Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you think a man or woman should be forced to pay child support to the custodial parent while no being allowed access to their children? I personally think if you have to pay child support you must be allowed to see you children, because any parent that cares enough to support their kid financially also wants to spend time with them in person. But I don't see why you should be forced to support a kid that you're not even allowed to see (either by the other parent or whoever).
It is your LEGAL obligation to pay child support. But no, just paying doesn't make you a "father." Just paying, but making NO effort to have a real, involved, normal parent-child relationship would make you a dead beat. I had one of those who STILL doesn't get it's the adults responsibilty to maintain a relationship with a CHILD, which is why he doesn't, nor will ever have an role in my or my children's life. I didn't even read the rest of what you wrote bc unless someone is putting a gun to your head, YOU the adult do whatever you have to see your child. All I ever read or hear are excuses, excuse from deadbeats..
It is your LEGAL obligation to pay child support. But no, just paying doesn't make you a "father." Just paying, but making NO effort to have a real, involved, normal parent-child relationship would make you a dead beat. I had one of those who STILL doesn't get it's the adults responsibilty to maintain a relationship with a CHILD, which is why he doesn't, nor will ever have an role in my or my children's life. I didn't even read the rest of what you wrote bc unless someone is putting a gun to your head, YOU the adult do whatever you have to see your child. All I ever read or hear are excuses, excuse from deadbeats..
Why is it that custodial parents that don't financially support their children are not called deadbeats as well?
Why don't custodial parents have a legal obligation to financially support their children if its so important?
Maybe they are called that. That wasn't the question though that was asked.
Why doesn't the court require custodial parents to financially support their kids if its so important?
Also, I have never heard of a custodial parent with no job being called a deadbeat. Just take a look at this thread....it's consistently defended as a good thing that custodial parents are not required by the court to financially support their children.
by law, the non custodial parent is forced to pay support.
There is no law that says that the non custodial MUST visit or have visitation.
Go figure.
Also the support is NOT for the child. It goes directly to the custodial to do with as they please.
Biggest rouse this support thing misleads is that somehow the funds get used for the offspring. so far the courts have been silent in saying its for the kids directly.
During court orders to pay, is when the visitation is to be agreed upon. Unless the non custodial is a threat to the children ....
The law presumes except in the case of a very young infant that both parents are equally fit to spend time with their children. If you don't have adequate visitation or shared custody my guess is that you haven't fought for it
Why is it that custodial parents that don't financially support their children are not called deadbeats as well?
Why don't custodial parents have a legal obligation to financially support their children if its so important?
They do. If the kids are in school and the custodial parent refuses to work, the judge can impute a salary that he/she would earn if employed and calculate child support on what it would be if the custodial parent was working, it happens all the time
Thousands of people, maybe even tens of thousands of people, effectively lose custody every day. Every other weekend parenting time= loss of custody.
As to fighting to see your kids, it's costly, time consuming, and often ineffective. Ask me how I know?
Courts presume that both parents are fit to spend time with the kids, if you were denied visitation then I think you might want to examine the reasons for that because unless there's something in your past that concerns the judge about you being alone with the kids, you can easily fight that in court. The only situation that makes it difficult is if the kids are in school, in those cases judges are likely to favor custody for the parent living near the school where the kids are enrolled, but if you live close enough to get them to and from school you should be able to get them 50% of the time.
As others have pointed out, in most cases, the connection between support and access is tenuous at best, if it is present at all. But, beyond that, I think your assumption that 'any parent that cares enough to support their child financially also wants to spend time with them in person' is not necessarily true. Not all parents want to spend time with their kids, married or divorced, supporting a child or children or not, regretfully. Not all parents are competent or able to spend time with their kids.
At least in California support and visitation are related, the amount of support that the non-custodial parent pays is directly related to their percentage of parenting time. A parent spending four days a month with their child pays far more support than one who has the kids 30% of 40% of the time
If your son is obligated to financially support his kids, why isn't your ex dil?
Did I say she didn't support them financially? She doesn't work, but has money that she uses for the kids. If they were still married and she was a SAHM would you think she needed to support them financially? She is currently a SAHM - just because they are divorced, that did not change. One of the children is autistic.
According to your own post, your ex makes approximately $4.80/hr.
$37/wk x 52= 1924 x 5 (1924=20% of 9620, which is approx $4.80/hr)
Are you claiming that your ex husband makes $4.80/hr and the court is ok with that?
If not, I think you should be the one to admit that they are wrong.
So the short, simple answer is that you can't admit you are wrong when presented with facts.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, excuse from deadbeats..
