Kudos for a good post. Your aren't the only guy I know who agreed to pay more than he could have when the divorce was settled. As I said before, I feel for MB, but more for his obvious frustration at not being able to have his son living with him, than for the bread he's forking over that might be going for things that that bread isn't intended for. How can we really know, viewing this from a chair in front of our PC? I believe him, but I'm believing his perspective, not whether it is the whole story. You bring up a great point, however, which is the loss of the tax benefits you have when married, benefits lost in a divorce. Seems to me that if there were a tax break for child support, we'd see more child support actually paid, fewer situations as emotionally upsetting as MB's, and a bit more equity. I think it's a nice idea. Practical? I don't know, because I'm not a tax expert, or an expert on divorce and child custody. Maybe someone who is could comment on the idea.
Agree. Children need to have their father in their life. No matter what kind of payment obligation is there. Thats the REAL obligation. The talked-about issue is usually "men getting screwed", but really it should be "Father in child's life". My 2 issues are - For women, dont withhold a child away from its dad so you can extract as much funds as possible, for a dad who WANTS to be in the son's life. Thats extortion all the way. Even if 6 out of 7 men run away from responsibility, dont hold it against the man who TRIES. Yes I see this, its so disheartening. - Also, women again, if he has a criminal record he's probably not father material. The saying goes you cant turn a ho into a housewife. Well you cant turn a thug into a househusband either, goes both ways. But thats just me, I'd rather a stay at home DAD and a working mom than a support collecting mom neglecting the child from a willing dad.
Repped. Your boy will benefit from witnessing the manner that you and his mom have worked things out. So many folks have no conception of the mental crap that they force their children to endure.
Now I understand why Master Baiter doesn't like Texas. It all makes sense now. Although his anger seems misdirected, I can't say I blame him.
I was agreeing with the principle. I have no doubt that actually pulling something like this off would be a mess. Which actually kind of reinforces some of the complaints better made by folks like MB.
I orginally was going to agree with this, and it's true, but the below is much more realistic of how ***** works... I feel your pain...I deal with the same exact azz BS...I buy clothes for both houses, she garnished my wages, she always asks for more more more and it's all about the money...the kids are there to support her lifestyle, nothing more...sad, but true...And yes, if you do miss or are late, which I've never been, holy h*ll will break loose and all this drama like "I'm taking you to court" blah blah blah... My little victory is that when she garnished my wages, she thought it would be direct deposited as she wanted the money quicker...I told her don't do that, i'll pay on-line, but nooooo...well, my company doesn't direct deposit, they mail it from TN to TX, then it has to get processed with AG...needless to say, it takes a lot longer than she expected...She called and had a ***** fit and b*tched out HR person...nice... If there was a way to monitor/track, direct pay for all the kids expenses, I would totally do that, but there's not...You have to learn to say NO! Don't pay more than the decree and don't fall for the BS... Granted, my kids don't do without, but I just wish they didn't have to endure her BS...I don't talk bad about her in front of them and I can't control what she says...In my mind, they'll get to know how truly evil she is and they'll form their own opinions as the grow up...I love it when I visit them and they come in the summer to stay with me..it's so peaceful/chaotic, but in a good way...and when its time to leave, they don't want to go...that's awesome... Now of course, I wish when I do get them in the summer I didn't have to pay child support...she should have to pay me...
C'mon man, really??? Being a father has been, hands down, the greatest experience of my life. Nothing else compares to it.
That is not the way it works. It should work this way, but it doesn't. My cousin does the shared custody thing where he has them one week, her the next by court order. He stills pays her $900 a month to help even their incomes. He is also the one responsible for carrying the insurance and all other needs of the children. This is for a girl who makes over $20 an hour at her job too. What is sad is she gets them about once a month for a day or 2 and it changes nothing. When the courts subpoena her she will get them for her weeks leading up to the court date and claim she still wants them. It is a big scam and the court systems are helping to enforce that the scam continues. Also, like I have said on here in the past, the child support system has become a joke. It is all about the money. There are thousands of people in Texas working the child support division. There is one guy(or at least there was 7 years ago) working visitation. Nobody knows who this guy is or how to find him though. It took a minor miracle to finally track this guy down. When you finally do, it was really all for not as there is not much he can do. The visitation order is worth about as much as the paper it is written on. You can be standing there with a police officer and your order in hand with the ex and kids next to you(and I have) and they can do nothing if she does not voluntarily hand them over. The system has nothing to do with the welfare of the children. It is all about passing the buck. I promise that just about any child who is taken from their father would rather see their dad, than get new clothes, or ride in mommies new SUV. It has nothing to do with the emotional well being of the child. Most people have been brainwashed by society though, with "deabeat dad" and all the other labels to actually believe that it is possible that the women are screwing the children many times and not the father. In these cases, most just assume the dad is wrong, and the mom is a saint just trying to raise her children the best she can, while the dad is a money hungry ase who complains that he is having to pay for his children. It is kind of sad really that society has been brainwashed(purposely) into believing this.
We are very paternalistic when it comes to reproductive rights. Women want no part of equality in this realm. They lose too much. So . .they 'allow' men to maintain the ideology of the 50s about it. i.e. the woman are more nurturing, better parents and men need to get out of the way and just pay for everything. This is one of the last places where the 50s ideology is still in place. and because they benefit from it .. . women have no interest in changing it. The Old Men are so indoctrinated in it. . they are unwilling to change it. Rocket River
Yep, read my post above on evenly split custody. In all child support cases You pay child support at all times, regardless of who has the children, whether you are even allowed to see your children, or if she ever cares to get the children herself. The system is a severly flawed joke when it comes to child support/visitation.
Well, you pay a house note 12 times a year. Can the Ex tell the bank to just skip the requirement to pay during, let's say, the summer months, because Dad has the kids? I don't think so.
It is supposed to be about supporting the kids. Is that not its sole purpose? The way you respond, it is more about supporting the woman. If you have the kids, and she does not have the expense of raising/paying for them for 3 months, should she not be able to pay her own bills during this time? It sounds to me like you are encouraging living outside of your means on someone else's dime, and it having nothing to do with the children. If I am all the sudden buying their groceries, clothes, and every other expense associated with the children for 3 months, why can she not support herself during this time? That is actually just cutting into the money I have to support and do things with them during my time. That is the opposite of supporting the child. That has nothing to do with child support. You are talking alimony, not child support.
Putting a roof over your kid's heads would consititute "supporting the kids" I think. I feel for your friend. I have a buddy who for 15 years only saw his daughter for one month in the summer yet paid over 12 grand a year in child support. His ex and her new husband make well over 6 figures while he struggled to save any money for retirement.
^quoted for truth...barely getting by... I have them for 6 weeks and yes, you still pay...partly because of this logic: That's still a BS arguement, given that the burden is on the father to continue to pay/support, eventhough he has increased costs during the summer period, most notably child care while the dad works...The entire system is a joke and its true, people's view towards this topic is flawed...they always have an image of the poor single mother, taking care of the kids...pfft, she lives better than I do, already re-married and my $$ supports a lifestyle, making them live ouside there means...when my kids turn 18, the money decreases and thus, they'll be stuck... In very rare instances, which I know personally of two, the father doesn't pay child support...my one friend makes a great living and when he gave up the house, 401K, savings, etc, she agreed not to let him pay child support...The other instance, this guy (my friends the girl) got her to agree to not have him pay child support...don't know the entire story, but I want to give him a high five, for all the dad's that get screwed...
I'm talking about quality of life. You may have had a bad experience yourself, but that doesn't mean it is the norm. Far more women struggle to get child support due them for the kids than the reverse. I would want my kids to live in a nice place in a nice neighborhood. Child support can help that to happen, whether they are with the mother every week of the year or not. And no, I could care less about the quality of life for the chick. I care about the quality of life for the kids. It is rather difficult to separate the two. Kind of hard to cut that dime in half, you know? Do you seriously have a problem paying for the "groceries, clothes, and every other expense associated with the children for 3 months" when you have them? They don't show up with clothes? Are they seriously that hard to feed? Man, this isn't an argument I want to have with you, but it sounds like your problem is more with your ex than with having the kids for the summer. You just have to deal with it. Since when was life fair?
I think this is where the confusion comes in what child support is supposed to be. I have never said that putting a roof over your childs head is not child support. The problem is that if you are paying say $1000 a month it is not to give her a more luxorious life. It is to support the children. She should be able to pay her own bills when the children are out of the equation. If there are no children there for 3 months, she has no children to support and should be able to support herself on her income during this time, or if not because she is a stay at home mom in her new marriage, get a job to pay for herself. If she cannot pay for herself with no children around for 3 months, then she is living outside of her means and it has nothing to do with child support. On the other end, All of the mans bills now go up also with children in and out, tv's running, AC blowing all day, hour showers, and so on, on top of the groceries, and covering every expense that comes with a child. All of these bills have went away on momma's side. Explain to me again how it is considered child support, when you look at realistically under the "you should still support the woman even when you are the one raising the kids" scenario. In most of these cases, the woman is in a new realtionship(married or not) and you are really supporting her and the new man while you are trying to support yourself, and your kids for these 3 months also. How do you rationalize this? This is not the spirit of "child support".
You reap what you sow boys, and if you have poor judgment in women or have a knack for taking blind leaps of faith it will cripple you. How many of you married these women because you were grateful for just having a warm pair of legs to get into in your early 20's?
You don't want to have this argument because you are just spitting the company line. I have my children now. My problem is with the system, because there was a time when I didn't, and I know many people who don't and are getting railroaded daily, because of people with your logic. Lets just say you pay $1000 a month in child support for 2 kids. Let me show you how easy that goes away for the man and the woman. We can start with child care. In many cases that can wipe out the whole $1000, but to help you here I will say $500. Now groceries, if you have children you know I am seriously undershooting here, but an extra $100 a week. That is $400. Now gas driving them around, I will say $25 a week, again we both know this is seriously undershooting if you have kids, for another $100. The electric will go up about $100 a month, again undershooting. Clothes, you say you should not have to buy your child any clothing for 3 months, I find that insane. In clothes we will say $100 a month just on some basics, like shoes and swimsuits, again undershooting. Entertainment I will say $200 a month here severely undershooting for the man, because this is his time and probably overshooting for the woman but kind of meeting in the middle. So with those numbers which were underestimations, the man has incurred $1400 a month in new expenses while they have went away for the woman. That is a pretty big swing into her financial favor and against his. Explain to me again, why he should still pay her child support during this time and she should not be able to support herself, because just in that swing of money from her to him she is already ahead each month of what she was when she had the children.
