child support

[Kat]

And again, that is when you take it to court and get it changed. That is your right. Quit talking about what you want to do, and make it happen.

 

[masterorion]

And again, that is when you take it to court and get it changed. That is your right. Quit talking about what you want to do, and make it happen.

and again, i already am

 

[masterorion]

but, back on track. im not trying to reveal my life story here. look at firestreaks post and go off of that instead of me and kat exposing our dirty laundry to the world.
firestreaks post resembles what im trying to explain and get the debate to be on

 

[Kat]

And again, I don't know how it is in your state, but here in Illinois, I believe you can only get state aid unless your youngest child starts school full time. Then you must go out and seek employment. They've changed that within the past few years to make the deadbeat Mom's shit or get off the pot. So therefore, it is just a matter of time, I believe in your ex' case.

 

[Kat]

As far as Fire's post, I go back to my original comment that:

IF the deadbeat non-custodial parent would've paid up in the first place, there wouldn't be the harsh laws of today.

I am for it 100% and am glad they finally did something about it.

 

[Firestreak]

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.

The assumption being that the mother is adequitely providing for all those things. The state doesn't set those standards, it only tells the other parent what they need to provide for. If every single fucking cent the father paid in, reciepts could be produced by the mother that they were all spent on the child for those things, then yes no one would have any reason to complain. But how far you can stretch 500 bucks a month when you're giving your child the bare minimum is amazing, especially when they get older.

The father is already responsible for providing medical insurance. Not that they always do, but it's the law, and we're debating as written. Not all mothers give the children money for extra cirricular activities. It's not expensive to cook a basic dinner. A box of spagetti costs a few bucks and might lasts 2-3 meals. A thing of bread? A thing of peanut butter and jelly?

There are most costly things. Cell phones, cars, car insurance. Nice clothes are expensive, but shitty clothes are cheap.

The point being the system provides too little in some cases for good mothers and deadbeat parents, but fails with deadbeat moms and good dads miserably.

 

[masterorion]

And again, I don't know how it is in your state, but here in Illinois, I believe you can only get state aid unless your youngest child starts school full time. Then you must go out and seek employment. They've changed that within the past few years to make the deadbeat Mom's shit or get off the pot. So therefore, it is just a matter of time, I believe in your ex' case.

what case? there is no case. i pay the required support. end of story and plus some. this is why i feel your being a little predjudice. there is no "ex's case". there is no "my case" i pay what is required by the state and i dont make waves to cause problems. yet, you make the remark of "i believe in your ex's case"

im not trying to imply anythning by that kat, but in my opinion, thats what i see. unless of course your still thinking i dont pay my share and want to do my share in my sons life?

 

[masterorion]

and yes, florida state laws are much different than yours. my son goes to school full time atm

 

[Firestreak]

Kat just imagine your ex husband being the same dead-beat he always was, and the state having given him custody of the child not you. Furthermore you're working two jobs to pay for her and you have no idea how the money is being spent. You want half custody at the least and you aren't being allowed that.

Then imagine abortion was legally your ex-husband's choice not yours. Not that either of you would have wanted it, but simply you had no choices on the matter past sex and he had all the choices in the world. You might start seeing a problem in the system.

A telltale sign a system has a problem? That people are easily able to abuse it. E.g. the Welfare moms. If the woman is unable to get a job herself even a year after seperation, why should she retain custody of the child?

 

[Kat]

Again, Fire many many times the non-custodial parent doesn't live up to what's written in the divorce decree and the parent who has the child full time has to compensate. Therefore, the custodial parent ends up paying for all that stuff. You get tired of fighting with the ex and just do what you have to do to take care of your child.

Master, what I mean about 'case' is you say she's living off the state at this point in time. In the state I live in, you can only live off the state til the youngest child starts first grade. Therefore, it is just a matter of time if your state is set up the same way. She can ONLY get state aid until your son starts 1st grade, then she MUST seek employment.

The reason I am personally goin' after you, is because I heard the same crap for so many years from Heather's father. He used the excuse he had 4 kids he had to pay for yada yada. The thing is 3 of those kids were provided for by their father and he DID pay for their health insurance. I never took Mitch back to court after he went back in construction cuz I just didn't want to fight anymore.

The state finally went after him on their own and he had to pay me $90 per week for so many years, $45 toward the arrearage and then $45 for the current week. Well then Heather turned 18. The balance was around $2,000 he still owed in arrearages. I've never taken it to court. I will say one thing though. There is no statue of limitations on child support. I 'could' still take him to court for that money. It's just not worth it.

 

[Firestreak]

As you grilled Masterorion, anyone should be able to get a job. Scrub toilets, work at mcdonalds, whatever. Why shouldn't the mother be able to do that to provide for her child? Both parents should be providing, or the parent willing to provide should be the one with custody of the child.

 

[Kat]

Again Fire, that is why there are courts. If the non-custodial parent doesn't like the way it's set up, then you take it to court.

 

[masterorion]

Again Fire, that is why there are courts. If the non-custodial parent doesn't like the way it's set up, then you take it to court.

you dont go to court to change the guidelines the state has

 

[resipsa]

The sad thing is, the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) was enacted not with children in mind, but for considerations of judicial economy. They predicted these issues arising over and over in court - litigation over how much it actually costs to raise a child vs how much is being paid.

Congress (CSSA is a federal statute) solved this problem by basing the act on the theory that children should enjoy the same standard of living they would have if the parents stayed together and came up with a forumula: 17% of gross minus fica for the first child, 25% for 2, etc, up to a cap of $80k combined parental income.

There are inherent problems with this. It costs more to maintain 2 households, so the statute attempts to maintain the same standard of living with less disposable income. The result, in many cases, is to make the non-custodial parent a wage-slave, living in relative poverty while the custodial parent lives in relative luxury. You end up with thousands of men like Masterorion working their asses off to pay much more money than it actually costs to raise a child, struggling to make ends meet, while the custodial parent reaps the rewards of his hard work.

There are also some horrible incentives built in. Consider this:

Woman has 2 children with one man who makes 40k/year - his child support obligation will be approximately 10k/year (I didn't discount fica).

But if she has 2 children with 2 different men who each make 40k/year she gets 17% from each, or $13,600/year.

Child support received is not considered in determining welfare eligibility.

I'm going to qualify what I'm about to say with the following: There are lots of decent women out there. But many, many women don't want a father for their children - the want sperm donating wallets, and the legal system supports them. It needs to be changed.

 

[Firestreak]

Again, Fire many many times the non-custodial parent doesn't live up to what's written in the divorce decree and the parent who has the child full time has to compensate. Therefore, the custodial parent ends up paying for all that stuff. You get tired of fighting with the ex and just do what you have to do to take care of your child.

Wouldn't it be better to have a system that's fair and at the same time firm and doesn't even involve the courts? I pay into social security automatically when I get a paycheck, I don't see why the same couldn't be done for child support payments. The problem is the system fails in your case by not holding a truly deadbeat father's feet to the fire, but at the same time fails in Masterorion's case by not even attempting to force the mother to get off her ass and earn some money for her kids.

These failures don't counter each other out, they favor deadbeat parents and they allow the system to be abused at the expense of the children.

 

[Kat]

Whatever. It sounds to me like you are jealous cuz your ex sits on her ass all day and gets state aid. I'm sorry, but who the fuck cares. I know it's not right, but she's getting away with it. IF you can prove to a judge that you can provide for your son better, then you take it to court. BUT, you yourself have said that you are within $100 of being homeless. How in the hell can you take care of your child then with the added cost of having him fulltime?

The system is the way it is because of past cases. They did what they had to do to make the non-custodial parent START TO PAY, INSTEAD OF BLOWING THEIR OBLIGATIONS OFF. If they hadn't blown off their obligations in the first place, there wouldn't be these laws. Deal with it.

 

[masterorion]

Again, Fire many many times the non-custodial parent doesn't live up to what's written in the divorce decree and the parent who has the child full time has to compensate. Therefore, the custodial parent ends up paying for all that stuff. You get tired of fighting with the ex and just do what you have to do to take care of your child.

Master, what I mean about 'case' is you say she's living off the state at this point in time. In the state I live in, you can only live off the state til the youngest child starts first grade. Therefore, it is just a matter of time if your state is set up the same way. She can ONLY get state aid until your son starts 1st grade, then she MUST seek employment.

The reason I am personally goin' after you, is because I heard the same crap for so many years from Heather's father. He used the excuse he had 4 kids he had to pay for yada yada. The thing is 3 of those kids were provided for by their father and he DID pay for their health insurance. I never took Mitch back to court after he went back in construction cuz I just didn't want to fight anymore.

The state finally went after him on their own and he had to pay me $90 per week for so many years, $45 toward the arrearage and then $45 for the current week. Well then Heather turned 18. The balance was around $2,000 he still owed in arrearages. I've never taken it to court. I will say one thing though. There is no statue of limitations on child support. I 'could' still take him to court for that money. It's just not worth it.

this is where its obvious your state is different then. since child support, here in florida, its paid to the state before a check is cut to the custodial, the state determines everything about how, when , and how long its paid for. as in your case, he still owes 2k. in the state of florida, that is never owed. it WILL be paid even if it is after the child turns 18. the arreared amount is tacked onto the end.

 

[Firestreak]

Whatever. It sounds to me like you are jealous cuz your ex sits on her ass all day and gets state aid. I'm sorry, but who the fuck cares. I know it's not right, but she's getting away with it. IF you can prove to a judge that you can provide for your son better, then you take it to court. BUT, you yourself have said that you are within $100 of being homeless. How in the hell can you take care of your child then with the added cost of having him fulltime?

The system is the way it is because of past cases. They did what they had to do to make the non-custodial parent START TO PAY, INSTEAD OF BLOWING THEIR OBLIGATIONS OFF. If they hadn't blown off their obligations in the first place, there wouldn't be these laws. Deal with it.

You can't blame the fathers of today for the fathers of the past. With a correctly set up system both parents would be forced to work, both parents would be forced to be providing money for the children and one wouldn't be living off support while the other works two jobs and the kid still gets the bare minimum.

You said your self how expensive it is to pay for a child. But that's when you do it correctly. For these women out there who make no income, imagine what kind of care their kids get?

There has to be some middle ground here.

 

[Yoshindor]

Okay, I understand what you're saying, but the reason why the state has gone to such extreems now, is because they HAD to get tough from the deadbeats Dad's of the past. And yes guys, it was the DADS who made the states you live in pass such laws. If they had been paying in the first place, it wouldn't have come to the extreem it's at. That is the bottom line.

So don't blame the system, blame the fathers of children in the past who had to make it bad for the fathers of today.

So there answer now is to treat everyone guilty till proven inocent and pile the system against them and make it harder for one sex than the other.

Correct me if I'm wrong but, Your innocent until proven guilty?

I thought all the femonists were fighting for equality yet I geuss when it comes to divorce I geuss it's okay to treat women diffrently than men just because they have tits and ovarys.

Hypocrasy bhugs me like nothing else and worst of all it's makeing special rules for certain people. Now don't get me wrong I understand there are times when accomidation is needed.

But the system fopr dealing with child support is very one sideed. there is no way to check and see how the women are useing their alomoney (or at least there wasn't when it was an issue with my family). Example my uncle (my deaceased mothers husband is as about as worthless as a mother can be. When my uncle divorced her the day the divorce was finalized she shacked up with a known drug addict and spent her allomony and the kids support (they had 2 daughters together my 2 cousins) on heroin and coke. Then tried to take him to court saying he wasn't paying or she needed more to feed her drug habbit (obviously she didn't use thoise words). And she got it. Anyway my cousins mooved in with my parents then my grandparents then me and my daughter when I first came here.

Long story short and correct me if I'm wrong please, the system is perpetually geared twoards handing out "justice" and not checking what the fuck it's doing.

But I do agree, you have no right to bitch if you don't do anything to fix it. Thats what kills me about these people who complain about the nation and all that stuff and then you ask them if they vote and they say no . . .

 

[Yoshindor]

You can't blame the fathers of today for the fathers of the past. With a correctly set up system both parents would be forced to work, both parents would be forced to be providing money for the children and one wouldn't be living off support while the other works two jobs and the kid still gets the bare minimum.

You said your self how expensive it is to pay for a child. But that's when you do it correctly. For these women out there who make no income, imagine what kind of care their kids get?

There has to be some middle ground here.

This is my point exactly why are mothers alowed to sit and do nothing and men work their asses off.

Double standard much!?