child support

Kat said:
One more thing. As far as living expenses go. When you are the non-custodial parent you can live in a 1 room boarding house. When you are the custodial parent even with only 1 child, you need at least a 1 bedroom apt. with a sofa bed for yourself in the livingroom. That right there is a higher cost than what the non-custodial pays. We are talking about the basics here, as you yourself are trying to point out. Therefore, why would you need at least a 1 bedroom apt. when you can do just as well with an efficiency correct? But, the custodial parent needs at least 2 rooms for sleeping arrangements alone.

Again, very very few non-custodial's have to pay 30%. Therefore, again, you are not paying half of the child's upkeep. And if you are paying 30% that sure the hell isn't 50% is it. So whatever, knock yourself out. Try to rationalize it so you look like you're getting a bum deal. Let me tell you, you're not.

Lastly, and I do mean lastly, I am so done after this, there are a ton of costs that aren't even mentioned in Fire's little breakdown. Kiere knows it, I know it, and I know there are others who are reading this thread and just not commenting who know it.
Click to expand...

this makes me LOL. if a male can live in an efficiency, a woman can house a child and herself in a one bedroom. dont even try to deny that. my mom did. things worked fine. but of course, you seem to think your right. and that really amuses me. your trying to rationalize bs to make your point valid. so, go ahead and list these extra expenses. lets see how many times i can equal that with an expense for a non custodial..... as for the 50% vs 30%. if a male puts in 250 and the woman puts in 250, i would say that equals 50%. but again, you seem to think that women dont have to contribute equally. the difference is that women dont have to send their money into the state. but think about next time you go to the store. out of 500 bucks a month, how much money would you have left over per month to raise a kid. imagine how much more money you would have left over once the kid gets older and is legally able to hold a job and isnt as needy.

your problem kat is you hear what im saying, but you dont listen to what im saying. you do the whole "ya, sure, mhmm, ok, ya, sure...." the whole time anyone here tries to explain anything to you and the words go in one ear and out the other. i cant count how many times i have agreed with you about guys need to pay child support...duh. of course they should. but when it comes to anything anyone else says....its BOOM...shot down before you even finish reading the sentance. use logic kat. thats all i ask. i live in a one bedroom apt..you know why...cuz its as much as an efficiency in other places. is it possible to raise a kid in a one bdr apt...hell yes it is. its possible to raise 3 kids in a one bedroom house thats as big as an apt. dont doubt me. me and my first 2 sisters were raised in a house that size.
is it possible to raise a kid in a house that size with no extra funding at all? yes. my mom did it just fine. should men not have to pay child support? no. if the woman lets the man get away scott free, they deserve what decision they made.
 
OMG, I just SAID a custodial with 1 child can live in a 1 bedroom apt. with them sleeping on a sofa bed in the livingroom. I also said a non-custodial can go live with the basics of an efficiency. WTF, dude? The point is, a 1 bedroom is for the child, therefore the custodial is paying half. I have NEVER said the non-custodial should be paying for everything. I have said throughout this whole thread, if they cannot then whatever the courts throw at them they deserve. Please quote me where I have ever said that each parent shouldn't pay half. I dare you to.

I do believe it's you who doesn't comprehend what they read. Anyway, go ahead, knock yourself out. Say whatever you want. I will not give any feedback from here on out.
 
Kat said:
OMG, I just SAID a custodial with 1 child can live in a 1 bedroom apt. with them sleeping on a sofa bed in the livingroom. I also said a non-custodial can go live with the basics of an efficiency. WTF, dude? The point is, a 1 bedroom is for the child, therefore the custodial is paying half. I have NEVER said the non-custodial should be paying for everything. I have said throughout this whole thread, if they cannot then whatever the courts throw at them they deserve. Please quote me where I have ever said that each parent shouldn't pay half. I dare you to.

I do believe it's you who doesn't comprehend what they read. Anyway, go ahead, knock yourself out. Say whatever you want. I will not give any feedback from here on out.
Click to expand...
give me some time, theres alot of pages
 
Kat said:
Ya know what. You are an idiot...You're starting to sound like a total loser in my eyes Master, and I used to have a ton of respect for you.
Click to expand...

Kat said:
And this will be the last post from me. Master, I truly feel from the way you reacted to my OPINION about this thread, you and I are no longer friends. Not that you care, but I'm definitely letting that be known. You went wayyyyy to far by calling me a ho. Very very disrespectful.
Click to expand...

Look who started the name calling.
 
ok, so i looked over a majority of the threads, your right, you didnt say directly that men should pay all of it. however, it can be constrewed in someones opinion, that it was meant. IE: "get 2 jobs yada yada"...ill admit, i took that out of context and made myself believe you meant something else. however, i could have sworn somewhere in there that something was mentioned around the lines of "it doesnt matter where a woman gets the money from" in regards to working or getting free money from the state. this is probably what i was wanting to mean subconciously.

for this, i would like to mention again that women shouldnt be able to support their portion free of charge. they should work for their share also. not working as in going to the mailbox to get the checks that are sent.
one of the "tweaks" that i keep mentioning, that i think should or could be put in place is requirements for both parties to hold a job.
contrary to popular belief, i do support the opinion that men do need to pay support. however, for one side to not necessarily have to do anythning to pay their half isnt equal. IE: living off of the state and child support.
 
Master, I do agree with you, but sometimes that's just the it is. I really really did not want to bring this up. Firstly my sister is dead and buried so she isn't even here to defend herself. And, this is just one case. But when my sister was 16 she got pregnant with my neice Michelle. She HAD to go on State Aid for a time. There was just no other choice in the matter. Michelle's father also only paid support for a very short time.

Anyway, my sister wanted off state aid so bad she could taste it. She hated bein' on it. But she also needed to finish high school and then go on to college. This is not a divorce type situation, but it is a state aid type of thing. So, she graduates as a Junior, goes to Waubonsee to get her Associates taking her general studies, then transfers to NIU for her Bachelors. She takes a job totally out of her field just to get off of state aid, and starts sending out her resume's yada yada for teaching. She gets her job teaching and at the time of her death she had just gotten her Master's and was goin' for her Doctrate.

The point is, sometimes you just have to do what you can to survive until you can get on your feet.

Again, what your wife is doin' may not be right. I agree with you. BUT, it's not your business.

As far as calling you an idiot, I do apologize for that also. It's just I've seen so much regarding young people getting pregnant, marriages breaking up, father's just not giving 2 shits about their kids once they walk out that door. I know there are father's out there who care. I know there are Mom's out there that don't deserve the babies they've had. But, when it comes to support, each parent needs to pay their portion.

If the custodial parent has to use the system for a tad to make something of themselves, then so be it. They WILL give it back eventually. If they abuse the system, they will get caught. Of that there is no doubt in my mind.

As far as the original post goes, for the last time, if that's what it takes for the non-custodial parent to help pay for their blood, then so be it. Whether it's a deadbeat Mom or Dad. They deserve everything the state throw at them.
 
what i would like to see is equal requirements. just as its not fair for the custodial to work as the father chooses to be a deadbeat, the father could be punished. i really think they should require income from the mother also. this will ensure that both parties are caring for the child. its one thing to get income, but its another thing to leech to get that income. its perterbs those that try to do things the ethical way. its kinda like a custodial using welfare or somethig of the sort to pay their support instead of working for it. i would be a tad pissed at that person as well.
the reason being is, i work for what i get. i dont like to see people use the easy way to do something and take advantage of shit
 
masterorion said:
what i would like to see is equal requirements. just as its not fair for the custodial to work as the father chooses to be a deadbeat, the father could be punished. i really think they should require income from the mother also. this will ensure that both parties are caring for the child. its one thing to get income, but its another thing to leech to get that income. its perterbs those that try to do things the ethical way. its kinda like a custodial using welfare or somethig of the sort to pay their support instead of working for it. i would be a tad pissed at that person as well.
the reason being is, i work for what i get. i dont like to see people use the easy way to do something and take advantage of shit
Click to expand...

oops....fixed

its kinda like a non-custodial using welfare or somethig of the sort to pay their support instead of working for it
 
I just realized about everyone in my family has been pregnant in their teens but me. Dang ...

Funny part is, I'm the blacksheep of my family. Unreal.
 
Allll right, here's the point I'm trying to make.

As I've said, not in every case mother's on welfare are doing anything wrong. I'm talking about a minority of cases.

What I'm talking about is a fundelmental flaw in the system that allows for it to be abused. The major flaw is that women who don't want to be on welfare get too little, and women who do want to can get too much.

There are 2 situations to look at. You can take the rule of: Responsibility, no excuses! Or you can take the rule of: Shit happens.

Responsibility, no excuses!

Why is somoene having babies they can't afford to raise?
Why can't the mother get a job
Why can't the father pay his support.

Shit happens:

Sometimes the father can't find a job.
Sometimes the mother doesn't have the skills she needs.
Sometimes the mother or child has special needs.


The problem before was fathers could just skip out of town and the system was too lax on them. So the system adjusts.

Then you're still looking at the problem of the system from the view of the old system. The fathers now must pay or go to jail. Within the rules of the system, deadbeat fathers are no longer the problem. To you, that solves your dilemna.

But when mothers are ensured that 30%, do they need the same welfare as when they weren't? Even in the past, when they actually did get the child support, welfare continued to not take that into account. There are deadbeats both custodial and noncustodial, that's the problem.

If you get pregnant as a teenager, your life is going to be hard. Actions have consequences, that's life. If you get your girl pregnant as a teenager the same applies for the guy. His life is now morphed around the need to help provide for the child. The difference being the mother has all the choice of abortion. Both parents have the choice of adoption if they feel they are too young to provide for their children. The father has no way to sign off on the child, he has NO EXCUSES, yet you don't feel the system should be changed for the same to the custodial parent, the one who wants the responsibility?

Now maybe it isn't MO business where the mother gets the money, but it is the business of USA if there is a freeloader we're all paying taxes for.

It's all really an issue of old systems changed, and then new systems still containing rules that apply for the older systems.
 
To try and put a personal edge here: Kat just imagine your daughter's custody was given fully her father not you upon divorce. Let's say you're making 40k a year. Imagine instead of getting a job he went on welfare, and then the state had you pay 30% of your income to him. You can say, "I love my daughter, I will pay!"

So now you're paying 1000 a month to him. Then he pulls in welfare checks on the basis to get money for him and then again pulls out money from the system for your daughter. He's getting money from the government for her, yet you still are paying him 1k a month.

Now that system is better than the old system had you dumped the kid on him and decided to vanish. It doesn't make the new system good.
 
Firestreak said:
To try and put a personal edge here: Kat just imagine your daughter's custody was given fully her father not you upon divorce. Let's say you're making 40k a year. Imagine instead of getting a job he went on welfare, and then the state had you pay 30% of your income to him. You can say, "I love my daughter, I will pay!"

So now you're paying 1000 a month to him. Then he pulls in welfare checks on the basis to get money for him and then again pulls out money from the system for your daughter. He's getting money from the government for her, yet you still are paying him 1k a month.

Now that system is better than the old system had you dumped the kid on him and decided to vanish. It doesn't make the new system good.
Click to expand...

Fire, if it had happened that way, Heather's father had gotten custody of her, and was getting state aid to provide for her, firstly it's none of my business whether I feel it's right or not, and I would pay whatever I supposed to, to make sure she was provided for. Mind you, IF I found out he was milking the system, I would do something about it. But if he truly needed state aid to get by for awhile, then so be it.
 
So, it's been a very very hectic week for me. It just goes to show that your child(ren) are yours even after they are 18, 21, 24, and so on and so on and so on. The difference is, time really does heal all wounds when it comes to divorced parents. They learn to quit fighting with each other and know the love for their child and in mine and Mitch's case, our grandchildren, overcome everything else in the past.

The reason I'm telling you guys this is because I know there are some of you are in the boat Mitch and I were in 19 years ago. My ex-husband just told me not 5 minutes ago on the phone that men do really bad things when they are hurt, cornered etc. The reason I bring all this up is because my daughter left her husband this past Tuesday nite. A woman can only be treated badly for so long. Anyway, not gonna go into the specifics, but wanted to give my ex-husband one helluva a pat on the back and a great Dad thumbs up kind of thing for finally seeing the light when his OWN daughter is goin' thru what he put his wife (me) thru 19 years ago, and admitting what an asshole he was, and telling me to watch my back this time around.

I know you guys probably have no clue what I'm talkin' about at this point in time, but someday you may if you ever have daughters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top