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.
Again, if the court cares about financial support of the children, why don't they require custodial parents to financially support their children?
Probably for the same reason courts don't require joint custody, so both parents are doing their fair share of taking care of the kids, working around their school schedules, household duties, and, well... parenting. You're getting off easy if all you have to do is send checks.
They often do.
Plus they do the actual hard work of dealing with them every day, carting them around, feeding them, taking care of them when they're sick, etc.
Non custodial parents 'often' financially support their kids, too. Does that mean that the court shouldn't require the financial support of children for non custodial parents? As to the other stuff, none of that is financial support, so it's totally irrelevant to the discussion.
Probably for the same reason courts don't require joint custody, so both parents are doing their fair share of taking care of the kids, working around their school schedules, household duties, and, well... parenting. You're getting off easy if all you have to do is send checks.
So you are saying that only 1 parent should be obligated to support their children, that the custodial parent has 0 obligation whatsoever to financially support their children? Not even one dollar, not even one penny?
You think that is fair or good for children?
And by the way, I think just about any good parent in the world would rather stay home, not work, and have their ex pay rather than 'send checks' and only see the child every other weekend.
So you are saying that only 1 parent should be obligated to support their children, that the custodial parent has 0 obligation whatsoever to financially support their children? Not even one dollar, not even one penny?
You think that is fair or good for children?
And by the way, I think just about any good parent in the world would rather stay home, not work, and have their ex pay rather than 'send checks' and only see the child every other weekend.
Again, unless you are willing and able to do your share of physically parenting a child, then you have no grounds for complaint when the custodial parent is doing both their share and yours. Don't like it? Petition for joint custody.
Again, unless you are willing and able to do your share of physically parenting a child, then you have no grounds for complaint when the custodial parent is doing both their share and yours. Don't like it? Petition for joint custody.
You know that's not what I asked.
I asked you, do you think it's fair that one parent is not obligated to financially support their child whatsoever? Not even one dollar, not even one penny...do you think that's fair to the children? Do you think that's good parenting, to not financially support your child?
As to what you wrote, I find it very offensive. You write a (false) assumption in the form of a general blanket statement, assuming that all custodial parents are not willing and able to do their share of physically parenting the child. That assumption, and that statement, is completely false. To attack a large group of people, which probably numbers in the hundreds of thousands, in a manner that is basically synonymous with "you are all bad parents" is pretty brazen and thoughtless.
Next, you offer a next to impossible 'solution' (to petition for joint custody) as a silver bullet to those that 'don't like it' (as if that that were a bad thing! I would sure hope that most parents wouldn't like being shut out of their kids lives!). Problem is, the 'solution' you offer is expensive, time consuming, and has a failure rate of over 90%. I find this part of your post to be condescending, unrealistic, and irresponsible.
You can be offended all you want. The fact is, the custodial parent is doing both parents' share of the work, in addition to paying for everything that child support doesn't cover.
You can be offended all you want. The fact is, the custodial parent is doing both parents' share of the work, in addition to paying for everything that child support doesn't cover.
Actually, we've already established that the custodial parent is not obligated by the court to financially support the child; not even one dollar, not even one penny. This will now be the third time I've asked you this question:
Do you think this is a good thing? Do you think the custodial parent should not be required to pay even one penny toward the financial support of their children? Do you think this is good for kids? Do you think it's good parenting to refuse to financially support your own children? Do you think the court should support those that refuse to financially support their own children?
But you are overlooking the fact that a custodial parent is financially obligated by default when they assume custody; rarely does child support cover all of the expenses that come with raising children. Short of maintaining a separate account and submitting itemized receipts of every dollar spent on the children, what would be a practical way to prove that?
But you are overlooking the fact that a custodial parent is financially obligated by default when they assume custody; rarely does child support cover all of the expenses that come with raising children. Short of maintaining a separate account and submitting itemized receipts of every dollar spent on the children, what would be a practical way to prove that?
No, a custodial parent is not obligated by default when they assume custody. If this were the case custodial parents with no job or income would have their drivers licenses suspended and then thrown in jail. You don't need itemization or a separate account to prove that a custodial parent with an income of zero isn't financially supporting their child. As to the bolded, if this is true isn't this all the more reason to require that custodial parents financially support their children?
I'll now ask you for the 4th time-
Do you think it's a good thing that custodial parents are not obligated to financially support their children- not even one dollar or one penny? Do you think this is good for children? Do you think it's good parenting to refuse to financially support your child- not even one dollar or one penny? Do you think it's good that the courts support some of those that refuse to financially support their children?
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.
