Marriage Builders
Posted By: Jtigger OK, Lets try Another - 03/05/03 09:41 PM
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.
Posted By: Matthew6:14,15 Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/05/03 09:52 PM
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.
Posted By: Matthew6:14,15 Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/05/03 09:58 PM
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.
Posted By: Jtigger Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/05/03 10:09 PM
***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>
Posted By: mom of five Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 12:35 AM
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.
Posted By: mom of five Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 12:44 AM
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>
Posted By: Jtigger Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 02:29 AM
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
Posted By: JoshMom Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 03:38 AM
</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.
Posted By: Jtigger Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 03:46 AM
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.
Posted By: CMiranda Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 03:51 AM
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
Posted By: JoshMom Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 03:57 AM
</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.
Posted By: twiisty Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 04:18 AM
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" />
Posted By: twiisty Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 04:26 AM
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
Posted By: pops Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 05:47 AM
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.
Posted By: mom of five Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 11:23 AM
</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.
Posted By: pops Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 01:24 PM
"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.
Posted By: Matthew6:14,15 Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 01:54 PM
"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!!
Posted By: CMiranda Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 02:24 PM
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>
Posted By: Jtigger Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 02:34 PM
***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 ?
Posted By: mom of five Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 02:35 PM
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.
Posted By: CMiranda Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 02:47 PM
</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
Posted By: twiisty Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 03:30 PM
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
Posted By: Jtigger Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 03:42 PM
***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>
Posted By: mom of five Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 04:07 PM
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.
Posted By: CMiranda Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 04:08 PM
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>
Posted By: mom of five Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 04:35 PM
</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.
Posted By: Jtigger Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 05:04 PM
***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" /> )
Posted By: mom of five Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 05:28 PM
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!?
Posted By: Jtigger Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/07/03 06:11 AM
***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>
Posted By: mom of five Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/07/03 06:28 AM
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.
Posted By: CMiranda Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/07/03 06:51 AM
***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.
Posted By: Jtigger Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 07:21 PM
***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>
Posted By: Jtigger Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 07:27 PM
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.
Posted By: CMiranda Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 07:42 PM
</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>
Posted By: mom of five Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 07:53 PM
You think <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />
Posted By: Jtigger Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 09:01 PM
***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.
Posted By: mom of five Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/06/03 10:21 PM
</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" />
Posted By: pops Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/07/03 06:08 AM
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.
Posted By: Matthew6:14,15 Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/07/03 01:46 PM
"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??
Posted By: pops Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/07/03 02:55 PM
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.
Posted By: twiisty Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/07/03 03:59 PM
I still think I should charge my Husband's ex-ow a "stud fee". I mean, after all, money is taken from my children too.

She can barely pay what she owes.

I'm not trying to be nasty but I still think the ex-ow owes me something for lost time etc. with my husband. I know all dynamics are different in all circumstances, including my own, but I still think some form of restitution should be made to me considering my husband is making restitution to me, while having to pay what he created.

Again, above all, I say my husband and his ex-ow are both 100% responsible. There's no 50/50 here....the courts went by a percentage and by Mr."T"'s base pay, Overtime and extra details...the overtime and extra details aren't always guaranteed. Now he spends less time at home and his own wife and children don't see him as much.

It sucks all around.

I'm vitally interested in all you all have to say. I'm just venting on my situation and in no ways attacking anyone else.

I'm sick, I'm crabby today and my house is a mess....I think I'm gonna go eat worms....sniff..sniff...chalk this one up for a bad day for me.

Twiisty
Posted By: JoshMom Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/07/03 04:18 PM
</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Originally posted by twiisty:
<strong>
Overtime and extra details...the overtime and extra details aren't always guaranteed. Now he spends less time at home and his own wife and children don't see him as much.

It sucks all around.

I'm vitally interested in all you all have to say. I'm just venting on my situation and in no ways attacking anyone else.
Twiisty</strong></font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">Twiisty - I hope you feel better soon. And please don't eat worms, it's kinda gross - don't you watch fear factor? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />
OK - xMM is a police officer. Who has ALWAYS done tons of details. When the initial child support order was issued, he lied on his financial statements and cut his income into over 1/2 of what he'd actually made. When we went back in 99, he did the same. His wage records were subpoenaed, and the judge based the order on his actual income. He wanted her to base it on his base pay. She told him..."xMM. You are a police officer. You do details. You choose to do those. If you choose never to do another one again, then come back and ask for a modification and I'll lower it, until then - they count."

This is just MY situation alone. He has always done a tone of details - because he chose to. Not because of any cs obligations - because he did them before any OC was ever born. For him, I think it should be included in his income.

And I agree that it sucks all around.
Posted By: twiisty Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/07/03 04:52 PM
Mr."T" has to do those details in order for me to stay at home. That was something we agreed to, long before ex-ow and OC came along. The courts did not take me, our marriage or our son into consideration and dismissed the fact that he paid 100% also for dinobon and curly-top (his step-daughters).

That's what I'm steamed about. We need it to survive and pay our bills. I'm mad at Mr."T" for messing things up.

Thanks for thinking of me...if I was on fear factor, at least I'd pay off my bills...I'm just afraid of heights though....

Hugs,
Twiisty
Posted By: CMiranda Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/07/03 05:12 PM
Twiisty,

Maybe I'm thick but I don't understand something you said. How is it that you feel the xow owes you something for lost time with your H? I am asking because I spent alot of time with my xom and his wife was always complaining about he was never home, etc. If she ever suggested I owed her something for that lost time, I'd have to say that he was not there of his own free will. How does that maker her (or me in my case) responsible for lost time in anyway?

CM
Posted By: ohbratti1 Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/08/03 06:03 AM
The only issue I would like to touch on this that the NCP should not pay more just for choosing NC. I disagree. Like Pops said, in California, CS is calculated based on both parties net disposable income. After those numbers are calculated, time share is factored in. If the NCP has any visitation (a percentage of time), then that percentage is deducted from the NCP&#8217;s &#8220;obligation&#8221;. For instance, both parties&#8217; income is calculated and applied to the formula for CS in California. The result is that NCP pays CP $500, but NCP has a 30% timeshare. 30% of the $500 will be deducted from his obligation and he will only have to pay$350. The premise for this is that for the days that NCP has the child for visitation, the NCP is providing those child&#8217;s needs (food, lodging, etc.). If the NCP is not exercising his visitation and assuming responsibility for the child 30% of the time, then he should not get the 30% credit on his CS obligation. It&#8217;s kind of like getting paid for hours you didn&#8217;t really work. The court&#8217;s intent in reducing how much you pay was so that you would have that money to provide for the child when he/she is with you. Anyway, that&#8217;s the theory.

In an ideal world&#8230;&#8230;..

CM,
Your time with MM could be considered an undue and detrimental influence to MM's marriage. It goes to alienation of affection. Your involvement with MM was a direct cause of time lost between the spouses, which in turn could be construed as a predominant factor in the marriage unraveling, causing emotional pain and suffering, which is generally recoverable under a civil suit(the pain and suffering part...dependant on the purpose of the suit).

Did I make ANY sense? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />
Posted By: Jtigger Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/08/03 06:12 AM
CM,
Another way to look at it is..
MM is 50% responsible for the cost of the child because he is 50% responsible for that child being concieved.
Then OW is 50% responsible for the pain and
suffering caused to BS by the affair because she was 50% of the affair and therefore should shoulder monetary responsibility to the BS for pain and suffering. In this state it is called criminal conversation and is a civil action.
Posted By: CMiranda Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/08/03 06:21 AM
I soppose I never considered all of the legal implications as anything more than rubbish. I was looking at it more from a human perspective rather than the legal side. I say that because in my case, xom had a history of workaholism, perfectionism which led to his wife and me always asking for more time with him. It was just how he was. Neither here or there now. Although, I wonder how is the time deprived calculated, that is to say what is the basis for formulating a calculation? Seems insane to me.

CM
Posted By: ohbratti1 Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/08/03 06:39 AM
CM,

The assessment of punitive damages can be so subjective. It depends on how well you plead your case. Sometimes you can end up getting more than what you asked for.
Posted By: Jtigger Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/08/03 06:40 AM
***that is to say what is the basis for formulating a calculation? Seems insane to me.***

Just like calculating an increase in cs because of nc is insane to some of us. Same theory, different opinions. How do you calculate what a parents time is worth ?
Posted By: CMiranda Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/07/03 07:00 PM
"Just like calculating an increase in cs because of nc is insane to some of us. Same theory, different opinions. How do you calculate what a parents time is worth" ?

I'm the first one to admit that I have no idea a fair way to calculate what a parents time is worth. I don't have an answer to that. I am not even sure that it can be converted to money and morally be a wash. I just know what it takes to raise a child. I am not thinking in financial terms. I'm talking about the blood and sweat that goes into child rearing. No cs award in the world compensates for that.

CM
Posted By: twiisty Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/07/03 08:59 PM
You're not thick Cm...it's just something that I feel ex-ow owes me. Not you or any other ex-ow. I'm talking about my situation. Although it was only three times that they had sex (confirmed by both parties and court) I would like compensation for the emotional turmoil that this whole thing put me through, ex-ow calling me two weeks post-partum, the costs of my zoloft 50/50 split with my husband who owes me much for many years ahead, but I can't slam him with a frying pan, much now, can I? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />

I feel like I lost a year of my son's life due to the emotional stress etc. that BOTH parties share 50/50 blame on. Mr."T" pays every day of his life living with me, in one way or another...

I'm just sick right now, pregnant and hormonal and trying to make sense out of my life and finances right now...all of which are unraveling right before my very eyes.

In some ways, I still want ex-ow to pay just as much as Mr."T" is paying. But I'll never know how she really feels. I thought of writing ex-ow a letter letting her know what she did to our family and the pain she's caused. Some wonderful OW's advised me that it would not be a great idea if she was intent on destroying my life, why give her the satisfaction of letting her know?

She moved on with her life. I'm trying to move on with mine. I'm not happy with the choices I've made and am determined to make it work as best as I can. Mr."T" and my marriage is as good as it can be despite the knowledge of the fling and OC.

Our marriage might crumble due to finances due to a host of reasons, Court costs, medical costs, the debt that we had before OC was found out, the Cs obligation, the payments of Atty.'s etc. and now more hospital bills loom....if it ain't one thing it's another and that's called life. I can accept that, but this isn't what I envisioned for myself 6 years ago when I said "I do" to Mr."T".

I don't begrude the child the money, heck, I know what it's like to not get any for my two from a previous marriage.

I still think she should pay something to me for something...if I could put a finger on it, I would. I guess I want justice. In some small way, I feel she gets away with it, does that make sense?

I'm musing here....yeah, I read that some are pained because Daddy is not involved in child's life and all, but most moved on, get their money for the child and have a good life. It's the BS's that are left to pick up the pieces.

Now granted, my Husband was not in a long term relationship with an OW, I guess that's what makes it so ironic and makes me mad. But isn't a fling better than a Long term relationship? Who knows?

In my case, my H's ex-ow married. she married into a new relationship, knowing that she's loved, secure and her husband never cheated on her. I'm robbed of that due to my husband and ex-ow. I just feel that even though she owes child support to the son she lost custody to, she still has OC and that's it unless she and her H decide to have children together. (which is none of my business anyway) but it's like, "I'm going on with my life. I helped created havoc in someone else's life. I get this great paycheck for having OC (even though it's for OC) and everything's hunky dory."

Me? My life is:
"Oh my God, how can my husband do this to me? How can this woman knowingly give her body to a man she KNOWS is married? How can she NOT know that there are other children involved? How am I going to get past this and make my marriage work? How am I going to really TOTALLY forgive her and my husband? How can she move on and not even have a guilty conscience to what she did to my children?"

I have to find a way. I'm musing people here, so please no flames. Read slowly so you don't jump to conclusions to what I'm trying to say.

Nothing makes sense. I guess it's weird pregnancy hormones coupled with some serious financila difficulties here.

Honestly? I do want ex-ow to have a happy, fruitful and productive marriage to her Hubby.I hope they are financially successful, so they won't need our money or put it away for OC's college. I hope her husband is everything that Mr."T" cannot be to OC. That is my sincere wish.

But the human catty part of me wants her to suffer for what she did to me. She did do something to me. My husband did something to me. I make him pay in marriage counseling when I scream his head off at times. I do that to ex-ow and I go to jail. I guess I want justice. That's just my feelings today. I need to stop being ruled by my emotions.

Twiisty
Posted By: butterfly_dup1 Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/07/03 11:11 PM
Twiisty

"But the human catty part of me wants her to suffer for what she did to me. She did do something to me. My husband did something to me....I guess I want justice. That's just my feelings today."

I feel the same way you do today.

I accepted a long time ago that I will never have 'justice', that was the hardest part of my forgiveness process..you know something inside of me wished for ex-ow to give me an apology, but she wasn't married to me and she never knew me, why should she?

maybe now that she is a mother, she feels like she's transformed into this good person and wants to do what's right..having good biology doesn't warrant her any merit!

Just venting,
Butterfly
Posted By: pops Re: OK, Lets try Another - 03/08/03 01:41 AM
alienation of affection lawsuits have almost been done away with in calif. i was looking into this in the beginning. the reason in my case is that say i sued om for aoa. then what is to stop his w from sueing fh for the same thing. it seemed kind of a wash. i did want to sue him for the hundreds of dollars of cell phone bills fh ran up talking to him though.
© Marriage BuildersĀ® Forums