Worst ex-spouse ever?

Hank

my war
the Divorce was amiable ... but as time went on, she got more bitter ....


[I guess dating a couple of married, luser brothers after we split was too much for her ... she had the nerve to bitch at me because She was the one who got HIV .... her then BF, the father of her 3rd child, was a wanna be dope dealer, running the streets at night, poking crack whores in the 1990's]


yeah I was a bit more choosey than that

:twitch:
 

SoMD_Fun_Guy

Do you like apples?
There is always a two way street. I've known some single fathers that were wonderful. I've known mothers who didn't deserved to be mothers. It isn't always one way or the other, the only way is to do what is best for the kids.

Yup! gotta do what's best for the kids.
 

ZARA

Registered User
There should never be a reason to have an ex.

Women should listen and do what they are told. No problems and everybody is HAPPY.

Amazing...GMTA..

I tell my husband that SAME thing concerning men. He agrees. Smart man is my husband.
 

SG_Player1974

New Member
My ex gets a C+ for visitation. The downgrade is because there were many times I'd call him on a Friday afternoon to see what time he wanted me to drop the kids off, and he was on travel without telling me beforehand. When the kids visited him for a month :)getdown:) in the summer, he didn't have to pay child support for that month. However, he got it into his head that I should pay *him* for that month. :lol: And when he moved to CA, for some reason he thought I should kick in for the kids' airfare to come see him.

All of those snags (except the travel non-communication) were his wife's idea, btw. He is actually a decent guy.

V,

I understand your position and I agree with you on MOST of what you are saying however, I do not agree with your opinion on the bolded item above.

So, basically, you are saying that it is more than fair that your ex has to pay YOU for when the children are with you for each and every month BUT, you laugh when the shoe is on the other foot?

I know that most states are set up that when the non-custodial parent has the children for 2+ weeks in a month that they are not obligated to pay support for that month BUT, it does NOT state that funds will be given from the custodial parent for the childrens welfare during that period.

Could you explain why it is you think this is fair?
 

BadGirl

I am so very blessed
V,

I understand your position and I agree with you on MOST of what you are saying however, I do not agree with your opinion on the bolded item above.

So, basically, you are saying that it is more than fair that your ex has to pay YOU for when the children are with you for each and every month BUT, you laugh when the shoe is on the other foot?

I know that most states are set up that when the non-custodial parent has the children for 2+ weeks in a month that they are not obligated to pay support for that month BUT, it does NOT state that funds will be given from the custodial parent for the childrens welfare during that period.

Could you explain why it is you think this is fair?
I can't speak for Vrai, but one good example of why child support payments should continue to the ex-wife even when the child may not be there with the mother over summer break is because of daycare.

Most daycares require that you pay for time that your child goes to the daycare, and even when he/she is not there (say, on vacation or something of the like). If you take your child out of daycare so that he/she can go and spend time with the non-custodial parent, that childs' spot can be given away to another kid on a wait-list. As scarse as daycare slots are, it is impractical to let your child's spot slip away just to save a few dollars.
 

RoseRed

American Beauty
PREMO Member
V,

I understand your position and I agree with you on MOST of what you are saying however, I do not agree with your opinion on the bolded item above.

So, basically, you are saying that it is more than fair that your ex has to pay YOU for when the children are with you for each and every month BUT, you laugh when the shoe is on the other foot?

I know that most states are set up that when the non-custodial parent has the children for 2+ weeks in a month that they are not obligated to pay support for that month BUT, it does NOT state that funds will be given from the custodial parent for the childrens welfare during that period.

Could you explain why it is you think this is fair?

Assuming that when he moved to CA, she had them 24/7, without the weekend visitation breaks.
 

ZARA

Registered User
How dare you enjoy a break from your children. :smack:

The ONE good thing that came out of being divorced. I get summers to myself!! Especially since I don't have any family to send my kid to for time out. So I used to never go out at all during the school year. I saved it all up for when he was with his dad and then I didn't have to worry about him.

I had a baby sitter once...then I caught her smoking weed while watching my kid. :smack: She is lucky I didn't kick her ass. I never had any one baby sit after that.
 

ZARA

Registered User
V,

I understand your position and I agree with you on MOST of what you are saying however, I do not agree with your opinion on the bolded item above.

So, basically, you are saying that it is more than fair that your ex has to pay YOU for when the children are with you for each and every month BUT, you laugh when the shoe is on the other foot?

I know that most states are set up that when the non-custodial parent has the children for 2+ weeks in a month that they are not obligated to pay support for that month BUT, it does NOT state that funds will be given from the custodial parent for the childrens welfare during that period.

Could you explain why it is you think this is fair?


Now I don't want you to take this the wrong way but here is a perfect example of why a parent should continue to pay child support:

I receive a WHOPPING 200.00 a month for child support (Damn Texas!)...My son eats more than that in a month. So the 200.00 I receive does not even COVER his food bill.

Now that's not the only bill there is. There is medical, room and board, clothes, school supplies, etc etc.

Now- clothes alone...2 pairs of jeans is almost 100.00. 2 pairs of shoes, 100-200. Socks undies, shirts...I would say my ex got of effing CHEAP.

Granted, it is not like that in all situations, however that is another example of why. Monthly support does not always pay for half of the child's upkeep.

I wish I had been divorced in Florida. *Le Sigh*
 

SG_Player1974

New Member
I can't speak for Vrai, but one good example of why child support payments should continue to the ex-wife even when the child may not be there with the mother over summer break is because of daycare.

Most daycares require that you pay for time that your child goes to the daycare, and even when he/she is not there (say, on vacation or something of the like). If you take your child out of daycare so that he/she can go and spend time with the non-custodial parent, that childs' spot can be given away to another kid on a wait-list. As scarse as daycare slots are, it is impractical to let your child's spot slip away just to save a few dollars.

OK... but what about the other side of the coin?

I guess the working non-custodial parent is just screwed for daycare and or other means of taking care of the children while he/she is working.

I just think it should be fair all around. If it's good enough for the goose....
 

RoseRed

American Beauty
PREMO Member
OK... but what about the other side of the coin?

I guess the working non-custodial parent is just screwed for daycare and or other means of taking care of the children while he/she is working.

I just think it should be fair all around. If it's good enough for the goose....

If the father doesn't live locally to help out, who do you think stays home from work with the sick kids and transports them to/from doctors appointments, etc.?
 

SG_Player1974

New Member
Now I don't want you to take this the wrong way but here is a perfect example of why a parent should continue to pay child support:

I receive a WHOPPING 200.00 a month for child support (Damn Texas!)...My son eats more than that in a month. So the 200.00 I receive does not even COVER his food bill.

Now that's not the only bill there is. There is medical, room and board, clothes, school supplies, etc etc.

Now- clothes alone...2 pairs of jeans is almost 100.00. 2 pairs of shoes, 100-200. Socks undies, shirts...I would say my ex got of effing CHEAP.

Granted, it is not like that in all situations, however that is another example of why. Monthly support does not always pay for half of the child's upkeep.

I wish I had been divorced in Florida. *Le Sigh*

Not taken the wrong way... this is just another matter of one's particular situation and I could completely understand but... lets flip that coin again.

When I would have summer visitation with my children, They were ALWAYS sent in their rattiest clothes. So, naturally, the first stop was to the store to get "good" clothes for the visit. Now, I was NEVER reimbursed for this and there was no way for me to seek reimbursement.

As for the medical.... does your ex have medical coverage and responsibilities for medical bill payments? I know I have mine covered under my insurance AND I know I have a percentage that is to be paid ABOVE AND BYOND my support.

Like I said... different circumstances.
 
Top