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 2 of 3 1 2 3
#819871 03/06/03 08:47 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 593
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 593
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Jtigger:
<strong>***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 ?</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I'm not saying that only the oc should be considered. Not at all. How to manage it so that is fair to everyone involved seems impossible because every situation is so different. Mine for example. It may seem unfair, depending on which side of the fence your on because ultimately his kids will suffer, there is no way around that. It doesn't mean that any child should be put first or considered more than the other. It just means that it can't be fair to everyone, it is the nature of these things.

His wife could say that they can't afford their annual family vacation while we are off to disney world. I'm sure she will say that is not fair. Yet, I could say, well, get a job then. I work, so does my husband. She may say that I earn as much as xom so why do I need any of his money? They eat one pot dinners and we eat grilled fish or whatever the critcisim of the week is. It could go on and on.

I just don't see any of these situations as being truly fair to anyone involved.

cm

#819872 03/06/03 09:30 AM
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 903
T
Member
Offline
Member
T
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 903
I forgot to add that the ex-ow in our case owes back child support to the child she lost custody to to his bio-dad.

She uses our CS to pay her obligations and it's not going to the the OC or parts of it is.

But it's like I told Mr."T"....what we do with "wild Bill's" CS, "Wild Bill" can't control, and it goes to my two children (now it goes to ALL of dinobon's medicine and Curly-top gets shorted) but Hopefully, when it gets evened out, we can use it to do more with the older girls.

Oh Mo5, when I mentioned adoption as an option for My H's ex-ow, it was with her first child in mind and our particular circumstances. I understand as a mother that it is hard and an option that most mothers cannot do or endure...but in our particular case, for ex-ow to bring another child into the world irresponsibly while having to pay CS for her first child etc. etc. and then having to go on welfare for our OC because she couldn't afford to have her, that speaks volumes to me about the person she is.

In my own case, as difficult as it might seem, when things were at our worse (toilet situation last Fall for those that remember) I talked about giving baby #5 up for adoption, because I couldn't see how we could have this child and do all the other stuff. Would it kill me? YES! But I was thinking long-term and short-term.

Thankfully, God worked out a way for our church to help us and the MB fund helped us and I know that in time, I will be moving on upwards. We are scraping the concrete financially. But I'm doing the best I can.

You are also right, MO5, that if I worked right now, I couldn't make enough to pay for childcare and being deaf/hearing impaired, I have a strike against me as it is. No one likes to admit that fact. But I manage and will continue to do so. When all the kids are in school full time, I will get help from the Rehab to finish my college and be teacher. Then I'll be off when my kids are off and I'll bring some sort of money in also.

With my hearing aid, I can hear and do things almost as well as a hearing person. I lip-read also.

Pops, I can understand your feelings in your particular situation and seeing that your situation is different than mine, I say, do what you have to. We all have variables in our different situations.

I guess there are no easy answers for this either, if I had the money, I'd fight the courts for fairness, but then, I'm stuck in the middle of a system that will grill my ex-husband (who doesn't want to pay a dime towards our children) and a system that wants to brand Mr."T" as a dead-beat dad, which he isn't as we've filed first and wanted to pay, but we chose no contact. Because of my biblical world-view, I see things different than the courts do anyway and therefore, I will entrust myself to God, who takes care of me.

By the way, giving glory to God, He gave me a new hearing aid. A nice man who owned his own hearing aid facility donated a new aid to me. I owe many people much thanks and can only ask God to bless this man. I know that when I get back on my feet, I will be able to bless others as I've been blessed.

Just wanted to clarify,
Hugs to all,
Twiisty

#819873 03/06/03 09:42 AM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
J
Jtigger Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
***How to manage it so that is fair to everyone involved seems impossible because every situation is so different. ***

I agree COMPLETELY. Thats why there needs to be changes in the way cs is calculated. The amount paid should be based on the NEEDS of the child, NOT a person's income. A blanket formula is completely inadequate.

Lets turn it around and say you have a special needs child. The expenses of that child are tremendous and cs does not even begin to cover part of it. The non-custodial parent could afford to pay more but is paying what the system calls for. Do you think thats fair? Even I don't think thats fair.

If a child's needs total 500.00 per month then each parent should pay 250.00 and there should be tax relief for both. There should financial accountablity for the custodial parent to prove that cs is spent on the child for which it was intended.

I am completely lost on the idea of punitive awards based on nc. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

<small>[ March 06, 2003, 09:46 AM: Message edited by: Jtigger ]</small>

#819874 03/06/03 10:07 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
The non-custodial parent could afford to pay more but is paying what the system calls for. Do you think thats fair? Even I don't think thats fair.

yes I think thats fair, if the person who could afford to pay more did so on his own, good for him, if not, and he meets the support the courts state he should, then so be it. his heart should guide him to do more. but he is at least doing what the courts say he should do.

#819875 03/06/03 10:08 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 593
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 593
I do recognize that cs can be calculated unfairly. I mean that both ways, some don't pay enough and some pay too much. How do we standarize the definition of "needs of the child"? When and how do we reassess the needs as circumstances change?

The needs as you may specify them for your children may not be the same needs as I define them for mine. What happens if an as needed basis were to be implemented? Would our assessment of needs be the same? The needs of a lower-middle class child v. the needs of an upper middle class child are defined by social position that far surpass food, clothing and shelter. A parent earning 6 figures who pays cs based on need only,to a struggling custodial parent, to cover the cost of basics but doesn't factor in that perhaps that child is entitled to some of the extras that his biolocial, noncustodial parent can provide is not necessarily fair in my eyes.

CM
edited again can't spell today.

<small>[ March 06, 2003, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: CMiranda ]</small>

#819876 03/06/03 10:35 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">by jtigger

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
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial"> </font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Lets turn it around and say you have a special needs child. The expenses of that child are tremendous and cs does not even begin to cover part of it. The non-custodial parent could afford to pay more but is paying what the system calls for. Do you think thats fair? Even I don't think thats fair.

</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">and if you dont think they should have the same standard of living, it shouldnt matter that oc has a better standard of living. If the parents of oc give that child a better standard of living.
I think it is to hard to come up with something that works. Because all parties are different, I would say that both parties in our situation have about the same standard of living, although we have more expenses and they have no children to care for, and he doesnt have any children except my daughter that he has to support, and my husband supports seven people.
I would say we spend on different things, where om would spend on himself, we spend on our kids, such as today my son went to see a play
, that cost about 100 for his whole trip, not bad and a great cultural experience, but when daughter is older shouldnt she have some of the same experiences ? I think we [meaning om and my self and husband and his wife, ] think she should, so when those times come, he will be asked to contribute if he can, because he should. after all he is getting a major break in support, he doesnt feel he is being screwed so he wont feel like he shouldnt help either.


twisty

I agree people who can not support a child even with support from the father should not have children, adoption is the way to go.
I had people tell me, five kids are you crazy just abort, it wasnt about money, they just couldnt understand how someone would want five children.
hey when you have three, five isnt so different. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

but the facts that all these situations are so different is the very reason om and I did not want a court to decide. anything, but we wanted her provided for if something happened to him and he agrees. so we worked it out to the benefit of all.
But it was not an easy road to get here, but I have to say I am really happy with it now. I wasnt before.

#819877 03/06/03 11:04 AM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
J
Jtigger Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
***it shouldnt matter that oc has a better standard of living. ***

It doesn't. As long as oc has that standard of living because BOTH parents contribute EQUALLY to it. It is not fair if oc has it because MM has to pay extra to bring oc up to it. ( does that make sense <img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> )

#819878 03/06/03 11:28 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
cs is not enough to raise ones standard of living that much, so more than likely the only way standard of living would be more is if the other parties of the household work and make more money.

so with out both parents supporting the oc , in most cases standard of living will not be raised.

there is no way cs is the only money spent on that child. I just find that hard to believe. although as om says to me, any one who has to pay child support thinks it is unfair, he felt that he would pay support that my husband could use it for his benefit and he didnt want to do that at first.. how ever if we wrote down every thing ,my husband pays more than 4 times as much as other man. for om's child. so is it fair no it isnt but is it worth a battle or a fight No I DONT THINK SO.

I remember in the beggining om's wife said he would have to get another job because she was not having his money go to me, well as I explained to om, if you get another job, you make more and then you lose more, dont be a fool. turns out at the time, I decided I wanted no part of him or his money so we didnt ask for any.

curious why dont parties try and mediate a better arrangement before it gets ugly in court, I am sure some have tried before. and if you did, do you thik you wre trying to make a fair arrangement for both parties!?

#819879 03/07/03 12:11 AM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
J
Jtigger Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
***cs is not enough to raise ones standard of living that much***

Not always true. Our cs payment is equal to almost half of ow's bring home pay. I'd say that raises her standard of living by half.

***do you thik you wre trying to make a fair arrangement for both parties***

We actually tried. Even the cs case worker was amazed at the amount ow wanted based on her financial disclosures. We ended up in court. Not great results, but A WHOLE lot better than what she wanted.
After the support was finally set she did come back and request more exclusivly for day care costs. Three years later we found out that she never paid a dime of day care and she had to pay us almost $10000.00 back. I have to admit that cashing that check gave me great satisfaction. ( I know thats ugly )

<small>[ March 06, 2003, 12:16 PM: Message edited by: Jtigger ]</small>

#819880 03/07/03 12:28 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
well unfortunately not every one is honest, and if someone had scammed me I would take satisfaction in cashing a check as well.
But I see so many people who are so firm about nc, I wonder if they try and work something out with the other party or if it ever crosses there mind.
Then the system worked for you, just took a little longer.
I guess what I want some to learn from here, is not every mother of an oc is out to get you and there are probably many who are willing to work with you and make a different arrangement with you, so it doesnt hurt you or them, but all parties have to be willing to give and take.
But if the childs parent recieves the negative respnse to everything they say or any concerns they may have, your gonna have a fight on your hands if that mom is worried about her child in any way.

I think most ow who are portrayed by the betrayed spouse here, are portrayed as a bad mom, and a money hungry person, and that just isnt the case in most situatons, some of us are not after money or your husband, or making your children suffer, some of us are just mothers who made a bad choice and have to make the best of what they have for a baby whom they love no matter the circumstances.
I am not speaking to those of you who this doesnt apply, this is just hypothetical and my opinion, it isnt meant to offend.
In fact if you compare all the ow who are regular posters on this forum, I dont think any were out to hurt om and his family, I believe most of them have opted for what was best for all parties. I havent heard a single one of them state they were out to get this man they were involved with or hurt his family.

#819881 03/07/03 12:51 AM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 593
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 593
***cs is not enough to raise ones standard of living that much***

"Not always true. Our cs payment is equal to almost half of ow's bring home pay. I'd say that raises her standard of living by half."

I think it is all goes back to our notion of what is fair and just. I read this as, OC's standard of living just went up. As it should.

#819882 03/06/03 01:21 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
J
Jtigger Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
***I read this as, OC's standard of living just went up. As it should. ***

But it should not go up at my H's expense. Both ow and H should be EQUALLY responsible for cost of child. He should not be responsible to pay more than ow simply because he makes more money. I guess I need to say at this point that ow gave up a job making the same money as H to take the job she has now. She knew she could do that because she had cs to fall back on. But if H gave up his job to take one making $3000.00 a month less the court would call that a voluntary decrease in income and still hold him to his earning POTENTIAL.

<small>[ March 06, 2003, 01:23 PM: Message edited by: Jtigger ]</small>

#819883 03/06/03 01:27 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
J
Jtigger Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
MO5,

***I think most ow who are portrayed by the betrayed spouse here, are portrayed as a bad mom, and a money hungry person***

It is all a matter of perception and what side of the fence you are on. If you read on other boards all BS are portrayed as evil, cold hearted money hungy bytches who are out to make the oc suffer. I have yet to find a BS that actually felt that way.

#819884 03/06/03 01:42 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 593
C
Member
Offline
Member
C
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 593
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by Jtigger:
<strong>***I read this as, OC's standard of living just went up. As it should. ***

But it should not go up at my H's expense. Both ow and H should be EQUALLY responsible for cost of child. He should not be responsible to pay more than ow simply because he makes more money. I guess I need to say at this point that ow gave up a job making the same money as H to take the job she has now. She knew she could do that because she had cs to fall back on. But if H gave up his job to take one making $3000.00 a month less the court would call that a voluntary decrease in income and still hold him to his earning POTENTIAL.</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">This is where we disagree. I think it your husband's income should directly affect the standard of living for all of his children. At his expense. (The same way that my income affects my children's standard of living). Not just the children he had with you. I believe that cs should be calculated on the income of the absent parent.

I don't know his xow, but I find it very difficult to believe that anyone would give a job that paid well for a job that paid less all so they could collect cs. I would question if perhaps her motive for changing jobs had to do with the fact that she is now a single parent? Is she working less hours or a more flexible schedule? I changed jobs last year myself. Granted I make more money and work less hours but the motivation to take this job is that I work 35 hours a week and my salary is significantly more than when I worked with OM (a workaholic no less) for 50+ hours a week.

I think sometimes ow are protraited as stupid, plotting, revengeful women when that is not the case at all. Generally speaking, of course. We want only the best for our children. NO different than any parent.

CM

<small>[ March 06, 2003, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: CMiranda ]</small>

#819885 03/06/03 01:53 PM
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
You think <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

#819886 03/06/03 03:01 PM
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
J
Jtigger Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
J
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 338
***This is where we disagree***
<img border="0" title="" alt="[Smile]" src="images/icons/smile.gif" /> And thats OK. We'll just agree to disagree until my overpowering means of persuasion wow you over to my way of thinking. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

***I would question if perhaps her motive for changing jobs had to do with the fact that she is now a single parent?***

She had been a single parent for 4 years before she quit her job.
She stood up in court and told the judge that she quit her job because she didn't like it, and didn't want to spend the rest of her life doing it. Honestly, that was the only reason. She had better hours where she was before.
I don't think she quit to get more cs. I just think that it is unfair that she could quit and then have cs increased because her income decreased just because she didn't like her job. H doesn't like it either but he can't even think about changing jobs.

***I think sometimes ow are protraited as stupid, plotting, revengeful women when that is not the case at all. ***

I don't think that at all. But I do know that not all are honest and hardworking either. I've learned that first hand.

#819887 03/06/03 04:21 PM
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"> And thats OK. We'll just agree to disagree until my overpowering means of persuasion wow you over to my way of thinking.
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">HAHAHAHAHAHA <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

#819888 03/07/03 12:08 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
you ladies post so fast it is hard for me to keep up.

my personal feeling is that, no, the mother of the oc need not document anything as to where the money is going. every cent paid for cs is replaceing money that could have been spent else where had it not been for oc choice or not. if cs raises the standard of living of oc then so be it. the standard of living is such a personal thing anyway. i have been satisfied to drive my old truck for 16 years while others such as om would not be caught dead in such a vehicle. he needs something newer. i personaly find it hard to justify spending 100 grand on an auto but yet i have close friends that drive bentleys and ferraris. not trying to ruffle any feathers here but it is the same as ow raiseing the amount of love she gives her child when a dad chooses nc.

as far as when day care becomes less of a need when the oc reaches school age. the cost of raising a child doesn't go down as children age it goes up. clothes, shoes, school supplies, bikes, skateboards, etc are very expensive. has anyone seen the cost of taking your family to the movies lately? or the cost to play little league or soccer? and at least here the schools are so strapped for funds that it is the parents that must donate time, money and goods to help support our childrens education. even in the public schools. wait until your child reaches h.s. and wants to participate in a sport or God forbid if your daughter makes a cheer squad. just take out a second on the house.

mo5 you are right. i am not looking for any punitive damages or punishment for/from om. like i said earlier this is just business. it's the business of providing the best and most for not only grace but my entire family plain and simple. also i feel bio dad should always be responsible for their actions. a couple of examples; 1 - i could have ran and hid out when my exgf ended up preg. 29 years ago. i didn't. i met my responsibility of paying cs and also took my visitation rights. and i am thankful that i did. (and i also could have choosen to pay and have nc). 2 - if my 20 year old son goes out looking for a good time as young men often do and the gf ends up preg. he should be responsible and support that child. no matter who lied to who about birth control. the bio dad is certianly within his rights to choose nc if he wishes. that's his choice. but either way he should be financialy responsible. if contact is choosen then all adults should place their personal garbage aside and work towards the best interest of child. like mo5 and others are doing.

in the traditional marriage the man went out and earned a living while the wife stayed home and nurtured the kids. generaly fathers always earned more and contributed their earnings to the family. he was financially responsible for his children. this is most likely the reason the courts are set up the way they are. i know this is the year 2003 and many women are working more and earning more then their husbands. that was not the point i was after.

in ca. cs is determined by comparing the 2 parties gross net income along with the percentage of time the child will be in each parents custody. here's an interesting side note. shortly after d-day i consulted 2 seperate attorney's about divorce while trying to get a grip on which road to travel. and although fh earns about 25% or less of my income she would have had to pay me a few hundred dollars a month cs if she would have agreed to allow me primary residential custody. i thought that was kind of weird but cool in the fact that it told me the courts here are looking out for all the children.

#819889 03/07/03 07:46 AM
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 166
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 166
"I also feel that if a parent has nc, the parent raising the child should be compensated in some way."

C,
In my situation my H attempted contact but there was so much drama and hostility that we recently chose to pay support and be done with trying to 'force' ourselves into the life of a child who's mom prefer we not be there. She made EVERYTHING more difficult than it ever had to be.
But that's another topic. So in our case, should my H pay more? I think that's ridiculous. It's like paying extortion for being a part of a child's life.
Think about it, what if contact with the oc is TRULY NO IN THEIR BEST INTEREST? Like, say, the non custodial parent tried to bond w/ the child but just can't? So the choice becomes....spend time with a child you did'nt and still don't want, or pay more money? Nah....I say pay what's required by the laws so the child can be adequately provided for, and leave the rest alone.

Pops, I wasn't saying that you just wanted punitive support. I stated that I agree, regular chidl support is in order and bio dad should pay what's required. But extra because he's not involved. Again, I disagree. As far as decreasing support when no longer in day care, Pops, I agree, kids are expensive at every age. You just exchange the day care bill with the name brand, karate, soccer, bills.

"I believe that cs should be calculated on the income of the absent parent."
I think it should be calculated on both incomes. I think it should be adjusted so that the standard of living provided by the custodial parent does not decrease due to the new obligation of a baby, BUT, I don't think it should be increased so as to allow the custodial parent the opportunity to 'move on up' based on the non-custodial's income.
Bottom line, if you want your child to 'enjoy' all the fruits of their non-custodial parent's labor, then perhaps giving the non-custodial parent full custody should be the approach...not 'this is a stick up (child used as gun) give me all your money so we (not the baby, we) can live a good life.

Gosh darn, no opportunity to change any minds with that one huh??

#819890 03/07/03 08:55 AM
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 1,094
matt,,,, here cs is calculated on both incomes. i don't feel that the bs's income should have anything to do with these matters.

as far as the "and then some" maybe that is the punishment part in me. but then again i don't feel that any amount of money could make me ask someone to cause the amount of pain this has caused so many here.

i am thinking that the courts see that time equates to the absent spouse's earning ability.

another fact here in calif is that in divorce cases where say a h was a doctor. he quit his medical practice and was hired on somewhere for minimum wage. the courts still assigned cs and spousal support based on his medical profession's income. the bases was placed on his earning capacity instead of his actual earnings at the time of the hearing.

Page 2 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 48 guests, and 58 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