Just Got My Court Order

[vraiblonde]

Oh, and Larry's cousin has custody of his young son. He rocks, too!

AND Larry's father got custody of all of them when he split with Larry's mom 30 years ago.

So no more excuses - we see them for the bull#### they are.

 

[vraiblonde]

I'm defending fathers who are better able to provide for and raise thier children than the mother.

Then they should petition for custody. The reason they don't is because they don't want it. And there are several examples of breadwinning men who got custody of their children to prove it.

 

[Lugnut]

Then they should petition for custody. The reason they don't is because they don't want it. And there are several examples of breadwinning men who got custody of their children to prove it.

I'm not talking about deadbeat moms and dads here. I have no interest in parents that don't want their children.

What if both parents are GOOD parents. One can provide for a family, the other can't. Who should get custody?

If custody is split 50/50 between these good parents. What should be done with regard to child support?

 

[pixiegirl]

The reality is that child support numbers are so skewed in womens favor that even after a divorce, the man is STILL the bread winner.

This is not a true statement. The formula is the same no matter if the mother or father have custody.

 

[Chasey_Lane]

Now you have two parents both working full time jobs. One can provide just fine, the other is at the beginning of a career and can't. Who should get custody now?

Her "career" was staying home and taking care of her family. So now she is forced to get back into the working force and her ex-hubby never had a break in his. The mother sacrificed for her family.

 

[Lugnut]

This is not a true statement. The formula is the same no matter if the mother or father have custody.

A friend of mine just got his child support order. The judge granted 75% of the guidelines to the man because "you are more able to provide for the children and do not need the additional monies"

 

[Lugnut]

Her "career" was staying home and taking care of her family. So now she is forced to get back into the working force and her ex-hubby never had a break in his. The mother sacrificed for her family.

:shrug:

They're divorced, she can't do that now. Now they BOTH have to work and clean house.

What's the answer to the original question?

 

[Ken King]

Nope. Larry Gude, Mainman and Pete are all custodial parents with living wives who aren't crack whores. (Well, not sure about Mainman because I don't really know his story - but he is a custodial parent).


Because typically the man is wrapped up in his career and can't properly care for children. The woman more often has a second-income job and has more time to devote to child raising.

But, again, there are exceptions where the primary breadwinner can raise the kids just fine (see Larry, MM and Pete). And since these three men have managed to do it (and bring up fine young people, to boot) I can only assume that men who "can't get" custody of their children don't really want it.

I had custody of my children and had to pay rehabilitative alimony to the ex for 3 years of that time while never once receiving any child support from her for the 10 years until the youngest left home.

 

[Chasey_Lane]

:shrug:

They're divorced, she can't do that now. Now they BOTH have to work and clean house.

What's the answer to the original question?

I would say that the father should be expected to pay more or momma' should have been a career wife herself. :shrug: During their marriage it was AGREED that he would contribute more. Why should divorce be any different? :shrug:

 

[pixiegirl]

A friend of mine just got his child support order. The judge granted 75% of the guidelines to the man because "you are more able to provide for the children and do not need the additional monies"

That means that before the spilt he was likely making 75% of the household income.

With my ex husband I'm responsible for more and have sole custody because I'm the one that can better provide for my child.

 

[Lugnut]

I would say that the father should be expected to pay more or momma' should have been a career wife herself. :shrug: During their marriage it was AGREED that he would contribute more. Why should divorce be any different? :shrug:

So all things being equal (Both are good parents) the woman should get custody?

 

[Lugnut]

That means that before the spilt he was likely making 75% of the household income.

With my ex husband I'm responsible for more and have sole custody because I'm the one that can better provide for my child.

But the formula already takes income disparities into account. That's why the formula exists...

 

[Chasey_Lane]

So all things being equal (Both are good parents) the woman should get custody?

If all things are equal, why wouldn't they split custody?

 

[Lugnut]

If all things are equal, why wouldn't they split custody?

I think they should. But I seldom see it.

As I said above, this is a topic that is very polarized along gender.

It's no surprise that men and women have different points of view on it. Responsible fathers think they're being burdened unfairly, and mothers think the system is just fine or even under paying them.

 

[Chasey_Lane]

It's no surprise that men and women have different points of view on it. Responsible fathers think they're being burdened unfairly, and mothers think the system is just fine or even under paying them.

Yeah, it is so unfair when they have to pay to support their children after a divorce when they were doing the same thing while married.

 

[Cowgirl]

Can't we all just get along? Sometimes you just have to agree to disagree.

 

[HollowSoul]

Yeah, it is so unfair when they have to pay to support their children after a divorce when they were doing the same thing while married.

I have a slightly different outlook on how CS should be used.
Paying it myself (although not quite as much as doug) I have seen how it's squandered away and it kinda pizzes me off.
I think that if the absent parent is to provide insurance, then the CS ammount should be lowered, on the other side of the coin if insurance isn't provided then CS should be raised.
I provide both and have a hard time understanding why I provide for my child...and still get calls from the mother asking for help with things...ie she needs new clothes ect.
Then i go to visit and see a new car in the driveway/new furniture.
My proposal aside from the insurance/CS adjustment is that payments made should be placed in an account, and the recipiant mother (or father) recieved a debit card for that account.
and ONLY items justified for supporting a child can be purchased through that account...
now before you say that "what if she go's over the limit"
The account is allready credited for a certain ammount (lets say that at the time CS started that income for the absent parent was 70,000.$ yearly- if the absent parents payments are lets say 800. a month (with insurance coverage) then 800 a month X 18yrs =$172,800.00
That is how much the STATE places in the account and the absent parent is responsible for PAYMENTS TO THE STATE through the account.
This way, reguardless of wether the absent parent's income fluctuates, they have their LIFETIME to pay back the state...(also federal income tax returns along with state returns are forfeited to pay the state...
Even if the parent is completely absent and the custodial parent i left to raise the child themselves, the state allways steps in to help WIC food stamps ect...this way there is a way to pay the state back....

I could be pipe dreaming here but it makes sense to me :shrug:

 

[Pete]

I believe the heartburn with the deal is more "perception". The total child support number is based on the joint income. They do this so that the kids live a "lifestyle" appropriate to what they would if the parents were still married.

Would it be right for a kid whose parents make a combined $150,000 to live in a trailer down by the river because the custodial parents portion of the $150,000 was only $30,000? No it would not and the courts realize that is what would happen if the degree of support were left up to many men.

This is where the perception comes in. Some men don't have a problem with paying child support for the kids, the problem comes in when they believe the huge support payment is going to financing the ex living high on the hog and the ex's extra cirrucular activities.

Suppose the above scenario were true. Man making $120,000 and a woman making $30,000. Man pays $1350 a month for one child. After daycare, assuming $600 a month, that is $700 going to the NC to support the kid.

Men will see their ex's whooping it up at Toots, pushing a cart loaded to the top at Target and carrying a Coach bag and get pizzed because they feel they are paying $1350 a month so his ex can party and live well. In his mind a kid cannot possibly eat $1350 worth a Cheerios a month.

The other problem is that the NC has NO control or voice what so ever in how the cash gets spent. Once the check hits the ex's hand it could very well go to parties, cruise, Jaguar payment, Direct TV with 10,0000 channels while the kid is eating Cheerios 3 times a day and wearing ratty catheat sneakers. Unless the kid is in severe danger, once custody is set it does not change. Most places you cannot even petition the court to get custody changed unless there is a significant change of circumstance.

So I feel that most of it is anger that they: 1. Have to hand the money to their "enemy". 2. Have no control at all how it is spent. 3. Feel that the ex spouse gets more benefit from the money than the child.

 

[Nickel]

I have a slightly different outlook on how CS should be used.
Paying it myself (although not quite as much as doug) I have seen how it's squandered away and it kinda pizzes me off.
I think that if the absent parent is to provide insurance, then the CS ammount should be lowered, on the other side of the coin if insurance isn't provided then CS should be raised.
I provide both and have a hard time understanding why I provide for my child...and still get calls from the mother asking for help with things...ie she needs new clothes ect.
Then i go to visit and see a new car in the driveway/new furniture.
My proposal aside from the insurance/CS adjustment is that payments made should be placed in an account, and the recipiant mother (or father) recieved a debit card for that account.
and ONLY items justified for supporting a child can be purchased through that account...
now before you say that "what if she go's over the limit"
The account is allready credited for a certain ammount (lets say that at the time CS started that income for the absent parent was 70,000.$ yearly- if the absent parents payments are lets say 800. a month (with insurance coverage) then 800 a month X 18yrs =$172,800.00
That is how much the STATE places in the account and the absent parent is responsible for PAYMENTS TO THE STATE through the account.
This way, reguardless of wether the absent parent's income fluctuates, they have their LIFETIME to pay back the state...(also federal income tax returns along with state returns are forfeited to pay the state...
Even if the parent is completely absent and the custodial parent i left to raise the child themselves, the state allways steps in to help WIC food stamps ect...this way there is a way to pay the state back....

I could be pipe dreaming here but it makes sense to me :shrug:

That sounds like a really bad idea IMO. The state of Maryland has a hard enough time keeping up with enforcing child support, can you imagine the extra staff and man hours needed to support something like that? And, in addition, what if the noncustodial parent never pays? Taxpayers are footing the bill for $100k per child, and that is unfair.

 

[pixiegirl]

I believe the heartburn with the deal is more "perception". The total child support number is based on the joint income. They do this so that the kids live a "lifestyle" appropriate to what they would if the parents were still married.

Would it be right for a kid whose parents make a combined $150,000 to live in a trailer down by the river because the custodial parents portion of the $150,000 was only $30,000? No it would not and the courts realize that is what would happen if the degree of support were left up to many men.

This is where the perception comes in. Some men don't have a problem with paying child support for the kids, the problem comes in when they believe the huge support payment is going to financing the ex living high on the hog and the ex's extra cirrucular activities.

Suppose the above scenario were true. Man making $120,000 and a woman making $30,000. Man pays $1350 a month for one child. After daycare, assuming $600 a month, that is $700 going to the NC to support the kid.

Men will see their ex's whooping it up at Toots, pushing a cart loaded to the top at Target and carrying a Coach bag and get pizzed because they feel they are paying $1350 a month so his ex can party and live well. In his mind a kid cannot possibly eat $1350 worth a Cheerios a month.

The other problem is that the NC has NO control or voice what so ever in how the cash gets spent. Once the check hits the ex's hand it could very well go to parties, cruise, Jaguar payment, Direct TV with 10,0000 channels while the kid is eating Cheerios 3 times a day and wearing ratty catheat sneakers. Unless the kid is in severe danger, once custody is set it does not change. Most places you cannot even petition the court to get custody changed unless there is a significant change of circumstance.

So I feel that most of it is anger that they: 1. Have to hand the money to their "enemy". 2. Have no control at all how it is spent. 3. Feel that the ex spouse gets more benefit from the money than the child.

I'm not saying that I disagree with your theory but very often it's a skewed perception. My ex husband once told me "Why you I give you money to go out and party with?" WTF? At the time I was soley supporting myself and our child and could still afford to go out when I wanted to. He has always looked at it as, I provide fine so he doesn't need to; any money he gives to me MUST be spent on myself. That's total b/s since for the past 5 years I've paid my portion of the support and his.