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 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 908
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 908
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by LynnG:
<strong> Child support is a given. HOWEVER, in my case (and these are not the real numbers, just an abstract example)

OW makes about $25,000 per year.

Husband makes about $100,000 a year.

I make about $100,000 a year.

We then combined companies and altered our income to:

Husband making $25,000 per year

I made 175,000 a year.

Based on the huge difference in income, why should the ow get more money in child support then she makes? What she got was adequate to shelter, clothe and care for him. IT is NOT illegal to Incorporate and to work hard. In our case the child never missed a cs payment. Not once. But we were certainly going to protect our financial futures and do everything we could legally to protect our childrens future.

Afterall, we buy insurance incase we get sick or hurt to protect our financial futures don't we? Same thing. Had we not hired laywers, it would have been easy for the courts to rubber stamp the "dad pays health insurance, cs and child care..." and then MM and his family are paying for more then their fare share. Our attorney brought up the 50/50 on the insurance. The courts agreed it was fair. Our attorney brought up the "no family members as babysitters, had to be a licensed daycare facility, open to audit" Courts agreed. She wanted us to pay her sister. Nope. Not going to happen. It may be eaiser on the courts to rubber stamp and move these through the system, but we fought it and we won many a battle. I feel that oc child support was more then adequate, especially when one considers ow income. This was afterall, an affair, not a marriage. The child is due child support, no doubt. But our standard of living, materially, was quite different from hers. We should not have to elevate her standard of living to equal ours. If she makes $2,500 a month why on earth should child support ever be anywhere near that amount? It would mean we would be paying 100% of his support.

The oc in our case had superior insurance coverage on our 50% then anyone else in her household. He had dental and was her only child to get braces. She doesn't even have dental on her other children (3 kids, 3 different fathers, and married to a man who is father to none). So from my point of view, considering her abilities, it would be unfair for us to pay 25% of his income to her. It should be 25% of the parent with the lowest wage, so that is what my husband made. Was it fair? Well, to me and my kids it certainly was. Was it cruel to oc? No. OW received her cs, as set forth by the state, all legal, on time each month. Child support is child support. It should not eleveate the standard of living for the whole family of the ow. It is to pay for 50% of the necessaties of raising a child. It is not necessary to go to Disneyworld, or to ski or go to dancing. Food, shelter, clothing, are necessary. So, based on where she lived, taxes, cost per SF of space in her neighborhood, etc. She actually received far more then it would have cost to raise him, in her lifestyle.

I think that NTMO gets irritated <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> that we did that and sees it as unfair to the oc. But, just as ow get laywers and go after every dime they can get....so too will the mm and his wife get laywers and protect every dime they can. It's the nature of the beast. Two sides. Nothing is fair to anyone in this situation. You protect yours. I will protect mine. Just as NTMO gets angry and sees it as unfair to the oc, I just don't see it that way. It would have been unfair to our family to pay one child more in one month then his mother made. Thereby taking away from my children.

Look, the whole thing is ugly, seedy, disgusting, embarrassing, frustrating, etc. So many ow want everyone to behave like adults, do what is best for the children, etc......I did behave like an adult. I hired an attorney to protect my interests, I looked out for the best interests of my children. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">First of Lynn you are right that I get irriated at your boasting of how you screwed over a child. DO you have any clue how illegal what you did was? We had a segment on our NEws not 6 months ago on this and it's a felon. When I caught xmm in trying to do the same thing and we went to court the judge looked at him and said you do know what you've done is a felon......You make a living and salary and your wife makes one too. You can not change the rules when you are being sued for cs. But you know what I'd be irrated with your ow if she did try and sock it to your husband as well.

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 908
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 908
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by CheerfulLittleOne:
<strong> LynnG,

I think NTMO is irritated because her child's father makes $15,000 a month and claimed he only made $5,000 a month.

I think NTMO is irritated because the courts ordered him to pay for medical insurance months ago in which he has yet to provide.

I think NTMO is irritated because while xMM is driving a $60,000 car and his W has a $300 purse hanging off her shoulder, her D has no crib to sleep in.

I think NTMO is irritated because her CS doesn't even cover daycare, much less diapers, formula, clothing, doctors appointments, etc. all because xMM shifted his funds, just as your H did.

Correct me if I'm wrong NTMO, but that is how I read things after following your story. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">CLO I do need to correct you the purse is a "cheap" louie baton going for a mere 1000.00. A 300.00 purse would not have bothered me so much.

Another correction is his income....it is higher than 15 grand a month.........Dang that sex talk. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

<small>[ February 05, 2005, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: needtomoveon ]</small>

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 908
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 908
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by happymom:
<strong> NTMO-

You misunderstood me. Completely my fault. Let me try again. I do not believe c.s. should be based on income.

I think that if the average rent in you area is $600.00 a month for 2 brs. $300.00 is your share and $300.00 pays for the child. Each parent responsible for $150.00. If you choose to live in a house with a $1500.00 a month mortgage, not the other parents responsibility. Each parent should be responsible for 1/2 food, shelter,clothing, and medical under the same guidelines. Anything else provided for the child is the parent's individual choice to do so.

As cs is worked out now it is dependent on the parent's income levels. This affords lifestyle, which is not an obligation of any parent. This current method also allows certain irreputable people to abuse the system. A good example was in my recent hosital stay a young mother was in the nursery after just having given birth to her fourth son. She was complaining that she would have to go through social services to get c.s. yet again, as her other 3 children all have different dads. This young woman is recieving roughly 25% of 4 different men's income. She is being paid the equivalent of a full-time job for doing nothing more then .....well, scr*wing around. If the average cs payment is between $500.00-$750.00 a month, I wastd my time and money in college. (I have 6 kids)


It just makes more sense to calculate child support based on what it actually takes to raise a child in your area then to base it on the parents income. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Happy I agree with you that some woman abuse the system. They abuse the state and I can go on. Where I work, I handle a lot of people on sec. 8 and other benifits and it's amazing. I was just talking to a assoicate that every 3 years his neice pops out a kid just to stay on the system. But you know what a lot of woman don't. I did not at all. Even when I was fighting xmm to do DNA and getting him to court and had no money from him at all to help and getting back to work I never once got assistance from any government agency. We had to do priorties on things and do without somethings to get the basic needs met and with an infant her needs have to come first. My kids lifestyle was way differnt before the baby came. I don't blame xmm for all the changes but I blame him for being a coward and trying to lie about everything to get out of paying...........so yes Lynn I get irrirated at you and feel that what you and your husband did was very wrong to that child. And yes my duaghter did without a crib for awhile till I got back on my feet......well actually some good friends sent me a new crib. Xmm told me flat out he would push me into the system and I'd be on sec 8 and getting eggs and milk etc. Well I've did it all on my own and took care of 3 kids with two jobs 2 weeks after I gave birth to her and a c-section. I was not going to let him allow me to go down without a fight. What he did was very wrong too, but I had the guts to prove him wrong and fight him on it.

Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 778
L
LynnG Offline OP
Member
OP Offline
Member
L
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 778
NTMO- I can understand being angry if he is not paying and has not provided insurance. That I have never balked at. Actully it pisses me off cause we were never late with our cs payment. Ever.

What we did is NOT illegal. It's not like he made $100,000 one year, and then we retroactively changed our books and lied about it. We, after initial child support was set, changed how we did business. I got more involved then I had been. I along with my sister Incorporated and handled some big accounts through that. What my husband did was slow down his production. Had some lean years. It was not like we were being paid cash and stashing it in a mattress! (like my grandmother did in the old days <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> ). Every dime earned in this home was properly taxed, and recorded. The fact that my career took off, and thus was able to support the family allowed him to cut back. That is all legal. My business, which is closely related to his, is mine alone. I was doing it when oc was born, and have done so since. I just became more successfull! And he became less so. Happens all the time! Look at Nick and Jessica!! (Sorry, younger daughter loves them <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> ) He was the star when they met, now look who is raking in the cash?

This was not done overnight. It's not like I was making $10,000 one year and $100,000 the next, and him going from $100,000 and then down to $25,000....keep in mind those are not the correct figures. This was a process.

The oc received child support that was more then enough to sustain him. Actually, it is more then I spend on my college aged daughter a month for her upkeep. There was just little incentive for my husband to work hard when he was going to lose 25% of it. There was plenty of incentive for me to work hard to assure my children had what they do. And, to ease your mind as to the legalities of it, the judge did question the balance of income and it was addressed, and understood. Husband was still making a decent enough salary to give a decent amount to oc. The figures I use here are not reality. Just numbers.

Back to your situation, I do understand your anger about him deeking out on the insurance and the cs. I don't see how that can happen. Once it is set, it is set. No way out. That is why I tell the BW here not to worry about it, cause there is no way around it. I know you hate to hear it like this, but it is a bill. Just like a mortagage, light bill, child support, gas bill, etc. You have to do it.

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 908
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 908
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by happymom:
<strong> NTMO-

You misunderstood me. Completely my fault. Let me try again. I do not believe c.s. should be based on income.

I think that if the average rent in you area is $600.00 a month for 2 brs. $300.00 is your share and $300.00 pays for the child. Each parent responsible for $150.00. If you choose to live in a house with a $1500.00 a month mortgage, not the other parents responsibility. Each parent should be responsible for 1/2 food, shelter,clothing, and medical under the same guidelines. Anything else provided for the child is the parent's individual choice to do so.

As cs is worked out now it is dependent on the parent's income levels. This affords lifestyle, which is not an obligation of any parent. This current method also allows certain irreputable people to abuse the system. A good example was in my recent hosital stay a young mother was in the nursery after just having given birth to her fourth son. She was complaining that she would have to go through social services to get c.s. yet again, as her other 3 children all have different dads. This young woman is recieving roughly 25% of 4 different men's income. She is being paid the equivalent of a full-time job for doing nothing more then .....well, scr*wing around. If the average cs payment is between $500.00-$750.00 a month, I wastd my time and money in college. (I have 6 kids)


It just makes more sense to calculate child support based on what it actually takes to raise a child in your area then to base it on the parents income. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I can see where your coming from, but if the courts did that they would be boggled with paperwork and receipts. For instance......if caculated that way then EVERYTHING should be caculated down the middle and you would get into the what the other parents lifestyle for clothes etc. would be as well a education and extra activities etc. Our system has it's flaws but it could be worse. We have people on both ends abusing the system which is very very sad.

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
I dont really post here often, but once in a while something moves me. I am not sure what state everyone lives in. But Where I live it wouldnt matter how much he was making now, but what he made the last three years. A judge decides what he is capable of making. It prevents men from quitting to get out of paying. And while I certainly understand protecting your own home, I dont understand pretending someone is a non-person. If people would learn to cooperate on both sides, alot of this mess wouldnt happen. The damage is done why not make the best of it.
And before every one starts screaming dont sleep with a married man, obviously it is too late for everyone to achieve that.
And lynn, while I see why and how you did what you did, I am glad you saved your marriage, However, I dont see the rest as very honest. But when we are backed into a corner it is normal for us to come out fighting, We are human after all. That goes for both sides.

Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 117
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 117
{Nikki's note: Here is one last articles I'd thought I'd share. I am an owner of a list for TX single moms and I have several news filters set up to capture any and every article in this country regarding any issues related to child support, visitation and and other related issues to help promote healthy discussions among my members. This is also why I am pretty current on what is happening in this arena.}

Men must support kids proved not to be theirs

By Aetna Smith

DEMOCRAT STAFF WRITER


You have a relationship. You have a child. You split up. The father pays child support. It's not a perfect system, but it's reality for countless men.

And here's another reality: Some of those men aren't the biological fathers of the kids they're supporting.

Quincy resident Tony Winbush is one of them. He made his child-support payments month after month, year after year - until he discovered through DNA testing that he wasn't actually the biological father of the child. The same thing happened to Bobby Rhames, also of Quincy.

Incensed, they wanted to stop those payments. But Florida law gave them little reason for hope. Generally, it requires that child support continue until the child's 18th birthday, regardless of who the biological father is.

Now, two state lawmakers from Tallahassee are researching a bill that would make it easier for people such as Winbush and Rhames to end their child support. Eleven states, including Georgia, have changed those laws since 1994.

But some people worry that what's best for the children is overlooked in this debate. Fatherhood is about more than biology, they say.

'It tore me apart'

Winbush, 32, said he'd been paying child support for years for a son he had with an ex-girlfriend. The Tallahassee maintenance worker had a good relationship with the boy, and they visited at least twice a week.

But one day in 2000, when the boy was 6, he made a strange comment to Winbush's mother.

"He asked my mom did he have two fathers," Winbush said. "She called me over there to listen to what he was saying, and he said: 'My mom said I have two dads.'"

It was time to get tested. Winbush and his son had the insides of their mouths swabbed for DNA tissue. In June 2001 he got the stunning news: a 99.9-percent nonmatch. He wasn't the biological father.

"It tore me apart," he said.

Rhames, 41, faced a similar situation with a child he'd had with a girlfriend. Rhames, a carpenter, paid child support without question after he split with the mother. But he also was confronted with the question of who the child's biological father was. He and the girl took DNA tests in 2000. No match.

"I love her," he said of the girl, but "she needs to know her real biological father."

Armed with this new DNA information, both men stopped paying child support. Both went to court to get out of a legal obligation to make future payments. But both had to resume the payments. Florida law says they should have contested paternity shortly after fatherhood was legally established, not years later.

The men say they want to get the laws changed so a paternity order can be thrown out and child support may cease at any time if "fathers" find a 0-percent match through DNA testing.

Winbush and Rhames are working with a paternity-law crusader, Carnell Smith, to get a "paternity fraud" bill passed in Florida. Smith says countless men are defrauded by women who trick them into fatherhood. The women, he says, either know the identity of the biological fathers or know there are multiple father candidates.

Smith argues that a financial relationship based on deception but enforced by courts and local child-support offices isn't fair. The men in such circumstances, he says, shouldn't be forced to make payments.

Winbush said the emotional strain of finding out the truth about his son was bad enough. But the financial strain that followed only made matters worse.

"I loved that child, and he was special to me," he said. "So I'm the man working, losing wages, owing back child support around $15,000, and the real father is out lying on a beach somewhere.

"I can't afford anything. ... I apply for a house, to buy a car ... then up comes the child support (claim)," he said. "I want to have something nice, but I can't have anything nice. If (he) was my child, I (wouldn't) mind."

Indeed, the Child Support Enforcement office within the state Department of Revenue uses many methods to collect child support: requiring employers to garnish wages, placing liens on homes and cars and reporting child-support debts to credit agencies, among others. The office also works with the courts and law enforcement to arrest parents over violations related to child support.

Smith and other challengers of paternity laws say the courts should consider the financial damage done to the man's biological children and to his current spouse.

Winbush, for example, pays $227 a month for his own children but $283 a month for the child who isn't his.

Lawmakers on board

He and Rhames sought Smith's help to lobby for paternity-fraud laws in Florida. Last year, the three men approached Rep. Curtis Richardson and Sen. Al Lawson, both Democrats from Tallahassee, about sponsoring bills during this year's legislative session.

Both lawmakers said they were struck by Smith's fairness argument. Richardson's and Lawson's staffs are researching versions of bills that mirror Georgia statutes passed in 2002. In Georgia, if a man discovers through genetic testing that he has a 0-percent DNA match, the court will relieve him of future payments. There is no time limit on such a discovery.

"We just want to give the guys relief when it's not their kid," Lawson said.

But child advocates such as Jack Levine of Tallahassee question whether the proposal is in the best interests of the child.

"If a man finds out he may not be the father, he should be careful in his decision-making to not damage the child," said Levine, president of Advocacy Resources, a consulting group that works with private and civic groups that serve families. "I think there has to be a degree of selflessness when it comes to that decision. It should never just be viewed as an economic issue."

Levine, who has a degree in child development, said if the father's feelings change toward the child, the emotional impact on the child could be "absolutely devastating."

Rhames' ex-girlfriend, Connie Miranda, says she understands that devastation. Her daughter was a "daddy's girl" - until the DNA test. Miranda said she named Rhames in error, not to intentionally defraud him, a situation that experts say is common.

Since shortly after the test, Rhames and Miranda say, he's had little contact with the girl. The child, now a teenager, has received court-mandated therapy but refused to speak during sessions, Miranda said.

"She was his baby. He was so protective of her," Miranda, 33, who was married last year and lives in Quincy, said recently. "From birth until 9 years old, he was her father. He's still her father. It's wrong. How can you raise this kid for nine years and then kick (her) to the curb like a stray dog?"

Rhames defends himself. He says after he told Miranda about the planned DNA test, he was investigated by a state agency on suspicion of drug abuse based on an accusation by Miranda. Since then, an attorney advised him to stay away from the mother and her daughter. Miranda responded that a relative of hers filed the complaint. He was cleared of the allegation.

Levine said he doesn't think there are "great thousands" of men finding out through DNA tests they are not the fathers of children. So he thinks these matters should continue to be handled in the courts or through mediation, not by wide-ranging laws.
Smith disagrees, citing that nationally 30 percent of about 300,000 men tested through DNA analyses in 2003 were not the biological fathers, according to the American Association of Blood Banks.

Paula Roberts of the Center for Law and Social Policy in Washington, D.C., said paternity challenges, children born out of wedlock and infidelity in marriages say "terrible things" about the state of parenting.

"We've divorced marriage, parenting and childbearing from each other," she said. "Instead of a cluster of events, we see them as separate events. That does not bode well for children."

<small>[ February 06, 2005, 10:54 AM: Message edited by: Stormyweather ]</small>

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 228
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 228
The bottom line is it is always the woman's choice to have unprotected or protected sex with a married man and to have or not have a child.

Anything else said is just excuses, lies, justifications, and twisting of the facts to excuses adultery.

I believe no child support needs to be given at all to children born outside a legal marriage but the government forces things. How many of these female adulterers would continue to become pregnant with the married men and bear children if no child support was given?

<small>[ February 06, 2005, 10:58 AM: Message edited by: lifeisstrange ]</small>

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
Celebration of a marriage that survived an affair and an OC.

POJA between a married couple worked to save Lynn's family.

Celebration is in order.

Pep

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 908
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 908
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by LynnG:
<strong> NTMO- I can understand being angry if he is not paying and has not provided insurance. That I have never balked at. Actully it pisses me off cause we were never late with our cs payment. Ever.

~~~~~~Lynn, thank you. The way you have explained it NOW is much better than in the past from what I heard from ..Question..you said your husband was making juice or something for his party today, have you been dipping into when you were posting last night???? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> Just joking, you seemed to me that you were more understanding and commpasionate then other times.

What we did is NOT illegal. It's not like he made $100,000 one year, and then we retroactively changed our books and lied about it. We, after initial child support was set, changed how we did business. I got more involved then I had been. I along with my sister Incorporated and handled some big accounts through that. What my husband did was slow down his production. Had some lean years. It was not like we were being paid cash and stashing it in a mattress! (like my grandmother did in the old days <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> ). Every dime earned in this home was properly taxed, and recorded. The fact that my career took off, and thus was able to support the family allowed him to cut back. That is all legal. My business, which is closely related to his, is mine alone. I was doing it when oc was born, and have done so since. I just became more successfull! And he became less so. Happens all the time! Look at Nick and Jessica!! (Sorry, younger daughter loves them <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" /> ) He was the star when they met, now look who is raking in the cash?
~~~~I can understand that more even though I think there was a motive behind it, I understand it more. In may case, They are IN the same business and are partners. Which totally understand the 50 50 split. I had no problem with that and it is fair......but when you purposly start hiding income and stupidly put all the income under the wife's name although the public number is still under mm's number (the business we're in) when every dime has always been under the mm names and number then as soon as he tells her the commissions go uner her name (but his number) that is cheating and stupidly trying to hide. Our first court date his attorney said okay they are partners and it's 50 50. DUH. I knew that and was fine with that, except the figures on the AFC were WRONG. He tried to show he is in debt majorerly a month and I knew better as I knew what he had been doing the last 5 years and there was NO way it could have been (another long story)We are also in the same business (different office's) and I'm a bookkeeper by trade.......I don't do books anymore though....wanted to make more money and get away from the computer 10 hours a day (nerve damge).

This was not done overnight. It's not like I was making $10,000 one year and $100,000 the next, and him going from $100,000 and then down to $25,000....keep in mind those are not the correct figures. This was a process.

~~~~I understand those are not the correct figures and you'd be crazy to post the correct figures as I would too. When we went to the court the second time he went from being 50 50 partners to she makes 70% he makes 30% <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" /> If you knew him and her both you understand my rolling of the eyes. Again the number was under his name but the checks written out to her. So you can say they are stupid in a way, although they are trying to give it a good try.

The oc received child support that was more then enough to sustain him. Actually, it is more then I spend on my college aged daughter a month for her upkeep. There was just little incentive for my husband to work hard when he was going to lose 25% of it. There was plenty of incentive for me to work hard to assure my children had what they do. And, to ease your mind as to the legalities of it, the judge did question the balance of income and it was addressed, and understood. Husband was still making a decent enough salary to give a decent amount to oc. The figures I use here are not reality. Just numbers.

~~~~~~I just remember way back when, when you said how much you paid in cs and it was like a small amount hardly to cover expenses (like maybe when it started a good amount but in today's world and expenses small) Maybe you were just using numbers and real ones?

Back to your situation, I do understand your anger about him deeking out on the insurance and the cs. I don't see how that can happen. Once it is set, it is set. No way out. That is why I tell the BW here not to worry about it, cause there is no way around it. I know you hate to hear it like this, but it is a bill. Just like a mortagage, light bill, child support, gas bill, etc. You have to do it. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">No I agree with you, it's just like another bill. That is how it should be looked at. My problem is with it, is yes it's set in stone, although I spent thousands of dollars proving he lied (which I've proved) and to take it to trial will cost me a lot more money. It's sad that it would go to that, even when proven. It's like the end result is the end result. As far as the insurance goes........thankfully she is covered under my stbxh policy with no problem from him and now there is no divorce in site (it's cheaper for both of us this way) but I had waited from the 15th of August to the 15th of Nov for him to provide this insurance and because he did not want to sign it (which he was ordered to do by the court provide a policy for her) they fought it and gave excuses after excuses. I could go on and on but I'm sure this is very long and you probally agree with most of what they have done and understand there end of it. I hope I'm wrong since you did say what you did in this post. I don't feel as strongly about you reading this post I will admit. I in no time through all of this was trying to screw xmm out of his income and take away from his kids. In fact I told him before this all happened that if he (after he insisted I take dna test through amino and did a no show twice) did the dna test with out a fight and search for him, and we sat down with our attorneys and worked out a fair settlement for both of us, and I would not have to incurre a huge attoreny bill fighting him for what the end results would be anyway........I would be more than fair and not ask for some things that he would normally be resposible for otherwise. He chose to do it this way. He knew I'd catch him in the lies. He knows me. He knows you don't screw around with any of kids. He's known that since I've had my twins let alone now. When it came closer that he was preparing himself to tell his wife was when he said he was going to lie about his income (no common sense here) and I was going on welfare if I kept "this kid".

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 908
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 908
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by lifeisstrange:
<strong> The bottom line is it is always the woman's choice to have unprotected or protected sex with a married man and to have or not have a child.

Anything else said is just excuses, lies, justifications, and twisting of the facts to excuses adultery.

I believe no child support needs to be given at all to children born outside a legal marriage but the government forces things. How many of these female adulterers would continue to become pregnant with the married men and bear children if no child support was given? </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">How very very sad your tunnel vision is at work. Every child has a right to support inside or outside of the marriage...........remember it took two to get pregnant.........the sprem fairy did not come into these woman and implant in the middle of the night <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 908
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 908
Stormy, I don't feel any man who is not the bio (or has not adopted) a child should support any child that is not his. That is so sad that to many men are being put in that position to support a child not there and the real bio is running around scott free and not forced to take responsiblity. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Frown]" src="images/icons/frown.gif" /> <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 908
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 908
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by mom of five:
<strong> I dont really post here often, but once in a while something moves me. I am not sure what state everyone lives in. But Where I live it wouldnt matter how much he was making now, but what he made the last three years. A judge decides what he is capable of making. It prevents men from quitting to get out of paying. And while I certainly understand protecting your own home, I dont understand pretending someone is a non-person. If people would learn to cooperate on both sides, alot of this mess wouldnt happen. The damage is done why not make the best of it.
And before every one starts screaming dont sleep with a married man, obviously it is too late for everyone to achieve that.
And lynn, while I see why and how you did what you did, I am glad you saved your marriage, However, I dont see the rest as very honest. But when we are backed into a corner it is normal for us to come out fighting, We are human after all. That goes for both sides. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">mom very well said.

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 228
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 228
what gets me is that child support is rarely used for things for the children. it often goes for things the mother wants. if moms were required to keep receipts it would be fairer to the chidlren.

Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 908
N
Member
Offline
Member
N
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 908
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by lifeisstrange:
<strong> what gets me is that child support is rarely used for things for the children. it often goes for things the mother wants. if moms were required to keep receipts it would be fairer to the chidlren. </strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">EXCUSE ME????????????? Do you have kids right? You do know what it cost to raise a child week by week right? My daycare alone is more than xmm's original cs set before we went back to court and that is just daycare, it did not even include formula, diapers, wipes, babyfood, clothing, toys, medicine, bath items, doctor visits, they go every frecking month for just about for the first year for shots alone, not including when they are sick. Then you have houseing, and all that goes with that. You have to keep a roof over your kids head. I pay all month day to day for my children. I get my cs on a certain day.....if I use a portion of that money to buy me a pair of nylons or get my hair trimmed, that does not mean I don't use that money towards my kids. I am paying day to day for there needs. I don't get money day to day for there needs from cs. If I buy my children an Ice Cream cone the day my cs comes in from xmm it does not mean I'm not using that money not for the child. If I pay my car payment when it comes in, again it does not mean I'm not useing that money on my child. Again I pay day to day for this child. Also if mothers were required to keep receipts for the day to day expenses for there children, it would cost the paying party way more than the cs they pay <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

<small>[ February 06, 2005, 01:11 PM: Message edited by: needtomoveon ]</small>

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 228
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 228
as women, it is our choice, our 100% choice ot have children. in every way it is our choice. so complaining about how much children cost does not make any sense. it is and was our choice.

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 228
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 228
your life sounds very difficult, N, but yet you chose it.

Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
M
Member
Offline
Member
M
Joined: Mar 2002
Posts: 1,163
Life,

That is an old fight and neither argument seems to hold much weight. Men know what it takes to get pregnant so they shouldnt whine about support.

I dont believe most women use support for themselves. I believe most(not all) mothers do with out so there children have more! But I do believe there are those who do not think of there kids, but I would bet the majority are not like that. I get support for my daughter, I let him choose the amount, and I specifically use it for her, not any of my other children. However if I needed to I would, because I provide 99 % of her support, and 99% of her day to day care. And I bet he wouldnt want to be responsible for all that money if I saved all thoughs receipts ! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> I think most men who are used to a woman handling most things would faint if they saw exactly what it takes to raise a child. They might would even keep it in their pants a little more!haha

Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 228
L
Member
Offline
Member
L
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 228
Heh, heh! so true. women need to keep thier panties on and men need to keep it zipped. seems so simple. wish more would choose to do it.

Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,536
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Oct 2003
Posts: 1,536
I do think that the cost of raising a child may not be as high as some speculate. I don't doubt any of you/us moms have real expenses.

But I have 3 & even the reasonable amount we pay out for CS now is WAY more than I spend collectively on our 3 @ home.

AND some child expenses are not really child expenses & would be paid out anyway. For example, if you have 1 child & live in a 2 bedroom unit, & then have another child, you can STILL live in a 2 bedroom unit. The housing cost did NOT go up. The difference in utilities is minimal if any. kwim? Diapers are a short term expense (well, to some, others it can take up to 3 years to get out of those---yahoo for early potty training! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) Even baby food---you can mash yoru own baby food jsut as easily.

Many of our 'childhood' expenses are really just childhood conveniences.

AND that is WHY CS % are not calculated PER child, ONE child is allowed (roughly)20-25% of man's net income BUT 2 kids is only %30 & 3 kids would be about %35-40.

But even then.......I agree w/ the poster who said that CS seems to be about equally the child's LIFESTYLE NOT supporting the child's actual needs.(or somethign like that--ruff paraphrase here) Which I find just stupid.

If you look @ the dissomaster that you get when they calculate CS they don't base it on the 'actual & factual' costs of raising a child, they take the mother & father's income & whichever one is higher, they subtract the other & then basically that is the amount that is paid so that the income in the child's HOUSEHOLD is equal so that the child has an EQUAL standard of living in each household.

BUT the reason I find it unfair IS: if the female is living in an area where the cost of living is lower but the man's neighborhood is higher then HE is really getting the raw end of the deal.

IT can look on paper like BOTH households are EQUAL because BOTH households will now have a net income of say, $1000 a month coming in.(after CS is deducted & paid out) (fake #) but if the womans rent is $500 but the man's is $700 then who is really the loser.

PLUS the fact that the recipient of CS recieves that $$$$ TAX FREE (& doesn't have to report it as income) while the obligor/payer MUST pay taxes on it but gets NO tax credit for it. (like claiming the dependent). SO if you also add in the amount of TAX the recepient is NOT paying on that $$$$$---then the woman again, comes out ON TOP financially.

Some people have different idea of 'needs'.
Not to discount any of you/us mothers.
MY kids do NOT need new shoes once a month.
OC ALWAYS had a NEW pair of shoes EVERY TIME we saw her. And it was NOT becuase she outgrew or out wore them.

My kids do not NEED new clothes every month.

WHen/if they do get something 'new' it is usally hand me downs, or it's from the thrift store or if it is actually NEW, it was a gift from relatives for christmas or b-days.

My kids are in need of nothing materially. They have nice clothes & really have too much. (my laundry basket proves that! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" /> ) SO there are always ways to lessen the 'financial burden' of having a child.

But CS should not be used to cater to a 'lifestyle' preference.

THere really should be some guidelines based on the actual cost of living for a child. It can even be state to state since I understand some states (like mine) are higher than others.

But then maybe we would have end up paying MORE??? who knows. Or maybe makin ga federal guideline to include ALL the children men are supporting NOT just the ones who fiel or the ones who only 'visit'.

If you read this far....sorry so long?

???????
kt

<small>[ February 06, 2005, 07:33 PM: Message edited by: ktbunch ]</small>

Page 4 of 6 1 2 3 4 5 6

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 1,079 guests, and 45 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