child support

masterorion said:
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.

women need to buck up and be forced to pay support. but its obvious that they arent required to.
Click to expand...

absolutely I would have a problem with it. when my boyfriend was with his ex, he paid for her to get a college degree. now, she works at a Mazzio's Call Center, claiming to make minimum wage. She says her monthly gross pay is $1000.00/month.
Now, she has decided to enroll the children in a Catholic Preschool, where expenses are $1200.00/month. Why is that okay? She could stay home, and it would cost my boyfriend less money; it is costing him more money for her to work.
So, as we have a problem with this (and many other things) we are TAKING HER TO COURT! We are DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT instead of bitching about it on the QCDN flame board.

You should do the same; you are making yourself a victim here because you are unwilling to do anything but complain about the situation.
 
Linhjah said:
absolutely I would have a problem with it. when my boyfriend was with his ex, he paid for her to get a college degree. now, she works at a Mazzio's Call Center, claiming to make minimum wage. She says her monthly gross pay is $1000.00/month.
Now, she has decided to enroll the children in a Catholic Preschool, where expenses are $1200.00/month. Why is that okay? She could stay home, and it would cost my boyfriend less money; it is costing him more money for her to work.
So, as we have a problem with this (and many other things) we are TAKING HER TO COURT! We are DOING SOMETHING ABOUT IT instead of bitching about it on the QCDN flame board.


You should do the same; you are making yourself a victim here because you are unwilling to do anything but complain about the situation.
Click to expand...


you fail to remember why i made this thread....for debate. not to flame because i have an issue with cs. its on this board because debates typically have flames in them. its a debate to allow people to speak their mind and to give exercise everyones minds as to other points of view.
 
billytibbetts said:
If the men here want something to be incensed about go read up on Paternity Fraud and how the government can force you to pay for kids that you're not the biological father of.

http://www.ejfi.org/family/family-68.htm
http://www.ancpr.org/father_takes_dna_paternity_fraud.htm
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48871
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,168632,00.html
Click to expand...

Not only should those men not be responsible to pay deliquent payments on the children who aren't theres, they should be reimbursed for the money they've already paid.
 
oh, and i just used my particular experiences to attempt to get a point accross. im not bitching about them. but its easier to explain something if you have an example
 
Firestreak said:
Not only should those men not be responsible to pay deliquent payments on the children who aren't theres, they should be reimbursed for the money they've already paid.
Click to expand...
and alot of appologies from the courts and everyone that was paid wrongfully
 
Firestreak said:
Not only should those men not be responsible to pay deliquent payments on the children who aren't theres, they should be reimbursed for the money they've already paid.
Click to expand...

What about the women who perjured themselves when they fraudulently id'd the guy as the father of their baby?
 
The only problem is if they're in jail they can't pay back the man they defrauded. Kind of like the dad who is behind of payments can't do much from jail.

Sure he can make license plates, but that's pretty fucking inefficient. Spend hundreds of thousands of dollars jailing him so he can do a 100 buck a week job.
 
Kat said:
One last thing. That is why there is the thing called, Sole custody, Full custody, and Joint custody. Needless to say, if you get sole custody such as I did, then the non-custodial parent has to pay child I believe 30% of your gross income in support. If you fight for joint custody then there is no child support. Full custody I believe is where the non-custodial parent pays the child support, but it isn't as much as 30% of the gross income. Also I believe the non-custodial parent doesn't have to pay for health insurance etc. Again, the laws have probably changed a lot in the last 19 years so I'm goin' off what it was like in 1987.

Anyway, for those of you out there who are complaining about the way the system is set up, then you need to get your divorce decrees changed as far as the term 'custody' goes, and go for joint. If you want to share the responsibilty, then you should've fought harder in the first place. Again, I know of too many fathers out there who just abandoned their wives and children. I know too many fathers out there who then got remarried and put either the step children before their own blood or had children with their second wives and blew off their responsibilities. Now, 19 years later, there are these new laws, and people are whining.

Here's my question: Why did it have to get so bad in the first place to enforce these new laws? We parents of the past had to fight to make the non-custodial parent help pay for their children. Now it's up to you to turn the tables and prove you're worthy of these laws being lessened.

And now I'm truly done.
Click to expand...


Even with joint custody one parent will usually pay child support because one parent will still have primary physical placement.
 
billytibbetts said:
What about the women who perjured themselves when they fraudulently id'd the guy as the father of their baby?
Click to expand...

Why do we still allow loose women the ability of finger-waving the richer guy when DNA tests have been around for decades?
 
Firestreak said:
The only problem is if they're in jail they can't pay back the man they defrauded. Kind of like the dad who is behind of payments can't do much from jail.

Sure he can make license plates, but that's pretty fucking inefficient. Spend hundreds of thousands of dollars jailing him so he can do a 100 buck a week job.
Click to expand...

They're not required to pay back the father. For some reason the biological father is responsible directly for it, rather than being through the mother.
 
Firestreak said:
The only problem is if they're in jail they can't pay back the man they defrauded. Kind of like the dad who is behind of payments can't do much from jail.

Sure he can make license plates, but that's pretty fucking inefficient. Spend hundreds of thousands of dollars jailing him so he can do a 100 buck a week job.
Click to expand...
ya, the whole point of jailing is so they can work off the money to the state. but then i say whats the point of doing that. it doesnt come out of the persons pocket. the state solely pays for it
 
masterorion said:
ya, the whole point of jailing is so they can work off the money to the state. but then i say whats the point of doing that. it doesnt come out of the persons pocket. the state solely pays for it
Click to expand...

They also have to pay for the incarceration, which will in all likelihood dwarf the immediate payments owed via child support.
 
Skaw said:
Why do we still allow loose women the ability of finger-waving the richer guy when DNA tests have been around for decades?
Click to expand...

2 Reasons:

1. In most states, and child born to a married woman is presumed to be the biological offspring of her husband - unless he takes steps to prove otherwise.

2. Even if they are not married, quite often he is foolish enough to trust her.
 
resipsa said:
2 Reasons:

1. In most states, and child born to a married woman is presumed to be the biological offspring of her husband - unless he takes steps to prove otherwise.

2. Even if they are not married, quite often he is foolish enough to trust her.
Click to expand...

Or in many cases if a woman writes your name on the birth cerificate you can and will likely be held responsible. There's an article somewhere about a man that was forced to pay child support to a woman whom he had never met, much less slept with.
 
It becomes a question of if jailing someone to make them pay is stupid because it's costly or needed because the threat wlll make them pay. On that vein I agree, threaten with jail and they won't commit fraud as often. As it stands there's no reason not to commit fraud. There are no penalties and you don't even have to pay back the money you got.

But if the real father is paying, then throw the bitch in jail.
 
i usually hear about stuff like that when it comes to gold diggers and celebs
 
without a repercussion of somekind(jail), people would have no reason to feel that they need to pay unless they want to. but on the other hand, why jail someone that is putting forth effort to do so
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top