Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our guidance forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 345
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 345
Quote
He doesn't even want to call to get his CS reviewed, even though he is making 3x less than he was AND his ex is now working and wasn't.

My H is earning a lot less than he was before he left, but that doesn't mean the children eat any less or that the cost of keeping a roof over their heads goes down. If he were still home, he would have done whatever was necessary to replace his lost income - taken a second job, cared for the children who were young at the time while I worked full-time, updated his skills, etc. He was unemployed for years. He could have extended his benefits for quite awhile if he had gone back to school, but he was unwilling to borrow money to do so. A responsible parent does whatever is necessary to make sure his kids have enough money to live on; once the NCP leaves, he (or she) often seems to think that is no longer his responsibility.

Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 345
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 345
Quote
If both parents remained in the home, and college wasn't an option without scholorships WHILE both were there, why expect it when divorced?

College is never not an option, assuming the child's grades are good enough to get in. Without either college or a skilled trade, it is almost impossible to support yourself and a family. If you are really poor enough not to be able to afford it, you will get grants and loans. Assuming reasonably good credit, you can get a PLUS loan; they do not consider your income/debt ratio. If your credit is not good, then the child can get a bigger Stafford loan. The real issue is that many NCP's don't care whether their kids go to college. My H once started to say something in front of the counselor about how he was not going to mortgage his future so his kids could go to college, and then in mid-sentence apparently realized how awful that sounded.

Nellie2 #1567655 02/03/06 08:36 AM
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 977
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 977
Oh yes, Nellie, college is a necessary, and wonderful thing.

Let me tell you about my mother, who got her AA in her 30's, BA in her 40's, Masters in her 50's and Ph.D. in her 60's. What a role model, eh?

For me, I took 20 years to get my Associates Degree. I was 41 the day I walked to get my diploma. I value education!

Hear me.

I used college as an example (and a poor one, obviously).

I could have used any one of many things: sports, hobbies, "wants" (as compared to "needs")... my point is that if parents who remain together cannot afford something, it's a pretty sure bet that a dad who's paying support won't be able to foot the bill by himself, either.

I want the best for my kids... sadly, their father and I couldn't always afford the best. Now that we're divorced, neither of us expects the other to NOW provide the best - we couldn't together, how could we apart?

That's my point.

I have the dubious distinction of seeing this from both sides, as you know. I don't speak often about my situation publicly... but you know... we live in poverty... our rent is two months behind... in a slummy apartment... we have no car, no car insurance (can't afford it - engine blew up on car and we can't afford to fix it - it's been a year)... internet is our only luxery and this month we are on the brink of losing it. My part-time job helps little, but pays for food. I can't find a full-time position that doesn't require night hours (call center type work - there is the bus schedule to consider). I walk to work. No life of Riley over here.

Do his children suffer because of it. Yes. We can't do any extras, Christmas and birthday gifts are often late. We can't see them like we'd like ('cause we can't get there without a car). It's a crappy situation all around.

WE will be okay, because we're adults, and we can reason through it. His kids are children... and don't understand, fully (though they are teenagers, and obviously can see how dad lives).

So, back to the point: Dad lives in poverty. Does the best he can. He wishes it could be better, does all he can to make it so... but... can't.

So when we speak about child support, and we're not talking about deadbeat dads and moms, but parents who are doing their best but it's never enough... who would do their best as a member of the original family, or as a divorced parent... that is where I come from...

Life is difficult enough. Divorce is earth-shattering to all involved. When there are children who need to be supported, it adds an element that is hard to ignore.



Nellie2 #1567656 02/03/06 10:50 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,690
E
Member
OP Offline
Member
E
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,690
Quote
Quote
He doesn't even want to call to get his CS reviewed, even though he is making 3x less than he was AND his ex is now working and wasn't.

My H is earning a lot less than he was before he left, but that doesn't mean the children eat any less or that the cost of keeping a roof over their heads goes down. If he were still home, he would have done whatever was necessary to replace his lost income - taken a second job, cared for the children who were young at the time while I worked full-time, updated his skills, etc. He was unemployed for years. He could have extended his benefits for quite awhile if he had gone back to school, but he was unwilling to borrow money to do so. A responsible parent does whatever is necessary to make sure his kids have enough money to live on; once the NCP leaves, he (or she) often seems to think that is no longer his responsibility.

I understand and mostly agree. However, this "system" that will raise the CS when the payer gets a higher paying job or lower the CS when the parent gets a lower paying job in one county, won't do the same in the next county over. They raised it from what it was to what it is based on the circumstances of the day, but will not lower it due to circumstances of the next.

If anything, they should base it on annual income, using the past year's 1040 or something ... rather than the whim of a payee who knows their ex is working overtime in a certain month. Does that make any sense? My hubby's CS is NOT based on his average income. He pays more for one than I receive for two because his ex chose to not work. Not, couldn't work, or shouldn't work, but chose to lie about her marital status to stay in low-income single parent housing, and chose to stop working! Let's not get into how she stated that she quit working because her babysitters kept quitting because of her daughter (my stepdaughter) ... got a long road there ahead of me. *sigh*

Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 675
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 675
[color:"green"] OK, You might find this really offensive.

First of all, why would you take on responsibility for westley's child support. If he is not working then he should go down and get the amount recalculated.

No ifs, ands, or buts.

He is not showing care for you by continuing to allow you to pay it for him and especially that he is not going for a reduction. (Why should he anyway, it's not like it is his money or anything.)

That was really mean and harsh, but buttercup, he is not benefitting you or your children by not taking care of his own business.

That means acting like a man. That means going to the CS office and getting a reduction if he is not working and not letting the idiots that run the place stop him.

That means going out and getting a job even if it is minimum wage so that your new wife and children don't suffer because they are paying money out of their budget for your old child.

V. [/color]

tmmx #1567658 02/03/06 12:56 PM
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 998
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 998
Quote
Quote
See, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about. In many cases, this hurts the kids rather than the ex spouse.
Well, CS is designed to support the kids and the ex. My preference would be to support the kids only.

You presume that she was, and still is, a great mother who puts the kids first. But they wouldn't see the doctor, dentist, allergist, or optometrist if I didn't take them. They would have to drop out of most activities if I didn't pay the fees and take them. Even though CS makes both of our net incomes equal, to within a few percent.

I'm sorry things were tight for you, and I don't know your background. But I do feel that adultery is a reflection of underlying character, and all of my personal experience with my ex-wife supports that.

Yes, I had an affair in my first marriage, and it was a mistake. I MADE A MISTAKE. Should my children suffer financially forever because of that mistake? I don't think that's right. I think it's possible to have sometimes a one time slip in character and make a mistake. I do not think it makes me a horrible person for the rest of my life.

IMO, CS is for the kids, not the spouse. I never asked for a penny for myself- and I gave him the home we'd both worked for- which I considered fair, because I was the one who wanted out. What I wanted and needed for the kids is all I asked for. Even still, he wants to pay it to the school directly and not to me, to keep me from spending it! Even though I had an affair- which was only a one time deal I am still a good mother. Yes, my mistake changed my kids lives, and I desperately regret that but I'm still a good mother.

I never even asked for the full amount that I could get because he couldn't afford it he said. He dresses them like little orphans while he wears brand new clothes, drives a new vehicle and spends thousands on his hobbies every year. We split the co pays for medical and he bills me for every freaking activity that they go in to. Then, he told me his parents wanted to enroll our daughter in dance this year and pay for that themselves and he tried to bill me for half of that!

There are plenty of dads out there that do right by their children and I am fully aware of that. What we need is for parents to stop trying to punish the other parent with money- no matter which way it goes- and to focus on what really matters- which is the children. This goes for the people that try to manipulate their ex's with the childrens time and attention as well and who try to use them as pawns in their emotional games with their ex's.

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,300
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,300
This discussion gets rehashed again and again.

I don't see this solely as a money issue, but rather as an accountability issue. The problem with the current system is that money is forced from the non-custodial parent and given to the custodial parent to use as they see fit. The custodial parent is under NO OBLIGATION whatsoever to spend the money on the kids, which is the purpose of this coerced remittance. Most probably do spend most of the money on the kids, but not all do this. I'm sure the fine people here at MB getting child support would forego the new Gucci handbag (or Dewalt router) for some school clothes for the kids. Not all people are like that. Not all people will put aside their own desires for the good of the children. That is a fact.

If the money went into an escrow account where bills could be applied against the balance of that account, then at least there would be SOME accountability for how the money is spent. At least there would be a paper-trail of where the money went.

Many people do not make good decisions with money, look at the number of bankruptcies filed in the US in any given year. If your X is one of these people, and you have to give them a large portion of your income, and they can spend it as their fancy dictates, then this is a problem if care about the welfare of you children.

Oh, I don't know what the answer to this is either . . . other than to advise young men to get vasectomies so they don't have to deal with this issue. I once heard a financial analyst say that having children is the single largest financial mistake that people can make, the next is line is to divorce. I agree that having kids is a huge fiscal burden, but I entered into it knowing that and am happy with my decision to have them. I do agree that divorce is often a catastrophic financial blunder that devastates both spouses and the kids.

Coach's Wife said: "Even still, he wants to pay it to the school directly and not to me, to keep me from spending it!"

Well, it seems rational to me that he may think this. Have you ever tried to empathize with with this situation from his perspective? Let me try to get you to see this from your x's eyes. You had an affair. You broke up the marriage. You took the kids and you replaced him with someone else. I bet he is bitter. I bet he doesn't trust your judgement one bit.

I'm a FWS. I know that my A doesn't define me, the same as your's doesn't define you. If my wife now has concern trusting my judgement could you blame her?

Last edited by Comfortably Numb; 02/03/06 01:49 PM.

What we think or what we know or what we believe is, in the end, of little consequence. The only consequence is what we do. ~ John Ruskin
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,302
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,302
People are going to fight over this forever... because well everyone has a difference of opinion... Most do the best that they can.. but some just don't pay and don't care and never look back... Fortunately my ex pays his weekly child support in a timely manner -it isn't a whole heck of alot because it was based on a weekly paycheck stub not annually and well annually all through our marriage with overtime he made more than me - but if you look at the stub - on a regular week with no overtime - I make more than him... So he is suppose to pay for half of all of the girls activities - for the first two years he did not - at all... So I in turn recently got a parttime job to pay for the extra's that my children need or want... Their father has been coming through lately - paying half of the dancing school - which is alot of money.. But they were involved before we got divorced... I think now I just say to him - listen this is what I paid if you can pay half fine if you can't whatever - it isn't worth the battle... that is why I got the job - but somewhere along the line I think he felt bad that I was paying for everything and started contributing... You know and when I get extra money from him for something that I hav e already paid for - well then I will take the money and buy my girls something and sometime I will buy myself something.. My girls never want for anything - they are my top priority even if they are not his all of the time... I don't think that people should accuse people of spending the money the way that they choose - as long as the kids are being taken care of.... I mean if my ex offered to pay my dance school - I am all for it - I have even told him that before - and actually he has started paying them every other month - we alternate - that way all of the money doesn't go to me... I think after awhile - hopefully it works itself out... But raising children requires alot of time and money...


Trying to Let myself find a life after four years of being divorced - Great at the mom thing.. Just not good at the "ME" thing....
maw64 #1567661 02/03/06 02:18 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,690
E
Member
OP Offline
Member
E
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,690
Westley IS working ... just for much less than he was making then. Every time he has dealt with FoC it has been a waste of his time. They have put him in jail twice for nonpayment when he WAS unemployed (before we started dating). He just had a hearing last month with the lady who TOLD him he should have told them right away when he lost his job ... the only thing that came out of that hearing was he had to pay $500 to keep out of jail (I had to help with $200 of that) and then pay an additional amount every month (above and beyond what he already can't pay) until his arrears are paid off. NO talk of reducing CS.

So why do they do it for a dad in the next county? My ex goes from $10 to $8/hour and they cut the amount he owes me. Makes no sense for it to be one way in one county and different in another. There is ONE Michigan child support formula!! That's my vent. Base CS on what the parent is actually making! Make it fair!

maw64 #1567662 02/03/06 02:20 PM
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,300
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,300
You sound like one of the good ones. I do think that most custodial parents are like you.

If more arragements could be made where the money was applied directly to the bills for the custodial parents household I think that maybe, just maybe, there would be less push-back from the non-custodial parent.

I want to address this: "People are going to fight over this forever... because well everyone has a difference of opinion... Most do the best that they can.. but some just don't pay and don't care and never look back.."

And some CP spend the CS on new cars and jewlery and trips with their affair partners. I think the system should work to limit those types of abuses from happening. I personally know a lot of really selfish/immature and frankly bad parents. I would not trust them to spend money wisely. I guess this may cloud my judgement a bit. I know that most parents aren't like this.


Last edited by Comfortably Numb; 02/03/06 02:28 PM.
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 675
S
Member
Offline
Member
S
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 675
[color:"green"]Well BC, I certainly feel for you. I paid child support for my second daughter in the amount of $100 a week when I had three other kids to support as well. This was after a bitter custody dispute which I finally gave up on after I got myself $20,000 in debt for lawyers fees.

Now, back to Westley. I gave the advice no matter what. If his last experience was negative - so what. Get back into the fray and don't give up until they treat you fairly.

Often there is no reduction in CS unless the CS itself would change 10 or 20%. If he is paying 20% of his net income, and let's say he is making $500 a week, then he would have to make $600 a week to affect a child support decision. That's a significant amount of cash to cause change - $100 bucks is a lot of money.

Your ex did have a 20% reduction in income - thus the change. $10 - $2 is $8. one over 10 divided by 2 is 0.2 or 20%. That is why his changed.


V.[/color]

Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 684
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 684
Quote
Oh, I don't know what the answer to this is either . . . other than to advise young men to get vasectomies so they don't have to deal with this issue.

...or, if they cannot aford, they don't remarry and have more kids...
how about this?


I'm not Belonging to Nowhere anymore! :-)
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 684
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 684
Quote
The problem with the current system is that money is forced from the non-custodial parent and given to the custodial parent to use as they see fit. The custodial parent is under NO OBLIGATION whatsoever to spend the money on the kids, which is the purpose of this coerced remittance.

I really don't understand this.
If CS is not spent for kids, then what money is spent for their food, clothes, hobbies, schooling, and their part of home expenses bills?
I guess you think you pay $X fod kids, and your X spends half of it for kids and half of it for herself?
If so, how do you know that?


I'm not Belonging to Nowhere anymore! :-)
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 684
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 684
Quote
the only thing that came out of that hearing was he had to pay $500 to keep out of jail (I had to help with $200 of that) and then pay an additional amount every month (above and beyond what he already can't pay) until his arrears are paid off. NO talk of reducing CS.

So why do they do it for a dad in the next county? My ex goes from $10 to $8/hour and they cut the amount he owes me. Makes no sense for it to be one way in one county and different in another. There is ONE Michigan child support formula!! That's my vent. Base CS on what the parent is actually making! Make it fair!

I agree, raised income raised CS and vice versa, i.e. CS according to earnings, not fixed amount for years, especially if someone is unemployeed. (And here, Ontario, CS changes according to income changes).

But, I don't understand... why would you give YOUR money to his kids from his previous marriage??
Don't you take that money from your own kids too??
And why don't you make HIM responsible to take care of his own children and not at your and your children expense??
How would he pay if there is no you to help him???

Btw, I cannot buy that there is a law that when you don't have money you have to pay, i.e. that you cannot fight against and regulate CS to be paid according to earnings...
In your case, let's say he has no you to pay, what would happen? Would he spend the rest of his life in prison?


I'm not Belonging to Nowhere anymore! :-)
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 345
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 345
If the NCP doesn't have enough money to pay mandated child support, why can't he or she get a second job? Around here, anyway, it is relatively easy to find a second job, as long as you are willing to take one that pays not much more than minimum wage. At seven dollars an hour, even an extra 10 hours a week would gross $70, and in my state, anyway, income from the second job would not be considered in the child support calculation.

I don't understand why a car is considered something that doesn't benefit the children. Most of the mileage on my car is from driving the kids to and from activities, and having a car that is safe and isn't in constant danger of breaking down definitely benefits the kids. I made the mistake of buying a used van a few years ago, and the first thing it did was catch fire on the highway, while I was driving my preschooler. Fortunately it was a small fire, and we escaped unharmed, but would any of the NCP's on this thread who are complaining about how the CP spends the child support really think it wouldn't have been better for my kids for me to have bought a newer, more reliable vehicle, even if it had cost more?

Most of the parents I know, married or single, spend most of their money on their kids - kids are why you might need/want a van, a four bedroom home, a vacation in Disney World, even a dog. I can't imagine what I would spend money on that wouldn't directly benefit the kids - aside from eating.

aislinn #1567668 02/04/06 03:14 AM
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 8,016
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Apr 1999
Posts: 8,016
Quote
Shrug....I don't force my ex to pay child support and I've never gotten it. One excuse after another.

So, Xbc, yes....if *some* folks are not required to, then they don't.
Is child support ordered by the court and you simply do not get it/go after it?
Or did you just not get it ordered by th ecourt?


Prayers & God Bless!
Chris
Nellie2 #1567669 02/04/06 08:48 AM
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
Quote
If the NCP doesn't have enough money to pay mandated child support, why can't he or she get a second job? Around here, anyway, it is relatively easy to find a second job, as long as you are willing to take one that pays not much more than minimum wage. At seven dollars an hour, even an extra 10 hours a week would gross $70, and in my state, anyway, income from the second job would not be considered in the child support calculation.

I don't understand why a car is considered something that doesn't benefit the children. Most of the mileage on my car is from driving the kids to and from activities, and having a car that is safe and isn't in constant danger of breaking down definitely benefits the kids. I made the mistake of buying a used van a few years ago, and the first thing it did was catch fire on the highway, while I was driving my preschooler. Fortunately it was a small fire, and we escaped unharmed, but would any of the NCP's on this thread who are complaining about how the CP spends the child support really think it wouldn't have been better for my kids for me to have bought a newer, more reliable vehicle, even if it had cost more?

Most of the parents I know, married or single, spend most of their money on their kids - kids are why you might need/want a van, a four bedroom home, a vacation in Disney World, even a dog. I can't imagine what I would spend money on that wouldn't directly benefit the kids - aside from eating.

Nellie,

I'm the one who complained about the buying of a car. In my case, my ex-wife traded an almost paid off 2000 model year minivan with about 45K miles that was extremely reliable for a 2004 VW Beetle. So now she has a vehicle to carry around my daughter that is smaller, less safe and she has payments that continue for the next five years. And now according to my YD, she is always broke.

It wasn't something she needed, it was something that she wanted, like her luxury apartment. And I'm paying for it.

Most cars, if taken care of can be reliably drive for 150K miles.

But never fear, I just purchased my first new car for me since 1994 on 12/31/05

Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,262
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,262
Here's a different approach along the lines of what CN was suggesting:

1) When couples marry, they will pay a $2500 fee (each) to the state that goes to administer family services.

2) When they have children, they will be taxed a pre-set amount for each child based on the type of tax returns they file. Call it "child support withholding". This will be done whether the parents are married or not. Marital status will be irrelevant. Actually the tax will be equal for both parents and level of employment will be irrelevant. As another poster stated...let them get second jobs if they have to.

In fully functional families, this would be transparent, as money out = money in. It just gets handled through the state.

3) Parents will submit qualified child support expenses to the family services department for re-imbursement. The expenses submitted would follow strict guidelines.

4) At tax time, the parents would fill out an itemized schedule of qualified expenses...and compare that to the child support withholding. Money not claimed during the year would go into escrow for the child. Qualified Claims would be granted, but the folling year's taxes would be adjusted.

In such a system, neither parent would have to worry about the othe misappropriating funds becauce the state could chase them for fraud.

BTW, I do NOT believe a car is a valid "child expense". You are going to have to have a car ANYWAY. Do like other good parents do and choose one that works for the kids. Even the NCP will have to do that. Like CN, I see a large number of divorced moms driving around my town in SUV's because "they need them for the kids" (sheesh...gimme a break). I know men who are having keep the old car they drive pieced together with bailing wire. Guess what the kids have to ride in on the weekends he has them? You got it. Now, it might work if the CP was willing to SHARE the COMMON PARENTAL vehicle...

CN is right. Accountability is the problem. The system works real hard to hold deadbeat parents accountable for paying but does nothing to ensure those funds go to "real" child care expenses.

We've already proven on this post that different people have really different ideas about what should be a "real" expense. So, I think the state should step in.

Low

Last edited by LowOrbit; 02/04/06 09:31 AM.
Nellie2 #1567671 02/04/06 09:44 AM
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,262
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 2,262
Quote
Most of the parents I know, married or single, spend most of their money on their kids - kids are why you might need/want a van, a four bedroom home, a vacation in Disney World, even a dog.


In most families I know...all of these are LUXURIES that should not be paid for out of child support.

Divorce is tragic. No doubt about it. But the sad truth is that splitting these parental funds WILL reduce their standard of living. The NCP should not be forced to support luxuries like you listed.

Now, either the NCP or CP have the right to save their money for luxuries that involve the kids. I would think good parents would do that. That would be a plus to maintaining a good working relationship with the ex.

But neither should be FORCED to finance a trip to Disney or new van.

LowOrbit #1567672 02/04/06 06:28 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 345
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 345
In my state, the purpose of child support is to maintain the child's standard of living at the level at which it was while the parents were together.

"To provide the standard of living the child would have enjoyed had the family been intact;"

http://www.mass.gov/courts/formsandguidelines/csg2002.html

If the parents could afford these "luxuries" before, then they are a perfectly acceptable use of child support. Child support is NOT intended merely to keep the children from freezing or starving to death. As you said, good parents do provide their children with more than just the minimum shelter and food if they can possibly afford it - and child support is intended to make sure that the NCP doesn't decide that he or she no longer has to do that

In most cases there is absolutely no reason that anyone's standard of living should go down after divorce - it is often just a matter of transfer of income to a new household. It is no more expensive for the NCP to live with the OW than it was for him to live at home.

Not to mention - a four bedroom home is hardly a luxury - how would you suggest stuffing my five girls and one boy and myself into a three bedroom home, when none of the bedrooms can hold more than one single bed? There are occupancy laws in my state limiting how many people you can stick in one tiny bedroom. And since when is a van a luxury? Certainly not when you have six kids. Even if you have only 3 kids, a five passenger car pretty much eliminates any chance of carpooling, or allowing your kids to take their friends along anywhere.

Page 3 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 1,116 guests, and 67 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Mike69, petercgeelan, Zorya, Reyna98, Nofoguy
71,829 Registered Users
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2019, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5