Worst ex-spouse ever?

SG_Player1974

New Member
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.?

Does everyone NOT see that these same circumstances can and will be had during the non-custodial parent's visit?

Im not saying that there is not an obligation by the non-custodial parent when the custodial parent has them. What I AM saying is "Why do these obligations get forgotten about when the non-custodial parent has the children?"

Why is it inconceivable that the CP should pay support when the NCP has the children for an extended period of time?
 

BadGirl

I am so very blessed
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....
Let's just make a situation where the ex-wife/custodial parent gets the child for 10 months of the year, and gets child support for that child. During that time, she gets absolutely no break from the child, nor the resposibility that that means. Every single dentist appointment - the mom is the one taking the kid to the dentist. Every single doctor apoint - the mom is the one taking the kid to the doctor. Every single parent-teacher conference - the mom is the one there. Every single sport's practice and game - the mom is the one there. Every single County fair day and every other day off from school - the mom is the one scrambling to find alternate care for the child. Every dinner that that kid eats is because of that mother.

You see, the mom is EVERYTHING to that child in those 10 months that he/she is with the mom. She gets no breaks, or certainly, minimal breaks from the responsibility of caring for that child.

Can't she take two months of the year off from that tremendous responsibility and take a break from that load?


NOTE: I use the example of the mother being the primary care-giver, but there are fine examples on this forum where the fathers are the primary care-giver to their kids. These fathers do awesome job of caring for their kids, and shouldn't be overlooked for all that they do.
 

Pete

Repete
Does everyone NOT see that these same circumstances can and will be had during the non-custodial parent's visit?

Im not saying that there is not an obligation by the non-custodial parent when the custodial parent has them. What I AM saying is "Why do these obligations get forgotten about when the non-custodial parent has the children?"

Why is it inconceivable that the CP should pay support when the NCP has the children for an extended period of time?

What is an "extended period"?

How about vacations? My ex is poor...by choice, doesn't pay support and unless you count a pair of expensive shoes once a year she contributes NOTHING yet she manages to take a ton of vacations. Most of the time her vacations with Boy involve a request for funding so he can have spending money and not have to sit there broke. I did it for a few years out of guilt or perhaps retardation, but now I refuse to. Once he called me and asked if I could send him money to go on a jet ski because everyone else was going but they didn't have enough for him.
 

SG_Player1974

New Member
Can't she take two months of the year off from that tremendous responsibility and take a break from that load?

ABSOLUTELY!!!!

Its called the 2 month a year that the NCP has the child. :coffee:

BUT... if the NCP has to pay their fair share during those 10 months which they are "getting a break" then Why shouldn't the CP pay as well during their break?

This is the root of the question.
 

RoseRed

American Beauty
PREMO Member
Does everyone NOT see that these same circumstances can and will be had during the non-custodial parent's visit?

Im not saying that there is not an obligation by the non-custodial parent when the custodial parent has them. What I AM saying is "Why do these obligations get forgotten about when the non-custodial parent has the children?"

Why is it inconceivable that the CP should pay support when the NCP has the children for an extended period of time?

I had instances when my daughter was sick and rather than disturb the status quo, it was better to just keep her home rather than be sick at her Dad's house. Then they would make up that time at a later date.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
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.

First, let me reiterate: I let him slide on CS for the month that the kids were with him. What he wanted was for *me* to pay *him*.

In my case the ex would had a wife that could stay home with them while he was working because she didn't work.

During that month, the rent didn't go away. Like BG said, the daycare bill didn't go away. I'm not the one who made him move across the country so that he couldn't have weekends or whenever he wanted visitation and had to do month at a shot. His lifestyle was one of him and his wife, and his bills reflected that. My bills and lifestyle were geared toward me and two kids, with the 3 BR home that I wouldn't have needed if not for them.

He never kicked in extra for school clothes, sports, summer camp or any of that. Ready? When our son was playing football I asked him if he'd take him shopping for cleats and get them broken in before practices started. He took that money out of my next month's child support.

And that was fine, but I certainly wasn't going to pay him CS for the month he had the kids. I thought I was being generous by not making him pay for that month.
 

ZARA

Registered User
Does everyone NOT see that these same circumstances can and will be had during the non-custodial parent's visit?

Im not saying that there is not an obligation by the non-custodial parent when the custodial parent has them. What I AM saying is "Why do these obligations get forgotten about when the non-custodial parent has the children?"

Why is it inconceivable that the CP should pay support when the NCP has the children for an extended period of time?

You are correct. A lot of it has to do with how amicable the ex's are to each other. That's it in a nutshell.

I send spending money with my son and I pay for half the airfare for him to visit his dad. I wrote that into the modification orders. It is my responsibility to pay for my son's medical, also in my order. I also have full custody and my ex has visitation rights.

I know that my ex is not as financially well off as we are and that taxing him would do nothing but be counter-productive. My son has the best of everything...only because I grew up with nothing.

Some exs are ashats. And they abuse a system that was implemented to help people...
 

itsbob

I bowl overhand
Let's just make a situation where the ex-wife/custodial parent gets the child for 10 months of the year, and gets child support for that child. During that time, she gets absolutely no break from the child, nor the resposibility that that means. Every single dentist appointment - the mom is the one taking the kid to the dentist. Every single doctor apoint - the mom is the one taking the kid to the doctor. Every single parent-teacher conference - the mom is the one there. Every single sport's practice and game - the mom is the one there. Every single County fair day and every other day off from school - the mom is the one scrambling to find alternate care for the child. Every dinner that that kid eats is because of that mother.

You see, the mom is EVERYTHING to that child in those 10 months that he/she is with the mom. She gets no breaks, or certainly, minimal breaks from the responsibility of caring for that child.

Can't she take two months of the year off from that tremendous responsibility and take a break from that load?


NOTE: I use the example of the mother being the primary care-giver, but there are fine examples on this forum where the fathers are the primary care-giver to their kids. These fathers do awesome job of caring for their kids, and shouldn't be overlooked for all that they do.

I think you'll make for an awesome, caring compassionate ex someday..


:love:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
You see, the mom is EVERYTHING to that child in those 10 months that he/she is with the mom. She gets no breaks, or certainly, minimal breaks from the responsibility of caring for that child.

Great post :clap: but I especially wanted to highlight this paragraph because NCPs really have no idea what their ex-wife/husband is going through during the rest of the year. They seriously have no clue.

Like I said, Dave was a decent guy but he'd complain when he had the kids about how much managing they needed and I'd be like, brother, you have NO freaking idea. Summer's are free-form - it's during the school year that requires extensive management.
 

SG_Player1974

New Member
First, let me reiterate: I let him slide on CS for the month that the kids were with him. What he wanted was for *me* to pay *him*.

You let him slide? This may be a different case in Maryland (my divorce if from a different state)

I am not obligated to pay support if I have the children for 2.5+ weeks of the month.

My questions still stands though.

In my case the ex would had a wife that could stay home with them while he was working because she didn't work.

Shouldnt matter to be honest. It is not HIS fault that he has a SO that is at home. Argument could be made if you had a SO as well.

During that month, the rent didn't go away. Like BG said, the daycare bill didn't go away. I'm not the one who made him move across the country so that he couldn't have weekends or whenever he wanted visitation and had to do month at a shot. His lifestyle was one of him and his wife, and his bills reflected that. My bills and lifestyle were geared toward me and two kids, with the 3 BR home that I wouldn't have needed if not for them.

He never kicked in extra for school clothes, sports, summer camp or any of that. Ready? When our son was playing football I asked him if he'd take him shopping for cleats and get them broken in before practices started. He took that money out of my next month's child support.

And that was fine, but I certainly wasn't going to pay him CS for the month he had the kids. I thought I was being generous by not making him pay for that month.

All of this is subjective.

- The bills dont go away for the NCP when the children are with them.
- Location of the NCP is of no concern of the CP as long as the NCP takes care of their responsibility (varies)
- NCP's "lifestyle" is of no concern to the CP as long as responsibilities are met
- Your bills for 2 kids and 3BR home are subsidized by child support. Right? If house it TOO big... move.
- Extra monies for clothing and sports activities should have been worked out in the agreement.

Finally... Him not paying for the month if he has the children for the month is not really "generous." It is more like treating him the same way he treats you when YOU have the children. As far as I know, you have not mentioned ANYTHING about having to pay him when YOU have the kids.
 

SG_Player1974

New Member
I may bow out of this as I do not want it to go hostile.

I was merely trying to state that, although there are no provisions for an NCP to receive compensation from the CP when they have the children for an extended period of time, there is NO argument that can be made to justify why this is.

At least one that could NOT equally apply to the NCP.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
SG, and I'm trying to say this as nicely as possible:

You are one of those guys who give NC dads a bad name.

The children are yours, too, not just hers. They are your responsibility as well as hers. She cares for them all during the year and it is not unreasonable for you to share in their expense.

While you are off at happy hour scouting for butt, she is home making dinner and overseeing homework.

While you are out pursuing recreational activities, she is transporting the kids to their various activities.

While you are working late to please your boss and get a good eval and perhaps a raise, she has to pick the kids up no later than 6pm.

You use your leave for vacation. She uses her leave when one of them is sick or school is closed.

When you get home from work, you turn on the tube, grab a beer, and consider what you want for dinner. She rushes home from work to fix dinner, oversee homework, listen to squabbling, fuss about showers, and finally FINALLY go through the bedtime process.

You get one person ready to go in the morning; how many does she get ready?

Everything she did when you were married, she now does by herself.

The very least - VERY least - you could do is pay your damn child support without bitching about it.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
I may bow out of this as I do not want it to go hostile.

I was merely trying to state that, although there are no provisions for an NCP to receive compensation from the CP when they have the children for an extended period of time, there is NO argument that can be made to justify why this is.

At least one that could NOT equally apply to the NCP.

If you had the kids half the time, I would agree with you. I have a couple of friends who share custody with their exes and no money changes hands because the kids live at both places. But you are not a full time parent - she is.

No hostility at all, just trying to help you see the side of the coin that's not yours.
 

BadGirl

I am so very blessed
Oh hell no. She'll be taking your ass to the cleaners, her girlfriends will see to that. :razz:
When I saw how well he took care of his ex-wife, when he wasn't required to do so, I thought to myself, "you know, he's gonna make an excellent ex-husband".

And that, my friends, is when I decided to marry him.


:biggrin:
 
Top