[COOKIE MONSTER]

nikosmom I wasn't b**tching or pissed at your comment it was meant for the1unv

[Synnen]

You know... to offer a possible solution for this:

I bet more non-custodial parents would be HAPPY to pay more in support if they could just give the STUFF that kids need, and not pay money.

For example, if the NCP were to have to drop off groceries once a week, and provide health insurance, and those two things were equal to 30% of the NCP's paycheck, I bet a lot of NCPs would be happy to do so. It would give them choice in how that money is spent, and it would reassure them that their child support was being used for just that--supporting their child. Or perhaps all clothing and necessary food would be bought by the NCP, leaving the CP with the things like the electric and water bill and rent - things that the CP can affect (which would, in effect, start teaching kids ecological lessons of not wasting water or electricity).

I know that if *I* could not see my kids whenever I wanted, yet in return I was to turn over 1/3 of my income for the kids I couldn't see whenver I wanted--well, dropping off groceries is a chance to see them! Or taking the kids shopping with me so that I can learn some of what they like and dislike!

I'm just saying that some of these "dead-beats" probably wouldn't be such jerks if they could actually choose a bit of where that money was going.

[bEaUtIfUlbRuNeTtE]

Synnen,

You make such an excellent point. Maybe the courts can order that to the NCP.

[svatnsdal]

First off I get so tired of hearing about guys complaining about paying child support. It is a two way street. I was a single dad for 11 years, my oldest son is now 22. My ex-wife is a RN in a state hospital. She was making $50,000.00 a year with full benefits. My son lived with me and I provided all insurance, cloths ect.... I was making $25,000.00 a year. She was court ordered to pay me $105.00 per month. At 16 years old my son went to go live with his mother...........the courts ordered me to continue carrying insurance on my son and I had to pay her $425.00 per month. Go Figure ???? My son who was an A-B student and a Boy Scout quit school and was busted for theft in a walmart store with in 6 weeks of being with his mother. He moved in with friends and got a girl pregnant before he turned 17. Guess what.........I still had to pay child support even though he didnt live with his mother !! I guess that makes me a "BAD DAD" for complaining about how much I pay. I need to say one more thing to COOKIEMONSTER..........child support is to help you raise your children..............It is NOT meant to be spent on TOYS. It is to help pay rent,utilities,cloths,food and ect...... I dont much care how some moms want to complain about how hard things are......I was a single dad who raised my son, worked 40+ hours a week, assisted in FFA, was a Boy Scout leader, coached baseball and soccer, cooked all the meals, did all the laundry and cleaning........plus I did odd jobs on the weekends to make ends meet....you know why............because I had to !!!!! AND I would do it all again to have that time with my son !!!! You have your children.......suck it up and make the best of it. If there is any questions I would like to ask it is WHY does a man who makes half the money his ex-wife makes have to pay over 4 times the child support she does ???
Mike

Just think, every time your son shows such great things, you can point out to your ex that you were the one that raised him! You are a one in a million men, and I am one woman who is very proud of you. Your son is a very lucky boy, or man!

[nikosmom]

Synnen, If more non-custodial parents were doing those things voluntarily (buying groceries, clothes, etc.) then there wouldn't be the need for the child support enforcent system. Child support has nothing to do with visitation (I feel like I'm repeating myself). Most NCP's have visitation agreements but don't uphold their end out of anger and/or resentment.

In a perfect world, it'd be great if once a relationship failed, that everybody did what they're supposed to for the sake of the children but that's not always how it goes. NCPs have rights to visitation just like the custodial parent has a right to receive child support. If they're not being allowed to see their children then they can also seek assistance in having their visitation rights enforced.

So far as paying for health insurance as an alternative to child support... that DOES factor into the amount of support ordered. So if the NCP is the one paying for insurance, then that amount would be deducted from the judgement. The whole "dropping off groceries" idea is only feasible if the NCP is local.

Just to let you know: not EVERY custodial parent is seeking child support for the "wrong reasons". Again on a personal note, I provide ALL of my son's needs without any public assistance or even any help from family. So that means I'm paying for food, clothes, diapers/wipes, daycare, health insurance & dr copays, life insurance, and college savings on top of any incidental needs like medicine, toiletries, and baby furniture that they need as they grow (high chair, bigger car seats, stroller). This doesn't account for the fact that my son lives in my house so he's sharing/increasing utilities because that's more laundry that I have to do weekly, more dishes that I have to wash, more water I'm using. If his father was helping with these things now, I wouldn't have to put them on the affidavit for him to pay half of later!

[Greg Quinn]

[QUOTE=Depressed in MO]

If a woman wants and is granted custody of a child and limit shared access to the the father she should get nothing(Except for special circumstances). If there is split access to the child or children, the man shouldn't have to pay a cent. In these cases I would complain too

Sorry, but IMHO, only a man would say this. Sorry, what I mean is the "non-custodial" parent.

Please don't be offended as I mean nothing personally to you if I HAVE offended you, it's just that BOTH parties should be responsible for the financial upbringing of their children, no matter who has them at ANY time.

-------------------------------------------
My X tried very hard to limit access to my daughter for her own sick twisted selfish reasons. I was lucky enough to be able to obtain a lawyer expensive enough to get what I wanted, split everything. And that's what is best for my child!! I pay nothing to that woman! If she had gotten her way, I would see my little girl every second weekend and once every Wednesday. LOL... And then she of course would go for my income to help raise her. I'm tired of so many woman wanting their pie my pie, and government tax breaks, subsidies etc...
Because I was a business owner I was at home for two years with my daughter raising her from morning till night. Her mother had terrible parenting instincts from day one, and it was I who was awake every night doing all the things both parents should have done.
I did find your point to be offencive. If I was to take the deal offered to me, and still told to pay large percentage support payments, I would go crazy! I couldn't handle it, how unfair is that? Men who want to be there but have had woman use the system to screw them out of their god given right to be great parents should not have to pay if they are being limited access. Only a selfish sick twisted person would hold something so great and powerful away from someone and ask them for a monthly payment to view.
If you want to do it on your own, use the system against a hard working nonviolent responsible father who would be there as he has always been. Well, DO IT ON YOUR OWN THEN! Thank god I was able to spend so many thousands of dollars to get what is best for my daughter, absolute equality between parents.
If I had limited access, I would think it to be justifiable if I were to only provide finances on those accessed days to feed nourish and pay the cost of living for my daughter.

[Synnen]

Nikosmom:

You are taking me way too personally.

I am offering constructive solutions for SOME of the issues surrounding child support. In a perfect world, parents of a child would be committed to each other fully and there would be no NEED for child support, frankly.

You say that there are ways to enforce visitation? Well, there are as many flaws with THAT system as there are with enforcing child support.

I realize that YOU are not "all mothers" and that not "all" dads want to be a part of their kids' lives.

But frankly... your bitterness about the whole thing kind of ticks me off. I'd give just about anything to HAVE a child, whether I was doing it solo, and trying to support us both on one person's income.

How about being grateful for what you have?

There are two sides to EVERY story, and while everything that's done should be done in the best interest of the child, well... parents are human too, and I bet that every last parent on earth has moments where they put themselves ahead of their child, for whatever reason.

This whole thread is moot. The NCP will always have a reason, that, in their opinion, is valid for not paying child support. And the CP will NEVER be satisfied with the child support that they're getting.

[the1unv]

Sorry but I disagree... A man paying child support should have the right to know the money is being spent on their child. There are children out there wearing old filthy cloths and eating dry cereal out of the box for supper because that's all they have in the cubard... what did the money get spent on?? Well when there is a case of beer in the fridge and a carton of smokes on the coffee table... My point is this... child support is for the child, NOT, the for the parent to blow on whatever they see fit. I agree all kids need some toys and educational toys are great... that is not my issue. My problem is when a parent chooses a GI Joe over a pound a hamburger. My son (older now) told me his mother couldn't wait for the check in the mail... he said she went straight to the liqueur store and then to her "friends house" for a little bag of something she won't share. My son got 2nd degree burns on his fingers trying to cook a box of mac - n - cheese for dinner. It was 1pm and he couldn't wake his mom up to tell her he was hungry. These things are not OK. I am not saying anyone on this site is like that, but those parents are out there!!
Also no one replied to my question about Moms who don't pay. Turn on the TV and listen to all these commercials about "dead beat dads"... I have never seen one such commercial talking about dead beat moms.
I applaud all moms who are raising their kids alone... it is hard, especially with out support! I do however think the parents who receive support money should have to show how it was spent. I don't care if it was a gas bill. Food or a toy... A two year old child should not do with out so mom can get a new hair doo or so dad can by a new fishing pole.
Mike

[nikosmom]

Nikosmom:

You are taking me way too personally.

I am offering constructive solutions for SOME of the issues surrounding child support. In a perfect world, parents of a child would be committed to each other fully and there would be no NEED for child support, frankly.

You say that there are ways to enforce visitation? Well, there are as many flaws with THAT system as there are with enforcing child support.

I realize that YOU are not "all mothers" and that not "all" dads want to be a part of their kids' lives.

But frankly...your bitterness about the whole thing kinda ticks me off. I'd give just about anything to HAVE a child, whether or not I was doing it solo, and trying to support us both on one person's income.

How about being grateful for what you have?

There are two sides to EVERY story, and while everything that's done should be done in the best interest of the child, well...parents are human too, and I bet that every last parent on earth has moments where they put themself ahead of their child, for whatever reason.

This whole thread is moot. The NCP will always have a reason, that, in their opinion, is valid for not paying child support. and the CP will NEVER be satisfied with the child support that they're getting.

This post makes one issue plain: This is NOT a perfect world. So therefore, we DO have the need for child support enforcement, courts, jails, and everything else that makes life difficult. Sure, there are flaws with every system, but both parties still have rights.

I AM extremely grateful for what I have, which is why I work so hard at maintaining it. I work hard at giving my child the things he NEEDS (those things I mentioned in my earlier post). I love my child with everything in me. That does not mean that his father should not be held responsible for helping me to provide for him. I don't think anyone should try to justify not taking care of their children. You can't say that the CP will NEVER be satisfied; I know of many that'd be satisfied if the NCP did what they were ordered; I would. He's NOT doing it voluntarily, so that's where the courts come in. He works. So why shouldn't he have to help? I give EVERYTHING I have to my child, my time, my money, and my love. Heck, he lived in my body and I took great care of him then... don't even get me started on medical expenses incurred from having a baby. Even with insurance, I'm STILL paying off the hospital bill, but unfortunately I can't put that on the affadavit.

You seem to be the bitter one. You mentioned that you had a child and gave him/her up for adoption. That was your decision and apparently the best one for you at the time. So therefore, you don't really know what it takes to raise a child, now do you? Babysitting isn't the same as being 100% responsible for a baby from day one. When you have a child living with you every day, and you're responsible for providing for every single one of their needs, then you'll know what it's like to feel that the other parent should be doing SOMEthing to help.

[Depressed in MO]

[QUOTE=Greg Quinn]

-------------------------------------------
My X tried very hard to limit access to my daughter for her own sick twisted selfish reasons. I was lucky enough to be able to obtain a lawyer expensive enough to get what I wanted, split everything. And thats what is best for my child!!. I pay nothing to that woman! If she had gotten her way, I would see my little girl every second weekend and once every Wednesday. LOL... And then she of course would go for my income to help raise her. I'm tired of so many woman wanting their pie my pie, and government tax breaks, subsidies etc...
Because I was a business owner I was at home for two years with my daughter raising her from morning till night. Her mother had terrible parenting instincts from day one, and it was I who was awake every night doing all the things both parents should have done.
I did find your point to be offencive. If I was to take the deal offered to me, and still told to pay large percentage support payments, I would go crazy!! I couldn't handle it, how unfair is that? Men who want to be there but have had woman use the system to screw them out of their god given right to be great parents should not have to pay if they are being limited access. Only a selfish sick twisted person would hold something so great and powerful away from someone and ask them for a monthly payment to view.
If you wanna do it on your own, use the system against a hard working nonviolent responsible father who would be there as he has always been. Well, DO IT ON YOUR OWN THEN! Thank god I was able to spend so many thousands of dollars to get what is best for my daughter, absolute equality between parents.
If I had limited access, I would think it to be justifiable if I were to only provide finances on those accessed days to feed nourish and pay the cost of living for my daughter.

Sorry if you were offended, but BOTH parties are equally responsible for the financial welfare of the child. I did NOT go into specifics, of course it would be more fair if the custodial parent didn't limit the access to the noncustodial's visitation; however, the noncustodial parent CAN go enforce those rights, just as the custodial parent CAN enforce the child support. I don't disagree with you at all on your views, all I am saying is just because you don't have your child ALL of the time, does not mean you should not be responsible at all for financially taking care of your child. As far as only being responsible for the days that you have your child, sure that is a great idea, if you have him/her every other day of the week. Then, it would be equal. But most cases aren't like that. I feel that both parents should be EQUALLY financially responsible for the upbringing of their kids.

If my children's father showed up with groceries every other week, I'd be grateful. If he paid only half of everything I have to pay for of their needs, I would be grateful and consider that fair. That's me, that's MY opinion, that is what I consider fair. Not all of the custodial parents are crazy money hungry b**** es. . You should WANT to provide to your daughter no matter where she is at.
Again, I am really sorry that I offended you. I am actually on your side though.

But as great as a father you sound, some of the things you have mentioned above sound a little selfish

"If I had limited access, I would think it to be justifiable if I were to only provide finances on those accessed days to feed nourish and pay the cost of living for my daughter"

[bEaUtIfUlbRuNeTtE]

Sorry but I disagree........ A man paying child support should have the right to know the money is being spent on their child. There are children out there wearing old filthy cloths and eating dry cereal out of the box for supper because thats all they have in the cubard........what did the money get spent on???? well when there is a case of beer in the fridge and a carton of smokes on the coffee table............My point is this.....child support is for the child, NOT, the for the parent to blow on whatever they see fit. I agree all kids need some toys and educational toys are great......that is not my issue. My problem is when a parent chooses a GI Joe over a pound a hamburger. My son (older now) told me his mother couldnt wait for the check in the mail...........he said she went straight to the liqueur store and then to her "friends house" for a little bag of something she wont share. My son got 2nd degree burns on his fingers trying to cook a box of mac - n - cheese for dinner. It was 1pm and he couldnt wake his mom up to tell her he was hungry. These things are not OK. I am not saying anyone on this site is like that, but those parents are out there !!!
Also no one replied to my question about Moms who dont pay. Turn on the TV and listen to all these commercials about "dead beat dads".............I have never seen one such commercial talking about dead beat moms.
I applaud all moms who are raising their kids alone.........it is hard, especially with out support!! I do however think the parents who receive support money should have to show how it was spent. I dont care if it was a gas bill. food or a toy...........A two year old child should not do with out so mom can get a new hair doo or so dad can by a new fishing pole.
Mike

Yes, a man should have the right to know, but doesn't and never will.

[Depressed in MO]

Synnen said "This whole thread is moot. The NCP will always have a reason, that, in their opinion, is valid for not paying child support. and the CP will NEVER be satisfied with the child support that they're getting."


I totally agree with you there!:cool:

[SADMOMINC]

Not all men are seeking to get out of their responsibility to support their children, they simply want to be treated fairly by family court systems and the custodial parents. Most men that do pay are still denied visitation, deal with parental alienation, treated very unfairly when in family court system and always deemed "deadbeat dads" because family court now does wage assignment instead of letting fathers simply make weekly,bi-weekly or monthly pmts. When this happens their employer knows all their business as well as anyone else in the company interested in the gossip about what happened to so and so today and hinders non custodial parents in future promotion that will also benefit the child. The family court labels non custodial parents before their court appearance and that label sticks like glue.

When my husbands ex(works as social worker at DCS) sued him was only after we were married, until that time he paid weekly by check or cash to her always on time, since our marriage she has had him in court 4 to 5 times a year, because of her position with Department of Human Services she knows all Family Court judges and lawyers and works with them daily, he never wins and has been on wage assignment since the first court date(2001) we were married in 2000. She has our income tax offset every year with false accussations of past due medical bills, last time state held refund for 18months until she accumalated enough med bills to keep the money. Now the last court date(mar 2008) judge ordered him to continue to pay until 2010 when child will be 20yrs old and only just graduating from high school. Mother held her behind 2 years in kindergarten (that was during their divorce) at the time she was dating the current Child Support Attorney for this state. I'm sure he has advised her along the way on how to ruin us financially. It has worked, He pays almost $500.00 mo for 1 child who works and will not even call him or speak to him any longer. This childwanted to live with us until she was older and learned what money could do for her. Now Child Support Attorney wines and dines them both in style on my husbands money and we are struggling just to survive.

NOT ALL MEN SEEKING TO LOWER CHILD SUPPORT ARE DEADBEATS. SOME WOMEN ARE GREEDY AND WANT WHAT EVER THEY CAN GET THEIR HANDS ON AT ANY COST EVEN THE COST OF A DAUGHTER AND FATHERS LOVE MEANS NOTHING TO THESE GREEDY WOMEN. I AM A WOMAN AND I RAISED 2 SONS WITHOUT CHILD SUPPORT, WHEN I FINALLY GOT IT, I RECEIVED $35.00 PER WEEK BUT I DID NOT TRY TO CAUSE DISCORD BETWEEN MY CHILDREN AND THEIR FATHER, I DID NOT TRY TO RUIN HIM FINANCIALLY EVEN THOUGH HE CHEATED ON ME, BEAT ME AND NEGLECTED OUR SONS. EVERYONE ANSWERS FOR THEIR SINS AND GREED IS A BAD ONE.

[caramelbunny]

I would just like to point out that a single mom with TWO kids should have learned to cross her legs after ONE kid, if she wasn't at a point where she could afford it.

And really....your post should be repeated to all of the silly teens that are out having sex and then panicking and thinking "Am I pregnant?". Or even better--the ones that are TRYING to get pregnant.

I have no sympathy--neither for the fathers paying who are poor, nor for the mothers struggling to make ends meet. Sex = babies. Sex ed and society have SURELY made that clear by now. If you can't afford your kids, you should have either given them up for adoption, or kept your legs crossed.

Actually--I take it back. I DO have a little sympathy for the guy who had no choice in the matter, because the babymomma just HAD to have and KEEP her baby, and now he's stuck paying, because SHE wouldn't choose adoption.

I know JUST as many women that whine and complain about not getting enough child support, yet who are still wearing new jeans, with makeup, and cable TV and a new cellphone. Why do some WOMEN expect to be able to go out, buy new things, wear nice clothes and have time to themselves after they have kids?

The fact that you feel for the fathers who decided to plant their seed then vacate the premises is not apprehendable! What about the percentage of mothers who do EVERYTHING for their child with absolutely no support but the father is an educated, well paid individual who tells the mother to get an abortion because of the mere fact "he's not ready" cause he's not done partying and is 30 yrs old! Its not the unborn child's fault! If they both decided to have sex then they BOTH need to be prepared for what the consequences could possibly be and not just thrown upon the mother because she is the one carrying the child. Its ridiculous and disgusting that you would even make the statement you did about the pieces of crap that don't pay because "they didnt have a say in it."(whether the child being born or not) some people have a conscious when it comes to killing innocent things. And why should he have to get away with not paying so easy? Adoption shouldn't have to be an issue... both genders need to accept that the bottom line is, you play, you pay.

[Synnen]

Frankly, I'm not going to get into the abortion debate with you.

I don't think YOU can choose for someone whether they can get an abortion any more than I think the sperm donor can choose for the egg donor.

Look at the other side of the story, there, caramelbunny. There are TONS of women that I know and have talked to who got pregnant deliberately to try to keep a man. That may have worked in the 60s and 70s, but it hasn't worked in at least 20 years now---and yet women keep doing it! Yet the men involved now have to pay for this child whether he's ready to be a parent--if SHE decides that SHE wants to be a parent, then he's stuck.

Let's put it this way: If he could better afford a child than she could, shouldn't HE get custody and SHE be paying child support? Isn't it in the child's best interests to have them stay with the parent that is better able to support the child? Yet time after time, judges award MOTHERS primary custody, especially if the parents were/are not married, simply because she gave birth to the child. When more fathers are awarded full custody because they WANT it, and children are taken from MOTHERS with no evidence of abuse, and those MOTHERS have to pay child support for kids they never see---well, then, maybe I'll feel better about the whole thing.

But in the meantime, I'm seeing too many great men screwed out of the chance to parent their children because the kids' moms are bitter that he's not with THEM anymore, and has moved on to a new woman--so they sucker him for every bit of child support they can get, and then find excuse after excuse why he can't see the kids, and on top of that, pours poison against the father into impressionable little ears.

I think it's reprehensible of YOU to judge all fathers by the same mold--every last dad I know that's paying child support would DIE to have more time with his kids, and is kept from it by his bitter, selfish ex-girlfriend. The point I was really trying to make is that he gets NO choice. He can't choose abortion, he can't choose adoption, and he can't choose parenting--he generally ONLY gets the option of being an every-other-weekend dad that pays half his check to a child that the kid's mom is trying to make hate him.

[caramelbunny]

Frankly, I'm not going to get into the abortion debate with you.

I don't think YOU can choose for someone whether or not they can get an abortion any more than I think the sperm donor can choose for the egg donor.

Look at the other side of the story, there, caramelbunny. There are TONS of women that I know and have talked to who got pregnant deliberately to try to keep a man. That may have worked in the 60s and 70s, but it hasn't worked in at least 20 years now---and yet women keep doing it! Yet the men involved now have to pay for this child whether or not he's ready to be a parent--if SHE decides that SHE wants to be a parent, then he's stuck.

Let's put it this way: If he could better afford a child than she could, shouldn't HE get custody and SHE be paying child support? Isn't it in the child's best interests to have them stay with the parent that is better able to support the child? Yet time after time, judges award MOTHERS primary custody, especially if the parents were/are not married, simply because she gave birth to the child. When more fathers are awarded full custody because they WANT it, and children are taken from MOTHERS with no evidence of abuse, and those MOTHERS have to pay child support for kids they never see---well, then, maybe I'll feel better about the whole thing.

But in the meantime, I'm seeing too many great men screwed out of the chance to parent their children because the kids' moms are bitter that he's not with THEM anymore, and has moved on to a new woman--so they sucker him for every bit of child support they can get, and then find excuse after excuse why he can't see the kids, and on top of that, pours poison against the father into impressionable little ears.

I think it's reprehensible of YOU to judge all fathers by the same mold--every last dad I know that's paying child support would DIE to have more time with his kids, and is kept from it by his bitter, selfish ex-girlfriend. The point I was really trying to make is that he gets NO choice. He can't choose abortion, he can't choose adoption, and he can't choose parenting--he generally ONLY gets the option of being an every-other-weekend dad that pays half his check to a child that the kid's mom is trying to make hate him.

Now that's a little more understandable. But isn't it also reprehensible of YOU to judge all mothers by the same mold? It's a little personal and at heart to me because I couldn't get my daughters father to spend more than 6 hours with her and she'll be 2 next month. I would rather have him be a good father and role model for her than his measly 1600 a month. I can make that in a week. My point is that we were both responsible adults and now I'm the only one taking charge of the situation... I understand that there a wonderful fathers out there and I have 110% respect for them, but as for worthless boys that think they are ready then all of a sudden they back out,they ALL deserved to be locked up somewhere and tortured! Because that's what they are putting their children through!