anything less for their child.

I sure as hell know I"m not going to. Are you worried about where the money from all this will go? THEN GET CUSTODY OF YOUR KID. You realize at a certain age they can choose right? So if you're the better parent, why wouldn't they wanna be with you? All of this quite honestly disturbs me, half the things I read. It feels very cold and distant complaining about the system. Take care of your damn kids and it probably wouldn't be used as much.

Here is an example, MO, of why I FUCKING LOVE THIS SYSTEM.

My father is a good man, you see, my mother told him she'd help him out, as in send me money for clothes, food, shelter, school things etc. Guess what? She would come visit 1-2 months and spend 40 bucks on me in clothes. DO you really think that qualifies as supporting me? And don't give me that "well maybe thats all she could do" Fuck anyone who feels that way. When I have kids, they will never do without, and if they do It'll be because I"m dead and gone. My father waived the divorce child support, because he trusted her. He got fucked over. See, she'd probalby had tried to get out of paying if she HADN'T GOTTEN IT WAIVED. Which is where I would be glad to see the system screw her over. You get what you deserve. Maybe I"m biased? But oh well. I've been the one you seem to be completely overlooking in that situation, the Child.
 
lol Druw, that's almost identical to my situation. Poor dad raised 3 girls, guess who taught me how to braid my hair? lol.
 
Firestreak said:
I want to analyze the rights of abortion to those of the rights of fathers.

With abortion you can take a few stands. If you take the stand that many women have on this thread, that you made the choice to have sex and therefore it's your responsibility then to provide for your child, and what's best for the child is all that matters, then why would you take the stand that it's alright for women to have an abortion(not including cases like rape and serious health risks)?

Obviously it's not in the best interests of the child to be aborted.

On that vein, if the child has no rights pre-birth, why is it that the mother can decide if the kid has an abortion but the father has no say in that matter? The law basically says the father has a choice until he has sex, the mother has a choice forever.

If the mother is unwilling to accept the responsibility of parenthood she is able to have abortion or put the kid up for adoption. I don't see how someone can take the stance that the father's rights are all forfeit because of the needs of the child, but at the same time argue that the mother has no legal responsibility whatsoever. She can abort it, put it for adoption, give it to the father or keep it and has no legal obligation to support it. The law of the land is it's his financial obligation ultimately.

Now, if you take the stance that abortion should be illegal, the rights of the child are ultimate, and therefore a father should be unable to abandon any financial obligations, then that's at least consistant. The law is then, you had the sex, she got knocked up, and now the rights of the kids outweighs the rights of the parents.

How can you seperate the two issues and say a woman should be able to abort the child and at the same time a man has no way out of his obligation?

There is no way those issues are disconnected.
Click to expand...

Very good analysis Firestreak. That's really the issue with the Roe v. Wade for Men lawsuit. They don't expect to win, but they're starting a dialogue on that very issue and preparing the court for the next battle. And with the current Supreme Court leaning ever more slightly against abortion, the next case - giving fathers a say in whether the child is aborted - might prevail.
 
for the record, and im bolding this because all of the comments are directed at me as if im the one not paying and complaining about whats happening to me, I DO PAY SUPPORT, I DO NOT CARE WHERE THE MONEY GOES, I RARELY GET TO SEE THE CHILD BECAUSE THE MOTHER DICTATES THE SCHEDULE, MOTHERS GET OUT OF SHIT LIKE THIS(AND ITS PROVEN WITHIN THIS THREAD), SUPPORT IS NOT EQUAL.
if you think support is equal, your dead wrong. if support is equal, the child would spend roughly, the same amount of time with each parent and neither parent would be solely responsible for paying their share of support. now, the arguments will roll in about "so and so is the custodial parent, you pay them"...guess what tho. if the custodial parent isnt the one taking care of the kid for the month, why would that money be required to go to that parent? answer that. i plan on having fighting for and having equal visitation for my son this summer. i hope to have him for at least a full month. during that time, i will be paying for his support directly. also during that time, do u see it as fair for someone to pay the mother when the mother isnt the one providing for the child? it should be the other way around in that case. the custodial parent should, in essence, pay the other parent for this type of situation. will that ever happen like that? no. even though its common sense, it isnt equal in that sense.

please, for the love of god, remember that i say some of the things they do need to be improvised a little....not taken away totally. rules are set for a reason. they act as a boundary to keep people in line. what alot of the arguments are missing is for those people that MAY have a problem with paying because they are unemployed and have no money while they are seeking employment. the mothers are out to burn the other parent without finding out why the other isnt paying. instead, they worry about money. "wheres my money". i hear that from other peoples' ex's all the time.

druw, unlike your father, the money didnt matter to him. im the same way. if i had custody, i would probably do the same.
 
There are definitely some mothers out there who are pieces of shit also. That I won't deny. I always love to hear stories about Fathers who raised their children and did a great job at it. It gives me hope for the children of our future.

I, on the other hand, was/am a very good mother. I did whatever it took to make sure Heather was provided for. When I first got out of my marriage I worked 2 jobs to support us. I was very lucky with having trusting friends who would help me with watching Heather while I worked. I was also lucky to have a child wise beyond her years who understood (or I hope she did) that I had to work to a tad more for the first few years to better provide for her so she could have the things she needed.

Anyway Master, again, if you are being denied visitation, then you need to take your ex to court. That is your right as a citizen.

As far as you being within $100 of being homeless because of said support, then I guess you need to get a second part-time job.

Again, there is no excuse.

For Fire: I'm not even gonna touch on the abortion issue in this thread, or about when young people have sex and then a child is created. Heather, to this day, sends Michael once a year for 3 weeks to Pennsyvalia to see his father and he doesn't pay a damn dime and hasn't since Michael was born. They send Michael Birthday and Christmas gifts and that's it. Michaels step father pays for all his needs, not his birth father. That is a another issue totally. This thread is mainly about the issue of people who got married, were together for however long, had a child(ren) during said marriage, and then divorced.
 
PS. Master, I'm sorry but you have a divorce decree stating your visitation rights. If these are being denied then you need to take it to court. Mitch did even when he was delinquent on his support and still won that issue. I was threatened to be thrown in jail over it myself.

Again, take her to court. You do have rights also.
 
Anyway Master, again, if you are being denied visitation, then you need to take your ex to court. That is your right as a citizen.

As far as you being within $100 of being homeless because of said support, then I guess you need to get a second part-time job.

Again, there is no excuse.
Click to expand...

heres where there is a problem though...there is a huge difference between me and my ex. im that close to homeless, she isnt. granted, it "shouldnt" matter where her money comes from, but she isnt providing for the child. the state is. so with that said, where are the repercussions for her. there are none. mothers that mooch are acceptable in the world, yet, the male is expected to get a second job...as you have clearly stated for me.

your right, there is no excuse. there is also no excuse for a mother being a mooch and living off of other people, state, welfare, etc.
women need to buck up and earn money with a job as well as a man can. let me guess tho, "we have to watch the child and pay for child care".....bingo, child support...use it. use it to pay the child care so you can go work and provide the other half of the support instead of relying on welfare and money from the father.
 
Kat said:
PS. Master, I'm sorry but you have a divorce decree stating your visitation rights. If these are being denied then you need to take it to court. Mitch did even when he was delinquent on his support and still won that issue. I was threatened to be thrown in jail over it myself.

Again, take her to court. You do have rights also.
Click to expand...

actually no, no i dont. shes already done an act that allows her to deny me of that.
 
i wont go into details, but trust me...she went really low and fucked me over real well. so atm, im having to be at her whim when it comes to visitation.
 
And again, how she gets her income is none of your concern. I'm sorry but you are stating over and over how she is living. She is your ex. She is out of your life. It doesn't matter!!!! You need to worry about #1 your child, and then #2 yourself. Not about how she lives or what she's doin. Whether or not it's right, it's none of your concern. You are divorced. You have a divorce decree. That is your guide on your rights as your sons parent.

You have no rights as far as how she lives her life now, unless you can prove her an unfit mother. If so, then you use said decree and take her to court.

Again, quit friggin' worrying about how she's mooching. It's none of your business. The only thing that is your business is if she is taking proper care of your son.
 
masterorion said:
i wont go into details, but trust me...she went really low and fucked me over real well. so atm, im having to be at her whim when it comes to visitation.
Click to expand...

Then it's time to shit or get off the pot, and do whatever it is you need to do to rectify the situation. Again, I tried to fuck Mitch over and he fought back. He won on the account of me denying him to see Heather. The man may have been one helluva shitty husband, and he may not have paid for Heather, but by God, he loves her and he wouldn't be denied his right to see her. Again, you also have those same rights.
 
Maybe you ought to quit worrying about how your ex is living and start worrying about how your child is living. It seems to me that you keep focusing on how your ex is living off the state and its not fair, etc. Well if your ex is living off the state, she probably isn't living all that well, which means your child isn't living all that well either.
Change your attitude a bit. Forget about your ex and put your efforts into making sure that your child has an easier life. Sure you may make like easier on your ex, but don't focus on that.
 
your not getting the point kat. its about the standards. yes, income is income. but if you were not the custodial parent, wouldnt you have a problem with someone that doesnt work while your expected to hold two jobs. put yourself in her place for a second. its all peechy keen and hunky dory because you dont have to do anything except go to the mailbox to get the money. in the meantime, the other half is "expected" to have more than one job. now, switch yourself to being the payer. would it not urk you to see the other person doing nothing but using money that is not hers, that she does not earn to support. its called being a deadbeat. dont be a slug and use free money. that is not providing. thats mooching. and yes, i state it over and over because your not seeing the point. there wouldnt be any repurcussion for a female that doesnt support their child with "their own money" instead, they become deadbeat. ill give an example that may clarify this a tad. if your married, have a child, would you think its fair to have one parent earn all of the money while the other sits at home? answers here will vary, but my answer is no. why?, because its more stress on one person to provide. the other would just sit at home and care for the kid. yet, the father would make the money and care for the kid when hes not at work. now, is that fair? no. this is no different in most senses.

its not that im worrying about it, but women want shit equal, guess what...men do too. women need to buck up and be forced to pay support. but its obvious that they arent required to.
 
alanon said:
Maybe you ought to quit worrying about how your ex is living and start worrying about how your child is living. It seems to me that you keep focusing on how your ex is living off the state and its not fair, etc. Well if your ex is living off the state, she probably isn't living all that well, which means your child isn't living all that well either.
Change your attitude a bit. Forget about your ex and put your efforts into making sure that your child has an easier life. Sure you may make like easier on your ex, but don't focus on that.
Click to expand...

she lives better than i do. i do worry about how my son is living. who do u think buys his clothes.
 
She is out of your life.
Click to expand...

sorry, your wrong here. if there is a child, unfortunately there will always be a bond between the mother and father. up until the kid is living on their own, you have to deal with the other parent.
 
The problem is Kat we're talking about problems about how the law is written and enforced, not that there is a law. To me it seems like so many issues are simplified and seperated that have a lot to do with each other. Since the laws have a gender bias, which is based on statistics no doubt, it leaves the laws open to abuse.

Right now we're talking about fathers who can barely afford to pay the minimum, think about situations where the fathers are more well off, and the amount of money the court orders him to pay becomes higher. The mother often gets enough just from child support and alamony that she never has to work, and then she collects welfare checks. Of course no one would ever think about taking the children away from the mother. Taking kids away from the father on the other hand, happens so very often.

For cases where it's the father as the primary caretaker for the children, I guarantee in almost all cases it's because the mother doesn't want to.

Why wouldn't the child go to whatever parents can financially support them, and if a parent DECLINES to be involved in the child's life then they are forced to pay child support to a parent who can't.

I also disagree with the idea that after 13 a child should be able to just choose. When the kid can just pickc which parent to stay with, the parents then lose their ability to set strict rules that a child might need growing up. E.g., "You can't tell me to do my homework, I'm going to live with my father!" Not to mention, if a primary parent could have been feeding the kid years of training to hate the other parent.

I really think some people on this thread need to look at this from the hypothetical situation that the genders were reversed. Imagine if always the fathers got custody if they didn't decline, and then imagine your ex-husband is raising your kid and raising him to hate your guts. All while you work 2 jobs to support him, who doesn't work and lives off your money that you send to him and your kids.

Is it the kids fault? No. Should they be punished by not getting needed money? No. But the system has problems. If the mother isn't going to get a job, within even 5 years, why should she keep custody if she's not even putting a single dollar in earnings to support the kid financially?
 
OMG, you just don't get it. You think that check you send pays for your child when the custodial parent has custody? That 30% of your income, or whatever she's entitled to in your state? That isn't even an inkling of what it costs to raise a child full-time even with the non-custodial parent getting the child weekends and in this day and age 1 day per week. I think Mitch got Heather for 1 month in the summer. Gimme a friggin' break. I worked a full-time job and worked as a bartender 2 nites a week to pay for Heather and I when I was first divorced.

I honestly don't wanna hear it. If your child is small, they need milk, and food, and diapers and a shots, and doctor visits and a TON of things. If you're child has started school, there are school books, school fees, school clothes, extra-curricular activies such as bein' on the volleyball, football, whatever team. School field trips. My list can go on and on. When they get to high school, then it really gets costly.

Again, as far this the child bein' with one parent for so many months and then the other, it's very hard on the child. BUT, there are some parents out there who do have joint custody of their children and it can be done. Again, take it to court. That is your option.
 
omg, thank god you chimed in firestreak. i couldnt have said any of that any better. that hit the nail right on thei friggin head
 
And another thing, my brother got a girl pregnant when she was 15 and he was 16. Jimmy pays for Nicole and then he married his ex wife and had Sabrina. They got divorced. Jimmy's ex moved to Rhode Island and Jimmy STILL has to pay for both children, on top of the fact he doesn't even get to see Nicole and Sabrina only once a year. BUT, he still pays his support every week.

I don't wanna hear how you cannot support your child. My brother does it, and doesn't get to see his daughters very much. But he still provides for them.

I'm still calling bullshit.
 
kat, your basing all the stuff on what you say because thats your past experience. one parent should NOT have to raise a child full time. it is your experience that you and your daughter raise a child full time. but myself, i want to be part of it too. im willing to cut it straight down the middle. then people that complain about having to care for it, feed it, clothe it, they have no reason to bitch.

your only thinking your situation kat.im more than willing to equally care for the kid. IE: buy clothes, food, watch over the child, AND AND AND AND pay support. this is not only the situation that you and your daughter have. my situation is not the only one there is either. my son was planned. therefore, do you think i do not want to pay and care for him?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top