Posted Dec 3, 2009, 8:51 AM UTC
Ahh, family court.
I spend twice as much time with my kids as my ex. They're in my care about 70% of the time. She walked out on all of us for a married guy when my daughter was 18 months old.
I have to give her 28% of my net income.
She lives with, and is engaged to, the guy she committed adultery with.
I have to give them 28% of my net income.
They travel, both have new cars, live in a very nice house. Don't buy my kids a thing, dressing them in ill-fitting hand-me-downs when my kids are with them.
To provide my kids a good home, dress them well, and provide a portion of the advantages I've earned the right and ability to provide (dance and gymnastics, music lessons, etc) , I have to live paycheck-to-paycheck. Nurse along my older car. Shutdown my personal life.
After two years of living like this, my ex and I couldn't agree on where my son would go to school - we legally have shared custody, but the time is unequally split, this was an easier battle for me to win then going for full custody. Had to go to family court over it, where I presented a two-page document outlining the benefits of going to the school I wanted - academic advantages, community advantages, etc. My ex had one line of reasoning in her briefing - going to school at the school I wanted would be inconvenient for her.
The judge not only sided with her, flat out stating that he wouldn't make judgments about the academic advantages or community differences and all that mattered to him was the mother's convenience, but issued a monologue about learning to let your children go, directed to me. My kids are 4 & 6.
I've consulted multiple attorneys, spent tens of thousands of dollars, and the consensus is that I could go ahead, spend six figures on a custody fight, and maybe even win. But I'd still have the same amount of time with my kids, I'd have huge legal bills, and I'd likely still be paying "child support" because of the disparity in income between us - her total household income is irrelevant, only her direct earnings matter.
It's a very, very fucked up system. I basically have to choose between being an involved father and having financial security, and the system provides financial disincentives for being a damn good dad and doing the right things.
Ancillary to that, it's also quite fun being a single dad interacting with daycare centers and elementary schools. Every single employee of every one of these places I've encountered is a woman. And they assume the mom is the caregiver. Where they default to addressing communication to and taking direction from the mom, I have to constantly nag to make sure they know I'm legally the equal and in reality much more the care giver to my children.
If my kids weren't so damn awesome, I would say having kids is the worst decision a man can make. But somehow, in with all of the shit I know about the business side of it, being a father is still the best thing that's ever happened to me. Damn kids and their magical, mind warping pheromones.
Thanks for being a good father.
Thanks for the acknowledgment. But my kids weren't an accident, they were well planned. Being a good dad is what I signed up for, I'm just living up to my end of the deal.
Thanks anyway. They'll appreciate it when they're older.
Thanks for being a good father.
The majority of fathers are good, its really not that shocking statistically speaking.
And that means nobody should thank him?
And that means nobody should thank him?
If you re-read what i posted, I'm not implying anyone should or shouldnt say anything.
[deleted]
It was not easy to keep from laying into this judge when he made the statement about her convenience being the only thing he cared about, and for a moment I nearly let myself go. But if I ever have to return to court, I'll likely see this guy again, I can't give him more reason to attempt to marginalize me!
And hey, I've got the best outlet for pent up emotions. Ever had a good, hard, over-the-top, laughing-for-no-reason-to-the-point-of-tears session with two kids 6 and under? Better then punching a judge, I can pretty much guarantee it!
when he made the statement about her convenience being the only thing he cared about
Supporters of this kind of system just love to go on and on about the sake of the children. That's fucking bullshit. Even worse, it's not even about anyone in that room; it's about the state's pocketbooks.
The completely screwed up child support system in this country is an outrage and it seems like too many of those involved seem to think justice for the moms who are getting screwed over by deadbeat dads involves screwing over dads with blatant irrational and emotion based decisions like in your case.
It seems that the irrational but vocal people manage to scare so many others into supporting their view for fear of being deemed insensitive or bad.
Hmmm... Surely there are other less traceable forms of revenge? The living well thing sounds good, but I'm still going to punch the next lawyer I see just for you.
45 to face. Pull trigger. Game over; match victory by default.
Dude, kudos to you.
I am in a similar situation. I won't go into details, but suffice it to say that the courts here in Santa Clara County (California) are horrible and they victimize Fathers regularly as a matter of policy.
The kids are the reason to keep going. I have thought several times that it would be easier to just let my exwife have my daughter and that way she could stay out of my hair and I could start a new life. But my Daughter is the most amazing, magical person I have ever known, and my life is worth living as long as I know I can contribute to her safety and happiness.
Kids are wonderful people, and any incentive for a parent to stop seeing a child hurts THE CHILD - others are of little or no importance. The child should come first in EVERY case, and they actually do in nearly none.
But my Daughter is the most amazing, magical person I have ever known
I came here to complain about how one-sided this whole thread is, how I never even got a birthday card from my dad, let alone child support (my mom refused any payments for herself anyway) and then I read this and all I think is how beautiful it is to know that there at least some decent people out there, male and female, who are doing the right thing for their kids.
The thread is one sided because the court system is one sided. It sucks that your Dad was not there for you, but the court system pretty much assumes that all cases are like yours when they aren't. Kudos to your mom for getting rid of the guy, but you need to ask yourself what would have happened if their places were swapped.
[deleted]
I applaud you guys for your efforts.
My request is break the cycle and show your daughters the injustices men face so they don't turn into their mothers.
I go down that path regularly. God how nice would it be to just say fuck it all, move away, and start anew. But, and it's not altruism that drives this in the least, just pure, unbridled selfishness (in a good way), I always wind up thinking about missing my kid's lives and not seeing them grow and continue to become people. And while I'm nothing but a paycheck to a lot of people, my kids regularly show me that I'm so much more to them.
I'm hoping to turn all I've learned from this into more useful activism to help change things. I came across the "Father's & Families" website a year ago and made attempts to engage with them in anyway I can, as well as different local groups. I haven't actually found a useful way to help catalyze change, but I've figure putting energy into just the search is better than stewing about the ridiculousness of it all!
And kudos to you, as well. My 4 year old is a girl, that father-daughter thing really is something special, isn't it?
[deleted]
As a single father and for all the fathers out there that need some kind of motivation, listen to this song and watch this video.....
This... This makes me want to start a charity. A charity that looks for situations like this and pays the costs to fight for you. Like the AACP but for fathers paying child support.
Man, that charity would be flat broke all the time. These stories are a dime a dozen. Hell, my friend is paying child support to a girl who is hopelessly addicted to crystal meth. Even though the courts know this, and even though she spends all the child support on drugs, and even though my friend has the kid practically all of the time, he still has to pay hundreds of dollars a month. The court is so biased towards mothers that it's ridiculous.
Yes, but maybe forming a charity and being very vocal about soliciting donations would bring some attention to how broken the system is.
The key isn't to pursue cases at the family level but at the level of the judge. Make suspect a judges rulings and competency. Pay for lobbyists to urge clear and commanding language into law.
Ah, but lobbyists are even more expensive than legal defense funds, and the majority of those who passionately care about this issue are fathers who don't have the money to donate to the cause due to this very issue.
The law itself is preventing positive change. It's like marijuana laws, where those who care the most are the millions of people who have been fucked over by the law, but they can't vote for it to be legalized because convicted felons can't vote.
The fact that this is necessary is sad.
[deleted]
Reading your story really grinds my gears. My father managed to get out of child support because of a staph infection in his leg that made him 'disabled'. He makes $8k a month as a web-designer and does little to support me or my sister, just to spite my mother. He tries to make it up to us by buying us gifts when we really need money for food.
Anyways, best of luck to you.
I just can't understand how people in the world can have kids but want to avoid responsibility for them. Hell, the only reason I care to work or pursue more money is so I be fortunate enough to do things for my children that I hope they will appreciate later in life. And buy 'em toys, I like doing that to!
I don't understand, but I lived it. My relationship, what little there was of one, ended with my dad when I was around 8. My mom was too busy sleeping around to be bothered by me, so I basically raised myself. Learned values and morals from 80's TV and comic books. I had a very weird black/white view of the world for a long time.
Recognize your parents failings, and remember how they made you feel. Then when you have a family of your own, you won't keep the cycle going!
The moral of the the story for me is to not have kids ... or at least not have kids with a bitch.
Women change dude, you can meet an awesome person and 5 years later it's horrible!
ALL bitches have disguises as good, cool, fun women.. or... is it the other way round?
Wow, you are a strong, strong guy. BITD I had a live-in GF cheat on me and leave with the guy. Even without all the trappings of marriage, kids, and total financial f*ckery, I was pretty flattened for a while.
Keep fighting the good fight, man. It's stories like the ones this page is full of that keep me fairly uninterested in marriage and kids, even though most of my friends are happily married and kidded.
At first I was going to beat the guy, and beat him quite badly. Eventually my more restrained friends talked sense into me; I just have to much to lose.
To keep going off topic a bit, the adultery part gets better. When she told me he was moving into her house, I reached out to him - the guy that was fucking my wife while I was caring for my kids - via email and offered to buy him a beer. The email was just a few lines long, I wanted to avoid sounding threatening. I simply said that now that he's going to share a roof with my kids, we need to meet and do what we can to make it a friendly environment.
He refused. I extended an olive branch, and this twice divorced loser slapped it away and basically told me to fuck off. I may have got a little pissed off at this.
Fuck that douchebag. You keep on being a good dad to those kids of yours and keep your head held high for doing the right thing. We can only pray that eventually you and others like you will receive justice.
I offered the same to my wife's ex in a lot of different ways. Some dudes are just assholes. That's all there is to it.
And I don't get it. When you have two families with kids linking the two, how can anybody not understand that the best ting for the kids is for the families to be friendly at the least? Hell, I have no hard feelings for the guy, I actually feel kind of bad for having dumped my ex in his lap, that's a brutal punishment.
My explanation is just pure, self-absorbed, near if not complete narcissism.
Wanted to add - having kids is a fantastic thing. And while this page is filled with horror stories, there are many more good ones out there. My only mistake was not going in with my eyes wide open. Ok, there were two major mistakes. That first one. And not listening to my instincts. My ex and I started out as fun-time friends. Had a lot of fun together in college. But there was always the feeling in my gut that she was lieing about /things/. It only took 14 years, but the stress of having two young kids in the house brought out her true colors.
My kids are still awesome, though.
Well, that's good to hear, and it's heartening to hear you speak of the good things in this situation. The human spirit is a pretty resilient thing, and there's no sense in closing down one's options due to risk, I guess.
Good work in an unworkable situation. Kids can be naive, but they aren't blind. I'm sure they'll grow to see what's what and- with good kids- you surely do reap what you sow. Sounds like you've been working hard, but not the hoe.
Some parents actively brain wash their kids. I would never say talk badly about the other parent but make sure they know how much you do for them. I've seen relationships ruined for life by a parent actively telling the kids that the other parent was a horrible evil person.
Great line!
One thing I need to say, though, is that I'm also very lucky to work for a company, and specifically a boss, that is incredibly understanding of and accommodating to my personal life. When I was going through the divorce, my boss simply said "do what you have to to take care of your family, let me know when you're ready to go". I ignored work for the most part for two months, called my boss, and jumped right back in like nothing had happened. If I have to cancel travel because my babysitter is out of town, nobody bats an eye. I've been with this company 5 year, and will be loyal to them until my boss leaves, they fire me, or the company goes under. I'm an incredibly fortunate man in this regard.
What state is this? I know Texas is definitely not the same.
Illinois. As I mentioned in another post somewhere else in here, IL is one of 9 states with the oldest, most archaic Child Support guidelines. On top of that, I live in an affluent, highly conservative, religious county (Dupage). I, BTW, am none of these things, though I make a nice income that only began the year before my divorce. Moved here 2 years before my divorce, and now, BAM!, I'm stuck here. Well, I could choose to leave, but it wouldn't be fair to my kids. And my ex and I are contractually obligated to live within a reasonable distance of each other for the sake of the shared custody.
Back to the CS guidlines - there are three models in use across the country. The oldest is the percentage of income model. Meaning CS is purely calculated as a straight percentage of income based on the number of kids. No other factors. Most states use a modified percentage of income that factors in the custody arrangement (time spent caring for the children) as well as some other expenses. Still other states use the newest model that adds even more factors into the calculation. I just took a look at the guidelines for Arkansas based on a link provided in this thread, and they use a modified model. Basically calculate what each parent's CS obligation would be, total those together, and assign responsibility based on percentage of time in custody of the children. Under this model, my CS obligation would be nearly halved. I pay a pure 28% right now.
I admire you for sticking with it.
I'm basically terrified of having children because of situations like yours. Men don't get a lot of support most of the time, and I know that like always if it came to a dispute I would have no one on my side except maybe the kids.
"Men don't get a lot of support most of the time, and I know that like always if it came to a dispute I would have no one on my side except maybe the kids."
That's how I thought. I have little extended family and when I married I moved to my ex's hometown. All of our friends were actually her friends. My good friends are 300 miles away. I was completely alone.
But I was shocked at how people stepped up for me, and really for my kids. My sister, from 400 miles away, helped me keep my shit together when I was loosing it. We had a distant relationship, but she stepped in and helped teach me how to be a mom and filled the role of a strong female influence for my kids.
Point is, people will surprise you. You may not be as alone as you think you are.
Good point. I have good friends and such. I was more referring to institutional help.
Your story brought a tear to my eye. These days people no longer feel love so deeply as someone like yourself. Even though times may seem hard now, I'm sure in the future you'll have wonderful children who will never forget what their incredible father has done for them.
When they get married you can file for an adjustment (if you take care of the kids 70% of the time) and HIS income will be considered in the support order. Once they are married the support order is calculated by the combined income of the two parties.
Stick it to em.
What state are you in? From what I've read and discussed with multiple attorneys, according to the Illinois statutes, a new spouse's income is not used directly in the calculation and is not even considered in an adjustment hearing. The best I have is a 2004 appellate court ruling that allowed for a new spouses income to be considered when determining contributions to an adult child's college tuition. It was actually a pretty pathetic case -
Dad was an engineer of some kind making around $80k. He had been a deadbeat for a long time and not paid CS, but I believe he was at the time.
Mom was remarried and she and the new husband owned a real estate company. Her income was paid by same company.
Mom took dad to court to get him to contribute more to the college tuition. She claimed his 10% was not enough considering his income. Dad asked to bring mom's entire house old income into the case, claiming the amount she filed on her taxes was simply for show and that the new husband kept the business income. So mom had something like $40k on her tax returns. Court allowed the house hold income to be brought in, found out the mom and new husband combined for about $800k in earnings, and declined her petition. She appealed since spousal income isn't allowed in these matters, and the appellate court upheld the lower court.
So that cracks the door for me, but I'd be blazing a new trail if I actually got that to work from what I understand
I have to wonder, in a situation like this, what's the story with the mother? You had 2 kids with a woman who, at least at one point, claims to have loved you. Have you talked to her about any of this? Has your relationship changed to a point where she just doesn't care in the least about you and has no qualms with basically being a court-justified leech? I don't understand how in a lot of cases like this, the woman can even live with themselves. Not only did you cheat on your husband, divorce him and remarry the person you cheated with, but you're also taking a MASSIVE portion of his life's earnings. 18 months of labor is intense i'm sure, but she was taken care of then and i'm sure she's being taken care of now, so how does she justify that to you?
First, the marriage failed because of both of us. I never really understood what it took to be emotionally invested in a marriage until it was over, so even though she committed adultery and broke another home, I played a significant role in the failure of the marriage. Can't absolve myself of that; I'm not good at being a caretaker of relationships. In fact, it can be argued that I did something as bad or worse than what she did - I married a person I cared about but didn't really love, while she was very, very much in love with me. Don't do that, it's not fair and it's really selfish.
We don't talk about anything, though I try to communicate about the kids. I think both parents being involved is really important, so I try to open their lives to her and encourage her involvement. Somewhere along the way, somebody convinced her that she doesn't owe me anything (her words), which to her means she doesn't have to communicate with me. She has a lot of emotional issues that she seems to recognize, but chooses to do nothing about.
And the financial part of it? I simply can not understand it. She and her boyfriend essentially collect welfare (private welfare paid by me) and are happy to do it. She has a college education, and while not the smartest cookie is a very good management type and could make some good money if she had ambition. Instead she chooses to work for a company as an admin making the same wage today they paid her in 1999 (she took three years away from work to be a stay at home mom until we divorced). With her soon-to-be-husband's income and the ridiculous CS I pay, she could be a stay-at-home mom again, but chooses to go sit in an office doing nothing for herself or her kids instead. She gets two weeks of vacation time a year, and takes it to go to Phish concerts with the fiance rather than get more time with the kids. Overnight, she went from seeing the kids most everyday for most all of the day as a married stay at home mom, to seeing them twice a week for about 2-3 hrs a pop and every other weekend. She regularly goes for 5,6,7 days without seeing the kids and doesn't seem to be bothered by it at all. I've only gone more than 2 days without seeing my kids a handful of times in their 6+ years. And despite this, she and her fiance are ok with collecting "child support". Not just ok, they actually display a sense of entitlement, like they've somehow earned it.
I've attempted everything to play on her conscious, and she has none. One offer I made her was that I would pay 100% of all expenses for my children, commit 10% of my gross salary and commissions to investment accounts in the names of my kids, but not pay her a dime of child support. Nope, she won't agree. The money is hers and everybody else can be damned. And since she knows she has the legal system behind her, she doesn't bother attempting to negotiate. She simply says "no" to my offers and collects her checks.
It's a mentality I can't even comprehend. For many years as a kid I was on welfare, and even as a kid it was embarrassing and crushing to my pride. I've earned everything I have, and would only take assistance of any kind if there was no other way to care for my kids. Taking pride in using your kids for a paycheck is impossible for me to understand.
Is it possible she resented you for not having to be with the kids 24/7, while she was a stay-at-home mom, and she feels she's "owed" for the time she put in? I've read countless mommy blogs bitching about the tedium of their lifestyle. I don't think it's justified, since she chose that life, but some women just aren't cut out for it, and then resent their husbands for having the "freedom" (job) to be away from the kids. Just a thought.
That could be said - except I've worked from home since my son was 10 months old. And for the last 2 years of our marriage, we had a housekeeping service, landscaping service, and a once a week babysitter for 3 hours each time. Oh, and she dumped the kids at our gym's child care for 2 hours a day, 3-4 days a week, while she sat in the lounge with a bunch of other "stay-at-home-moms" and commiserated about how shitty their lives are. From birth until divorce, I gave my son about 99% of his baths, put him to bed 99% of the time, and got him up in the morning 99% of the time. She did the same for my daughter. So the parenting effort was 50/50 to 60/40 (in her favor) at worst.
And I take full blame for how ridiculous that lifestyle was.
Teach your values to your children. They'll get the picture.
Well, sadly...and despite all the disney notions of our youth...everyone is searching for the Bigger Better Deal at all times. We can achieve things and find happiness for awhile but then, inevitably, we get used to or bored with it and begin to take it all for granted as we seek more.
This story really made me sad. Thanks for all the kind things you've done to your kids.
Some of this sort of stuff is a big factor in my reasoning to never become romantically involved or marry.
Is the dude and your ex on Facebook? :)
I assume the judge said all that BS knowing that your ex cheated on you? Did he say anything about that?
Did your ex have a better lawyer than you?
I don't believe the judge knew a thing about the divorce. As long as there was no abuse in the marriage, the grounds for divorce play no role in legal matters related to the children.
We both had equally mediocre lawyers. It just boils down to ingrained bias for the mother a care giver. It really is as simple as that.
Actually, I might place one piece of blame, and that's the judge. He really seemed very disinterested and wanted to just get out of there. He would cut me off when I was testifying, rub his head like he was annoyed, and then spent no time reviewing notes or the documents given to him and started his speech as soon as I got to my seat.
A guy in his 60's, been doing family law for decades, thinks he knows it all and doesn't need to pay attention to the details. A pretty typical human quality.
For every story like yours, there's a story like mine: I grew up without a father or his child support payments. After abusing my mother and I, he married the woman he was adulterous with. My mom lost thousands of dollars in court, but the judge decided that his new children-in-law were more important. The lawyers assured us this was entirely illegal and recommended to keep going. They get paid either way.
I respect what you're doing. I grew up without a father and I wouldn't wish that on anyone. I did okay, it wasn't that bad. I just feel like Peter Parker is a total dick in the opening scenes of Spider Man.
It seems that without you your children would have no real parents. I'm biased, but I don't think many men these days would step up to that challenge.
Is there some clause that she should be spending a proportion of the money she receives on the children?
Thanks for reminding me why not to have children. Mind-warping hormones lead parents to feel that children were the best thing in their lives, yet happiness studies that adjust for marital status consistently find those without children happier. I've lived through enough of this.
One of the cool things about traveling down this road is that I've found there are actually a lot of dads out there who aren't walking away from their kids when they get divorced. It's a trend that's, at least anecdotally, on the rise. I grew up without a dad too, and it's pretty cool to find out that my commitment to my kids, even when faced with negative societal pressures, is more common then I would have believed.
One thing that is very clear about child support - the recipient has no stipulations placed on the funds, and the provider has no right to even ask how it's spent. It's her money to do with as she pleases. That's the part, more than anything else, that I've seen turn men bitter.
Your comment on happiness is interesting. Would I be happier if I had never married and had kids? In a sense, certainly. With 100% of my income, the career I have, and no real additional responsibilities, I could travel the world, buy all kinds of big boy toys, live a fairly enriching life. And I'd never really know what I'd missed by not having kids. But having kids is a major life altering event. It changed me in pretty big ways, and I'm glad I'm experiencing the relationship I have with my kids. So there's certainly happiness in being a parent, a very different happiness that is tempered a bit by necessary sacrifice. I certainly wouldn't blame anyone for choosing to not do it, but it was the right thing for me.
It's not that dads don't want to step up to the challenge. I am a single father too but it seems like the laws only want the mother taking care of the child and me being just a paycheck. A lot of guys don't find that fair so they end up saying, fuck it.
This is insanely true. Entirely to true. I have friends that find being an every other weekend father so difficult that they'd almost rather not have visitation at all. The emotional toll just continually hammers away, hammers away. Every time the kid comes to visit, it's elation. Two days later, there's devastation.
Yup, that's how i feel. We all get the feeling of " hey, they are gonna call someone else dad anyways". I mean i love my son, and he loves me. It's torture because he's the most wonderful kid ever!. I want things to go back to the old ways and have him every single day not just on sundays.
Here's your answer to that problem.
While you can't sue the judge for his decision (judicial immunity,) you can sue him for the emotional damages done to you because of his decision later on in your life life. Personal lawsuits for emotional damage, mental distress, both upon you and the children, make his life a living hell.
For some reason, I would have assumed a guy with the handle "GunFingers" would have poor parenting skills. I would have been wrong.
Man, if you've ever seen the Eddie Money video for Shakin' you'll know how baddass gun fingers are.
Oh crap. I just looked up the video on Youtube. I've laughed since the '80s with friends about the Eddie Money spin move + gun fingers in that video. Now that I've looked up the video, I've discovered the twisted reality - it's a spin move + finger snaps. I've just had the greatest long running joke in my group of friends absolutely shattered. I guess we'll always have $240 worth of puddin'.
Here's the vid, in case nothing above makes sense: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hA1wDgPZCDA#t=35s
This is what I don't get, if it is the woman that commits adultery and runs off then the man should have to pay no parental support - and vice versa for the woman if it is the man who is the adulterer.
[deleted]
This story makes me so angry and the inequality men face when it comes to parenthood and the law :(
I come from a family made up of half siblings, step siblings, half/step neices and nephews and I even have an adopted cousin. I've always admired my family because the children are always included, and never told 'you're not family'. They always come first.
My Mum has always told me that no matter if you hate your ex-partner you must think of the kids first and be civil and fair. There is nothing I hate more than adults acting like assholes when they have a responsibility to uphold.
Women, we need to start ACTING like real women and mothers and think of our children first instead of revenge on an ex-husband or boyfriend. Taking away the rights of visitation from a good father is wrong and taking all his income away only hurts his ability to support the children when he has them.
When your kids are older, they will realize what you've done for them. I don't mean when they are teenagers, I mean much older. Maybe in their late 20's. They'll resent their mother for being so shitty.
Just don't build it into them. Let them make their own judgments.
If you are approved and get funded, Modest Needs pays the bill directly. If you ever get in a jam, please don't forget about Modest Needs.
LOL MARRIAGE
[deleted]
and they still say women need to be treated as equals...
My friends mom is in the same boat.
Her son CHOSE to live with his dad, his dad then took her to court for child support. She ended up giving 15% of her paycheck, no biggie, she makes quite a bit.
a year later her son is a complete drug addict and alcoholic, she takes the father to court for custody and loses. The judge then says that because the father is having such a hard time providing an environment that was safe, it was obviously because he couldnt afford the kid.
They upped her child support to 30%
It probably didnt help that she was a lesbian, he was a cop.
I'm from a divorced family as well. One of the reasons my mom and I don't talk to each other has to do with how she raked my dad over the coals on child support.
My situation is basically reversed. I am an adult, but my parents are getting divorced and my dad is taking my mom for everything because she was the primary breadwinner for most of their marriage.
She pays the mortgage at their house, plus her own rent at her new house, all the bills, and she pays their (formerly) shared credit cards. He sits on his ass all day in a big house living off of her maintenance payments ($2000/month), he hasn't had a steady job in over 20 years. Meanwhile he is sitting on a fairly large inheritance from his parents death a few years ago.
She lives check-to-check and has recently been cutting back on lots of little things like magazine subscriptions, DirecTV service because she can no longer afford them. He got a court order so she cannot have any off his bills (that she pays) modified without court approval because she tried to persuade him to cut off his HBO/Cinemax movie package.
When I have seen my father (i try to avoid him as much as possible) he tries to act all friendly and buddy-buddy, but all I want is to put him in a shallow grave.
I went through something similar when my folks had their own pissing contest - dad did everything, and I mean EVERYTHING he could do to make her life hell - to the point that the IRS hounded her for years for shit that was his fault to start with.
I fucking hate divorces; they turn people into nut jobs. If I ever need to get out of a marriage, I'll take the sane route and fake my own death. Or not fake it. Anything's got to be better than feeding your entire family, savings, love, self worth, etc., into a giant shredder powered by lawyers.
That said, I hate the idea of people not having the option to divorce even more (like the good Catholic priest who tried to keep my mom in her first marriage, saying it was her fault for getting punched - she just needed to work through it with the asshole) - I just wish people didn't go so fucking crazy with lawyers and hate when they decided to split. I've seen it done, it's not impossible, it just requires both sides to be adults, and not get vengeful & petty.
Night Owl - good luck man.
I appreciate the heartfelt reply. The tricky thing is that both parties have to be rational and civil about it. As soon as one side stoops to vengeful and selfish tactics the other side is inevitably drawn in and everyone suffers.
It is a sort of sick prisoner's dilemma. The optimum outcome requires both sides to cooperate, but when emotions get involved people very rarely are capable of acting rationally.
Tell him. Sometimes realizing the person that used to worship you is sickened by you is enough to force you to change. Sometimes not, but fuck it, it's worth a shot. At least there won't be any fakeness between you two after that.
I was like what the hell? That is the complete reverse of how the system works for 90% of the cases, then I saw the word cop and understood.
Rules don't usually apply to cops.
Men actually win most contested custody cases.
Judges are elected officials, he probably had a better connected lawyer too.
wait "her son chose to live with her dad"
is it just me or is there something wrong here
wait "her son chose to live with her dad"
She probably meant "his dad" and the kid probably chose that because he figured he'd have a better chance of getting away with drinking & drugging with dad.
Sorry, his dad.
Thanks.
Because kids shouldn't choose to live with their granddads?
some people dont get jokes. its ok
[deleted]
So this is how you beat the system.
Its like because you're breaking against one reddit truism, you went and affirmed another as much as possible.
if there has to be a child support system (which i do not support for most cases btw), instead of paying money to the spouse, the other parent should have a list of exactly what needs to be bought and be able to manage it himself instead of leaving chance for abuse.
Damn children start early on drugs and alcohol..
15 and even 30 percent are nothing. I've a male friend that pays 50+% of his paycheck every week.
That's kinda gay.
[deleted]
Perhaps it would be because you had such a mind as to beat your child over various infractions that your hypothetical child should have turned to drug use in the first place. Eh?
Ask yourself why people turn to drugs. Typically it's because they have severe emotional issues and feel they've nothing left to lose or are trying to compensate for some innate neurochemical deficit.
Don't beat the fucking kid, you lout. Be compassionate, loving, and caring; in a word, do the things for the want of which your child decided he would turn to drug use in the first place.
There's no reason to assume here that the child's father - a police officer, remember - was a decent guy.
Yup, people should look for the source for these things.
Feelings / Habits are to be regulated, not repressed.
Not sure why you were getting downvoted.
Upvoted for common sense.
As someone who is living in this situation, this doesn't come as a surprise to me at all. I am a 25 year old who pays 700 a month in child support for my 3 year old. As recently last this past Monday I was in court trying to up my time with my son as I now only have him every other weekend and a couple hours during the week. I was trying to keep him over nights during the 2 nights I have him during the week since I was just keeping him till 8 pm Tuesday and Thursdays and dropping him off with his mother. In spite of my request to get more time with him, my sons mother decided she was going to try to take away all custody and visitation I had as a bitter response to my request. After the judge hearing nothing bad about me or against why I cant keep him over these nights decided that she didnt believe that a 3 year old needed to be staying with each parent 50/50. I currently have a full time job, i make roughly 40k a year. Instead she sided with my sons mother for everything besides taking away my visitation. And even sided with her on my sons mother not working and still putting my son in a daycare that is now over 800 a month. Now I am soon to be going to court for a change in child support payments since when the previous case was done, his daycare costs were only 420 a month.
So pretty much I am about to get screwed over and probably have my child support payments upped atleast 400 dollars. Its all based off a worksheet that seems to be completely outdated. Its all based on the combined incomes and overnights, thus why my sons mother did not want me to have any more over nights than I already have. I can barely get by with what I make now and am forced to rent a room out of a house since I can not afford a apartment of my own. Its a screwed up system that needs to be updated. Until it is, its going to make it harder to be a father in your kids life when the mother can take every penny you make an be able to life off my income.
So, your ex isn't working... AND you're paying $800 a month in daycare?! Why isn't SHE taking care of the kid if she's not even working?! She's getting paid to live on permanent vacation!
She hasn't been working for over 8 months and has repeatedly been fired from her jobs due to not showing up. In court she used my son as the excuse for it and im sure that received some sympathy from the court. She is also now pregnant with her new husband and so uses that as her new excuse for why she isnt working and why she cant stay at home with our child. All i know is in maryland where i reside they are very strict about sticking to a formula for determing support. It comes down to income of both parties, any expenses including medical and daycare (which my son is on medical assistance because she is living off the state). One thing i will never understand is why i get taxed and then pay child support but none of that money she receives is ever taxable so she really does get a free check every month for her leisure.
Wait.... she has a NEW HUSBAND? ffs.
Yeah, she recently got married as of this past summer so shes pretty much living off of him and child support. Unfortunately in the court eyes that doesnt matter.
Posts like this make me want to get the old snip-a-rino, and become gay for extra insurance.
Why would you snip a rhino!?! =D
OMG you are McNulty.
[deleted]
I'm with you dude. Your child, your choice, your problem.
Dude, I'm in Rockville, you can have a free beer on me anytime. I basically make the same as you income-wise and barely get by in a tiny room in a big house. And I don't have any kids.
Yeah around this area its just to expensive to have your own place. I luck out and only pay 625 a month for rent and thats for a master bedroom and my own bath. But to get my own apartment it is crazy expensive. I even live in the ghetto known has Montgomery Village.
It's a messed up situation, and I'm sympathetic.. I hope things turn out better for you in the future... I just wanted to note: you really don't want your payments to her being taxed. The reason they aren't is specifically because they are coming out of your after tax income. If they taxed it on her side as well, you would basically be the one paying that tax also, as she isn't earning anything. They would also account for what she needs to live on after that tax, and just make you pay more.. Lots of things to be upset about in this situation,but don't let that be one of the things that bothers you.
Do you have a lawyer helping you throughout all of this? One that specializes in this kind of thing?
Because I don't know how I'd be able to go on living in that situation...I'd contemplate suicide if I had to live my life giving most of my income to someone who isn't in my life anymore and who is using the legal system to get back at someone.
Well the first time when my son was 3 months old and we decided not to be together anymore I got a laywer because she was refusing to let me see him and be a part of his life. My lawyer ended up being a waste of 2000 bucks and i still was doing all the work myself. So this time i decided i was going to represent myself. She had a lawyer to which ill never understand how she could afford. I did a good job representing myself in court and it really came down to the judges opinion that my son does not believe a 3 year old should be split between both parents 50/50. The one bright side was that the judge told her that she was denying her request because she didnt want to see my son lose his father and be cut out of his life.
[deleted]
I can appeal it but at this point I dont see what good its going to do. Im just sucking it up at this point and spending every minute I can with my son. Just sucks because since of the high price of child support I have had to pick up a 2nd job at Target to help buy him and family christmas gifts. Nothings worse than having a full time job with the federal govt and having to work part time doing retail. Its no fun having 18 year olds on power trips trying to chew you out for something menial.
I'm vaguely remembering something stating that to be illegal. You're never supposed to be forced to fund your prosecution's bill. It used to be common practice in the 18th century and was struck down.
I practice a large amount of family law and in my opinion 50/50 only works for older children. It's simply not good for the child and the parents are always back in court later.
That said, I sympathize with your situation. Sounds like you got screwed. Shop around on lawyers - there are good ones out there.
Well the main reason I was going for this 50/50 was because of in the past year there was a 6 month time frame where we were getting along great and I had moved closer to be able to do the overnights. So 6 months he stayed over nights during the week and I dropped him off at daycare on my way into work. After a fight I got into with his mother she decided she did not want me to keep him over night anymore and I filed for that paperwork to get it legally changed and thus the outcome i have reached now. Now i just have to deal with telling my son every week why he cant sleep over daddy's house during the week and seeing him cry when i drop him off. Its just heartbreaking and sucks.
[deleted]
I know kids need consistency, but both parents need 50/50.
You keep using the words "opinion" and "judge" together in the same sentence, and that really scares me. My heart goes out to you, and I now have one more reason to use contraception.
Yeah well since its all hearsay back and forth between her and I as far as the judge is concerned so the decision is all based on her opinion and what she feels is best. So sadly it all came down to the judges opinion instead of what I feel is in the best interest of my son.
You should have fired the first lawyer and gotten a new one. Representing yourself was a bad idea. In this situation, paying more for a good lawyer will probably save you money in the long run, and give you back your child, which i would think would also be worth the money.
believe a 3 year old should be split between both parents 50/50. The one bright side was that the judge told her that she was denying her request because she didnt want to see m
and
she didnt want to see my son lose his father and be cut out of his life.
Is insane. The judge is insane.
I highly suggest getting a GOOD lawyer. I think you have a strong case, it might even be worth while getting someone to investigate your ex as well.
Fuck premature suicide! I'd go after every motherfucker who worked against me in a violent act of retribution. I'd save the suicide for if/when I get to prison.
Yeah...the way I really feel is that I'd kill the mom and then commit suicide probably, but that is a little more conflicting to me because then the child gets left with no parents...
I don't know, I have no idea how I'd deal with this situation. It's so ridiculous, it's hard to comprehend.
or just move to mexico and be a beach bum, never to be heard from again, except on reddit of course.
I would just take the kid and fucking flee the country.
[deleted]
Well in court monday i asked her about that and she stated that since she is pregnant she is not supposed to life anything over 10 pounds and since he is 3 and likes to be picked up from time to time it wouldnt work. Not a valid excuse to me but its the response I was given.
[deleted]
Well i represented myself in court and asked her all these questions and did not seem to have any outcome on the trial. Another interesting fact that came out that the judge stated was that her kids actually had attended the same daycare my son is currently going to and she loved it so that really didnt help anything in my case anyway. Also im sure the fact that you have a 6 month long pregnant women on the stand with a female judge you are going to get some bias on the judge's behalf. Unless I have facts about abuse the judge isnt going to change the custody arrangement in my favor. So it seems that in my case I will be waiting a little while before I am back in court trying to obtain more custody.
What if you quit and laze around?
I would rather see my son and be a part of his life than be the stereotypical dead beat dad. Also I have already shown I am able to make that kind of income so I would end up in the situation like this story if I was to quit my job.
I heard about something like this happening to someone I knew. In the end he quit his job and went on welfare in order to even the playing ground.
It's a sick, sick, sick system. Women are not inherently more moral or capable and neither are the unemployed.
That is so fucked up man. I feel like if she is going to fight to have him for almost the entire time, you should only have to pay a small amount. I would understand making you pay if you had walked out on your kid and didn't want to see him, but if she is trying to make it so you can't legally visit your own son she should get a job and pay for him herself. Good luck.
"I feel like if she is going to fight to have him for almost the entire time, you should only have to pay a small amount."
This doesn't make any sense. Child support is to help support the child for the time you're not with the child. The more time with the mother, the more money is needed to help support the child. It's not about the mother or father (or shouldn't be), it's about supporting the child. If he wants more time, he needs to fight for more time. Ask other fathers for advice. Yes, the system is fucked, but until it changes, you can only fight.
I'm saying that there is no reason why he shouldn't have equal custody, it isn't like he is going to be giving his kid drugs if the judge lets him stay with him. So if the wife wants to take on the majority of the time with the child, seemingly just to be a bitch to her ex, she should be able to support him.
Really, I just think that in a divorce, if neither partner is considered a risk to the child, custody should be split 50/50 and so should child support payments.
I agree. Equal custody is ideal. I hope he gets it. But, if he doesn't, then why should the kid not get the same support it would if he did have equal custody? Child support isn't paying for the time you have with your child. It's supporting the child during the time you're not there to do it yourself (for whatever reason). I hope he fights and gets equal custody. But to say he's not responsible for the kid because the mother is being a bitch about not wanting to share custody of the kid, is asking him to do a great disservice to the KID. Did the child ask the mother to be a bitch about it? No. Can the child control this mother's actions? No. So, why should the kid get the shit end of the deal?
Step 1: Take son away from you Step 2: Demand more money
Yeah, that seems fair. If I'm ever in this situation, I will be pushing so hard for 50/50 visitation right off the bat. I'm not saying you didn't try, I'm just saying it's fucked up that you have to pay to not see your kid :-(
Well the thing is the court will not take the kid away from the mother unless theres some undeniable proof that she is or will harm the kid. I found for the limited role I have now and it does suck that when I see him more and try to make it put in writing so she cant take it away she gets bitter and tries to take all away.
Jesus Christ. If I'm ever in this situation, I take the kid and leave the country forever. Possibly even murder the ex-wife, too, if she's the type to keep looking for a while.
My buddy is in essentially the same situation. He pays $700+ for one kid in another state, plus tons of other expenses, plus several hours of travel / gas to get her, plus clothing, etc. The kid's mother doesn't seem to work much...part time, here and there. He gets her and she's filthy, yellow teeth, etc.
I hope it works out for you man...
Stories like this make me feel so neutral whenever I see kidnapping cases on TV where it's the father (and in rare cases, the mother) who has done the kidnapping. Your son's mother is a flying c*nt.
Maybe check if there are cheaper child care solutions in her area and show that to the court during your appeal.
I did, i brought a huge worksheet i wrote up showing the research I did. I did all that and gave it to her when she switched it because his new daycare is 30 miles from my house and 4 miles from hers so i was looking to compromise. Judge didnt care. Her kids went to that school and she loves it. she made sure to point that out during the hearing.
If you had a lawyer I'm sure he would have brought up the conflict of interest. Get a lawyer dude! Get one! You're killing me here. I'm terrified of my wife now.
And even sided with her on my sons mother not working and still putting my son in a daycare that is now over 800 a month.
Wow.
sigh I would kill for $800/month daycare. My son is in daycare 2 days a week for $1000/month. 5 day a week daycare is $2300/month. I laugh when I look back at myself thinking that my college education was expensive.
Just an anecdote. A very similar thing was happening with the guy my mother married. I guess he didn't care much for the kids though because he decided it wasn't worth the hassle anymore. He and my mother bought an old motorhome and went off the grid for over 10 years before he finally killed himself. Sometimes the system seems so biased against you that you just need to get out of the system. They travelled the country living on cash from working at Renn fairs.
Yep this happened to my dad, are you in texas by any chance?
any ways gl on getting it reduced
the worst part in our situation is that the child support people were giving my dads checks to the wrong woman and my mom kept suing anyways
No this is in maryland. I used to write checks and mail them out but was constantly getting harassed by my ex about child support and was trying to say I wasnt paying so I went to court and had them set up it so they the payments come directly out of my paychecks so I dont have to worry about it and there is a trail of every sent that gets passed along.
Canada's sounding good to me right about now.
If you are approved and get funded, Modest Needs pays the bill directly. If you ever get in a jam, please don't forget about Modest Needs.
[deleted]
I just want to say that I feel your pain man. I'd describe my situation, but it'd be redundant, it sounds just like yours. Good luck.
Wow, how the fuck is it not based on a percentage. This is as corrupt as it gets. If income changes the support amount should automatically change.
Good question indeed--Why ISN'T is based on a straight percentage for both men and women? I'm thinking just one chart somewhere that judges can use: "OK, you earn $40,000, he'she has custody, so according to this chart, support will be X." I know there are always mitigating circumstances but honestly, the system is so messed up and biased heavily against men (speaking as a woman).
In Louisiana there is a chart. Here it is: http://www.supportguidelines.com/glines/la_cs.html
Of course the guidelines are just that. The judge can still screw you as much as they like.
For instance, I have full custody of my daughter. Chart says: We make combined 3500.00 she pays $523 per month. Amount I have received in 4 years: $0.
Is this fair? Well kind of. She is poor, that amount per month would leave her destitute. I don't ask for it. She helps with the kid as she can. She got the kid on Medicare so we have free healthcare taken care of, and as sick as she was as a newborn, well thats worth a lot. She is a ok mom and a good person, I see no reason to use the system to hurt her
This is why women have no desire to see the system fixed. Even when the system can be used against them, some guy decides that the mother being able to have a healthy relationship with her children is better for the kids than cold hard cash.
The way to fix the system is to enforce it just as harshly against women. Women need to see hard working, good mothers punished like a man would be before they're going to fight with us for change in the system. However, the type of guy who wins custody in this system is generally the type of guy who values his kid's welfare over his own financial well-being, and for the reasons mentioned never files for support.
You're doing the right thing for your family. It sucks that if the gender roles were reversed you'd be seen as a victim and people would consider your ex a deadbeat who should WANT to live in squaller to pay for the kids. We'd also throw her in prison if she couldn't pay.
This is why women have no desire to see the system fixed.
That's not really fair. I'm a woman and I'd love to see the system fixed. I know lots of women who would love to see the system fixed. There are selfish people out there who take advantage of others within both genders, but it doesn't mean there are also people that are out for equality on both sides.
I hope that over time things will slowly change to balance out the situation equitably. I don't want to see women punished any more than I want to see men punished in situations like the original post. I do also think all child support should be capped at 25% of income with a hard minimum around $300.
Also a side note here. Why aren't custodial parents more responsible for their children. If the CP is making good money and lets say the kid costs $500 a month extra to him or her, then why does the NCP need to pay all of that instead of half or 60%.
The problem is the the number of women in your same position do not take the same stance.
They will leave the Father's destitute without a second thought.
Then I can only hope that by our example some women (and men) can see that there is a better way. Don't be dicks to each other. It can happen to you!
You should probably get the support amount amended. I'm assuming the federal deadbeat dad statute doesn't actually specify the sex of the delinquent parent, so if she moves or gets a new job she may suddenly find herself arrested or not getting a paycheck for months, because this stuff is all in databases.
There are no support orders for either of us. We were never married, never divorced, never saw a lawyer or a courtroom. We were friends before and still are and we work everything out between ourselves as rational adults should. No not most, or many can be as adult and friendly as we are concerning our children. If she were to move or change jobs it wouldn't matter because we are not in any databases concerning child support.
In NC and VA, there is a set of guidelines that are basically based on a percentage of income, plus extra expenses (medical and employment-related daycare) that are shared ratiometrically. The referenced case is in FL, but without actually seeing the court documents, we have no way of knowing what was going through the court's mind. For all we know, the father could have tried to represent himself and was an ass in court.
Even if someone is dumb enough to represent themselves, that fact alone should not preclude the court from seeking an equitable outcome if the system is working properly; unfortunately, however, the system is broken.
Exactly. Who gives a fuck if he was an asshole to the judge, hold him in contempt of court. But letting that alter your judgment on a clear-cut modification hearing would be nothing less than a betrayal of your duty to society.
The judge has a duty to act as an avatar for the law and the will of the people; the majority and minorities. His own interests don't come into it; if he doesn't like the person being heard he must find an unbiased judge to do the hearing or face judgment himself. Anything less is a sham.
And I don't care if that's not how it works in real life, that's how it should work.
I know it is popular around here to say things are broken beyond repair. We say just about every system we have - political, legislative, judicial, financial, democratic, media, copyright, patent, everything - is broken beyond repair. And it is easy to show that anecdotally, by cherry picking the worst examples. Certainly some judges are lousy and careless.
I know screwjobs like this happen, my experiences with family law courts have been largely positive. Given how many people the system deals with, and from my minor experience, I think the system seems to work most of the time. Though perhaps not where the judge's spouse works with the defendant (shouldn't that require recusal?!)
[deleted]
Actually, there is a worksheet (12.902e) that must be done in Florida for all child support payments. Judges wont enforce it unless you bring it up, but they are required by law to do it. Most people don't know about it, so the judges screw them.
Are lawyers really that expensive? I mean shouldn't people who are going to be paying hundreds a month for child support at least find one to consult with and ask questions?
Often, those guidelines are ignored.
[deleted]
In Canada this is exactly the case. There's a chart (and it's even online in calculator form ) that shows if you make X dollars, and have Y kids, you pay Z amount per month. So for example using that calculator shows that sumMDguy would be paying $370 a month in BC barring extraordinary circumstances. And there would be no chance of extraordinary circumstances with the ex wife married to a new guy.
When my ex and I separated, I looked at the chart and started paying the requisite amount. And then when the divorce went to court, the judge noted that I was already paying what was about to be ordered and said basically "well, all right then let's just continue with that" and that was that.
That is AMAZINGLY sane. And SO much less stressful and unfair and up to a judge's whims--not that judges are whimsical necessarily, but they are all human--much better to have a straight-up chart across the board for men and women equally.
They claim that you have the obligation to provide the wife and child at the same lifestyle they had when they were with the father.
It's ridiculous. Marry a rich guy and you are legally obliged to live a rich lifestyle for the rest of your life, eve if you leave him.
That's why you shouldn't marry trophies.
Your possessions end up owning YOU.
In Sovi....eh, nevermind.
That's why you shouldn't marry.
FTFY
That's why you shouldn't marry
fixed
No, you have an obligation to provide the same lifestyle for the children only. Alimony is for the wife.
Down vote me all you want, but have the fucking guts to say why. You may not like what I said, but it is the truth. Men have no obligation to support the mother of their child.
I didn't downvote you, but just wanted to point out that the money does go to the parent with custody and that parent chooses where the money is spent. So, yes, the money is, in a way, for the mother as well as the children.
Well, they do a legal obligation to support the wife who is the mother of the child. This is called alimony and judges have very wide discretion in awarding it. However, there is not such a thing as alimony AND mother-of-child support. In a few judicial opinions I've read in family law, the judge explicitly notes that the child support has the effect of enhancing and enriching the mother's life. One actually lamented that and said it was a necessary consequence of protecting the child. I thought would like that :o)
THAT is what a Pre-nup is good for. Protecting your spouse from taking what you had BEFORE the marriage. NOT what you gained while married. So if you get rich while married, that's when the woman makes out.
tl:dr - Marry a law/medical student, not a lawyer/doctor.
Are you sure? I think it may be the other way around.
I may be thinking about a premarital agreement, so you may be right.
The system is set up such that you pay based on what the judge feels you can earn, not what you actually earn. That's why the friend of poster "kernelhappy" royally fucked himself when he started off by giving his ex an extra large payment.
If anyone is ever in a court situation where child support is being decided, ffs, downplay how much money you make. So many guys have stupid pride and shoot themselves in the foot. I'm not saying that you shouldn't pay, but don't make it so you are living in a cardboard box.
The process is called "imputing income due to voluntary underemployment". Yes, this means that you cannot change careers if it means an initial drop in salary - the courts don't care.
That should be illegal. We need a parents rights act.
The reason it is in place is because there are some people quit their good job and get a crappy job before the court hearing so their payments would be smaller. Then afterwards, they get a good job again. My dad did this when I was growing up. It's shitty for the honest people with real situations of unemployment and demotions, but it's necessary for some dirtbags like my dad.
Edit: Corrected misspelling.
you pay based on what the judge feels you can earn
Judges really live in a fantasy land -- seriously. How can banging a gavel and threatening everyone who looks at you the wrong way with contempt not be damaging to a person's character -- or sanity for that matter?
Man, I would so call that bluff. Here's your choices, your honor:
Give me an amount to pay that won't put me on the street
I'll pay nothing, you'll put me in jail at a cost to the taxpayer of tens of thousands per year and my kids will get nothing from me since I obviously won't be able to work.
I doubt you'd go to ass-rape prison for child support. More likely you'd be able to sit around in a regional jail, read Reddit, read books, work out all day and basically be left alone. Compared to slavery and homelessness, prison doesn't sound too bad.
To be fair though, if you were raising a kid in a "normal" home and you got knocked down to minimum wage, the amount of money you spend on your child wouldn't decrease at a 1:1 ratio.
Kids still have to eat, wear clothes, go to school. You'd probably spend less, but try to cut other more negotiable expenses.
Doesn't matter. The child will have to live with less. There is less money. And your above 1:1 ratio can't hold up because each parent has their own home or apartment and their own car, living expenses, utilities, food, etc.
It's completely illogical to suggest after a divorce the man is not allowed to support himself in the most basic ways.
I am saying that it should be a percentage to protect the parent from a situation like this, but he should be able to go to court and get the percentage lowered. If he was working minimum wage, no percentage would be possible. He would have to sustain his own place to live. The child would be supported when visiting.
In divorce the women gets half of all assets, but the man has to pay all the child support. It makes no sense. They should each establish a home and things for the child. They should split food, school, and clothing costs equally. And that is it.
When one parent has to pay all the cost the other parent is going to treat it as a lottery.
I'm not saying the situation as it stands is fair. I'm just saying I don't think there should necessarily be an exact correlation between the amount your income decreases, and the amount less you have to pay in child support.
I agree that it cannot be an exact correlation. Because each parent is now on the hook for their own housing, there is actually less money. A straight percentage would not be fair. The percentage would have to decrease more as income lowered. In a best case scenario child support would be taken out after the parent paid for their own home, utilities, food, etc.
If it was a fair arrangement in terms of time of taking care of the child, both parents would have the child for about the same amount of time, therefore, should have about the same responsibility in paying for the child. In that case, no need for child support, as each parent is caring for the child equally.
I mostly do agree with you, but I think the counterargument is compelling. That argument is:
For women who are stay-at-home mothers, or women who forgo a career or education to raise their children, are severely disadvantaged in the long-term for finding some job that will maintain their standard of living. In such situations, I think it is equitable for the woman to receive half the estate and significant support payments; however, there should be incentives for the woman to remarry or find a job.
If the woman is educated, or has a well-paying job that can sustain her and her child, those payment should be heavily reduced. As it stands now, why would she get a job? She could just find a partner and continue receiving payments, so why would she marry? I think continuing support payments should be contingent upon committing to education and or finding employment. And, if the spouse is living with a partner, that should immediately reduce any support payments (child and alimony). In fact, I think many of the entitlements that we have today should be contingent upon effort to better your situation.
That is probably more in the spirit of the original intention of unemployment, which I have seen through personal experience that it is more of a disincentive to work than a way to sustain yourself while looking for a job. I know its anecdotal and there are many people who need the support under the original intention, but because there is so much abuse of the system, its effectiveness is questionable.
Anyways, I've wasted to much time posting this. Doh! HW here I come
For women who are stay-at-home mothers, or women who forgo a career or education to raise their children, are severely disadvantaged in the long-term for finding some job that will maintain their standard of living. In such situations, I think it is equitable for the woman to receive half the estate and significant support payments; however, there should be incentives for the woman to remarry or find a job.
That makes no sense. If she chooses to not do anything, that means she is taking the risk that she has nothing if they divorce. The man did not force her to do nothing. She chose it. Plus she didn't earn any of the money and she was supported the whole time during the marriage. Any savings or assets should be the earners. The non earner benefited during the marriage, but should have no claim to anything if the marriage ends.
I agree that that current situation rewards the woman for staying single and not working. But that should be fixed. Some kind of ordered education requirement or job requirement is dumb.
If she gets no support she will have no choice but to work.
In illinois, it is percentage based. I was told there was no way around that, in cases of sole custody.
Yep, Illinois is one of nine states that still use a straight percentage of income formula. All other states have modified the formula to account for things like the custody split - actually providing financially incentives to the parents to care for their children - and other expenses. Illinois hasn't modified their child support guidelines in over 20 years.
I have family members that are attorneys in one of the more progressive states, and they were shocked at how badly I get raped because I happened to live in Illinois at the time of my divorce.
Link to where this info comes from, out of curiosity?
Are you saying it's too much, or too little?
In Virginia it is sort-of based on a percentage. But like imk says, it is based on what the judge thinks you can earn. This prevents a parent from intentionally quitting a job just to lower support payments.
But a big portion is also based on the nights the kids spend in a particular home. If I have my kids from 7:00am until 10:00pm and then they go to their mom's to sleep, she gets credit for "supporting" them the whole day. It is seriously messed up.
That is dumb, if a parent quits their job to be poor, so be it. There is nothing that can be done about it.
Screwing over people who have to take lower paying jobs just so you can invoice a deadbeat guy who quit his own job and who has no money and will never be able to pay is retarded.
Considering you cannot make a man with no money pay anything, it's pretty absurd that "This prevents a parent from intentionally quitting a job just to lower support payments." could be considered a valid reason at all. In such a situation no mandatory pay set by a judge matters. The person has no money.
But a big portion is also based on the nights the kids spend in a particular home. If I have my kids from 7:00am until 10:00pm and then they go to their mom's to sleep, she gets credit for "supporting" them the whole day. It is seriously messed up.
That shouldn't matter at all, because the other parent has a home he or she pays for during the time of 7am-10pm. Both parents have their own home to pay for.
It is. Wage garnishments of child support cannot be more than 50% of your gross if you are remarried, and no more than 60% if you are single. This is a Federal law. States can ask for more, but they cannot force your employer to take more out of your paycheck. Employers, by law, have to garnish wages for child support ... so anyone who has a job can have this taken out pretax. That still means that your pre-tax gross gets cut in half, but at least the garnishment comes out before taxes.
Hmm, explain how the judge can require a 2.2k payment when the guy only earns 2,258 dollars a month?
The judge can ask for any payment he wants, but by federal law the guy doesn't have to pay more than 60% of it (assuming he is single). Most payroll software and companies would not even allow over 60% to be taken.
But is that law just for garnishing? Because he could still owe it, but the automatic theft of his check may be capped at 60%. So he would have to voluntarily pay the rest or be held in contempt of court.
In Illinois at least, things like day care and medical bills do not count towards the percentage cap. Also while they can only garnish up to a certain percentage of income; the courts still routinely award amounts greater than this percentage, if the man is still required to pay this additional amount. Failure to pay can result in additional monetary penalties or jail time.
[deleted]
It could be a progressive system, kind of like our tax system is, even that would be better than what this seems to be.
Percentage of what... income? Rich people would just quit their job to dick over their former wife or husband.
So. Then they can do that. If they were still married and quit their job to live in a car, what then?
And on top of that if a person does quit their job after the wife gets the house in the divorce, there are no assets to go after them for. They have nothing to take. You can bill them all you want, but if they have no job or money nothing can be done.
Your scenario is not a valid excuse for the current system. If a person has no money a court cannot force them to pay. Those hurt by the system are the ones that work lower paying jobs that want to still live in a home or apartment. The ones who quit everything are immune because they have nothing to take.
Fail, buddy. The real way to look at it is that a child is an obligation no matter what your job is and whether you have a job.
How is it a fail. If someone purposely goes homeless(or lives with a relative) and quits their jobs so they have no money, there is no possible way to get money out of them.
Saying mandatory payments are needed to force completely dead beats to pay is completely bullshit. Since those are the people with no money that cannot pay no matter what.
If someone really has no money, you can't make them pay anything.
This mandatory pay rule only hurts those that try to still have a life and want to pay their own way after divorce.
Keep in mind I am not saying they shouldn't pay to support the kids, but it makes no sense to require them to pay thousands of dollars to support the mothers home. Each parent pays for their own home and they split clothes and food costs. It's as simple as that.
It's even worse when the father's job is in sales and he works in a field with wildly fluctuating ups and downs such as real estate.
In the real world, if daddy is in sales and has a good year, the parents don't spend more money on their children each month, they save the excess because they know next year might be a blood bath and that money is all they will have to get them through the lean times.
After a divorce, the child support office looks at last year's income and says, "Oh, well, you made $120,000 last year... now you have to pay $X,XXX/child each month" when that is not at all what the parents did when they were married. Then, the following year, suppose daddy only makes $50,000 yet he is responsible for an entire year's child support that someone making $120,000 per year has to pay.
There should be a completely different rate card for parents who are in sales that is based on their average annual income for the previous 5 years, or, it should be adjusted automatically every quarter.
Or just a percentage and when wages are lower that means the payment is lower.
it is based on a percentage, but the percentage is calculated at the time of the hearing, and it doesn't change. Which, I agree, is dumb.
This is the ultimate reason you should always wrap it up before you stick it in.
You can always mitigate the damage with a prenup. If you want kids, you want kids and will pay for them. But with a pre-nup you can make sure she doesn't get any assets like your savings, 401k, or house or any spousal support.
One of the biggest problems is when they keep the house they cannot afford and the child support includes the cost of the house they cannot afford. Then most of the child support is just paying for an expensive house for the ex-wife to live in.
You can get nailed for child support even if you're not married. If you get her preggers, you're in for it.
Watch out boys!
Yea, but it shouldn't be as bad if the judge cannot try to claim you also have to pay for the wife.
My guess is that his original payment WAS based on a percentage of his income at the time of the divorce. That child support payment is recorded into the settlement agreement and that agreement is pretty much fixed in stone. If you want to change anything in it you need to file a request with the court.
At least that's how I understand it as it was explained to me when I went through it. When I asked my lawyer about what happens if I change jobs (say, go out and get one that I would enjoy more but for less pay) I was told that the support payments would stay the same. the reason was that I have "demonstrated" that I can earn this amount.
Fair enough. You do have to meet your responsibilities when you are trying to co-parent. However, common sense would suggest that if your income is lowered due to extenuating circumstances you'd be given a break. Sadly it seems that this wasn't the case.
[deleted]
[deleted]
And these judges and attorneys attempt to hide the complete disinterest in fathers behind vague statements about "the best interests of the child".
My favorite story was when I attempted to negotiate child support during my divorce. I tried to get financial responsibility for 100% of everything - medical, education, extracurricular, child care, everything - but not pay the ex any child support. Nobody would agree to that. The female attorney couched her arguments as it being in the best interest of the children that incomes be equalized so that there is no disparity in lifestyle between homes. Actually sounds like a fairly noble idea, and not terribly ridiculous. Discards any notion of personal responsibility, but if it's in the best interest of the children, everybody tends to nod along and not argue. So I turned it around. "Great, equal lifestyles are in the best interest of the children. So if she marries a billionaire, will she be responsible for elevating my lifestyle to match hers? If so, I'll help her date!". This statement, which I've said multiple times in various forms, has always been met with dead silence by my ex and her attorney. They don't even try to pretend like if she had more financial resources, I would get my lifestyle elevated to match. It's a one way street to these women.
my crazy aunt just demanded 150% of my uncles income while in court and then promptly fired her attorney when her attorney argued the obvious problem with her. What i don't understand is how this woman ever managed to find another attorney. And Then, just for kicks, she hasnt let my uncle see his kids in a YEAR, and they will not hold this woman in contempt. What do you think would happen if my uncle kept those kids without letting her see them? Thats right, criminal charges.
So if she marries a billionaire, will she be responsible for elevating my lifestyle to match hers?
I don't have a ton of experience in court, but I have enough. Just a tip - ixnay on the arcasmsay when in the judge's presence. Even though you're right and probably serious, saying something like this just exposes what they said as being hypocritical nonsense and you don't want to make a judge feel that way.
Oh, I've never said this in court. We did a lot of negotiating via email and with our attorneys together in a room. I've only been in court over this twice, and I'm smart enough - though just barely -to avoid any non-formal, professional, business dialog in there. I don't say, or let my attorney say, a thing negative about the ex. I make a very concerted effort to focus all my discussion on the positive things I do for my children and say as little about anything else as possible.
I make my living as a sales engineer, when it comes to professional environments I like to go down scripted paths, be charming, and most of all, do no harm!
Sarcasm is an expression of contempt. Contempt isn't well tolerated in courts.
do you think it would feel worse if you were robbed at gunpoint?
serious question.
It it infuriates me, too. I don't have any children and I don't plan to. However, I am a child of a divorced family. I have a little experience with the matter.
The wife was so...caviler about it. It just makes me so angry knowing the most of the money isn't going to the kids. Because that is exactly how it was with my mother.
cavalier
Saydrah getting me banned form another subreddit
? Who is this, and why does it matter? Just create another account if someone's being obnoxious.
Saydrah She's a moderator of a few subreddits, also has lots of karma.
Oh. Heh. I just deleted a 30k karma account a month ago (decided to start another one for giggles) and can attest to the fact that it does not give you the key to the secret clubhouse or grow your penis.
This site is dynamic enough that if someone downvotes you / insults you / bans you, you can just ignore it / make another account and move on.
This whole karma thing is fucking stupid anyway. Should be hidden and only serve to let you get around anti-spam timeouts.
I don't know her at all but my understanding from a recent spat she had with some other moderator is that she's a professional marketer that accepts money to get stories to the top of Reddit.
She doesn't seem like a very nice person. I could be wrong.
Disclaimer: She told me she has a "something like a photographic memory" with regards to handling personal information. My suggestion that she shouldn't be handling it went unanswered.
How does someone get banned from a subreddit?
Get in an argument with the mod of a subreddit, and then she bans you from every subreddit where she has mod standing. IIRC, (it's been awhile) Saydrah and I got in a disagreement over r/equality and what can and can't be submitted. Now I' can't even post a question in r/askreddit.
If that's the case, that's taking things way to personal and somebody like that shouldn't be a mod.
same boat full custody of two children , ex-wife pays nothing......
she actually asks me for money from time to time....
in the end I don't care , I can do it on my own.
You get banned because of the #askreddit shit?
Whoa dude, I don't need Saydrah getting me banned form another subreddit.
:) Zing!
At 2.2k a month, it is guaranteed at least half of that is supporting the mother. That is a shit ton of money. It's sad, basically because the father made a lot they decided he should pay more in child support. It really makes no sense.
500 a month per child would be more than enough and should be the ceiling. The mother should have to pay for her own housing and should not get to live for free on the child support.
Before saying 2.2k is too much per month, we need to look at the situation. This story is in Orlando, Florida. How much is rent? How much are the food costs? etc. Certainly, if the guy is making less, then the payments should be adjusted.
One thing that also needs to be looked at is how the guy lost his job. I know of two people right now, who screwed over the system so they could keep more money. One guy got a job that pays cash and got his boss to report that he was making barely over minimum wage just to screw over his ex-wife. The other quit his job and went to work at a gas station so he could also screw over his wife.
Neither this story, nor the original that it links to does anything except try to make us give our sympathy to the father. I want all the facts before I make a decision on something as weighty as this.
FYI, 2.2k a month is PLENTY to live off of in most of Florida. I say that as someone living in Florida who supports a family on only a little more.
Here in Buffalo, my dad gives my mom $250 a month in child support for my youngest brother who is about to turn 18. That's more than enough. My dad is not living too well ever since he lost his job due to plant closure at Nabisco, but as it is, my mom, since the house was paid for, hasn't seen a change in her lifestyle in any way whatsoever, remaining in the 4-bedroom (5 if you include the finished basement) 2.5 bath house in a good area. My dad on the other hand, is living in a one-bedroom apartment in the bad side of town. She also got to keep the 3 year old van, the camper, and a few other things. My mom even had a decent job that easily was able to pay the bills. Now she's after alimony...and appears to be getting winning that fight. They were married for 23 years. No infidelity or anything, they just didn't get along anymore.
That 2.2k is tax free.
Thanks for letting me know. I haven't lived in Florida since 1971-72 and I was just a baby then so I didn't know how much stuff costs.
I don't know about Florida, but in Pittsburgh on $1000 a month, I have a 2BR apartment and a lot of money left over to party / eat out. If I got $2200 a month, I could rent several apartments and afford to throw crazy parties all the time.
Rent does not matter. If the wife cannot establish her own home, then she cannot have custody.
Each parent should have to establish their own home by default. They should split food and clothing. But you can't tell the man to pay for his own home and a home for the children that the wife gets to live in for free. That makes no sense. The children should just live with him then.
Orlando is very cheap when it comes to housing. When I was living up there me and some roommates had a 4 bedroom house in a nice community for $1600 a month including utilities. So if she were to live frugally I'm sure that $2200 would be more than enough to live comfortably.
I don't know why you're getting voted down because you gave an informative answer. For someone who's never lived in Orlando, I had no clue what the costs were. So, from me at least, thanks for the info.
One major difference between the men in your examples and the women in everyone else's examples: your two guys are screwing their ex-wives over by committing serious crimes and also making some form of sacrifice in their own lives (one guy is dependent on his current job and his current "friendly" boss forever, the other guy works at a fucking gas station!).
The women, on the other hand, are screwing over their ex-husbands not just legally, but in fact using the legal system to do it for them.
Before saying 2.2k is too much per month,
Jesus dude. I doubt my parents spent $2.2k a year on me. You will not even get near that number (except when the child goes to college).
Lol.
This story is in Orlando, Florida. How much is rent? How much are the food costs?
I'm pretty sure that Florida is one of the cheaper places to live in the U.S, especially for housing expenses.
Florida has some of the highest housing costs, and lowest incomes. It's a tourist state. Thankfully food costs arent too bad, but they generally dont fluctuate as much as housing from what Ive seen.
Which Florida are you living in! Cause the housing is expensive. Even a two bedroom hole in the wall will run you 800 a month, that does not include anything.
If you want cheap, then you might want to look a little North say Alabama, when I lived there I knew a few people who moved their just because the cost of living was cheaper.
some people have to move when the money gets low
It's child support, not ex-partner support.
If she can't afford rent, she shouldn't have custody.
As long as the father is willing to take custody of the children, I see no reason why a father should have to support his ex. Maybe that's sexist or naive? Hm..
The father is/was supporting 4 children on that 2.2k a month. So that's $550 a kid which is pretty cheap In my opinion. If it was that amount for 1 child I'd call it outrageous.
Wanted to add that according to an online childcare calculator, a child costs about $1000-$1400 a month to raise on average. I'm sure it's less if people make smart choices and don't pay for daycare.
Yea, but that is going to include the cost of a home. Each parent should establish their own home and pay for their own.
The only joint cost should be food, clothing, and school stuff.
But he doesn't make the money to pay it. So after his own living expenses, assuming he lives cheaply. He most likely would only have about 700 bucks in extra cash a month tops. More than enough for 4 kids on it's own. Then the mother should be matching it at the very least. Technically paying more since she lives with them.
[deleted]
If she was the primary caregiver before the divorce and the child is too young to stay home alone when sick(or not school aged yet)
She should "figure it out" then, seriously what if they never got divorced and the father died?
As a widow she would get part of the pension he would be receiving, if he had retired at the point of his death (even if he would normally not be eligible for retiring). In most legal systems at least. Not sure if it's the case with the dog-eat-dog system of the States.
[deleted]
2.2k a month is not a shit ton of money. You can burn that up FAST with just rent, a couple of car payments and groceries.
As for the wife, I have had two brothers go through the divorce and for whatever reason, it is a-ok for the mother to not work, rack up bills, and still get child support.
Where is that equal society women keep bitching for?
It did a 180.
The one rule I always thought that should apply. If the children are over 10, the mother HAS to get a job within a certain amount of time. It can be a minimum wage job if necessary or they lose custody of the children. They should NOT be able to just remain unemployed and live off alimony/child support for the rest of their lives. You wanted equal rights? You got it, and everything that goes with it. Like being financially responsible for your own life and your children. Sucks, doesn't it?
It did a 180.
Remember the last rule on the side on the barn in Animal Farm, "Some people are more equal than others". I think that is the problem here.
The one rule I always thought that should apply. If the children are over 10, the mother HAS to get a job within a certain amount of time. It can be a minimum wage job if necessary or they lose custody of the children.
If a woman is not married, then she should be employed REGARDLESS of the children's age, unless there is a major disease with the children involved.
They should NOT be able to just remain unemployed and live off alimony/child support for the rest of their lives.
That is the norm in most states. Please tell me a case where that is not the usual outcome.
2.2k a month is a shit load of money for child support. It's enough so that the mother does not have to work. That is a problem. She should be required to work and pay for her own home while he pays for his. Then they share clothing and food costs.
But it is strange in divorce the wife gets half, but always has to pay 100% of the child support.
You're right that the mother should support herself, but what if the family had a luxurious lifestyle and keeping the kids up cost more than $500 a month?
HAD a luxurious lifestyle. luxury is not a protected right.
No, but the children should be allowed to maintain their standard of living unless the providing income drops. Breaking up with your wife is no reason not to take any less care of your kids.
Well if dad loses income, then the family lives less luxuriously.
No complaint here.
So what if the family did have a luxurious lifestyle? Everyone's situations have changed as a result of the divorce, why should the father be the only one to experience a drop in the standard of living?
He shouldn't, and any drop to his income should be reflected in support payments, but if his income remains the same, then yeah he should pay a lot in child support.
Of course, that amount should also have to be recipted to demonstrate that the money was spent solely on the children, but that's another matter altogether.
having a luxurious lifestyle is great, but doesn't give you entitlement to a perpetual luxurious lifestyle. Child Support is for living expenses, not luxuries.
Children should be allowed to maintain their standard of living unless the providing income drops. Breaking up with your wife is no reason not to take any less care of your kids.
Your argument is bullshit, but sadly judges for some reason set child support not at a minimum support to live, but based on the life they had. Which is bullshit.
Such a life was afforded when the father was in it. But now he has to have a separate one, costs double. The old life is not sustainable even if he had the same income.
A loss of income, means the loss of the life just like if they were still married.
Of course you're right. All I'm saying is that there are households in which $500 a month is insufficient. And getting a divorce is no reason to take any less care of your kids.
This "economic climate" bullshit has gone too far...
We need to conserve our precious bullshit, in this economic climate...
Tell that to the 40% of my plant that are now unemployed. One of my best friends are included in that 40% and he has a 4 year degree. I pay his bar tabs so he can have a social life.
Tell that to the 10.2% of US citizens that are still unemployed.
Tell that to the kids with a good credit rating who have done everything right, and still can't get a loan to buy a home or anything else.
Yes the stock market is coming back, but the jobs haven't yet. I live in Birmingham (not Detroit which was hit the hardest) and for every 1 job opening there are 6 unemployed. 1:6 ratio.
I'm 25. I had perfect credit. Never missed a payment in my life. Credit card company saw my age and the economic times as a risk factor, so lowered my credit limit from $20,000 down to $400 ($100 less than my balance). I got smacked with over-limit fees and my revolving credit/debt ratio is now 100%. I can't do anything financially. My credit is nearly ruined. My A+ credit history on my car payments over the past 4 years is the only thing keeping me alive.
don't say that too loud or necuz will call bullshit on your situation.
Funny, a similar thing happened to me, though I am in my late 30s. Excellent credit, yada yada. I have a few cards, and one of them I had a $15000 limit. When I first got the card a few years ago they were offering a silly 1.9% on balance transfers for the life of the balance so I scooped up all of my other card debt and dumped it on there. I've been paying it down steadily ever since and now it's down to about $2000 or so. I noticed with last month's statement that they cut my credit limit to $100 above the balance. I don't personally care since regular purchases on that card were at 19% so I was planning on just cancelling it once I paid off these 1.9% transfers, but still interesting.
You are quite good at complaining about other people's problems. Hopefully, this experience has had more productive results for them.
you are quite good at ignoring 10.2% of the populations problems. Apparently turning a blind eye to your neighbors problems allows you to sleep well at night and call "bullshit" on the situation.
The sperm donor story is messed up. That woman couldn't land a partner to conceive with the conventional way so chose to do it on her own. I can see wanting medical history, but it's fucked up to expect financial support. Hey lady... if no one would settle in with you and knock you up the conventional way, maybe you should have considered it a matter of natural selection. You're not helping the species!
[deleted]
You know what? Fuck you mate. I'm a woman and I think this system is fucking wrong, so don't blame all of us women for how unjust the system is.
Men should always have equal rights as parents. Always. Fuck this thread and the misogynistic comments here.
[deleted]
Sorry ladies (as if you care)
Sorry men, but YES I DO FUCKING CARE. I think the system sucks and it should change. Too many men get shafted.
I get angry when guys think that we're all uncaring bitches who just want to rob men. I'm as angry about this system as you are and so I feel insulted when people imply that we'd all do shit like that.
[deleted]
We're all a bunch of rats fighting over rotten scraps from the master's table. http://www.cafrman.com/images/WealthDistribution.GIF
Focus your anger on the class system and the ultra rich, modern age nobility that keep you as a slave.
[deleted]
I thought the "as if you care" was simply because no woman would really care that some random guy on Reddit was not having children.
[deleted]
That's nice of you (so I don't look like as big a tool!)
I don't see why she'd delete it; just add:
edit: my mistake, I feel dumb!
or something and deal with the downvotes... but whatever!
Thanks again.
Looks like you didn't read the first part of his post either, as it was about if you care about him having kids or not, and not if you care about the subject in general.
Then again, you don't seem like a person who's about issues, and more like someone who likes to start interweb fights.
I was in a similar situation about 18 years ago, only to find out the state garnishments never made it to my child, the state knew there was no communication between the mother and myself and were telling her that I was refusing to pay, after 16 years of this, it was discovered that not one dime of the $33,000 that was garnished from me ever made it to the child or mother, when this was discovered, they stopped the garnishment but said none of the money was recoverable and to go fuck myself,,,, corrupt system,,, YOU BETCHA!!!!
added: Furthermore, my child was told all along I wouldn't pay, and since she never saw a dime, now that she is an adult she wants nothing to do with me because I am a fucking low-life that wouldn't pay up.
My father is in a similar situation -- he's been forced to live off of about $500/month despite making approx $80,000/year. NJ is taking all of his money for my mother right out of his paycheck, though my mother is barely getting by renting a room in a friend's house.
The best part is that my wife and I had to pay over $3000 to move my father out to Ohio with us to help him find work, an apartment, and get his life back together since NJ DMV and Child Services keep slapping him with more fines and INCREASING his support. I believe that my father would probably not be alive right now if we hadn't rescued him.
This past year they garnished his entire federal tax return before he saw it and cleaned out his bank account, despite him doing everything he can to just live. I have three sisters, one is in college and the rest of us have jobs and are working. It makes me so incredibly depressed to see such a hardworking, honest man royally f**ked at every turn by the corrupt government.
[deleted]
I'm sorry, but if it got to that point with me, I'd walk into the court, tell the judge to fuck himself, put me in jail, and have the state pay for my stay in their distinguished facility.
If you are approved and get funded, Modest Needs pays the bill directly. Perhaps your father could get temporary relief there.
[deleted]
What state?
washington
I don't understand, so where are the money?
Where did the money go? Did some welfare agency intercept it?
Apparently into what they call a deadbeat dad fund, the mother never collected welfare.
added; although I really have no clue, when my family finally got me a lawyer to help me, their investigation could find no actual record of where any of the money went, and was therefore unrecoverable.
even if the $33,000 made it way, she might think you're a low-life for not being involved in her life. The money issue is usually an issue for the adults, not the kids. If she really says you're a low-life because of the money, it's likely she's projecting.
Actually, her mother was bribed by her parents to deny me any contact and she got a restraining order against me, I spent 3 months in jail 3 separate times for trying to see my child, my child was lied to about everything her entire childhood, and now doesn't even have connection with her mother, after she turned 18 and went off to college, I finally contacted her since her mother no longer had the ability to incarcerate me, and I was told, "yep, here you are right on time, just like my grandparents said you would, when child support is no longer a threat". If she only knew how hard I tried to be a part of her life, but doesn't really care anymore, my door will always be open, but the ball is in her court now.
Dad?
[deleted]
well, I'm completely bias, because I heard the same stuff from my own father. (she wouldn't let me see you, your mom has all this power over me). Restraining orders don't get passed about without due cause, and I know it's not possible to hear the other side of the story. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I'm sensing bs
Your bias and disbelief is what's keeping you from knowing your father, it's not only possible, but likely, and you are in the same frame of mind as my daughter, I can't prove it's true and shouldn't have to, unfortunately though, I suspect someday you will do the same because that is what you were taught gets you what you want.
added: yes, restraining orders are passed out quite simply, all she has to due is say she is afraid and BAM there ya go!
estraining orders don't get passed about without due cause
Ooh boy you got a long way to learn how the 'justice' system works.
My friend took out a restraining order against HIMSELF to prove a point a few years ago.
I can get a restraining order for president Obama if I feel like it. I could probably state the reason as black helicopters spying on me or something and I would still get it...
Restraining orders don't get passed about without due cause
Yes they do. If one parent has full custody, they can issue a restraining order to keep the father away.
Atheos: bullshit. Restraining orders get enacted ALL THE TIME for no reason. you might want to look into that and reconsider your position on your Father.
Why did you use multiple commas in a row?
A pause in my thought, I don't really give a fuck if it's correct punctuation, my meaning was clear.
I've been through the family court system. I found out I had a son when he was two years old, I was in college at the time and didn't have two pennies to scrape together. I was able to come up with payments every month though by getting a work study job. I didn't get a lot of hours so every few weeks at least half the check went to my son. Which was fine, my parents were helping me get by with food and things like that.
Skip ahead a few months: I went in front of the judge and the woman was brutal. She treated me like a fucking criminal. Like I had done something wrong that was 100% my fault. It didn't matter that the mother didn't decide to tell me until he was about two year old, or that I had been paying Child support since before the courts had ordered me to do so, or even that I was doing my best to find a new job. When the judge found out that I was moving out of town because of a job offer she literally yelled at me, saying "You can't just up and leave town to be with your friends! That's what you boys do!"
I was leaving town so I could get paid more then $8.50 an hour. I needed a full-time job that afforded me enough money to pay for support and not live with my parents, so I moved. I explained that to her again, and that I had a job lined up already and was hired, and the lady just bitched at me more. Essentially calling me a useless deadbeat even though I'd been paying about $100.00 from my check every week (this was a little less then half that I made.)
I went back with a Lawyer another time, and it was like night and day. She said one thing about me being irresponsible and my Lawyer told her that, that had no bearing on the case and if she would like more information then to refer to the documents supplied by me. It will show that I had been paying and have not done anything to warrant that treatment.
I have never been through the justice or family court systems until this. I'd never been arrested or done anything wrong before this. Yet I was treated like she would send me to jail if she could. It wasn't a crime, it was a mistake, and I wasn't the only one who was involved. Not once did she even mention that what the woman did was wrong (lying about being on birth-control, waiting 2 years to tell me I had a kid etc.) Not that any of that matters since it doesn't change the fact that we had a kid together, which isn't the problem. He is a great boy.
The system is broken and needs to be fixed. Judges like this have no right to have that position, they just abuse their power and make the lives of the people involved even harder then it already is. I spoke with the district attorney to see if there was anything I could do about it, and unfortunately she is the only family judge in the area, and he literally used these words to describe her "I am sorry, I wish there was something I could do. She is a man-hater and a cunt. We are stuck with her for awhile, though." I was pretty floored by this, coming from a public servant. but every man that has dealt with her that I have spoken with has the same to say. She is a power-hungry man-hater who has no business doing what she does for a living.
I am sorry this had to happen to you, some questions :
Not once did she even mention that what the woman did was wrong (lying about being on birth-control, waiting 2 years to tell me I had a kid etc.)
Did you tell your lawyer about this? How is this even remotely OK to do?
Family court doesn't look into it. It doesn't matter. I was damn sure to tell him this. It was the first thing I said, and the he said to me:
"If a woman said that a man had lied about something in family court it would be taken into consideration, however, in your situation... Even if the lie directly affected your actions it will not make much, if any difference at all."
I made sure to make note of it anyway, and sure enough when the judge read over my information it didn't come up once, yet the judge brought up the fact that I had missed two birthdays for a son that I didn't even know I had.
I would have done everything in my power to destroy her career and if that didn't work i literally would have killed her.
I don't know if I would kill her, I do wish I had done something to ruin her career though. I am sure I could have pulled it off if I had tried at the time. When she does die though I am going to make it a point to piss on her grave. I've been saying it for four years and I am looking forward to it.
[deleted]
They don't care. My husband had a fiance who cheated, when he was in the military. She was pregnant, didn't inform him. When he learned she had a child, he flew out, and she told him it was her husband's child. FIFTEEN years later, he leaves her, and she comes after us for support. We pay it, because she's his daughter- but- there aren't and never will be any recourse for her taking his daughter's childhood away.
[deleted]
How do you know the kid is yours?
DNA test. Besides, he looks like a little me. lol
I don't know how to do the quote thing, yet, but why didn't you use a condom? I'm not trying to antagonize, truly, but I don't understand why men would trust someone they don't know that well (well enough to have spent another several months with her to see she was obviously pregnant) when they say they're on birth control. Not only that, but that shit fails, sometimes. Anti-biotics render the pill useless, nevermind some women forget, or just plain lie about it. Why risk it?
Well, ignoring the fact that this came up as it pertains to the current state of the family court system, your question doesn't have all that much to do with the topic; but, to answer your question, I was young and stupid. I don't know about where you're from but the whole "Condom" thing wasn't touched on much in Sex Ed in my school (or State for that matter.) In New York they give you the knowledge to have sex, but then don't really give you the information to do it properly, since, as I understand it they don't want to teach people things that may be in conflict with their religious belief... Which is absolutely retarded. I was also not aware that birth-control was not 100% effective. That's not something they covered with the boys in those classes... The girls got that information, but not the men, and they once again didn't go into much detail about "the pill" because of the conflict to religious beliefs. Not that I use that as an excuse, but even after Sex Ed I found myself ill equipped as a young adult. I should have known enough to use a condom. My situation was a bit unique in the sense that I also got this girl pregnant the first time. I don't mean the first time with her, I mean MY first time ever. I was curious...
I did bring it up and say that I was worried about it. She told me she was on the pill and that it would be fine. I was young, stupid, horny, and I made the mistake of taking someones word for it, Which Obviously I do now, or ever since. If you've never been in the situation then I wouldn't expect you to understand, but don't put this down to "Men" Because she had just as much to do with me not wearing a condom as I did. If I had known she wasn't on the pill, and I did not have a condom I would not have had sex with her. She told me it was fine, I trusted her because, I had known her for a long time, and I would have never expected her to pull something so under-handed. I now know that women do and will lie about that sort of thing to get what they want. It is just a pity that I had to found out that way.
I brought it up, because you mentioned it. I only put it down to "men", when it comes to contraceptive, because they only have control over pregnancy prevention. Once that stick turns blue, they're powerless to make any decision about it. Both genders should be responsible for preventing stds/pregnancy, and neither should leave it all up to their partner. I'm sorry you had to learn the unfortunate lesson of how people can't be trusted, in that way. Women that do things like that really disgust me. It's seriously fucked up! It shows no regard for the father, or the child, and is probably one of the most selfish things a woman can do. I guess it's hard to know before hand, so that's why I was suggesting that men trust no one, and protect themselves every single time. It's probably just my aversion to pregnancy (specifically), and stds (generally) that makes it hard for me to see a perspective where someone would trust another person to that degree.
I do understand lack of education (although, being a female, thus being the potential knocked-up-ee, I had more incentive to take it upon myself to learn about contraceptive on my own). Home education was "don't have sex until marriage, unless you want a slut reputation" (small town mentality). I don't remember what info we were given at school, but it wasn't much. "Sex will kill you, look at these disgusting disease pictures, blahblahblah." I didn't even fully understand everything that happened, until I learned from experience. You could've knocked me over with a feather the first time I witnessed an ejaculation! lol
Personally, I don't think public schools should give a shit one way or the other about peoples' religious beliefs, when it comes to sex ed. If the parents of the students want to take their kids out of school, to keep them from learning the facts, so be it. But to not offer the information because of a few bubble-wrappers who want to "protect" their kids from the evils of sex education is ridiculous. But, that's a rant for another time. Thanks for the explanation.
Men have zero defense in this matter. It's ridiculous. Don't get married!
Marriage don't matter... A) Don't have children B) Don't fuck a pro-lifer
Everybody should switch to rainrunners system, it works.
That ain't my system. My system is A) Have debilitating social anxiety B) Talk to nobody C) Fuck nobody
D) All of the above, go post something on Reddit.
Isn't my system either. My system is A) Be born infertile and marry someone who doesn't want kids either.
Worked out well for us so far. ;-)
[deleted]
Kind of removes some of the credibility of your system.
Don't fuck a pro-lifer
Riiiggghht.. because a pro-choice woman would never surprise you and keep the baby.
Men have zero defense in this matter. It's ridiculous. Don't have kids!
FTFY
There is not even such thing as an iron clad pre-nup. Most prenups get thrown out the window when it comes down to it.
I'd say don't even bother getting married.
Are they not legally binding contracts? How can one just be thrown out like that?
A contract can be thrown out if it's determined to be overly broad, contain clauses which are illegal or unenforceable, etc.
For example, if I signed a contract saying that you were allowed to murder me, and then you did it, you'd still go to jail for a long time if you were caught.
Contracts such as non-competes are illegal in many states.
A pre-nup which says that the father never has to pay child support ever may be found to be unreasonable if circumstances warrant it.
If one person cheated in a relationship it can be used to nullify the contract. Don't ask me why.
They're only legally binding if you are willing to go to court to have it applied. It's costly, time-consuming and stressfull as hell. I can see why most people would prefer to let it slide.
Because lawyers are awesome at finding little cracks and loopholes in anything. They also tend to claim that the situation has changed significantly, rendering the original agreement useless.
It's pretty sad. Most prenups do not hold up in court.
Clauses in a pre-nup absolving one party of responsibility for any children produced are as legally binding as a clause in a contract that says you have to give the other party your liver if he catches you wearing a blue shirt. In other words, illegal clauses are non-binding.
I just addressed this a moment ago... http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/aalp3/a_dad_loses_his_job_after_finding_a_lower_paying/c0gmv5o
Ahh, but remember, that's not always a guaranteed way to avoid this. There is always common-law marriages. It varies from state to state, but sometimes just living together long enough is enough to be considered a common-law marriage. And once that happens, it can be treated just like a real marriage.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common-law_marriage_in_the_United_States
I'm so glad I read your comment! I just glued shut the windows in my car so this doesn't happen to me. Thanks for the tip.
Shit. This was always my plan, just in case. I guess I'll have to go to a lawyer to draft it up. It just makes sense to me that two people should decide what happens later while they're still able to agree with eachother.
It is still a good idea to have a pre-nup, and it can help. You just always hear those horror stories where the judge throws it out for this reason or that.
If you get a really great lawyer you can draft one up that is as close to iron-clad as you can get. It will have to be like 90+ pages though lol.
No. Don't get married either. Alimony still exists.
Don't get married to a cunt.
:edit:
Since this conversation is likely to start, I'll start it:
I would never screw over another person like that, and I married someone else of similar character. If you can't find a mate like that, you probably shouldn't commit to a legally binding marriage. Marriage is no big deal anyway. Besides, it isn't worth taking the risk if you're not absolutely sure. We pretty much did it just for the tax benefits. We don't need a certificate to prove that we love each other.
I know what you're thinking, everybody thinks he found the right woman and then she completely transforms after a falling out. I had an on again/off again relationship with this woman for 7 years before we both decided to just say "fuck it" and get married.
I think too many people get married the way a horny guy will fuck a chick he probably shouldn't. The whole "romance" thing is bullshit. Surprising someone you've been dating for a while by "popping the question" and giving them a ring costing several thousand dollars is hardly something you could call a rational progression of events. These people are just asking for it.
Oh, and we won't be having any kids. That is usually a huge contributor to relationship woes.
Don't get married to a cunt.
Sadly, the only fail proof cunt test involves a courtroom and a judge. At that point it is too late for many.
[deleted]
I know what you're thinking, everybody thinks he found the right woman and then she completely transforms after a falling out.
Yeah... you didn't really refute this argument at all. The whole point of the "don't get married, don't have kids" strategy is that it's impossible to know how the other party will behave once the relationship dies.
Don't get married to a cunt.
the most vicious cunts act the innocent frail tulip so well.
How about this: marry a girl who makes more $$ than you and has no case for alimony.
Believe me, there are lots of us out there.
Not in my state, it doesn't. But, yeah, don't have kids. Or live with someone too long, because we do have common law. Or, like wickedcold says "don't get married to a cunt". That's pretty good advice!
prenup and a vasectomy.
You mean don't have kids. Married or not with kids this system will get you.
that still wont protect you in some cases. If your wife has a child from another man, claims that it is yours and THEN gets a divorce.... you can STILL end up paying child support.
You can still end up paying child support, even if you NEVER married her.
You can end up paying child support even if you're a virgin.
http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/09/court_lawmakers.html
(Stole this from an earlier comment, but it is funny when placed here)
Honestly, we should sponsor easy access to vasectomies - the simplest way of ensuring nothing can go too wrong.
They should implant a fucking keycode device into your nutsack, if you want kids you have to remember a 20 digit pin first.
Seriously, vasectomy == male empowerment - BUT I've read SO MANY conflicting stories about what they do to your system, libido, consistency and awesomeness of cum (despite the obvious).
Males need a 100% transparent method of reversible sterilization.
Women, if a guy had opted for sterilization, at what point should he tell you?
I would close my eyes and just start typing letters. I would never remember that key code.
Condoms...
... suck for the most part and they don't make condoms thin enough?
Immediately. Some women have no interest in breeding, either.
You should try the depo shot. I hear it works great!
lulz
Women, if a guy had opted for sterilization, at what point should he tell you?
why the hell is it any of her business at all?
Long term dating, potential marriage.. Maybe the woman wants kids.
yeah, but so - at what point - do some vagtards think that it has to be before you get to drag them back to your cave and fuck their vaginas?
Ssssssh! be vewy vewy qwiet! I am hunting feminazis.
Unless you're a cop, it seems.
ya i made that mistake :Edit i just got slapped around by my wife.
lmao, its funny how the heterosexuals say not to get married but then the gays wants the right to marriage and the same benefits..lmao.
i thought it was just funny.
Nah, you don't need to avoid marriage and kids. But every man needs to be aware of the business aspects and treat these things like a business. The romantic ideals of love, marriage, and parenting mask the brutal reality of the man-raping business that it really is.
Don't get married!
How about don't marry a spoiled cunt?
psychopaths don't come off as spoiled cunts until well after the deception has been made and the contract signed.
Agreed. She has the potential to take you for Alimony, Child Support, and to top it all off, the Judge will probably end up making you pay for her lawyer after the divorce.
Seriously... I've never wanted kids or marriage myself and thankfully am dating a woman who feels the same (& is pro-choice)... but stories like this still depress me.
How about, don't get a divorce and be man enough to keep your girl happy and keep your vows.
because women cheat, lie and abuse children and spouses too.
The majority of the time though...
It's my belief that if a woman is doing any of that, it's because her husband is more than likely a push over. Therefore, it's the dude's fault. Granted there are always exceptions to the rules.
I'm old school though. I work 3 jobs to support my family and my wife stays home with our 2 boys.
and if a woman is battered by her spouse, it's her fault as well?
I was old school, I worked 3 jobs, while my wife secretly went out sleeping with a variety of boyfriends.
I pay her child support now, because as a male, I'm apparently automatically not fit to care for my son..........
so it's okay for women to walk all over people who are push overs? that's nice.
also by the same logic, it was Iraq's fault that America went to war with them.... they shouldn't have had all that oil there.
you want full custody of the kids? then you should assume full responsibility for them. You cant you say? Maybe you shouldnt have full custody.
This whole 'maintain' the standard of living thing after divorce is bullshit. If you leave the one that keeps your life like that, you shouldn't continue living like that. Go back to what you had before marriage
'maintain' the standard of living
i wonder how that ridiculous and infantile law got there in the first place
[deleted]
under those circumstances it did make sense, i guess. amazing how times have completely changed.
even then it really didn't. imagine a guy making 10 mil a year. does the ex deserve 2 mil? could she survive on 200k per year? or 50k?
If you were married to britney spears, would you allow her to have custody of your baby?
A working court system would find if she is an unfit parent or not. I am not to judge here.
What I don't get about it is that the wife is entitled to maintain her standard of living even if she divorces a man who was making the living for the family and providing her this lifestyle.
I know it depends on the situation, but why does a divorced spouse deserve the same lifestyle their ex was providing them? If they wanted that lifestyle they should not have gotten divorced.
It really makes no sense at all.
Left over from a history where married women were not able to work.
There was a time in the US and UK when if you were a married woman no company would give you a job. You would be considered to have been stealing it from a father who had to support a family.
The law moves slowly if at all.
You're pretty right on with this comment. I often said, as a father who is being taken advantage of by the system and a shiftless ex, that we are a generation paying for the sins of our fathers in this regard (and many others). But it's not necessarily due to the law not changing so much as the ingrained bias in these older judges that apply the law. They're used to a world where men work away from home and play an ancillary role role in child care, while women are employed as mothers. The laws are moving forward, the people aren't.
Another issue, in my opinion, is that the child support laws work fairly well for the most common types of divorces. Average wage earners, mother takes custody, father does the every-other-weekend thing. The areas where it breaks down involve such a small number of men, nobody really cares or it's just really hard to get the momentum and attention necessary to effect change.
+1 insightful, interesting
Darn I have stumbled into the slashdot zone.
6 days late, yes.
This.
Blame the courts, not women.
In situations like the one in this article, blame both of them. You do not have to screw some one over, just because the courts allow it doesn't absolve the woman of wrong doing.
The original idea is that the woman gives up her career to be a caregiver, so you're responsible for supporting her because she basically gave up her life to raise your children. This, I agree with.
But if she didn't have children or she has a job, I don't think you should be required to support her after the break. You should still have an equal part in raising the child (monetarily and hopefully actual interaction).
The he's and she's are only there to make it easier to understand. They can be swapped, or replaced with same sex partners and the same argument still stands. Anytime somebody gives up their career/life to raise a child that is both of yours, they deserve something when they end up on their own.
The site above should be required reading for those young men seeking pre-marriage counseling.
The rosy-cheeked and randy beauty sitting before you today could just as easily become the raging termagant of a sexless and nightmarish tomorrow seeking to destroy your happiness in the event you fail- which is pretty common for those called human.
Some men do get lucky and find the rare woman who is not an emotional holocaust in anti-logic panties. But this is only proven by length of time which makes the emotional investment incredibly risky.
You live one time only. And the distance between birth and death is excruciatingly short. Enjoy it without the burden of a potentially fucked-up and ass-thrashing woman. Pussy is nice but it ain't THAT great.
Upvoted for "an emotional holocaust in anti-logic panties".
Upvoted for 'Pussy is nice but it ain't THAT great.'
Which is what the rulers want, breeding by permit.
^^ THIS THIS THIS THIS ^^
I am in my late-30s, divorced, father of three. When I met her she was beautiful, the love of my life, and became my best friend. Then she started to get a bit older, and decided to sow her oats by having an affair.
Now she is nothing but a walking hate machine, doing everything she can to hurt me through the children.
If I could go back in time and tell myself one thing it would be simply this: the beauty of women clouds the ability to see their faults. Be very careful, trust your own ability to determine right and wrong, and do not be afraid to stand against that ravishing beauty when it's required.
Exactly. Men are groomed to lower their intellectual guard through orgasm. This is precisely why seduction in espionage works often.
what's sad is that the prevailing advice in this thread is to not have children and/or not get married. we should be focusing our efforts instead on changing the laws and removing corrupt judges and politicians. the government is supposed to exist to protect us, not persecute us.
Children are unnecessary for a satisfied life. And women can be enjoyable but often change when competition factors are erased. The prevailing view is cogent.
Man, too late for that. We broke up 1 year ago and my son has been paying for it. I try to give my son everything i can and buy him whatever he needs. I even pay child support but she hasn't taken me to court yet. I would even go into the depths of hell and marry her just to keep my family together. I don't really know what to do now but to love my son!
As the learned man Jimmy Dix once said, "I want to meet the bitch that fucked you up."
I got news for you, sir: Men are just as fucked up and illogical. We just happen to be far more used to our brand of crazy.
Do I have to qualify every single fucking thing every single fucking time I post, pickle?
Of COURSE men are fucked up and illogical in embarrassingly large numbers. But, based on my miserably limited experience over something of a lifetime of comparative armchair analysis I conclude slightly MORE men do tend toward pragmatism and enlightened thinking which does tend give men a slight edge in retaining relationships in spite of satanic and immoral 'rotgut-filth-evil-wickedness' or whatever you wish to label common human mistake.
This view is also possibly supported by the fact that 3/4 of all divorces are filed by women.
I'm at a loss over how you could use the divorce filing ration to support that notion, since one could swing that back around and showcase the vastly higher ratio of female victims of domestic abuse/violence, etc.
Perhaps it was unfair for me to single your particular comment out for response, as this entire thread is rife with "oh, those fucked up crazy women" bon mots, so for that I offer an apology. I'm just so very sick and tired of the constant battle of the sexes, when I know good goddamn and well that we men are just as fucked up.
No, men are NOT as fucked up as women, pickle. I base this on an entire lifetime of analysis. Logic trumps emotion. Every. Single. Time.
Men are more capable in greater numbers than women of achieving a life-applicable logic.
It is impossible for me to disagree with you more.
On behalf of all women, I apologize.
I got divorced when my kids were 3 and 6. I hadn't worked outside the home since the older one was born, so my mother encouraged me to get a lawyer and get as much child support and alimony as I could.
That's not what I did.
I got a part-time job and found a room to rent, leaving the kids with my ex-husband in the house they were used to. I still had a key and would go there every afternoon to meet the schoolbus, cook them dinner and tuck them in. When my ex got home I would leave for my apartment.
We decided to avoid getting lawyers involved and hired a mediator instead (for a total cost of less than a thousand dollars). It was decided that the kids would stay in the house with my ex and I would see them three days a week and alternate weekends. When they were with me, I paid for whatever they needed. When they were with him, he paid, so we had no formal child support.
A couple of times when my ex got laid off, I chipped in extra for school clothes or field trips or whatever. If the schedule needed to be adjusted, we dealt with it.
He eventually remarried and had two more kids. His new wife had the nerve to suggest that I had "abandoned" my kids because I didn't fight for custody of them ... she didn't realize that if I had done that, she and my ex would probably be living in a cracker box so he could support me in the lifestyle that my mother thought I deserved. I fear for him if he ever divorces the new wife - she will, as Robin Williams says, "rip his genitals out through his wallet".
Anyway, the kids are grown up now. We're splitting the college tuition 50/50.
We never had to go to court. Lawyers never got involved. It's amazing what people can do when they act like grownups instead of greedy vindictive children.
Thank you
You can't apologize for all women. Some of them wouldn't want you to anyway.
Nice to find someone -- and I know other women like this -- that care more about developing a good working relationship than about maximizing the money they can extract.
;-)
Thank you for being a nice, rational person.
You sound rational (and your ex too). Most people aren't.
Early in the divorce process I said to him, "Look, there are two kinds of arguments we can have. We can fight about who did what to whom and whose fault this is, and we can fight about who get the money, house and kids. How about if we never combine those two arguments?"
So we kept the emotional issues separate from the logistical issues and were able to do the whole thing with a minimum of conflict and bad feelings. It wasn't easy but all I cared about was not hurting the kids.
My ex was a fucking idiot. I tried to split amicably. She decided to waste about 15-20k from each of us on separate lawyers to fight over nothing. I offered her ~100k (and to pay for a lawyer) to just settle and move on. She was hurt so she decided to drag it out and got about 35-40k from court and a 15-20k lawyer bill. It hit me hard up front (I was going to pay it out over 5 years) but after 2 years I was in the clear (alimony & paying back some massive loans for all that cash).
I was fucking pissed at the time but in the long run she did me a great favor. My life is fucking spectacular now.
I just don't get any of that. Why do people want to put themselves through so much pain and expense just to screw the other person?
People are crazy. Even if my spouse cheated on me or whatever, I'd settle quickly just so I wouldn't have to deal with them any longer than I had to.
We need to clone you. Oh, that's right you have already been cloned, well in that case I hope your kids turn out as cool as you!!! I am sure they will.
When I was divorced, we went through a Para-legal. Cost us $300, and me and my former wife have been best friends ever since. We still go out to dinner once in awhile and our mutual friends cannot believe that we can still be friends and socialize like this.
The only reason I don't socialize with my ex husband is because of his wife. She's not very openminded.
I've been paying child support for a year now but we haven't gone to court or have done anything. We where never married so i don't have right as a dad other than just being a sperm donor and cash cow. When she started to complain i basically said, take me to court, take my rights, and then explain what you did to our son. Women always want to pretend they are the victims here.
Chris Rock: Everybody need a pre-nup. People think you gotta be rich to get a pre-nup. You got twenty million and your wife wants ten, big deal, you ain't starvin'! But if you got thirty thousand, and your wife wants fifteen, you might have to kill her!
I don't think pre-nups hold much if any weight in child support.
They don't. Utterly unenforceable as to child support. They work for alimony though if drawn properly though.
Depends on what's in the pre-nup. If you have arrangements for kids in case of, the courts are obligated to follow that contract.
nope. But losing your shit is painful too.
states are paid about 66 cents by the federal government for every dollar of child support collected.
There's your problem.
</thread>I explained this in another comment... I'm a computer programmer for child support.
The original idea of child support was to regain money given to a mother when she is on welfare. The Feds match part of the child support payments because the money collected from the absent parent is usually less than the welfare payments given to the custodial parent.
In cases where the custodial parent does not receive welfare, the Fed still matches money to help fund the welfare system for others.
This needs to be upvoted more.
As a single mom with an 11 year old, I have never pursued any child support from her father. We split when I was 3 months pregnant, he married someone else 15 days later, and wanted me to either 1)have an abortion or 2)have the baby and give it to him and the new wife. I left the state, did not put his name on the birth certificate, and have never had contact with him since. I also have never had any government assistance.
Sometimes people think I am crazy for not pursuing him for child support, but between the headache of still having to deal with him in my life in any capacity, court appointments, lawyers, and everything related to it I feel I made the right decision. He wanted out - I let him out.
You're a good, independent person. <3
I'm sure your child will be an amazing person.
He sounds like an asshole. I'd have lied to him and said I got an abortion, then when your kid is 17 sue him for all the back support. Or stab him. Yeah, I like the second option better.
Why is it OK for women to want an abortion to get out of a bad situation but not men?
yeah! why aren't men in control of women's bodies?
...wanna fuck?
My bro was recently taken to court by his ex. He gets overtime and bonuses and she wanted a piece of it. The judge asked my brother how much he was paying her a month. My brother told him and the judge said "Whoa. That's way above the state-mandated guidelines." And substantially lowered the payments. Apparently he had a crappy lawyer during the divorce.
Sometimes the system works folks.
Exceptions, exceptions.
So she still gets custody and he still pays her anyway, but because it's less the system works? Wow, you have low expectations.
My friend is in a similar situation. She has to pay the child support. She works two jobs. One pays the child support, the other pays for her to actually make a living. The sad thing is, she petitioned to get her kids back. The court gave her back one child, then took over a year to change the custody agreements. So, in that year, she had to pay child support to her ex-husband for the child living with her.
He happily took that money and used it for his new truck payments. She's currently back in court to try to get that money back from him because the court now, after 3 years, says she shouldn't have paid the money.
While the court is usually skewed in favor of the mother, everyone gets screwed all the time.
Not everyone gets screwed.
Get a law degree, people!
And screw yourself!
There's plenty of great, honorable lawyers out there....
Of course very few are divorce lawyers. Blech! That sort of toxic environs would drive you insane if you had a soul.
This is the entire reason I'm still married. My marriage has sucked for many years. But I know that if I get divorced I won't see my kids and I'll pay a shit ton of money to support "her" lifestyle. Hell, we can't afford her lifestyle when we're together, how could I ever hope to do it when we're apart.
Counting the days until my youngest is off to college.
[deleted]
tomorrow your wife could file, and you'd lose.
And that's different from him filing how? Every day he spends with her is one less day in a legal dogfight. Just keep running down the clock, my friend...
Amen, brother. Life's not too bad when I don't give a shit :-) I make enough money to pay the bills, but I make it a point to never earn too much money.
Amen, brother. Life's not too bad when I don't give a shit :-) I make enough money to pay the bills, but I make it a point to never earn too much money.
Every day I agree with pre-nuptials more and more.
"her" lifestyle? Is she some sort of in-between gender?
;-)
Play nice for 2-3 years then make it look like an accident.
I would have done this had I had kids with my ex.
Don't get me started on this.
I get my check each week and 60% of it -- almost exactly 60% -- is taken from it and given to my ex-wife.
So I get 40% of my pay, she gets 60%.
When we were divorced she was a stay at home mom and had no income. Since then she has a job as an auditor with an accounting firm and now makes good money. Can I get it changed -- no.
So I pay her over $3800 cash a month plus she gets her entire check. Meanwhile I can barely pay my rent, utilities, food etc.
And I have three kids who I see 3 weekends per month so I need an apartment (forget buying a house) that's big enough for them -- meaning my living expenses aren't even that much lower than hers.
What a bitch.
Why not try to get 50% custody and stop paying child support?
If both of you work full time then why would the kids always stay with her?
This is what I proposed from the beginning but she's not in any way open to it.
Why should she be? Any change comes out of her pocket.
Greedy bitch.
Oh... But I'm not bitter...
Fuck what she wants dude. Sue her for full custody and don't tell her you're going to either. Don't give her anymore time to deal with it than you have to.
What gives you the idea that having 50-50 custody means there will be no child support payments? Run some numbers. If the custodial parent (usually the woman) makes less than the non-custodial parent then child support payments will still often be due to the custodial parent:
Well, in a perfect world things would be adjusted to make things equitable. Sounds like you got a bad deal. Why can't the numbers be adjusted now that she's working full time?
Develop business corporations among genetic partners, so when and if the “LOVE” factor changes, there is not the financial drama. Eliminate the need for Federal, State and Religious oversight and intervention on procreation rights. Plus, this sort of B.S. would not happen in “Multiple Parent” households, where the burdens of economic slavery palimony would be heaped upon a single entity. The legal, judicial and social services “INDUSTRY” have made careers out of meddling in people’s living and procreation rights. And lets not forget that a huge amount of our tax dollars go towards funding these social services that do indeed stay in business because of the marriage model that is severely challenged, with perpetual two person relationship changes.
Hmmm... You sound as bitter and jaded as me.... ;-)
Can I get it changed -- no.
Have you tried? What did the judge say? Etc?
Sorry! Just curious.
My lawyer told me that as long as my annual income was higher than hers there's not much chance I'll get alimony waived. And child support is calculated almost exclusively on my gross income in New Hampshire where I live, so her getting a job doesn't impact that.
One thing I've learned is that judges / courts don't listen to reason. It isn't part of the consideration.
Put a gun to your head. Film it and have it distributed over the internet. Have someone delivery a copy to her auditing firm. Mission accomplished.
holy dude, brutal, quit your job ,become a tattoo artist on some beach. kind of the same boat though. I pay my ex for 1 kid about 500ish . Not much but i don't make much. She has a good job , drives new lexus , has a big house. I drive a 1992 pontiac. Last week , I ask her if she could wait to cash the check for 3 days till Friday , which is when I get paid and she was like " can't , this month is tight" . fuckngbiotch
yeah,and the sad part is the system is completely skewed in the mothers favor... i worked with a guy who (because of mountains of evidence including taped phone calls where his wife was talking about doing drugs and prostituting herself with the KIDS AT HOME) had gotten custody of his children, his wife was forced to get a job and the judge reluctantly made her pay child support...
after comparing it with the other guys in the shop we discovered she was only required to pay 1/5th the amount all the men were, even though she made MORE money than her ex-husband and more money than the guys we compared her child support too...
[deleted]
It's not the ladies. There are bots on reddit. Some of these bots downvote anything just so their own submissions have a better chance of seeing the light of the day.
Go check other stories. Nobody gets more than 70% upvotes.
Bots, ladies, its all the same...
fembots!
maybe they're fem-bots!
Spewed my coffee again. Damn you Reddit.
you wish.
I think he was talking about his comment getting downvotes. I doubt bots downvote comments.
That's not to say it is the ladies either tho.
Some people will post a comment and downvote all except their own so that it appears higher, relative to others. Other people will downvote for a typo or another dumbshit reason. Who knows, really, most people vote without commenting.
"though". Please. You were doing so well.
I was talking about topics, not comments.
I don't know how one can check the up/down votes on comments.
No, it's gotta be women, they're all a bunch of sexists.
You really should know by now that there will always be a sizable percentage of downvotes and rarely a reason.
Seriously. I downvoted just for that sexist drama-llamaing edit.
honestly, is there any proof there are bots? (have any of the admins mentioned that fact?)
just have faith
No dude, that's not happening. Why would someone downvote his comment? What's with redditors and upvote/downvote conspiracies?
[deleted]
Isn't it pretty easy to identify these bots based on the rediculous number of downvotes? Why are they still around?
[deleted]
I'm a lady and I downvoted it (after the gripe was edited in) because the poster is being a douchebag by presuming the following:
jdk 19 points20 points21 points 58 minutes ago[-] (27|4)
You have more than 70% upvotes, care to tell us about your bots?
Edit: wtf I'm at 56%, you bot owners are supposed to keep me at 70% or the joke doesn't work.
Where can I find the upvote/downvote ratio of a comment? All I see is "n points" ...
I downvoted this bitching posting. It's not just the bots.
The system is fucked up, but it is not news, yet it keeps happening:
I have many, many times rejected sex for this exact reason. I have had my ass dumped, but I keep 100% pre-tax I earn for myself. I go to bed smiling every night.
Enjoy your right hand.
My brother had a one night stand 17 years ago. He's suffered financially. Six months ago she got a court hearing and demonstrated that my brother makes 150k / year.
His child support payment went from $150/month to $900/month instantaneously.
How the fuck can anyone deal with this shit?
That's like buying 2 cars ... it's stupid. The laws in this country are stupid. It's no wonder everyone ignores the laws.
Does he actually make the 150K per year? If so, then why shouldn't his children receive more money? If not, than that's just stupid and she should butcher the system like that.
IMHO, if your brother really makes 150k, he should be giving more than 900/ month. If I ever find myself in that situation, I'll have to be giving around 25% of what I make :s
You don't specify if he's supporting a kid or her. If the answer is 'her', disregard my comment.
Question: when can you stop supporting, like when the kid turns 18?
Why is buying 2 cars stupid? Inevitably something is going to break on your car and you are going to have to get it repaired. With only one car you have to take extra time out of your day to call a tow truck and get a rental car.
I have been in my moms custody since 3 years old or so, Never got a dime from my father, he'd buy us video games and yu gi oh cards when we stayed with him though, if that counts, my mom hated that though, (and justly, its unfair, as a kid i think hes the better one cause he buys the good stuff while she spends all her money on food and housing etc.) So theres always the flip side to things like this.
At least your dad bought you cards. My dad left when I was 2 and never paid a dime in child support. The courts said they couldn't find him even though my mom knew his trucking schedule and gave it to them. When I was 20 I tracked him down by simply calling my grandma and asking for his sister's phone number.
When he died, the state found him and sent my mom a check for $1000 for back child support. So, in their eyes, my sister and I were worth a grand.
We were pretty poor growing up, though my mom tried her hardest to not let us know it. My mom also never bitched about it around us. She just went about her day, sucked it up, and dealt the hand life gave her. To this day, she is hesitant to say anything bad about my father solely because she doesn't want a bad impression of him to come from her.
When I was 5 my dad decided he'd rather lose his job and live in the back of his car than pay child support because "that will teach that bitch". When I turned 18 he was off the hook and finally got a steady job, an apartment and started dating one of his student. Seriously fucked up character.
My dad left when I was six.
We did, however, eventually get child support, but I believe I was 14 by the time that actually kicked in.
Poverty is just plain shitty, and it's really hard to understand why until you are actually there.
Between my sister and I, my father owes $80,000 in child support.
It's the sum of not paying support for 2 children over a period of 18 years.
your mom sounds like a great lady.
Dude. Your mom rocks.
That's wonderful to hear man, your mom sounds like a good woman. My dad left me and my sister at a young age with just our mom to raise us, sent child support on and off and I don't think I ever heard her say a bad word about him either.
That sounds like my mom too. Never an ill word against my father, even though she had to track him down (which is hard when he's a Navy man on a submarine most of the time) to get the back and current child support he owed, abused her, slept around on her, and the last time I saw him was when I was 6. Thankfully the Navy didn't take too kindly to him not paying and helped her find him. $200/month which pretty much only covered the health insurance that was taken out of my mom's paychecks.
Now I agree that child support can be royally fucked, but here in Hawaii the law states that the courts can take up to 50% of your disposable income (ie. income after rent, food budget, and other bills.) Some crazy crap in other states.
Not to be rude, but your dad is part of the reason why the laws are skewed so heavily against the men.
A buddy of mine's wife decided she didn't want to be married anymore, no infidelity, no drug use, nothing like that, they just weren't getting along for a couple years and she pulled the plug. Even though it was her idea he was making big money at the time and voluntarily gave her a support payment that was larger than need be, basically to cover private schooling for his kids and to keep them accustomed to how they lived. Fast forward a couple years and the economy is going into the shitter and he finds out he's going to lose his job in about 4 months. For about 3 months I actually watched my buddy suffer, not only about losing his job, but about how the hell he was going to make his payment and trying to get a reduction before he got thrown in the klink for non-payment.
He had wanted custody of the kids to start with, but she wasn't a bad mom so it was a uphill battle and he worked out a nice visiting agreement and kept her local. Luckily for him though he found a lower paying gig at the 11th hour and just about that time his ex decided to move in with her boyfriend and the kids came to live with him.
tldr; buddy of mine was shitting blood for months because he was losing his job and had previously given his ex-wife a voluntarily higher than required monthly amount.
[deleted]
One should never ever do that... He can always provide more for the kids outside of the mandatory support payments. Best to always try to keep the mandatory payments as low as possible.
That was a great story. For once, I'm glad I didn't read the tl;dr first.
I'll bet he bought those for you. I bet those were a Christmas gift. You know what I got for Christmas? Oh, it was a banner fucking year at the old Bender family. I got a carton of cigarettes. The old man grabbed me and said, "Hey, smoke up Johnny." Alright? So go home and cry to your Daddy. Don't cry here, okay?
My impression of life at koft's house: "Son?" "Yeah, Dad?" "How was your day, son?" "Great, dad. How's yours?" "Super. Say, how would like to go fishing this weekend?" "Great, Dad. But I got homework to do." "That's okay, son. You can do it on the boat." "Gee." "Hon, isn't our son swell?" "Yes, dear. Isn't life swell?
This...this is from...The Breakfast Club? Memories from so long ago... hazy...
Grab some wood, bub, and stop making such a ruckus. Anyway, a carton of cigarettes beats getting your ass cheeks taped together.
You see that? That's what you get when you spill paint in the garage!
The flip side would be the a Mom forced to lived on 58 bucks a week because of child support payments. Try finding a Mom, anywhere, forced to make even equal child support payments to that of a standard Father.
It's a horribly skewed system towards the Mom.
Mine. My mother paid $1200 a month during the 80s- after my father kidnapped us to a state on the opposite coast and won custody because my mom couldn't afford a plane to defend herself. She continued paying for five years after we moved in with her- because the court could not have cared less.
But you're right- women generally DO pay less- because they often start with less income.
And? The courts would make him pay child support. If the "coin was flipped" your mom wouldn't have to pay.
Well, the courts didn't make him pay child support. And my mom was left somewhat screwed instead of the father being screwed by paying too much.
your mom can get back child support. did she even pursue him for child support?
well, he has been in and out of jail, and I think child support laws in hawaii are much easier on people than california laws.(he started messing with ice after marriage, so my mom isn't one of those naive women just fyi.)
So. Your mom should be paying for you to live when you are with her and he should pay for you to live when you are with him. How hard is that?
No parent should have to pay the other one anything.
[deleted]
Both parents had something to do with making the children, both parents should be responsible for the support of their own children. It isn't always fair how the courts work when it comes to men getting custody, but it's better than just wandering off without thought to your own responsibilities.
As a woman who has paid child support, you have to realize that the kids are important, but not being able to survive on what's left after the support payments are made won't to help anyone, least of all the children.
In theory, the parents aren't paying each other (that would be alimony). Child care is specifically meant for the care of the child. In a way, it's the child's money. It's just that the parent with primary custody controls how it is spent.
I've gotten exactly 20 dollars from my ex wife over the last 6 years. This is despite a court order to pay 200 a month for our two daughters.
[deleted]
The police don't care. I do have an ongoing case with child support enforcement, but she simply doesn't work, and moves to a new place with her boyfriend once they catch up with her current address. She's been threatened with jail, but simply moving to a new town in a different state starts the process all over.
Prenups get challenged all the time. Sign it too close to the wedding date? It was signed under duress and therefore invalid. Didn't disclose every single financial detail to your wife ("kept a financial secret")? Doesn't matter if it was 10 years ago. Prenup invalidated. Didn't have the missus sign the prenup in the presence of her lawyer? Invalid (ask Stephen Spielberg about that hundred million dollar napkin).
Just don't get married. There is no reason to involve the state in your love life.
Prenups won't help you at all with child support payments.
I'm sure you already know this and it doesn't need to be said, but draft your prenup with a good lawyer.
The police do not enforce child support orders. You have to go to court and that's either very expensive without any, ANY guarantee that they'll do anything about it, or you go to the "cattle call" court with the AG representing the state's interest in enforcing the order but they don't usually do anything worthwhile.
Seriously, it's thousands of dollars in attorney's fees to take them to court and then the judge will only give a warning the first few times.
prenups dont cover alimony or custody.
You know what happens to men when they don't pay? The women report them and they are REQUIRED by the court to pay or they go to jail. That's what happens here.
Until men start demanding payment in the courts, and start ruining womens lives like the women ruin ours.... the laws won't change. It seems the men just never make an issue about non-payment though; so their ex-wives never starve, and stories like this never go frontpage.
Nitesmoke,
I'm a woman, and when I found out how unjust the child support system is towards men 5 years ago (on NPR btw), my views totally changed on this issue.
Not only does the child support system force men to pay a lot more than women, women can also easily screw over a stranger just by putting down his name on a birth certificate. Apparently some bitches look through newspapers to find deployed soldiers to Iraq and put down their names. Because the soldiers in Iraq didn't get the court notices and due to their 18 month deployments, weren't able to get back in time to discover it and contest it, they're sacked with child support to children of women they've never met in their lives.
It's really disgusting.
When we have a system this unjust, men should definitely be able to opt out of child support before the child is born. If a woman gets to choose whether or not she wants to have an abortion, then the man should be able to choose whether or not he wants anything to do with the kid being born.
What makes me angry is that women do this. (I'm a woman too myself)
I just can't believe how evil you'd have to be to use your OWN CHILDREN to get money or revenge on another. Women, if we want equality for ourselves we must ensure that we have equality for men as well.
You both rule. Respect.
Welcome to my friends list.
Citation?
I was in the Navy and knew a couple guys this happened to personally. Anecdotal, of course, but I'm too lazy to Google.
Also, the military apparently mandates that 1/3 of your income goes to child support if you are judged to be the father (not scientifically proven, necessarily). New recruits (at least when I joined) are warned to avoid young single mothers for that reason.
http://divorcemagazine.wordpress.com/category/paternity-fraud/
Another example. These bitches should be thrown in labor camps or something. It's one thing to not support your soldiers or not support the war or not support whatever it is you don't feel like supporting, it's another to completely screw over people risking their lives in a war.
Did you really just ask me to give you a citation on something I clearly said I heard on NPR 5 years ago?
Go find your own fucking citation on stuff that old.
I'm a man. I agree with your comment, and with the unjustness of the situation in general. However:
I disagree with this. Doing an abortion shouldn't be something that should be expected from a mother. After that it's about the duties of a father, and even if the man doesn't want to have any emotional relationship with his son or daughter he should still pay.
This isn't a contradiction in the least, on the contrary. The problem here are fathers that do want to have a relationship but are prevented from doing so due to the skewed system that protects the mothers who expect child support money while at the same time refusing to abide by any sensible distribution of parental rights.
Parenthood: it's a fucking risk.
It's at the sexual intercourse stage where men have the right to opt out of creating a life.
[deleted]
I'm a man, and personally I consider that not all males are men, nor all females are women.
It has helped me a lot dealing with the amount of bullshit in the world.
I'm a man. I agree with your comment, and with the unjustness of the situation in general. However:
I disagree with this. Doing an abortion shouldn't be something that should be expected from a mother. After that it's about the duties of a father, and even if the man doesn't want to have any emotional relationship with his son or daughter he should still pay.
This isn't a contradiction in the least, on the contrary. The problem here are fathers that do want to have a relationship but are prevented from doing so due to the skewed system that protects the mothers who expect child support money while at the same time refusing to abide by any sensible distribution of parental rights.
I'm a man. I agree with your comment, and with the unjustness of the situation in general. However:
I disagree with this. Doing an abortion shouldn't be something that should be expected from a mother. After that it's about the duties of a father, and even if the man doesn't want to have any emotional relationship with his son or daughter he should still pay.
This isn't a contradiction in the least, on the contrary. The problem here are fathers that do want to have a relationship but are prevented from doing so due to the skewed system that protects the mothers who expect child support money while at the same time refusing to abide by any sensible distribution of parental rights.
Lady here. Didn't think about downvoting till the "Looks like the ladies don't like it when the news gets out" bit. I know it may come as a surprise to some, but not all women are money grubbing whores who use their children as a tool for their own needs.
My husband and I have been fucked over by the child support system from both ends, so seriously, shut that gender biased shit up.
Thank you for making this point. It's not just women doing this dumb shit.
The fact that she had to make that point is what's sad.
I don't necessarily blame women or not. That's not the point.
The point is, in child custody cases, the US court system is EXTREMELY biased towards the mother, and this point has not received the same gender equalization that we've seen in a lot of other areas in the last century.
It is a cold hard fact that judges assign higher child support payments to men than women. You don't have to be money grubbing to accept a child support decision and check. That is the reason it is unfair, the state gives women preferential treatment whether they want it or not in most cases. It's nothing that women "do". It's what is given to them in these situations.
Stop trying to shut that gender biased shit up.
It happens. Let's face it. The child support system is majorly skewed in favor of the female in a heterosexual relationship, regardless of who has custody of the children. It's at the point where it has become the rule more than the exception.
I could care less if you take issue with a specific redditor. Don't dare downplay a major issue, though, just because your case doesn't fit.
Again, like I have said a billion times in this thread.
I know it happens, I know it is a major issue. I know because I am living it. I know because my husband and I work our asses off so that his ex wife can sit around all fucking day getting high and making our lives miserable. I know because my kids have less, while his ex-wife buys $150.00 shoes for an 8 year old. I know because while I struggle, the state gives that woman a free ride.
My only issue was the 'ladies be downvoting to keep the word from getting out' shit, which was insulting to me, a redditor and a woman who not only agrees with a lot of the men here, but understands.
I will take the weird comments, the nasty PM's and the flood of downvotes, but I will not back down: his comment was uncalled for and a comment like that does more harm than good on a touchy subject like this.
Thank you for your well-reasoned point, bondagegirl.
Not all, but many...My mother for one, she also tried go get part of his pension. Classy woman
Not surprised by the downvote, i did however forget to mention that she did this after she found out that he was dying of cancer. So, like i said classy woman.
I don't understand why we can't all just agree that the system is completely fucked up in women's favor, without blaming women or men for it. Yes there are money grubbing whores who use their children as tools for their own needs, but they are not the norm. There are also dead-beat dads who skirt their responsibilities. This isn't a gender-based war to see who is more fucked up. There are jerks on both sides.
We really don't need mobs of downvoters and upvoters running through comment threads to enact some skewed sense of gender-based justice.
I agree 100%. Yours is probably the best said comment in this thread.
You'd better do what she says...
You all better listen to this woman or she will tie your testicles up with barbed wire and whip you with goat entrails.
Kinky!
Swingers?
snort
Well at least something in this thread made me laugh!
didn't it say "some of the ladies"?
It does now. He edited it.
It originally read as:
He admits he edited it here. And in case he edits that too, this is what it says.
He says some other stuff after that, you are free to read it yourself. Not that any of this overblown bullshit that we have all spent too much time on means jack shit, but there you go.
I like your name.
I like the cut of your jib.
The same way that only women can be rape victims, and men are first order rapists?
I'm sorry, but just because you stand as an exception doesn't mean that there isn't a majority of women that do take advantage of a system that has a gender bias towards them.
Judging by your username, you probably enjoyed it.
That isn't the point and as I read the comments of women responding to your post it became obvious that you all do not understand the point of all this, of what he was trying to make with the ladies don't like it when the news gets out bit.
Most people, woman or man, will not turn away a check when it is assigned to them from the state. You don't have to be money grubbing to get an insane child support decision from the state. Women also do not have to pay nearly the child support men do if they are the reason that the relationship ended. It's worse when women that are unfit to raise kids are given custody of them simply because that is the norm.
It's not that you are money grubbing , it's that you get preferential treatment and the men end up paying for it in these situations. Men may not get the short end of the stick in every single case, but 3/4ths of the time they do as judges simply let women off easier in these things. So much for equal rights and suffrage.
You are saying that the state shapes the social and economic conditions in such a way that directs the actions towards their inevitable conclusions and I agree. In Muslim states, women are grossly discounted by the state in favor of the men, and the men take advantage of that situation by marrying multiple women, disciplining their wives with physical violence and even throwing them away and keeping the children on a whim. This is how the state shaped it, and the people respond by performing as the state sanctions.
In the US, women are incentized to break up their marriages when they are done with a man, to reduce the man to a debt slave and then to trade up to a more powerful, higher earning man. This is how the U.S. has shaped it's socio-economic conditions with laws and practices, so this is how people behave.
I agree.
You are saying that the state shapes the social and economic conditions in such a way that directs the actions towards their inevitable conclusions and I agree. In Muslim states, women are grossly discounted by the state in favor of the men, and the men take advantage of that situation by marrying multiple women, disciplining their wives with physical violence and even throwing them away and keeping the children on a whim. This is how the state shaped it, and the people respond by performing as the state sanctions.
In the US, women are incentized to break up their marriages when they are done with a man, to reduce the man to a debt slave and then to trade up to a more powerful, higher earning man. This is how the U.S. has shaped it's socio-economic conditions with laws and practices, so this is how people behave.
I agree.
Was he trying to say that? Did his comment necessarily imply that? You appear to be the one in the wrong here to me.
Before he made the edit, his comment had received at least 25 downvotes. It was fair for him to reason that because there was no legitimate or sensible reason to downvote the comment, the only people who would be inclined to do so would be those attempting to hide the content of his post for whatever reason. Who would this be but women? In particular, women who abuse the system to abuse their ex-husbands. That's not to say that all women are like that. Far from it; but surely you could admit that there could be at least 25 such women on Reddit? ...Or are all or most women angels in your view of things?
That is all his comment said to me or all I feel I have the justification for taking away from his comment.
Just 99.999999%. If you are given a weapon by the state, you're stupid if you don't use it.
So we're not even permitted to talk about the reality of how it is.
While I'm entirely convinced there is a gender bias in child custody/child support rulings, you just pulled that number out of your ass and made it about 'money grubbing whores' rather than beneficiaries of an unjust system.
But the law is gender biased, so... uh... No...
The law is 'homemaker' biased. The rulings on who should be the homemaker usually go towards the woman, but not always.
As an anecdote, I had a female coworker that went through a divorce a few years back. Her husband years earlier got injured and chose to not work after he recovered. When the divorce came along, he was deemed to be the homemaker, granted full custody, and my coworker ended up having to pay child support and his mortgage (he kept the house). She got royally screwed and could barely afford a cheap apartment after most of her paycheck was taken away. This was a guy who was fully capable of working, but chose not to and she had to pay because of it.
What happened to her isn't fair and what happens to a lot of men isn't fair either.
Oh yeah, you're right, you're right. The laws are gender biased so that makes it okay. The laws prove that women are money grubbing whores who just want to keep a good man down.
But don't those same laws assume that all men are lazy no good deadbeats? So is that sort of bias okay? Or only when it's not against your gender?
The alimony and child support laws are fiercely defended by feminists.
The female-oriented domestic violence laws are fiercely defended by feminists.
The domestic violence laws that asssume that men are the guilty party are fiecrcly defended by feminists.
The office on women's health, and lack of an office for men's health, are defended by feminist voters.
The office on violence against women, and lack of an office for violence against men, are defended by feminist voters.
Women voters outnumbered men voters in every presidential election for the past 20+years,
Effective feminists hate men.
Try doing a simple search on the gender bias in medicine and medical research.
I don't really understand the point of your post.
Woman does not equal feminist. Feminist does not equal anti-men agenda. The term feminist means different things for different people.
Domestic violence is a real issue, not totally unrelated to child support issues (both being in the family law area), but still a big stretch for what we are talking about here.
People that believe that the man is always the guilty party are idiots. Again, not all (or even most) women believe this. Still unrelated to child support though.
I have never thought of this issue, at all, so I will take your word for it. Maybe you are right and this is fucked up. However, if this was an issue men felt strongly about, they have the tools they need to get word out, sign people up to vote and campaign their cause.
Yes, blaming women for men not voting makes perfect sense.
Maybe. I m not in the business of defending anyone's agenda or lack of one, so meh. However, like I said before - woman does not equal man hating, agenda having,feminist... to even suggest that is absurd.
Oh poor poor you, you didn't get any child support. So what? Maybe you should NOT have had a child with someone and then decide you couldn't go the whole 18 years. Maybe you should have chosen a mate more wisely.
Child support if not the stupidest beauracracy ever created, it's certainly near the top of the list.
What the fuck are you talking about? Did I say I didn't get child support? Did I say that I did or that I even wanted it? This is exactly what makes me mad, this is what I am talking about. Let me make it clear:
I AGREE WITH YOU MOTHER FUCKERS.
Men are getting screwed. I know it. I live it. My husband has been SHIT all over by the child support system. And his ex? Is laughing all the way to the bank! You all down vote and assume whatever you want about me because I said that it is fucked up to blame my whole gender because of a few stupid whores. I am saying it is not okay to do that, in either direction.
Honest questions: why do you think is the woman is more responsible for having the child (and its well-being) than the man? Do you believe that the woman should take full responsibility for a child, despite the father contributing half the genetic material required to make it?
Sarcastic question: So if a woman marries an asshole and is unhappy, it's her fault for marrying him and not his fault for being an asshole?
Ugh, your comment was okay until the edit.
Look, yes, the system is fucked up. But it isn't the product of a few women getting together and deciding they hate men and it is an awfully big ship to turn around.
It does not make me happy to see this happening. (Even though I am a woman, I'm not intent on the financial destruction of all men on the planet.) There is a human being being treated poorly and suffering as the result of an unfair process. If there is an imbalance we should be working together, regardless of gender, not engaging in pointless and unproductive antagonism.
Thank you, posts like these remind me why I even bother reading comments on threads like this..
You have to understand, there is an entire subreddit called /ladybashing that posts different comments with an updated upvote count so they can collectively downmod it.
All of my life I've never had to distinguish between men and women, I've always thought women were awesome and fun to always have in a group, etc. Hell, I was raised around sisters and my mother. But as I got older I got to meet this breed of woman, a woman so filled with contempt with males that they seriously look forward to the day the y chromosome kills off all men. So this attitude trickles down, as we get larger groups with progressively more moderate sounding misandrist attitudes, etc. until we get to the point where (for example) we can have commercial after commercial of typical idiot boyfriends/spouses with wives who they just couldn't survive without, and nobody complains. And when we have a commercial of a groom picking up his wife over the threshold there is mass panic and outrage over how that commercial is misogynist and men shouldn't be portrayed as stronger, etc.
The custody situation is beyond ridiculous and does a disservice to men and women, but I can't really do much except watch this and shake my head.
Hmm, as one of the ladies on here, I'm actually upvoting this
I would have, before the magical little asterisk blaming en entire gender for his poor choices in mating.
upvoted you for being honest.
Hmm, as one of the many many men on here, I'm actually upvoting your comment in a misguided attempt to ingratiate myself with women.
;) <- this is a sexy wink
[deleted]
[deleted]
It's sad that people in this country have to be so poor that $20 is something one person needs from another in order to care for a child. Or even that a few hundred a month is worth arguing over.
Look at this graph: http://www.cafrman.com/images/WealthDistribution.GIF
We're a very rich country filled with many very poor people. Why don't we make them share?
That distribution is why communism is a dirty word.
What's weird is that more than half of the US population actively defends the top percentile and fights back when you want to make it better for them poorer people. (see healthcare debate/joe the plumber).
Right, and that's because of the constant stream of propaganda they're fed.
It's because the poor think they have a chance at being not poor.
It's because the poor people think they're going to win the lottery and they can't stand the idea of having to support those wretched poor people after they're rich...
Healthcare does need a reform, but half of the US population is actively defending it b/c they believe that the money I earn working is my money. Not someone else's money b/c they decided they don't want to work.
4 out of 5 millionaires are self made. Meaning 80% of them were not rich, until they earned it themselves.
I don't study just so the guy sitting next to me can pass. If i can study, he can too.
The only thing you can do is do the best with what you are dealt. My parents met as teenagers in the projects. They got married, both got jobs, and my dad went to college at night. For 30+ years they never bought new cars. they never changed homes. they stayed home for vacations. Now, they live in a super nice home on the golf coarse so my dad can walk to play.
From the projects to golf coarse in one generation. My parents are not superheros. They didn't get lucky with some sort of windfall money. They did it the old fashioned way: with hard-work, education, and frugal spending.
And for every story like that there are a million stories of people who work hard and I mean actual physical labor, and yet they still have next to nothing.
Source? I'm not trying to be picky, but I've never heard that statistic in my life.
A report by University of California, Berkeley economics professor Emmanuel Saez concluded that income inequality in the United States is at an all-time high, surpassing even levels seen during the Great Depression.
The report shows that income inequality is worse than it has been since at least 1917, the top 1 percent incomes captured half of the overall economic growth over the period 1993-2007 and in the economic expansion of 2002-2007, the top 1 percent captured two thirds of income growth. As others have pointed out, the average wage of Americans, adjusting for inflation, is lower than it was in the 1970s. The minimum wage, adjusting for inflation, is lower than it was in the 1950s.
I'd be curious where the 4 out of 5 statistic came from.
Not claiming it false, just curious if it's accurate.
100 Years of effective, organized, consistent mass-propaganda will do that. The press is free for those who own them.
That looks very official.
Because wealth distribution kills innovation.
Check out this Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income_in_the_United_States
About half way down there's a chart about education and income. Higher educated, more income. People don't want distribution of wealth b/c it encourages lazy/unmotivated people to continue doing nothing and getting money from the people who work there asses off.
Thanks Rush Limbaugh, but your chart does not in any way address the massive disparity in wealth.
We're not talking about people with only a million dollars. We're talking about the very few people who are so few and have so much money they wouldn't begin to fit on your graph.
http://multinationalmonitor.org/mm2003/03may/may03interviewswolff.html
So yeah... we're not talking about keeping down the "work hard, get rich" type of people. These people are insanely rich and no person deserves to have that much money while children starve and die in misery
if feminism was about equality, it'd be called egalitism or egalitarianism. feminism is about supremacy.
I've made this point before and was downmodded fiercely. Upvote in hopes that people will read this and consider its implications on our modern-day situation.
I downvoted you because you blamed women for your downvotes.
If you were getting downvoted it was probably because your first sentence was incoherent.
I was actually going to upvote you until I saw this edit. Im pretty sure thats why the lady bashing people added you too. You were downvoted by bots, asshole.
Anyway, My uncle married my aunt when he was going through a HUGE custody battle. His wife was pretty literally a drunk drugged up whore, and she got custody of his 10 year old. It was at that point that my mom taught me about how bullshit the system was to dads when it came to custody and child support stuff. Im sorry for your suffering guys, and I just wanted to let you know that tons of us ladies support you.
Thanks for immortalizing that prior to sneaky re-editting.
I'll try not to lose any sleep.
Im amazed that you have not gone and edited your post. You'd think you would at least own up to your mistake.
That's right, feminism is about equality, and I agree that when the roles are revered, and the man is the better parent, then the woman should have to pay equally. Your assumptions about women and feminist strike me as sexist. Just because I'm a woman doesn't mean I think men should be treated like crap. Sounds like you had a bad experience. Don't blame the rest of us for your personal problems with women.
[deleted]
Ignore all downvotes in the first hour or so - bots seem to get their penne'th in early.
Why are you targeting feminism specifically for not taking on this problem? Why is the burden of everything gender-related put on feminists? Feminism isn't some government agency that is required to do everything all the time. I'm sorry for your situation and it isn't fair, but I find it really frustrating when feminism is brought into this discussion. All of this unfairness in the family court system is the result of strict gender roles society has imposed on everyone. Both genders have suffered because of these imposed roles in different ways. Feminism does its part and it's important. Feminism IS about gender equality, just like NAACP is ultimately about equality.
I'm sorry you've had a bad experience. It isn't feminism's fault. It's a byproduct of how strict gender roles have hurt everyone in different ways.
I got primary custody of my kids, too. The ex-wife is an absolute deadbeat when it comes to child support. She'll pay it in a big lump sum once a year (right before she gets her tax return, because she doesn't want her tax return garnished), but always sends me these spreadsheets showing that she owes less than she really does, and tries to get me to sign them so she can reduce her commitment to her own children.
At this point, I think she's paying about $100 a month in child support, and she can't even commit to that regularly.
You are not alone, my friend.
Fortunately, the youngest graduates high school next year, and I won't ever need to worry about this bullshit again. :)
Don't be a fucking ass! Us ladies have fathers, fathers we love and were pained to see struggle to help us grow up.
[deleted]
I've had full custody and still pay out $1000 per month to her to support her "lifestyle".
At least you are lucky enough to get custody... Many people are forced to pay child support while they do not have custody.
I have an objection to that statement. I'm a woman and I find it absolutely fucking appalling when men aren't treated equally when it comes to parenthood. (Or any other time for that matter)
The state shapes the social and economic conditions, laws and procedures regarding marriage and families in such a way that directs the actions of citizens of both sexes towards inevitable conclusions. In Muslim states, women are grossly discounted by the state in favor of the men, and the men take advantage of that situation by marrying multiple women, disciplining their wives with physical violence and even throwing them away and keeping the children on a whim. This is how the state shaped it, and the people respond by performing as the state sanctions.
In the US, women are incentized to break up their marriages when they are done with a man, to reduce the man to a debt slave and then to trade up to a more powerful, higher earning man. This is how the U.S. has shaped it's socio-economic conditions with laws and practices, so this is how people behave.
Take her to court? Or is the child support not through the state agency?
This deeply saddens me. As a woman I hate this stigma, but it is based in reality.
My friend, as a law student in family law, I highly recommend seeing a lawyer immediately about this. She can't get away with that legally. Even if she takes a vow of celibacy and becomes a monk and lives incomeless in the woods, she should still by law be paying child support (if monkiness is considered bad faith and judges are pretty suspicious it is in these situations). The courts often garnish wages of those who refuse to pay. Your child will be supported. Just throw a couple hundred bucks at your attorney once and likely see several thousand regularly returned to you every year
Oh, that equality, it tastes so good, doesn't it, yes it doooesss.
I am both a female and an advocate of equality (I think the word feminist has kind become a dirty word, so I am reluctant to use it). I absolutely agree though, men get the short end of the stick in family court. Both monetarily and when it comes to awarding custody of children. However, it's getting slowly better. More and more these days men are getting custody of children being awarded child support. Change takes time, but I assure you it's slowly going in the right direction.
I'm a feminist, and I'm all for equality in family courts. Do you have a court order showing she owes you child support? If so, report her, and have her put in jail. If not, get one. If you can't get one...well, that sucks, but maybe you should have been more careful in choosing your breeding partner. People can be assholes, regardless of gender.
You've received 197 downvotes total. Speaking of systems that are abused, the Reddit Karma system is abused terribly - mostly in the suppression of unwelcome thoughts and opinions such as yours.
I fucking hate Reddit sometimes. This comment karma system has to go. The very purpose for which it was designed and instituted was to hide abusive, garbage comments, but it's used for the opposite purpose frequently: to hide good, constructive comments that make the voter feel uncomfortable for whatever reason (and to reward those who agree with or make the voter feel good). This is an utterly asinine use of the feature and the most common by far.
Edit: Yes, I realize that his comment wasn't hidden. But what matters is the intent of the 197 people who downvoted you.
At this point, I would think most of those 197 are people who were put off by the ugly woman-hating going on in his edit. I didn’t mind his original post at all. And I agree with you about the voting system.
I downvoted him because he made an edit to complain about 25 downvotes he'd received and then blamed it on women purposefully suppressing his comment so the secret wouldn't get out that we use men for their child support payments. He's since edited this edit to say "some of the ladies" instead of all ladies in general. Do you think this is an appropriate use of a downvote?
As much as I agree with you and disagree with the attack, I have to step in and say that the feminism remark was a bit out of hand. I'm hoping that was just a stab at the people attacking you, but if not I feel obligated to defend the feminism movement and the women involved.
It truly is about equal rights and the fight for women to be treated fairly. The feminazi (forgive me for quoting Limbaugh) horde that seems to shit all over men and their lifestyles don't do the women involved with equality any justice, and it's a damn shame that they bring such a bad name to feminism. Sorry for the interjection, but I had to sit through a series of lectures about what feminism truly is, and the misconceptions don't do the people who are fighting for an equal America any good.
[deleted]
They're not fighting for black rights either. The feminist movement is one group of people fighting for the equality for them. To say that they're fight is for an equal America is only a portion of the fight for American equality. It's a big country, and one group can't take care of it all themselves. Though I do believe I misspoke when I generalize with that term, so I apologize.
I have discovered a few months ago that the women come here en mass and DV what they perceive as threatening to their well being. It's too bad. They know men do not go to their sites and do the same. They just cannot leave men alone to discuss their own issues.
What?
"They know men do not go to their sites and do the same." This isn't a men's site. Women and men both use reddit regularly. There's no conspiracy here.
I was agreeing the one of the posters that women come en mass and DV what they don't like. The fact remains as I stated. I am sure women and their opinions are welcomed, but it is the sneaky shit that goes on that is treachery of women. There is a conspiracy when they certain ones come and DV.
[deleted]
I'm sorry, where did I say that? I reread my comment and see no mention of ALL WOMEN EVRERYWHERE.
Note: when I say "ladies" I'm referring to the specific women I address with the rest of the comment. After I made that comment, before the edits, it hadn't even been an hour before I had 25 downvotes. I highly doubt it was men downvoting me, but I didn't really say anything controversial. Maybe it was just bots, but it seemed fishy that my comment had 25 downvotes so quickly, before the edits.
You didn't say it, but you implied it. "lose that cash cow" = greedy, selfish, immoral. "feminism isn't really about equality, is it?" = hypocritical.
Perhaps your first edit was only addressing the specific ladies you suspected of downvoting you (though I don't think that's what happened) but in your second edit you implicated anyone who identifies as a feminist. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it just seems very hostile towards women in general. I understand how you could feel bitter - truly, I do. But I just wish you knew this is not about women sitting around cackling with glee and rubbing our hands while we talk about how we're gonna screw men over. I love men and I love justice and I love equality. And I'm not alone.
you guys should name the states employing these ridiculous laws and idiot judges. the original story is from Michigan.
Any others?
PS. I am pretty sure all of these states are blue states.
Edit: Yeah downvote me you idiot democrat sheep.
Like I needed that as a reason to stay away from Michigan
Good, we don't want you either.
Upvoted until I saw the 'idiot democrat sheep'.
Come on man, I'm a Republican (a real one) and there are idiot Republicans and Democrat sheep. When are we going to put aside this split down the middle and get stuff done?
Haha
I read your edit in a New York taxi cab driver's accent.
Yeh, will fuck you too, ya fuckin no talent goombah! Ya call that drivin', yasshole!? Move ya fuckin cah! beep beeeeeeeeep Ya fuckin idiot demahcratic sheep!
Great, now I've read your comment in the voice of Pickles the Drummer from Metalocalypse.
When I was in college, I was assigned a child support payment that I couldn't afford. And I don't mean didn't want to; I mean, couldn't. My car broke down and I couldn't afford to fix it, and had to ride a bike to drop off and pick my son up from day care every day (~15 miles round trip). I went weeks without eating anything but Ramen noodles so that I could feed my son. For a while, I lived in my car. I had to steal all of my textbooks. My payment was higher because I saw my son less. My son's mother refused visitation when I didn't pay, which is not legal, but I had no recourse of any kind.
The judge said, "Talk to your parents." My parents cut me off financially as soon as I told them my girlfriend was pregnant, and this was not their problem. The judge didn't care.
Fuck this system.
Dude, ramen noodles is high class. I went days on end without eating anything. I spent weeks without power in the summer in florida, and rode the bus 1.5 hours each way every day to work and then 3 hours every other weekend to see my kids for an hour. I lost about 40 pounds, my car, my girlfriend, my house, and almost my life. I begged every day for death to take the pain away. I cried every night, read a lot of books, and walked.
The courts don't give a shit what it does to the man in these situations, as long as they pay. All we are is a meal ticket. And I second your emotion......
Fuck this system.
Well, from one decent guy trying to do his best to another, high five. After the horrifying frustration of those years of my life, I know now that I can live through absolutely anything that life throws at me.
Yeah, tell me about it. Unfortunately, my ex-wife screwed up and is living with me right now until she gets on her feet. I have only asked for my child support back, and $300 a month until she moves out. I can't wait to see her go at this point.
See, this is why "SMART" girls will always choose a Tiger Woods over us less decorated super athlete money maker plebes, that can not afford a greater benefit in the event of a marriage termination. Shrewd marriages have nothing to do with love, but are essentially calculations in payouts, especially in the event one of the partners needs alternative companionship.
Just saying, maybe there was a reason Mr. Woods was hitting some shots off of the designated fairway...
Just a thought: Multiple Parent Households, under business corporate genetic partnerships. Alleviate the oversight of Legal, Judicial, State, Federal and social services that put the unfair economic slavery palimony burden on single individuals.
Not only that, but they don't even give a shit if the support arrangement hurts the KID. There were times I went MONTHS without being able to see my children because I couldn't afford gas to pick them up or food to feed them while they were at my house. Meanwhile the mother refused to work, lived off of me and the government, and spent the money I paid on personal luxuries for herself.
My kids suffered because of this. No one gave a shit. I was looked down on any time I complained. It's a fucked up system.
why did you have kids?
why the fuck do any of you have kids? WHY?!
This is why I consider my self a socialist.
I wonder, what would have been the consequences of simply showing up at her house to visit your child? You were legally entitled to see him, after all.
Yep, did that. She wouldn't let me through the door.
Did you tell the courts, I'm not sure how this works but it couldn't hurt could it?
Although by what I've read it may, they'd probably increase the money you have to pay because you couldn't afford to pay it.
It seems to me that the guys that get screwed by the system are the ones that generally try to be stand up and do the right thing. You know educate themselves, hold down consistent jobs and what not. Its the guys that are running and are working to actually buck the system that should be facing this kind of abuse.
Well in her defense she probably doesn't get to keep all that she brings in. The pimp gets most of it.
You have made my day at 3:15am.
Well then, we might as well go back to sleep!
Some men get off easy too. My dad left my mom for another woman, leaving her with 5 kids at home (oldest at the time was 10 years old, that was me). He was only required to pay $50 per week, per kid, for a grand total of roughly $1000 per month. My mom didn't have enough money to hire a lawyer, and she alone could never get the payments raised. (my dad made $5k per month, so it's not like we were exceeding 25% of his wages).
On the other hand, he had a kid with the woman he left my mom for. Her ex was a millionaire, so she has a few mil in the bank. Nevertheless, she's now trying to take him to court for $1500 per month for the one kid, and he's not even working now. The entire child support system is completely screwed up.
If the gender roles were reversed, he'd be a bastard. As it is, "she's entitled."
Wouldn't the kids be "entitled" though? It doesn't sound like he was volunteering to take the kids.
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm talking about how the millionaire mom is likely perceived by society, particularly by women in our society.
If a millionaire man had custody of the kids and sued the middle-class mom for child support, people would call him a bastard. "He's got plenty of money; what does he need her money for?"
I'm fairly certain that the same sentiment would not be heard at large in this case. More likely, "Well, they're his kids too!" is how people would perceive her demanding child support.
If you want to disagree, that's fine. I'm saying there's a double standard.
Yep. The only possible out he might have is that she was an illegal immigrant (from Spain, not Mexico) until he married her and made it legal. I thought I had once heard something about a law that nullifies foreign marriages if they break up a domestic one, but I have no idea whether that's correct or if it would even be useful this many years after the fact.
So the druggy whore was able to magically get a job that paid more than the man's job?
You noticed that, too? There's something that doesn't add up in this particular story.
Stripper?
Perhaps being a whore was the druggy whore's job. They don't earn too badly, and probably explains why she had such low payments, her taxable income would have been zero.
i wouldn't say it was magical, but she had no choice (court order) i imagine the threat of jail made her clean up the act a bit and she got hired at a Honda plant about 130 miles away (she moved there)... in the town where i live (especially since the GM plant went south) there aren't a lot of well paying positions...
women have a higher child support default rate than men.
percentage wise or by count ?
a higher percentage of women who are ordered to pay child support default on that obligation than the percentage of men who are so ordered default.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,59963,00.html
Bullfuckinshit.
[deleted]
I wonder how many of these "father shoots mom and children" stories have had judgments like this against them. Push someone against the wall unfairly and they might push back. I think these judges have some blood on their hands and the system should provide fathers with a livable wage first and child support second, with the cavaet of universal teaching of sex ed in school, subsidized condoms, and subsidized birth control. A lot of these people didnt really want kids to begin with.
edit: obviously im not condoning violence, but am pointing out that judges must act reasonably when it comes to these cases as humans are delicate and irrational animals.
Shooting your children is inexcusable. There's no wall that would cause me to murder my children. Any man that does so is a sick person and I'm sure anything that would have caused that sort of behavior was just triggering whatever disorder he suffered from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Covina_massacre
Yet despite this horrific injustice, on average the woman's standard of living still falls, on average, by 27%, and the man's rises by 10% after a divorce. [0]
It seems like the system is still failing in the average case, but not in the way you think.
Yeah, that's because the women get the kids. Unless you think the men in these cases would rather have money than their own children, you're not even telling half the story with that "statistic"
You're still not telling the whole story. That statistic covers all men, not just the ones who wanted custody and didn't get it. There are many divorce and child support cases where one parent or the other doesn't want custody. When fathers do seek custody, they prevail at least half the time. In contested custody cases, the mother may be essentially forced to accept a reduced standard of living to have any chance of getting custody, because courts are less likely to award custody to mothers who work. Working has no negative impact on a father's ability to get custody.
In the last 10 years, the number of fathers awarded custody has doubled.
All I'm saying is that regardless of who has custody, it should not impact the standard of living for the children. The fact that the women usually have the children is the important thing here: despite everyone's protestations to the contrary, the woman (and by extension the children) have a substantially decreased quality of life following a divorce, which suggests that alimony payments, far from being too large, are in fact smaller than one would expect to maintain the children's standard of life.
So the linked headline, far from being representative of alimony awards, is in fact directly contrary to the usual case.
I'd really love to know what "standard of living" means in your factoid-rich, citation-less article. It's chock full of other bits of information that I can directly recall reading were false (such as the rates of infidelity by gender).
seeing how most women weren't working full time, thats hardly surprising is it.
That article makes no distinction of there being kids involved or not. When kids are not involved there may be alimony but that is usually drastically less with good reason.
Women's quality of life falls because most of the time they aren't working full time and the man is. Not because this is the 50's and they have to, but because they want to. When they get divorced, they now have to work full time but can't qualify for well paying jobs because of no work experience. Not to mention that the women get the kids full time and the man only gets the bare minimum visitation.
The mans quality of life goes up because he doesn't have that many people in his household anymore, and adjusts his life to fit his means. A lot of women don't seem to be able to do this and spend money like water. It is truly not cheaper to keep her.
I say this having 5 years experience watching my ex-wife jump from job to job and house to house. She can't get a good job because she doesn't stay anywhere long enough to build up credibility and a positive work history. I pay my child support every paycheck, and she still complains that it isn't enough and tells me that I need a better job when I am the one making more money than her. Child support is not to ensure that the mother's life stays the same. It is for the children, that is all. It is not the mans responsibility to take care of the mother, they are adults and it is her responsibility.
How much of that is personal choice? Anecdotal but, post divorce, my income went up and Satan's went down. She lost her job and chooses to remain unemployed (courts won't enforce the support order), I had to find a better paying job to compensate. Though, it meant moving away from family and friends and somewhat isolating the kids from the life they had known.
On paper, it's an increase in the standard of living. In reality, not so much.
Depends on the state. In a few states it is skewed towards men (PA is one of them).
It's fucking disgusting.
These guys should be able to sue the judges for gender discrimination.
I can attest to this first hand.
So, given that women still only make about 70 cents on a man's dollar, is the situation a wash yet? Not that both figures should not be perfectly equalized, but it seems we have reached a "fearful symmetry," as Moore would put it.
There is something funny with your friend's story. Judges have no discretion on how to award child support. It is tightly controlled by statute. It is so tightly controlled that there is a computer program family law attorneys use to figure out what it will cost. Just plug in the numbers. It has a free trial version. You can download it here: (Even though it says "xspouse," it is really child support and not alimony. Judges have really wide discretion in awarding alimony).
http://www.xspouse.com/
Factors used in deciding are time spent with the child, wages, other taxable income, if payor get remarried then new wife's income is factored, hardship deductions, net spendable income, total taxes, etc. It is actually quite fair and takes a lot of things into cosideration. It is not possible for it biased against men or woman as it is a number thing.
So a druggie prostitute is getting a higher paying job than all these fellas? Somethings a little off there.
not really... we were all wage slaves in a small factory... the average wage was $10.00 an hour... she on the other hand got a job at a Honda plant an hour and a half away (where she moved) and was making 19.00 and hour.
For every one case like this, there's 10 cases of women getting shafted in the process. Not saying that this makes it fair, but men aren't usually the victims in this.
[deleted]
Have you considered moving to Saudi with your kid? Its skewed the opposite of how the US is skewed.
That sir is total BS. Most states favor the father. My wife has been trying to 10 years to get a modification for her two children. She only gets $340/month for both, no medical, nothing else. He's sued BOTH of us for extra rights three times even and won all three times even though he's admitted to magistrates that he's never used his extra (let alone original) rights. Ahole doesn't has only talked to his kids on the phone less than a dozen times in 10 years. The two times he actually came in-state to visit them, he took them to his mom's and left them there and we to see all his friends. Didn't even spend more than drive time with them. Then he wonders why they hate him. He forgets their birthdays, doesn't care about their school grades (all A's), etc. He jumps jobs and states so that even getting the little he does pay is extremely hard and rare. Currently he's refusing to even give any state his place of residence, let alone my wife as is required by the courts and stopped paying altogether.
For every "women have it better" case you find, you'll find HUNDREDS of "men have it better". Don't even get me started on Texas laws...
This stuff needs to be dealt with at the federal level instead of state level. States don't work with each other to help the custodial parent not in the same state as the non-custodial parent. Hell, her ex sued us in a county the kids had never lived in and that county refused to transfer the case to the county they did/do live in. He didn't even live in the state! Pure crap.