[defstarr]

My wife has told me that she wants to leave after 4 years of marriage. She had a previous marriage with 2 girls ages 9 and 10 now which she does NOT have custody of. She pays support on those 2. We have a 2 year old ourselves which wasn't planned so to speak but it happened for her request. I simply cannot afford any support myself, I live check by check and any more money going out would mean losing my home and then having no where to live. Since the child is so young here, I am willing to let my wife have the child and move on with her life and I would give up all rights to the child.. this is my choice and not hers but I can not be a part time dad since I see what her girls go through and what my dad went through when I was a kid. Is this a option for me to do.. giving up the rights and not paying the support? Thanks fpr any help

[N0help4u]

You can't give up parental rights to get out of paying child support.
You say you are willing to let her have the child does that mean
She would be willing to leave your child with you?

[Fr_Chuck]

Of course you can't give up your rights just not to pay child support, there would not be dead beat dads in jail if it was that easy? Would they?

And if she did not want custody of this child what makes you think she will want this child, or should have this child.

And if you want to be a lousy father and never see your child, that is your business, but the court will not care you can't afford to pay, if she gets cusody of the child you will be paying child support, and if she gets on welfare you will be paying the state back some of that also most likely.

[N0help4u]

And if she did not want custody of this child what makes you think she will want this child, or should have this child.

Good point

[Fr_Chuck]

I am sorry I have to preach for a minute, this sort of thing makes me so mad, Kids are not disposable, giving them away like you would a dog, bringing them into the world and then complaining that you are going to have to support them. You know there should not have to be a child support law, men should know their responsibility, be a real man and be part of their child's life.

I used to work in prisons and jails and as a police officer, as we handcuffed the dead beat dads, they all cried about this or that, but they were watching cable TV, smoking and drinking, guess they had money for that but not for their kids.

[sunnyMI]

I am sorry I have to preach for a minute, this sort of thing makes me so mad, Kids are not disposable, giving them away like you would a dog, bringing them into the world and then complaining that you are going to have to support them. You know there should not have to be a child support law, men should know thier responsiblity, be a real man and be part of thier childs life.

I used to work in prisons and jails and as a police officer, as we handcuffed the dead beat dads, they all cried about this or that, but they were watching cable TV, smoking and drinking, guess they had money for that but not for thier kids.

There are many different situations but I would like to say one thing... the courts can force a man to work and pay child support while not forcing the mother to work. If a father is laid off (not his choice), he is still required to pay child support, and could go to jail if he can't afford to do so but at the same time the mother can live off welfare and not work just because she chooses not to do so. I understand it's usually the mother that has custody of the children but again it takes TWO to raise children and that includes financial responsibilities! Unless you ever had to deal with the legal system in regards to child support and custody, then I would say it's not fair to judge. My husband went months without seeing his children, and we file complaint after complaint and the courts did nothing, but I can guarantee if he fell behind in child support they would take care of it immediately! The system is not fair and non-custodial parents (majority fathers) are not respected or given equal rights! The system is actually responsible for making some fathers "deadbeats."

[keke48227]

You know what I can understand where you are coming from in the case that you don't want to be a part time dad, because I am in a situation where the dad is the part time dad and I a part time mother (at least that is how I feel) and I would rather be in a situation where we were both full time parents, but that just is not the case, so you have to deal with that and work with that, but it is better to have a dad there than it is not to have a dad there at all, the damage is far more detrimental to the child than it is to you or your pockets.
Now in the case of the child support, you have to take care of that child regardless to how you are surviving because the mother has to provide regardless to how she is able to do it. I am in the situation where the dad doesn't think he should pay child support because he pays for her medical insurance and because he goes and buy diapers twice a month and buys cloths once a season and thinks that is enough while I on the other hand pay to keep a roof over her head, put food on her table, cloth her also, keep heat, lighs and gas on, and pay for childcare. Now you tell me is that right.

[macksmom]

You cannot relinquish your rights solely to the mother. She would have to have a spouse (obviously after you are divorced) that will be willing to adopt the child in your place. Until (or if) that happens, you will be responsible for child support... period.

Now, the alternative of course is you getting custody of the child. Since the mother doesn't have custody of her other children, she may easily agree for you to have custody of this child as well.

But I really think you BOTH need to be thinking about the child instead of yourself.

[JudyKayTee]

There are many different situations but I would like to say one thing...the courts can force a man to work and pay child support while not forcing the mother to work. If a father is laid off (not his choice), he is still required to pay child support, and could go to jail if he can't afford to do so but at the same time the mother can live off of welfare and not work just because she chooses not to do so. I understand it's usually the mother that has custody of the children but again it takes TWO to raise children and that includes financial responsibilities! Unless you ever had to deal with the legal system in regards to child support and custody, then I would say it's not fair to judge. My husband went months without seeing his children, and we file complaint after complaint and the courts did nothing, but I can guarantee if he fell behind in child support they would take care of it immediately! The system is not fair and non-custodial parents (majority fathers) are not respected or given equal rights!! The system is actually responsible for making some fathers "deadbeats."

I'm sorry that this is your experience but I see LOTS of non-custodial mothers ordered to pay child support - and it's enforced.

Child support and custody are two different issues and children still have to eat, despite layoffs, despite not seeing the non-custodial parent.

I would think that some of that "Welfare" money (which I understand comes from taxpayers but is handed to the mother and becomes her money) is used to support those children. I have seen Courts take a look at employment during the marriage and question why the working spouse has suddenly become a Welfare spouse. Something for your Attorney to look at - although I don't know in your State that her income will change the support your husband pays.

[cdad]

I think what the example really is comes when you have a custodial paret ( usually mom ) and a non-custodial parent ( usually dad ) in different working situations and the courts do not remand both sides equally. The " non-custodial parent " is remanded to work a full time job at all time while the " custodial " parent only needs to work part time and isn't remanded by the courts to any performance of steady work. When that situation exists and its rampant through the court systems is a double negative for the child. The parent working full time can be taken to court often at anytime there is a increase in funds. So there is no incentive to do better. And the custodial parent has no incentive to do better because they will " lose " what they are getting. Its very sad but very true. As far as courts creating dead beat dads.. I have to say yes because they push the lines that a person can exist on and start you off with a negative balance.