The former wife vs. the new wife regarding financial obligations (how to, marriage)
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.
A little long, but indulge me if you will. I hear these complaints all too often when it comes to financial obligations. I'm not going to presume to know the day to day, but they are common gripes among those who see it as a bitter parting with their money instead of just living up to their obligations, IMO.
I read a story on another forum about the new wife and hubby facing financial challenges and falling behind. They sent a lump sum to the ex in the hopes that it will keep things quiet for a while, but the new wife was angry with how the ex spent the money on a vacation for her family. She fails to see that the ex and her new husband were covering his slack all that time he was behind. This money is actually a reimbursement.
Another issue was that the ex-wife did not work. It is really no one's business whether she works or not. That is between the ex-wife and her new husband.
The new wife is unhappy with the fact that they are struggling while the ex and her family were going on vacation with that back child support. Again, reimbursement, in addition to the overtone of misery loves company. If they're broke, the other family should be as well.
Finally, this money is paying for the ex, her child with the man paying support, her other child, her new husband and his child to go on this vacation. Does she expect the ex to exclude everyone but the one child she has in common with the man paying the child support? The new hubby supports his own child as well and the ex's other child is likely getting support from his/her own father. If not, the new hubby has taken over that role. Bottom line, the new wife's husband is not supporting that entire family or paying for them to go on vacation. Again, reimbursement.
While some men are just tacky about paying child support, it baffles me how catty some of these women are. The situation I described above is all too common in many areas regarding money. They had to know this going in, why make a stink about it?
Thoughts?
The issue is between her ex-husband her new husband and current husband. If his ex wife is doing her part to meet her obligations for her children it is his business. Maybe she is maybe she isn't we don't know. If she is needing extra money to get by then she isn't meeting those obligations. In this case she lent him the money (essentially) and he's paying her back so it is a non issue.
But the new wife certainly has an interest in what money the husband sends to his ex-wife, if its an obligation then well there's nothing that can be done about it. But if its not that she has a right to complain.
This is why I told my best friend it's not a good idea to be marry her boyfriend, among other things. Last thing I said to her (as she will not speak to me now) is "don't come b*tch to me when the 2 exes (yes, 2) continue their courtroom, visitation, money, and holiday games. Remember you signed up for it." I doubt I'll be getting a wedding invitation.
I think that the money paid for child support should be put into an escrow account that the child cannot touch until the age of 18, and that said account should pay interest.
I think that the money paid for child support should be put into an escrow account that the child cannot touch until the age of 18, and that said account should pay interest.
That kind of defeats the point of child support and becomes adult support, don't you think?
I'm not averse to funneling child support through a trust to make sure it's actually being used to support a child rather than support the custodial parent's lifestyle, especially if it's a considerable sum. But the idea of child support is to make sure the child's needs are met while they're still children, not after they become legal adults.
That kind of defeats the point of child support and becomes adult support, don't you think?
I think it gives the child--and it's always the child of the parent, no matter what age it reaches--somewhere to start, which is what support is intended to do anyhow.
It also prevents the custodial parent from spending that money on themselves, unless the child voluntarily gives the parent the money upon majority. In which case, the child has no one to blame but themselves.
At 18, they can apply the money to college tuition, vocational school, buy a car, put a down payment on a house...whatever they want.
I think it gives the child--and it's always the child of the parent, no matter what age it reaches--somewhere to start, which is what support is intended to do anyhow.
No, that's not what it's intended to do.
Quote:
It also prevents the custodial parent from spending that money on themselves,
Again, you can do that by way of a trust.
Quote:
At 18, they can apply the money to college tuition, vocational school, buy a car, put a down payment on a house...whatever they want.
The trust pays out the money regardless of what it gets spent on. That doesn't solve anything.
And the things I listed DO support the child.
No, cs is not to give an adult a start... it's to maintain the child while growing up. Otherwise, you have only one parent supporting that child, and not the other.
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.
