[XenoSapien]

-- If the custodial parent remarries or lives with a partner of for at least "X" years, support payments from non-custodial parent should be greatly reduced/eliminated. There is now a second parental figure in the child's home, and two parents is in the best interest of the child. This will alleviate the financial burden on the non-custodial parent.

Does this sound fair?

XenoSapien

[NowWhat]

No. Both parents are equally responsible for the well being of said child. Regardless of the custodial parent's marital status. Once you become a parent - you are ALWAYS responsible for that child.

[GV70]

-- If the custodial parent remarries or lives with a partner of for at least "X" years, support payments from non-custodial parent should be greatly reduced/eliminated. There is now a second parental figure in the child's home, and two parents is in the best interest of the child. This will alleviate the financial burden on the non-custodial parent.

Does this sound fair?

XenoSapien

No... the second parental figure is a step-parent. The common law requires that the step parents do not have support obligations to their step children.

[XenoSapien]

Ok. Right. This is why I am PROPOSING that that changes. Here is my rationale:



This amendment will help alleviate financial persecution on the parent paying support. They will not be forced into poverty because they have a child, yet are no longer with the mother.

This amendment doesn't mean that the stepparent is court-ordered to be financially responsible for the child. I'm just saying it should be more/less a sense of obligation of the stepparent to do his/her share of all avenues of care; including financing. Here is why I believe this, and ladies, help me out here:

I have heard many women say, "It's part of the package. If you're going to love me, you're going to have to accept/love my child", or something along those lines. A real man should understand, and if he does love the mother and wants to be with her, the child is every bit of the deal.

I think this encourages a stronger family unit for the child, despite the child not being with both biological parents, and gives the child a better outlook on the idea of love and marriage. The stepparent is "stepping up", and operating in the best interest of the child.

With this amendment being law, it will also alleviate to some degree the parent paying support from feeling oppressed, bitter or hateful. Henceforth, encourage a better approach themselves to the whole situation by the parent, and hence, an over-all happier child.


XenoSapien

[froggy7]

Sorry, no, I don't think it's a good idea. Especially since I'm pretty sure you wouldn't think that the non-custodial parent should visit less, or have less say in the child's life, right? Since you seem to be thinking that the non-custodial parent is the father (which, let's face it, is generally true), I'm just going to start using "he", to make this easier. Dad is still that child's father, even if he is not living with the kid. It's his responsibility to help support the child that he brought in to the world. Allowing him to have all the "fun" parts of parenting without having to provide support would seriously skew the relationship between the two parents, and not be in the child's best interest.

Also, I'm pretty sure it would lead to even more guys getting out of child support, and thus encourage them to have even more kids that they could duck out of supporting.

[tawnynkids]

Bitter and hateful? For paying child support? Why do non custodial parents always have to see it as paying the ex money instead of what it is... giving money to your child! If you want to say well mom is remarried so I shouldn't have to pay as much child support then when you remarry she should say well you can now pay more support because you have more money! You want to "make" the step parent "pay" their share of accepting "the whole package" by marrying then you would need to also give them the full legal rights and responsibilities that the biological parents have.

I say stop whining about providing money for your children that in all reality is no where near actually paying for half of what it really costs to raise a child and just pay your support! Stop trying to find ways out of it. If you can't afford to support your child then you certainly can't afford the credit card bills, the new car, the vacations, the nights out with friends, blah, blah, blah.

Your rationale is very faulty at best. Children are not unhappy because the non custodial parent is resentful about paying child support, the child is unhappy because the parents can't act like adults, deal with their own problems, and leave their poor children out it! Someone always has to make the child feel like they have to pick, like one more than the other, enjoying with one more than the other, etc. If you just make it a great thing that your child is with the other parent and loves them as much as you then your kids will be happier. And your children shouldn't know if the parent is paying the child support in full or on time, that is not their problem, but yet again... parents just can't seem to deal with their own stuff they have to dump it on the kids!

(Note I am using "you" in the general sense of the word this is not meant be personally aimed at you the OP).
p.s. I AM a non custodial parent (paying child support) and a woman!

[XenoSapien]

Fact is that non custodial parents are MOSTLY men. I have a story, (look at my profile, as I cannot say more) about a woman from England who has told me that she has a lady friend who has purposely had children from so many men, that she no longer has to work; instead, collects checks for not just the kids, but herself as well, and lives quite well with just that, doing nothing for society.

It'd be nice if a non-custodial would get to know where the money goes, because there are many custodials that are using that money for their own purposes, and not the child.

As stated, I'm NOT saying the step-parent needs to be ordered to pay--it should be an OBLIGATION and an act of love not just for the child, but the person they married as well. Two parents for children is the very best interest for the child. Period.

I'm not trying to find a way out of it, tawny. The mother of my child is keeping me away from my child. She is threatening family members to, and indirectly, KILL me should I go near our daughter. You've got it wrong.

Children need two parents to be at their best. And as my foot note states, a persecuted parent (financial, psychological etc.) equals a persecuted child.

XenoSapien

[tawnynkids]

Simply having to pay child support does not make a parent persecuted. I am very sorry to hear that you are being kept from your daughter. That is wrong on many levels! But has nothing to do with an issue of ordering lower child support to a remarried custodial parent.

The woman who decided to make her living on having children... disgusting. Sad and true but does happen, but it is not the norm. And I do have to add if the men don't want to give her the children whose child support that she can live off well then they shouldn't be having sex! She is not the only person at fault in that scenario. If she is such a useless parent then they should take her to court to obtain custody and order child support to be paid by her. But there is NO crime in being able to stay home and raise your children and not have to work outside of the home, leaving your children if you can avoid doing it with the child support income received. Obviously, of course, that is if you are any kind of a decent parent. I am not referring to the idiots who sit around, watching soaps all day, don't pay attention to the children or do drugs or whatever other stupid things people can come up with other than actually staying home for the purpose of being with, loving, caring for, teaching, instilling morals/values in your children, that makes being home with an "at home parent" better than being with a sitter so they can say they "earn" an income and not be brow beat by the NCP who likes to tell them they are "living off of the child support". In all reality when done right being home and raising your children is what is in the best interest of your children and just as/if not more important than stepping out of the house to work but far less appreciated or valued.

If people are misusing child support then it should be reviewed in court. The problem I find with the majority of opinions by the NCP (typically men, yes, but we woman are NCP's too) is that they seem to feel that the CP shouldn't ever be allowed to spend any money for/on themselves. Every dime spent is criticized and that is wrong. Well, the fact is if the child/children are not lacking in their basic needs and are healthy and provided for then she has every right to spend her money any way she chooses. Particularly for a CP who does also earn some of their own income who is to say whether that "wasted" money spent "for their own purposes" was out of their income or the child support specifically? The bottom line is it shouldn't matter as long as the child/children have what they need.

If there are legitimate reasons to suspect that a child is going without the necessities of life (not every toy they want or trip to Disneyland) and is suffering at the serious misuse of child support payments then I am all for taking that parent to court and requiring a full account every month to be submitted to THE COURT as to where and how the money is being spent.

There are bad apples in every case of every situation. I consider those the exceptions. For normal good parents we don't keep our children from their parent without valid legal reasons (non payment of child support is NOT one of them). We provide for our children, clothes, food, toys, housing, bills, medical care, and extras once in a while.

The fact is when you marry a woman with kids chances are realistically they (the step parent, and in particular men) are paying more out in their paycheck to financially provide then the NCP is paying in a month on child support. So they are providing support.

Odd thing is though is that in some states a new spouses income can be a factor when deciding child support. It is very uncommon but some states do consider it.

[NowWhat]

Wow. I have never heard any kind of rationale like this before.
So the step-parent marries into this. But, you and another person chose to bring this child into the world. Not the step parent. You and the OP are forever responsible for that child. Regardless if the OP remarries, wins the lottery - whatever.
Each parent is responsible for the child that they created. The support should go to pay for housing, clothing, food, etc. The needs of the child. That is the PARENT'S responsibility - not the step parent.

[XenoSapien]

No. Both parents are equally responsible for the well being of said child. Regardless of the custodial parent's marital status. Once you become a parent - you are ALWAYS responsible for that child.

In more cases than not, the stepparent has more interaction with the child than the biological parent. A guy I work with pays his support. He sees his son every other weekend and wednesdays. This visitation is far less interaction than the mother's new live in boyfriend has with the child.

[XenoSapien]

"Allowing him to have all the "fun" parts of parenting without having to provide support would seriously skew the relationship between the two parents, and not be in the child's best interest."

If the stepparent is helping out financially, then there is no reason to fight over money.

XenoSapien

[XenoSapien]

"Bitter and hateful? For paying child support? Why do non custodial parents always have to see it as paying the ex money instead of what it is...giving money to your child!"

--Support money does not always go for the child. You can't tell me that with the large amount of extra money women overwhelmingly get, that they all stay away from spoiling themselves by buying items that has nothing to do for the child; that's why the person paying support should have a right to know where that money is going.

"If you want to say well mom is remarried so I shouldn't have to pay as much child support then when you remarry she should say well you can now pay more support because you have more money!"

--If the father has custody, fine. If not, no.

"You want to "make" the step parent "pay" their share of accepting "the whole package" by marrying then you would need to also give them the full legal rights and responsibilities that the biological parents have."

-- Again, I'm not saying it should be court-ordered. And since they live with the child, they indirectly already have a lot of rights as well as creative control with the child.

"Your rationale is very faulty at best. Children are not unhappy because the non custodial parent is resentful about paying child support, the child is unhappy because the parents can't act like adults, deal with their own problems, and leave their poor children out it!"

--Financial woes is one of the top five reasons for depression. Taking most of one's paycheck a month can be psychologically damaging. It should be equal and fair, but mostly it is one-sided and in favor of the mother.

"The fact is when you marry a woman with kids chances are realistically they (the step parent, and in particular men) are paying more out in their paycheck to financially provide then the NCP is paying in a month on child support. So they are providing support."

--Great! All the better of a reason to reduce the NCP support payment.

XenoSapien

[XenoSapien]

Wow. I have never heard any kind of rationale like this before.
so the step-parent marries into this. But, you and another person chose to bring this child into the world. Not the step parent. You and the OP are forever responsible for that child. Regardless if the OP remarries, wins the lottery - whatever.
Each parent is responsible for the child that they created. The support should go to pay for housing, clothing, food, etc. The needs of the child. That is the PARENT'S responsibilty - not the step parent.

Yes. Part of the package. Again, not saying a court-order, but simply saying that now that a CP lives with two sources of income as opposed to just one, NCP support should be reduced. The NCP will still be tending to his responsibilities as normal, it's just his financial obligligation gets lowered. Like I've mentioned, 9 times out of 10 the stepparent has more visitation than the NCP.

But to all readers, by all means keep shooting down my theories and pointing out holes; this will encourage me to get my wording correct sooner.

XenoSapien

[tawnynkids]

This will be my last post on the subject because it has become clear that you are not interested in what is right/wrong regarding your "amendments" you are looking for a way to seek revenge for what your ex has done to you.

It is clear that you have no real concept of how child support amounts are arrived at. Your statements make little to no sense. Your reasoning gets more stupid with each post. You are an angry, bitter person who doesn't want to pay support for his child because you can't separate your anger for the ex with the responsibility you have for your child. You are one of those who says if I can't see the child I am not paying for the child. Sad, sad, sad for your child. God man she isn't a possession, she isn't a truck where you can say well if I can't have the car and drive it I am not making the paying on it. She is a human being, flesh and blood and you are responsible whether you like it or not.

Maybe you got a bad deal, maybe your ex took off and kept your child from you. I don't excuse those actions but you have an obligation to seek assistance from the court and make her uphold do the law, not punish your child by withholding support. If you didn't take her to court or report her for kidnapping that is your problem. You are a whiner. You are looking for every excuse in the book to get out of paying child support.

Fortunately your "amendments" will never come to pass.

[Fr_Chuck]

I will agree, while at times the courts are not fair, but normally this is in custody and visitation issues, Child support is a matter of state law, based on income guidelines.

But yes, I would agree you are bitter about your case and in general need to get over it and move on in life.

[XenoSapien]

This will be my last post on the subject because it has become clear that you are not interested in what is right/wrong regarding your "amendments" you are looking for a way to seek revenge for what your ex has done to you.

It is clear that you have no real concept of how child support amounts are arrived at. Your statements make little to no sense. Your reasoning gets more stupid with each post. You are an angry, bitter person who doesn't want to pay support for his child because you can't separate your anger for the ex with the responsibility you have for your child. You are one of those who says if I can't see the child I am not paying for the child. Sad, sad, sad for your child. God man she isn't a possession, she isn't a truck where you can say well if I can't have the car and drive it I am not making the paying on it. She is a human being, flesh and blood and you are responsible whether you like it or not.

Maybe you got a bad deal, maybe your ex took off and kept your child from you. I don't excuse those actions but you have an obligation to seek assistance from the court and make her uphold do the law, not punish your child by withholding support. If you didn't take her to court or report her for kidnapping that is your problem. You are a whiner. You are looking for every excuse in the book to get out of paying child support.

Fortunately your "amendments" will never come to pass.

It's likely your last post on the subject because you cannot defeat my reasoning. You are on a fishing expedition with your belief of my feeling--the mother of my daughter has been forgiven.

My daughter has been on the planet for 157 days now, and I have not been able to even hold her. My situation breeds the idea, after over a YEAR of research, that custody laws are lobsided, geared to defend strictly the whims of the womb, and urinate on what a father wants.

My X made me believe my daughter was dead for two weeks, and told me she would send me an aborted fetus in the mail to prove it. Should that happen to you, tell me how you feel then, and how you would fight to change the prejudice custody laws. Until that happens, you can make no statement on why I'm doing as I am doing.

You are likely a feminist that is all about 'power to the vagina', and don't really care much that there are men that want to be fathers. I have been turned down by legal services, pro bono attorneys, am fighting this battle between two state lines.

You are also ignorant again of this mother--HER OWN MOTHER told me she suffers from bi-polar disease, sociopathic tendencies, psychotic episodes and an X stripper. She has three domestic battery charges, and people like you and Uncle Sam have no problem telling a father that he still doesn't have much rights.

I'm not trying to get out of support--I'm looking to change laws, and I have a lot of support in my corner, unbeknownst to you. Stop guessing so much.

XenoSapien

[XenoSapien]

I will agree, while at times the courts are not fair, but normally this is in custody and visitation issues, Child support is a matter of state law, based on income guidlines.

But yes, I would agree you are bitter about your case and in general need to get over it and move on in life.

Bitter? She's been forgiven, Fr_Chuck. How many times will I have to say it? I've moved on just fine, but I'm determined to change laws in many areas so that men of the future don't have to live through this hell like I have. There is already a child out there who is not allowed BY HER MOTHER to know her real father. Think it's fair to make that a standard? How about writing a passage from the 'Good Book' on that one, father. NO-ONE should be made to falsely believe their child is dead. Period.

XenoSapien

[froggy7]

Yes. Part of the package. Again, not saying a court-order, but simply saying that now that a CP lives with two sources of income as opposed to just one, NCP support should be reduced. The NCP will still be tending to his responsibilities as normal, it's just his financial obligligation gets lowered. Like I've mentioned, 9 times out of 10 the stepparent has more visitation than the NCP.

But to all readers, by all means keep shooting down my theories and pointing out holes; this will encourage me to get my wording correct sooner.

XenoSapien

And what happens when the step-parent and mom have their own kids? Should the step-parent then be responsible for supporting the step-child on top of their own, when the bio dad isn't? And what if stepdad and mom get divorced... who then is responsible for paying child support, bio dad or step-dad?

And you say that the NCP will still be tending to his responsibilities, just not financial. What other responsibilities do you mean?

And more seriously... what you want is technically possible right now in the legal system. All you have to do is get the step-parent to adopt the kid, and the NCP is off the hook entirely. If you don't think that's fair, I am very interested in what rights you want the NCP to keep and what you think is an equitable exchange for not providing support.

[froggy7]

Bitter? She's been forgiven, Fr_Chuck. How many times will I have to say it? I've moved on just fine, but I'm determined to change laws in many areas so that men of the future don't have to live through this hell like I have. There is already a child out there who is not allowed BY HER MOTHER to know her real father. Think it's fair to make that a standard? How about writing a passage from the 'Good Book' on that one, father. NO-ONE should be made to falsely believe their child is dead. Period.

XenoSapien

So you fight her in court, get mandated visitation, and take her to court every time she denies you that. What you are proposing is that, since she won't let you visit, you won't help support your child. So she misses out on that as well as you. Somehow, that doesn't strike me as much better.

And I have to say... you didn't know that she was a bipolar ex-stripper with sociopathic tendencies and domestic battery charges before you married her and made a baby with her? If you didn't take the time to get to know the woman you married and chose to be the mother of your child beforehand, who's fault is that?

[XenoSapien]

So you fight her in court, get mandated visitation, and take her to court every time she denies you that. What you are proposing is that, since she won't let you visit, you won't help support your child. So she misses out on that as well as you. Somehow, that doesn't strike me as much better.

And I have to say... you didn't know that she was a bipolar ex-stripper with sociopathic tendencies and domestic battery charges before you married her and made a baby with her? If you didn't take the time to get to know the woman you married and chose to be the mother of your child beforehand, who's fault is that?

I'm realizing that perhaps I shouldn't have placed these amendments here. There is far too much I have to explain in order for folks to see why I have written them. The amendments are placed somewhere else that has the explanations I speak of.

I cannot fight her in court. She an I were never married, and I knew that she was a little rough, but didn't realize she was that bad. I tend to give people the benefit of the doubt, and this time around, yah, I got burned.

In short, this mother, also in direct care of two more, is the type of person who will create false allegations against someone if she gets angry or doesn't have her way. If I were to have visitation with my daughter, it would only be a matter of time before she would tell the authorities that I molested my own daughter. She's that sick, and again, I knew she was bad, but never in my wildest ever believed that someone could be that sick.

XenoSapien