My son has full custody of his son.
At my insistance he went to the local cs office to file for cs. He did not want to because he honestly does not need the money but I know she and the system would make him pay through the nose.
When he got there the cs case worker asked him how much money he makes. When he told her she asked him WHY was he was filing for cs knowing how much of a burden it would put on the child's mother because she only makes minimum wage and will probably never be able to pay the obligated support!!!!!!!!!!!!!
He picked up the paperwork and walked out. I'm going back with him tomorrow and I am going to make sure we get the same worker. I guarantee there will be a few words spoken on my part before I leave that office.

You are right, that does suck. She should pay support, because she is a parent, even if it's not much $$...it's her responsibility.

I hope you and your son DO go back, and that he goes through with the process.

Horray for EQUALITY!!!! (smirck) <img border="0" title="" alt="[Roll Eyes]" src="images/icons/rolleyes.gif" />

I hope your son goes back and back and back...however long it takes to support HIS equal rights as a man, father and parent and to support EQUAL rights for women! Hey it's his DUTY to support EQUAL RIGHTS in AMERICA. He would be doing the women of AMERICA a great injustice if he did not support the rights our grandmothers and great grandmothers fought for in the sufferage and civil rights movements. VOTES and EQUAL RIGHTS for WOMEN!!!!

Funny how concerned the clerk was for the "poor woman" who only makes minimum wage and what a "burden" it would be on her. I wonder if she ever gives her unsolicited opinion to the women who scream and cry for CS from thier baby's "daddy"?

Remind your son (using every arguement from (almost)every OW)that CS is for the CHILD. His concern is only for his CHILD, he has to do what is best for his CHILD, his CHILD is entitled to support from BOTH parents, it's only the RIGHT thing to do, it's HER responsibility too.

Remind him that the state has guidelines so that the CS will be "fair", they will only take about 20% from her income and will figure in the % of time she "visits" with her child.

Hey, where are all the voices that cry out, "it took 2 to play so it should take 2 to pay" now huh?

Do keep us posted! I just can't wait to see how this plays out. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Razz]" src="images/icons/tongue.gif" />
*************
I have a friend who is in the legal family law business and she said it has been her experience that men's attitudes are usually they don't "need" CS when they have full custody but the women's attitudes are that "he's gonna pay!"

Good luck, fight the good fight!

If your son has custody , He should get support, I would go back , over and over till it is done.


It should be equal.

<small>[ January 15, 2004, 01:27 PM: Message edited by: mom of five ]</small>

I hope he pursues and gets CS! Minimum wage or no, she has a moral and legal obligation to assist with the support of her child. Low earnings does not in any way preclude her from having to provide. She assumed a long-term responsibility when she got pregnant and had the child. There's no "get out of jail free" card.

I agree if the father has custody the mother should pay support also. If I had to give my husband custody of the kids because for some reason I couldn't give them the same quality of life they got with him - I would expect to pay to help support the kids. The support is for the child, if he feels he doesn't need the money encourage him to put the equivilent into a college fund for the child. Who knows how much college will be in the future! Kudos to your son for stepping up to the plate for his child.

jt,,,,,, i agree that the system should work both ways whether male or female. had fh and i divorced and i won custody of our c's i would have chased her for cs also. but it would have been for revenge not a necessity. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" />

so now let me ask this: does your grandson's mother have or take visitation rights now? if not, what kind of person is she that could walk away from her child and do you want her around your grandson?

i think that if your son persues cs then she may persue visitation if for no other reason then to try and lower her amount of cs payments by having a greater time share spent with your grandson. and Lord knows that the courts will most likely be more leanient towards a mother. especially on seeking to reunite wit her child.

i see all the replies here jumping on the band wagon because of their detest for their h's having to pay cs for an unwanted child. thus thinking that it would somehow even the score against ow.

PLEASE don't jump down my throat about the equal resposibility stuff. i AGREE with that. what i am mearly asking is that have you looked at all the possible ending scenerios for seeking cs from this woman? just as no contact is right for some who have parented c thru A's (be it male or female) it may also be right for your grandson.

i would however like to know why the clerk made that comment to your son and if she asks the same thing to a woman seeking cs from a minimum wage earning male. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Confused]" src="images/icons/confused.gif" />

Well said pops I agree with what you are saying. There are many people that don't seek out CS from the other half(be it if they were single, married or and affair situation) because it can open a whole new can of worms that you are not prepared for. Maybe the mom to this child could seek out a lot more time with the child-then fight to get custody back so she doesn't have to pay. Who knows what back lash there could be from it. I would present your feelings to your son and then I would let him make his decision on what is best for him and his child. As a mother if I persuaded or pushed my child into doing something they really didn't want to do...and then they had some bad consequences to that decision I would feel REALLY guilty.

Pops,
She has visitation rights but she chooses not to exercise them. And to be perfectly honest, my son is very pleased that she does not. His wife is more than happy to step up and take over the role of "mama".

I agree with you pops about what this "could" do but come on.....how many women get "scared" into NOT suing for CS over the same thing? I rarely (if ever) hear about/see a woman NOT sue some man for CS because she wanted to just leave the whole "thing" alone. So why say it to a man?

Women usually say that the men are ALSO responsible so they should pay too! You have to admit that is the majority. But when it's a man....different tunes start to ring out.

I don't think the court is in the habit of revoking custody just because some parent feels they want to suddenly "reunite". Have you ever really seen that happen? That would take a very good lawyer and it doesn't sound like this one could afford one. Most likey she could push for "joint" custody and the child would still have primary residence w/ father and that would only be if Father agreed, this would be at best what she could get.

And I'm not against CS, I'm against the unfair treatment of fathers regarding CS. Actually I just think if the OP doesn't want to be involved and you don't want them involved then just suck it up and take full responsibility BUT that is not how the CS "system" is so we should then use the system for what it is intended for.

It also uses CS as an "incentive" to get OP's involved by "rewarding" them for their involvement by reducing their CS obligation by a %. SO OUR personal opinions or fears don't matter to the "system". So in this case I think it should be used as it was intended, that's what it is there for right?

And we all know that just because a parent is not involved now doesn't mean they will stay away forever.

jt you said............

"he honestly does not need the money but I know she and the system would make him pay through the nose." and "my son is very pleased that she does not. His wife is more than happy to step up and take over the role of "mama"."

again i ask you, what is the point of chasing her?
punishment or just to prove that the system should work equally.

i think that we all agree on the equality issue. and although many wives (whether betrayed or second marriages) who have had their husbands reamed from the cs system would undoubtidly get some pleasure out of seeing or hearing that a woman was raped of her income by a cs judge, proving after all that the system was equal. it wouldn't mean a thing in the long run.

so what does it do for this young boy except possibly bring someone into his life that doesn't care to be there? for the wrong reason.

kt,,,,,, what i was trying to point out was that many fathers who have no interest in seeing their children take visitation time as a means of simply lowering their cs payment. (an example is grace's bio dad. he wants more time because that equals less money.) what a shame for a child to be forced into contact with a parent whose heart isn't in it.

she doesn't need to be able to afford an attorney. have you ever heard of the distict attorney. all she would have to do is go into the office and say that she can't afford an attorney and they would represent her. she wouldn't have to win primary physical custody to be successful.
all she would need to do is win JOINT physical custody with a written stipulation (very common) that the child reside 50% of the time with her and the whole situation would be a nightmare for jt's son.

sooooo, i refer you back to the top of my post and jt's own verbage and ask what persueing her for cs will do for THIS child?

I absolutely agree - a parent needs to be financially responsible for their child, no matter how much money they make.

If Jtigger's son was incapable of earning income or looking after the child, the mother would have FULL financial and custodial responsibilities which is a whole lot more than contributing towards those things.

jmho.

JT,

I say your son should go for child support.

Pops I admire you a great deal and understand a lot of where you are coming from but I have to disagree with you. JT's son should fight for his rights because he is also fighting for all the other men out there who are raising children without the benefit of child support. The USA legal system works off the concept of precedent. If several cases allow men to fight for legal CS than other men will also be able to have the same rights. It is not a matter of just he can afford to raise the children alone but she decided to leave the children in his care and she should be made responsible for bearing these children.

Second can I point something out the District Attorney's offices work on criminal cases. They have nothing what so ever to do with civil cases. They are the prosecuting arm of our legal system. Hence whenever the state brings a charge against someone they are the body representing the state in the legal matter. They do not give free advice in civil cases.

Just a comment about the notion of visitation lowering CS...

Of course I don't know what states most of you are in, but in most states, including mine, visitation only lowers the CS amount if the non-custodial parent has the child overnight and equal number of nights per year as the custodial parent. Just "visiting" a little more has no effect on support amounts...it is not figured on a sliding scale according to parental involvement unless custody is a 50/50 split....

Anyway, I keep hearing that idea thrown about, and in most cases it simply isn't a factor.

moi,,,,,,,, just quickly as i have to be off to work. the DA dos handle civil matters in southern calif. and i would imagine elsewhere also. fh used them to sue om for cs. here it is separated from visitation. same building. same DA. different court rom ad judge. cs upstairs and visitation downstairs.

i undersnd and agree that she Should be paying cs. what troubles me is that so many on this board dislike the fact that their h's are paying cs in amounts that are unfair for h's income. and here they go giving advice to someone who is very happy raising his son with his current wife and doesn't need the $$. now they want this woman to pay even though they think if an ow who goes against their h's wishes and has her baby should take her child and support it alone.

if we are simply standing on the ground that all those who parent children should be responsible then all future arguements here about h's paying cs are mute because we have all just agreed on meeting your parental responsibilities at all cost.

what i have always said and i am trying to do here is look at this case based on its own merits and not just lump it in with all others. all situations are different.

let me say that i DO AGREE with the fact that responsibilities should be met. but sometimes there are circumstances tha just don't warrant persueing them. what happens if this mother just becomes a real b$#@h and out of spite does all she can to make this family's life a living hell?

and for the record if fh and my life were different in a couple of ways i would not have had her seek cs.

Jtigger, mon ami

It seems like my husband and I have experienced every single controversial social malaise in one form or another. One of them being that Bipolar had sole custody of his two children from the time they were pre-school until they left our home at 18 for college and the military.

When Bipolar and I were married, his children were 6 and 8 and my son was 12. Throughout my son's life, I never received a nickle of CS. Throughout my step-children's life, we never received a nickle of CS. And, on top of that, NONE of our children had any contact whatever with either of the bio-parents. Bipolar and I raised all three kids together without any support whatever...and no contact.

As a result, the five of us blended our families into a pretty good family. I was Mom, and Dad was Dad. Some people knew we were blended and others did not. It didn't seem to matter much because as a family, we were busy, productive and happy. Financially, things were pretty tight, but no one went without. Everyone had adequate food, decent clothes, allowances, a summer trip somewhere-usually camping, lived in a great house in a great neighborhood and they all went to private schools and received great educations. Once when Bipolar was laid off, we received food stamps for three months, but other than that, we did quite well.

The reason why I am telling you all this is because the money isn't really that important. It's nice but not necessary. The real reason your son should apply for CS is because our system has become corrupted, imbalanced and biased and he must apply just for the principle of it all. Whether or not he actually received CS is relatively unimportant unless he needs the money to raise the child.

The Contact issue is another altogether. While all three of our kids felt rejection and abandonment from their bio parents, I am convinced it is because they all had a relationship with them for a few years before Bipolar and I married and they had bonded with their bio-parents, so the heartache is much more profound when contact ceases than where the child never knows their bio-parent from the beginning. Had my son never known his dad, I could have made up any soothing excuse why his Dad is not around...including death (my personal favorite) which would have spared him the feelings of rejection and abandonment.

Contact "might" have caused both bio-parents to make Contact and visitation demands but it wouldn't have lasted. The contact would not have continued because both people are vapid, shallow and selfish and raising and having kids cramped their style of self absorption. They would have probably made a couple half hearted attempts at contact simply because they were paying money and wanted something for the output. I believe the same holds true for your son and his X-wife. He might initially have some contact-visitation issues with her, but eventually she would give up and disappear. This is the part that gets sticky because it would involve your grandchild's participation and cause this child to be confused, hurt and disappointed again and I know no one wants to see a child endure more heartache. So, from this perspective, it is better to let it go.

Two schools of thought as always. It would be nice to know whether or not his X would stay out of their lives because it is inconvenient for her to sustain contact and still just pay the CS. How much is his peace of mind worth to him? How much is his child's peace of mind worth to him? Is it better to force CS and visitation when it could be setting up this child for such angst?

He could file for CS and then not enforce it just to have it on the books and let the arrears accumulate, too, thus keeping the X-wife away. By the time the arrears come to enforceable fruition, the child will be grown and will have had all his formative years uninterrupted by emotional trauma...with a nice cash booty waiting for him for perhaps, college...if it is even collectable.

There is so much to consider in this case because both reasons to pursue or not to pursue are equally valid. One is kind of a crusade or a statement for what is right and the other is a personal one of what is right.

Only he can assess whether or not pursuing CS is worthwhile. So many factors have to be taken into consideration i.e. the child's age, the child's well-being, how strong the child is, how secure the child is, how understanding the child is etc. If the child is older and wiser and more pragmatic and understands there is nothing wrong with him(?) but something horribly lacking in his/her Mom, then I vote for CS for the power of the statement he will be making to the system.

I'll be storming the Heavens for your son, his child and for you...this is a toughy.

Love

Cat =^^=

<small>[ January 16, 2004, 10:14 AM: Message edited by: catnip ]</small>

Double post

<small>[ January 16, 2004, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: catnip ]</small>

Yes, the system totally sucks!

Since OW 'gave up' primary custody she was told that she was responsible for cs. She has yet to offer one dime.

H decided it was time to file.. well, he has to fill out all sorts of papers, THEN he is to mail it in and THEN he will be put on the "LIST" for an appointment... and then that could take 30-45 days!

OW hasn't had a job in over a year. Yet she is sporting a new cell phone and bragged that it cost her $250 and she bought one for 8 yr old Will as well. (What does an 8 yr old need with a $250 cell phone?)

On another note : My boss has custody of his twins. He gets cs for them from his xW. The xW also has visitation rights, but with a massive stipulation. When she picks them up she must put down a $5000 retainer. YES, I said $5000!!!
She had attempted to kidnap them before. So to keep her "honest" the judge put that stipulation on her. AMAZING!!!

<small>[ January 16, 2004, 10:24 AM: Message edited by: Stacia_Lee ]</small>

Well, we just got back and what an experience it was.
We got the same worker, I made sure of it. She was very snotty and informed me I could not be part of the interview because of the confidential information that would be discussed. I told her that was fine but I wanted to make sure that my son was going to recieve the same treatment from the cs office that a women would. She acted as if she was very insulted that I would even dare to suggest that he would not. At that time I requested her supervisor join our little meeting.
Once the supervisor got there I asked the case worker how many women she had asked why were they applying for support if they did not need it. And when did it suddenly become the policy of the cs agency to worry about the hardship that paying cs would cause the non-custodial parent.
The supervisor looked <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="images/icons/shocked.gif" /> (just like that)
The case worker then said that she had not meant it like that but that she meant the likely hood of actually collecting support was very unlikely due to the mother's circumstances.
So then I asked her if the situation was reversed and MY SON was not paying cs he would be considered a "deadbeat"dad and they would throw his a$s in jail, or take his drivers license or hold back his tax refund or anyone of a number of goodies they do, what was the difference just because it was a man filing for support and not a poor little women ?
They both assured me that they would do everything in their power to make sure the support was paid. YEAH, RIGHT!!!!! He'll get support when pigs fly.
I need you know my son was giving as good as I was all the time.
He then had to pay them $100.00 to file the support papers !!!!!!!!!! I don't know of one single women that has ever paid a DIME to have support papers filed.
This is really some screwed up system we got. And the bad part is it will never change until we make it change.

OH YEAH !!
The best part of all this. You know what they are requiring her to pay ???!!!
$35.00 per week!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!