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 discussion 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 1 of 3 1 2 3
#819851 03/05/03 03:41 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
J
Jtigger Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
I want to wade into the dangerous waters of child support.
I read on another forum the comment that child support does not cause bankruptcy and financial hardship, bad financial planning does.
I want to introduce a not so hypothetical situation to explain why this isn’t true.
There is a typical middle class family living a typical middle class life. Both the husband and the wife work. At the end of each month there is enough money to pay the bills, put a little aside for the kid's college fund and maybe, just maybe a little aside for that dream family vacation. Not a lot of frills going on, Jimmy has braces, maybe dance class for Susie.
Now comes along a $700.00 child support payment. All of a sudden there is no money for the college fund, no money for the family vacation and no money for little Susie's dance class.
Has anyone noticed a trend here? The only one so far that has not given up anything so that H can be "responsible" is H <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" /> .
And that is the part of CS that most OW don't understand.
It is not supporting the oc that most BS object to. It is the unfair way cs awards are calculated and the sacrifices that the children of the marriage have to make.
If a MM pays $700.00 per month cs and he is only considered to be responsible for 45% of the cost of raising the child then that means the state is figuring it costs $1425.00 per month to raise that child <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> . Everyone must admit that's a little high.
Please lets keep this thread as pleasant as the last one.

#819852 03/05/03 03:52 PM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 166
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 166
Woa...good luck with keeping it pleasant.

Here's my 2 cents...I think it takes a lot to raise a child. The most expensive bill being day care nowadays. On average, you're not gonna find a day care that's less than 500 per month where we live.
So...does my H pay more than he should? I don't know. His support obligation covers weekly daycare and medical expenses for insurance. But what does xow pay for?
Here's my wish....finanancial accountability. Why shouldn't custodial parents be required to provide a weekly report of how the cash is spent? I mean afterall, they had to provide lengthy and personal financial statements to the courts, so why not make custodial parents just as accountable? I think most non-custodial parents don't have a problem paying cs, they just want to know where all the $ goes. If there was some way to be able to pull up a statement for all that is purchased with the money then I think most paying parents would feel better.

#819853 03/05/03 03:58 PM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 166
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 166
Furthermore, since support is an obligation supposedly shared by both parents, why aren't the tax deductions mandated to be alternated on a yearly basis?
I think it's unfair to allow custodial parent the deduction (especially for child care)when they're not paying for it. Hope I'm not flaming there, but it's a hot button for me.

#819854 03/05/03 04:09 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
J
Jtigger Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
***The most expensive bill being day care nowadays.***

Agreed, but what about when the child starts school and full time day care is no longer an issue ?

***finanancial accountability***

I like that idea !

jtigger

<small>[ March 05, 2003, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: Jtigger ]</small>

#819855 03/05/03 06:35 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
I do think mm is responsible for support if he created a child, however I AM NOT AS determined to force the issue, mm chose how much he would like to pay on his own and it isnt even close to ten percent. never mind the 20 he would be expected to pay.
it isnt hurting them, it isnt devistating them, they have no children to support and dont support my daughter, My husband supports her now, we have infact lowered his support even more. we pay insurance, we split medical bills.
after all I want her home more than I want her with them, so we can pay more, I expect he will do more as he wants and if he doesnt, he can explain to his child why he doesnt do more, My daughter will know my husband [her daddy] does for her and then some.
so they arent hurting or even close to it, they do well. He has no reason to say he cant buy school clothes or get her dance lessons, because you see , he pays next to nothing now.

but we never went to court, I guess if we did, he would be hurting a little, but it would be his responsibility and I DONT FEEL SORRY FOR HIM.
he would have to cut out some of his trips and extras, and I am sorry to say so what, he should, my husband does with out to support his baby why shouldnt he contribute.
we claim my daughter but that is because my husband pays for every thing and should receive the tax break.

but if I was a single parent and needed the extra income and had to work in order to support the child, then I would expect himt o pay his 20 percent and make him do so.
a parents job is to support their children all of them. if they didnt want more he shouldn't have had more.
I would bet he suffers if he has to tell susie why she cant go to dance class, or play golf.
He has to face the fact that he screwed up but the innocent child he created shouldnt be punished because he played and got caught.
it isnt that babies fault.
so he will have to do with out as parents do all the time and make things work out.

I dont want any children to suffer but as a mother I willd o what I need to do to make sure my kids are ok, that doesnt mean ow is out to hurt the children of mm, just that she has a responsibility to take care of her child.

#819856 03/05/03 06:44 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
by the way those that think they need to know where the money goes, if that ow is paying for a roof over that childs head, and clothing for that child to wear, and child care, and dr, and food, and other things child needs and wants, then she is doing her job and it isnt any ones business what is done with the money.

example, om gave my husband a check this week,
first one in two months, I told my husband to put it towards some work on his boat!?

You ask why ? because for the past two months om has paid nothing, I spent about 4oo on clothes the last two months, she has been to the dr, OUR INSURANCE KICKS IN THIS WEEK[NEW JOB] SO WE PAID FULL PRICE. My husband built her a new room and redecorated for her ,my husband pays to take her to the fair, to the movies, he buys all her shoes and clothes, so why the heck should he spend the small check om gave him!???

we pay 90 percent of her care, my husband should be able to take that check and buy a new fishing pole or what ever he wants, because he pays for every thing any way.
however he doesnt do that. he gives it to me and I usually just put it in the bank.
Is it fair to him, probably not, but he loves his family and has always been a good provider.

by the way I think the husband does give up some , if he has to do with out play toys or new vehicles or fishing trips, so his family can have more than as a husband and father he should do that. so he doesnt go out to eat as much or trips with the boys, makes his truck last a little longer. There are many ways he can save. But do we think the child of the affair should receive less for some reason!?
also I think 1000 a month is a little steep. but thats me, but if the couples cant sit and agree what is best and make sure baby created doesnt do with out, then they have to pay what the courts say to pay.

<small>[ March 05, 2003, 06:57 PM: Message edited by: mom of five ]</small>

#819857 03/05/03 08:29 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
J
Jtigger Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
mo5,

***I dont want any children to suffer but as a mother I willd o what I need to do to make sure my kids are ok***
And that doesn't mean BS are out to get oc, they just want to look after their children. But OW never see it that way.

Every case is different.
In my case OW has no house payment. She lives in a very nice house she inherited. Her financial disclosure showed her monthly living expenses to be 1625.00. She brings home 1700.00. We pay over 700.00 per month in cs. And supposedly that is only %45 of child expenses. Now I don't claim to be a math wiz but even I can see 2+2 don't =4

Now...
do I think my H is responsible for buying food for oc ?...yes.
Do I think he is responsible for buying food for OW?...no !
Do I think he is responsible for paying for clothes for oc ?...yes.
Do I feel he is responsible for buying OW that new pair of jeans that she just can't live without ? ...NO !

The law says my H has a financial responsibility to his child. He has NO financial responsibility to OW. She has no H, no one in her household is doing without because she is supporting a child. There should be some type of required financial disclosure showing that cs is spent on the child, not the mother. And I'm not just talking about oc and ow. I'm talking about ALL cs.

Do I think oc should have the same standard of living as my children ? No,only because I make 4 times the money that OW makes. My children have a higher standard of living because I make much more money. Is that unfair, no, thats just life. I don't think it is my H's responsibility to raise OW's standard of living up to ours. That would be her responsibility. Will her child have everything my children have? No, but that is not my responsibility. My responsiblity is to see my kids have everything that I can possibly give them. And if that means fighting OW tooth and nail to stop her from getting one penny more than she absolutly has to, then so be it.
jtigger

#819858 03/05/03 09:38 PM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 248
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 248
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Jtigger:
<strong>***The most expensive bill being day care nowadays.***

Agreed, but what about when the child starts school and full time day care is no longer an issue ?

***finanancial accountability***

I like that idea !

jtigger</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I agree that the laws in some states are totally unfair. (close your mouths...lol)
BUT... I get $150/week in support. My before/after school daycare is $105, and that's the lowest I could find. The other $45 goes to clothes, food, shoes, and other various things for him. But I shoulder most of the financial burden, and I raise him. I think that if parenting is 50/50 then you should switch off the tax deduction each year. But if I AM the primary caretaker of the child, you're damn straight I'm going to claim him! $150/week is NOTHING compared to what it costs to raise a child.

#819859 03/05/03 09:46 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
J
Jtigger Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
joshmom,
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />
ya know I love you !{{{{{}}}}}}}
but when you say ***and I raise him*** I have to speak up.
The point is you CHOSE to raise him although you had other options. It is unfair to say that any type of financial consideration should be given because of a choice you made.
It is not fair to raise a man's child support because he has no contact with a child. Contact or no contact does not change the cost of a child. Increasing cs on those grounds is simple punishment to the father for choosing not to be involved.

#819860 03/05/03 09:51 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 593
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 593
Every situation is unique but I can tell you that it cost us $800.00 per month in child care. Next factor in food, clothing, diapers, and the extras such as swim lessons, college fund, family vacation, etc. (Or the $1300.00 bill we have to tune up our car this month, scratch the vacation and the college fund...) It is all relative from my view. Children cost a fortune and people with children have to sacrafice to have them.
My brother and his wife do not have children. They just bought a second home right on the ocean. They travel often, dine out, save their money, all of that great stuff. They don't have to allocate any of their money to raise children or put them through college. Its just how it is. I'm not saying that all cs is reasonable but the system is necessary.

CM

#819861 03/05/03 09:57 PM
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 248
J
Member
Offline
Member
J
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 248
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Jtigger:
<strong>joshmom,
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />
ya know I love you !{{{{{}}}}}}}
but when you say ***and I raise him*** I have to speak up.
The point is you CHOSE to raise him although you had other options. It is unfair to say that any type of financial consideration should be given because of a choice you made.
It is not fair to raise a man's child support because he has no contact with a child. Contact or no contact does not change the cost of a child. Increasing cs on those grounds is simple punishment to the father for choosing not to be involved.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I was waiting for that... LOL <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />
I know that. I made the choice to have him, and sacrificed a lot along the way. Shoot, I could be living the high life. LOL Not really, but my life would be completely different if I hadn't had him. I agree that contact or no contact shouldn't determine the amount of support. I do think that if you SHARE the parenting (shared custody, etc.) then that should reflect in what the amount is. Do I think that being spiteful and raising the support just because he refuses to see the child is fair? No. But I also think (and this is just MY opinion) that having NC with the child is sometimes simple punishment to the OW for just having had the child. If that makes sense.

#819862 03/05/03 10:18 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 903
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 903
The only thing I am gonna say in this matter is that we got screwed by a court system that did not take ALL the children of the marriage into consideration. (Nor me!).

The court counted OC and "mini-me" but not Bubba, when questioned "why?" we were told that I can get off my $&$&$^# heiney and work for my children (I'm a stay at home mom)...OW decided to go on welfare, as she couldn't afford to have a baby, yet no one told her to get off her %&#($#$&( butt and get a job or make other arrangements if she could not afford a child.

Again, I'm speaking of MY situation. We are going bankrupt over the costs of courts, etc. and other things. The courts not only counted Mr."T"'s base pay, but his overtime and extra details and factored that in, so in reality we are paying more than we can realistically afford.

My children's lives have been affected. The only silver lining in this cloud is that the same court system that screwed us, is now going after my ex-husband (who doesn't want to pay CS) and will make him pay to "even" out what we are paying and it will work out somehow. But when? we don't know.

I dont' want to screw the ex in CS payment. The difference is, we never said we weren't going to pay OC's money....we wanted to...we just wanted it to be fair and just.

Ex-ow has now married and has a hubby who cares for her. As for her employment, who knows? We are afraid to go back to court to lower payments...we could get screwed even more....

So, that's a small tip of the iceburg that is leading to our bankruptcy. My thoughts is that if my Husband's ex-ow needs money for daycare or needed to go on welfare because she couldn't afford the child, then adoption would or should have been an option.

We pay more, because Mr."T" signed away sole care and custody to the mother.

Ah well....Mr."T" should have been careful where he spread his DNA...live and learn.....

Interesting thread, I will be following this...again, I'm speaking ONLY of my situation.

Hugs and peace,
Twiisty <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

#819863 03/05/03 10:26 PM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 903
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 903
And before the argument comes up about Mr."T" and I having children we can't afford, let me tell ya something...I brought two children in this world without the knowledge that OC existed. I was ignorant...had I known that OC existed, I might have made other plans and would not have the children I have had...I don't know what I would have done, but I would have planned my children a little different. I resent not having that choice and place the blame on Mr."T" 100% for that.

Mr."T" works very hard so I can still stay at home with my children. That is something that we believe in and he's determined to keep me home. We go without. Our Budget was precarious enough but add dinobon's hospitalization bills on top of having to pay her (ex-ow's) court costs and ours and mine with wild Bill's...you can see where some of this is going.

As for baby #5...well, I love the old argument that birth control is effective...I'll never blame anyone for the pill not working! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

But I am getting my tubes tied. I refuse to bring more children into this world, if I cannot realistically support them.

We get by, but some of the money we are accustomed to does now go to OC.

We have to cut more corners and our one luxury is cable t.v., so we have acess to good kid's programming as well as movies. We don't go out much.

Our vacations consist of our families getting the gas money to cover us driving up to PA to visit relatives.

That's our life and I wouldn't trade being home with the babies for anything in the world, even if my van is on it's last legs and I don't wax my facial hair as much and rely on Sally Hansen (this one's for you Zebrababy! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> )

We have our daily bread and for that, I'm thankful....

Twiisty

#819864 03/05/03 11:47 PM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
ok i'm going to most likely stir this pot. i feel that in my case om should pay as much as court orders plus another couple of hundred. he drives a new vehicle every 2 -3 years while my truck is 31 years old, has close to 700,000 miles on it, gas gauge doesn't work, no heater or defroster, seats are torn, body beat, windshield cracked, armrest broke and you have to roll the window down to get out. yes this was my choice so my kids could have something more in life. i do live in a large house in a nice area of southern california. ( by the way it was near freezing her today around high 60's. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> ) this is the same truck that i take grace to day care in in the mornings.

also you need to figure in the time spent with the child instead of doing things that i would like. golf, boating, fishing, diner and movies alone with fh. also what about the long nights spent walking her and comforting her when she is up either sick or just won't go to sleep. what about my other kids that give up time with their friends so they can watch grace when fh and me go food shopping. they are not monetarily rewarded but they get a few extra privaledges here and there for their help.

our om has not paid one cent. he has not provided for health care. what about the fact that fh lost over a years wages as she could not go back to work in the same place as om. I know this was a choice but she stayed home with grace and i lost my health onsurance. it was to expensive. we are working very hard to catch up on arrears bills which were a result of fh's year off.

does om owe more because he chooses nc? yes!!! someone has to spend time with that child while om is out doing things he either enjoys or chooses to do.

every thing costs more with an infant in the house. you turn up the thermostat, use more hot water, wash more clothes, spend more at the grocery store. on and on. every nickel i spend on grace is a nickel i can't spend on my children.

hopefully ow are smart enough and not so close to the budget that they can put some of the cs away for college.

as of right now i expect fh to just simply follow whatever the courts tell her to do. if that means revisiting the system evry couple of years to rework the cs numbers then so be it. i will be closing on 70 when grace graduates h.s. and i don't think s.s. will be much. so she needs all she can get. starting now.

om may need to tighten his belt and instead of sending money home to mom and dad just send it across town to grace. like it has been said meny times here these things effect more then just 2 irresponsible adults.

this is not out of anger. honestly. this is just good financial stewardship.

#819865 03/06/03 05:23 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">***I dont want any children to suffer but as a mother I willd o what I need to do to make sure my kids are ok***
And that doesn't mean BS are out to get oc, they just want to look after their children. But OW never see it that way.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">your wrong I do see it that way, I wont let my kids do with out, why should you, you should do what you need to do to fight the system and make it fair to you. I would and wold expect any one out there who needed to to do so.
Just as pops said we all do what we need to do to make sure our kids have what they need.

I dont think all ow are out to see that mm and his wife should not support the children in the home.

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> So, that's a small tip of the iceburg that is leading to our bankruptcy. My thoughts is that if my Husband's ex-ow needs money for daycare or needed to go on welfare because she couldn't afford the child, then adoption would or should have been an option.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I think not all mothers are able to choose the option of adoption. It is a wonderfull thing, but I know I was not able to. I would have lost my husband, everything but I would not have been able to give away my child. and if I had been a single mother and if I needed the extra support along with my payceck, I would have had om pay every cent I could have gotten out of him ? Why because my child comes first, above and beyond play money he wants or needs. and if I am struggling to put a coat or food in my baby, then why shouldnt I use my resources. OM.

we dont pay for sitters, but we give extra privaledges and spending money ever so often to our teens who help watch her.Just like pops and fh. But most of the time she is with me. I put school on hold and work and a few other things so I could be with her, I know not every one can afford the luxury of staying home with thier babies, so I AM gratefull we can. But I dont mind, because I get to see every little thing she does and says, wouldnt miss it for the world.

By the way twisty if you had to pay a sitter for your kids, You couldnt afford to work.
It would take your whole paycheck and then some.

mathew
your husbands responsibiblity does not just cover day care. it covers many things like food , clothing, shoes, medicines, It affords the ow to buy things not neded as well, like toys or activities for the child, because she isnt supporting child alone, she is able to spend a little on those things children want, and I dont know about the rest of you but I think diapers are expensive. SHE provides a home for the child, and as pops says when you add a baby to the mix, you add more water, more clothes, more electricity, more of every thing and those cost have to be paid. ow is paying for them. when the baby is sick, who do you think misses work!? OW.

#819866 03/06/03 07:24 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
"when the baby is sick, who do you think misses work?" POPS!!! since i set my own hours it is me that leaves later in the morning to get grace up. it is me that comes home early in the afternoon when something needs to be done at home. fhg punches a clock so her scheduke is set and although i earn way more then her it is me that takes off work for our family.

this is just another reason i think om needs to pay as much as the courts determine and then some.

#819867 03/06/03 07:54 AM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 166
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 166
"Agreed, but what about when the child starts school and full time day care is no longer an issue ?"

Well J, to be honest, I think the money should be used for other things. Granted, they won't have the weekly expense of day care, but what about dance lessons? Or karate? Or extra curricular activities at school? Or college?

In our situation I'd like to think my H would still agree to an adequate amount to cover SOME of these things. I believe children should be well-rounded and exposed to different things and that costs money. I most certainly will find a way to pinch pennies if necessary to expose my son to things.

Now, at that age, should the child receive as much as when they were in daycare? Hmmmm...again, I don't know. In our situation, the public school system is overburdened with too many children and too many unqualified, or underqualified teachers. So what if private schooling becomes and option? I know when the decision is on the plate for my son, I most certainly want private schooling to be an option.

I will say this....if we're struggling financially and private school is not an option for our children because of lack of funds, then it should NOT be an option for OC, unless her mom can affort it. This wouldn't absolve my H from paying support at all, but it would certainly make it easy to put a cap on things.

Pops, it sounds like you're looking for punitive support because of your willingness to step up to the plate and be grace's dad. Is that the case? Do you really want him to pay extra for all the ways in which your're filling in as dad? To me it seems the sweetest repayment for you would be for her to acknowledge you as daddy and love as such. I'm not saying bio dad is not responsible for a reasonable amount of support, I most certainly think he is responsible. But support because he's chosen no contact??? imho you can't put a price tag on that. He will pay in the long run...believe it!!

#819868 03/06/03 08:24 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 593
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 593
I'm going to take a risk here by being really honest.

There are situations, such as mine, where the xow (me) earns as much as the MM and being married, my husband also works. His wife stays home, even though their kids are in school full time now. We are better off financially than they are. Should that matter? I dont' think it should. Will his children with his wife have less if I take his support? They sure will. Will they be able to afford a family vacation this year? Nope. We can take the money that he pays and put it in the bank for our son. Or, I could buy more for myself because I have more income. I'm not saying that I would but I am saying that if you now have more monthly income, it is possible to buy more of the extras. That fact doesn't negate his financial obligation, does it?
I also feel that if a parent has nc, the parent raising the child should be compensated in some way. While I agree that the love of your child is far more valuable than money, I am also not so sure that I would say that the absent parent shouldn't be penalized financially. I don't have alot of sympathy for the parent who doesn't parent their children,planned or unplanned. I feel for the spouses and children who are affected but the focus imo, should remain on the bio-parents otherwise the system falls to hell.

I edited this for my typo's.

CM

<small>[ March 06, 2003, 08:27 AM: Message edited by: CMiranda ]</small>

#819869 03/06/03 08:34 AM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
J
Jtigger Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
***I feel for the spouses and children who are affected but the focus imo, should remain on the bio-parents otherwise the system falls to hell.***

Are you saying that only the oc should be considered and not the children of the marriage ?

#819870 03/06/03 08:35 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
sorry pops, I should have said childs mother or her family.

If you pay a seperate amount for day care than cs and it is not needed it should not be taken, how ever if it is included in support amount, then it shold be should be used by the parents of the child to do for that child, If you are not ever seeing that child and you are not participating in that childs life, then yes you should pay all of that, as punishment!? NO You should pay because the responsibility of caring for that child 24 hours a day is placed on the mother and her family. although most of us dont mind and consider it a blessing.

I expect when om has my daughter he will do for her, feed her, take her places, all those things cost money, so he doesnt pay much he has the money to do for her when she is with him. should he, Yes he should.

I am not sure pops considers it punitive pay, I think he thinks it is om's responsibility and why should his children of the mariage suffer because om doesnt want to pay? Believe me if my other 4 children suffered because of oms little amount of support, I would do what I need to do and take him to court and take 20 percent of his salary.

I think pops is trying to look out for his family, not just grace, but all of his family. I pray om will be made to pay support and still be kept out of graces life so as to not disrupt her little world. It takes a toll believe me and it isnt always pleasant.
I am gratefll om and I decided it would benefit both of us to make a different agreement.

Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 43 guests, and 54 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Kingpin, MikaylaVaux, I.P., Alex82, Dezzeiemm
71,726 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics133,545
Posts2,322,787
Members71,727
Most Online3,185
Jan 27th, 2020
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2020, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.  |  Web Development by SunStar Media.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5