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.
I didn't say all dads. I said deadbeat dads. The ones that work hard at hiding their income to avoid paying. That quit their job before the government catches up to avoid paying.
Yes, the courts should use logic, but our government is severely lacking in logic. The result is deadbeat dads are allowed to beat the system, and we the taxpayers end up on the hook for raising their children.
That's right. YOUR kids. But you get your taxes back because of YOUR kids. And I don't, because I don't have kids.
Your kids cost both of us, in reality.
You are welcome to obtain a few kids yourself for the tax deduction. I can't speak for other parents, but O can tell you with or without kids, I would have no tax liability. I pay out more than my yearly salary in mortgage interest and property taxes.
Don't you have a huge car payment on a brand new, expensive car? Don't you have expensive gadgets that you've chosen to hold on to instead of selling to pay for your kids? If priorities put folks in jail, you might be in the cell next to him.
So my kids should have nothing so that the dead beat can pay nothing?
No. I already cover most of the expense of supporting them and the day to day parenting. He can pay his court ordered support and go hide under a rock the other 27 days out of the month.
But the same scenario applies to a couple who are not married as well. The issue here is child support not alimony. Women can collect whether there is a divorce or not. the reason we got away from fault divorces is because people did not want to be held accountable for their actions and get stuck holding the cruddy end of the stick because they were harpys to their husbands or sorry excuesses for human beings of a man.
BUT the issue is women have the default sympathy of the courts regardless of what they did in the relationship, they may just be hot and wanted a new guy because they can. Why should courts be making the landings soft for this kind of behavior?
It is destroying our society because we are now mostly a fragmented suspicious country because all the mechanisms for social accountability are being eroded away. You can just do your own thing no matter how it effects someone else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2mares
Divorce is not about divvying out punishment.
There is a reason we went away from fault divorce. People do know the burdens of divorce and what their responsibilities will be but that doesn't seem to make them take marriage anymore seriously or change/control their behavior. Marriage needs to be more difficult to get into not out of.
But the same scenario applies to a couple who are not married as well. The issue here is child support not alimony. Women can collect whether there is a divorce or not. the reason we got away from fault divorces is because people did not want to be held accountable for their actions and get stuck holding the cruddy end of the stick because they were harpys to their husbands or sorry excuesses for human beings of a man..
The reason for no fault divorce is based on the inability of the court to define what each party should have to tolerate after one party decides to leave the marriage. The judges have zero stake in the marriage and therefore cannot make the decision to force people to stay together. Also, no fault eliminates making false statements or revealing intimate and embarrassing truths about a marriage in order to get a divorce that requires fault. Most divorces fall into the gray areas of life - there are no clear right or wrong parties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer
BUT the issue is women have the default sympathy of the courts regardless of what they did in the relationship, they may just be hot and wanted a new guy because they can. Why should courts be making the landings soft for this kind of behavior?
It is destroying our society because we are now mostly a fragmented suspicious country because all the mechanisms for social accountability are being eroded away. You can just do your own thing no matter how it effects someone else.
It is not destroying our society. The idea that the government should force a person to stay married when that person wants out of a marriage is unconscionable.
I am in the US. My boyfriend has sole custody of both his kids. So I can say in our county it is definitely not just the mother that gets custody. I have my daughter all the time and my son most of the time. But my cases is not common amongst my peers. My friends all have a more 50/50 share custody.
Your ex never sees your daughter? Why is that? He only wants to see his son?
Your ex never sees your daughter? Why is that? He only wants to see his son?
He only wants to see his son. He won't even speak to my daughter. I don't know how anyone can be involved with a child for 7 plus years and not have any connection, but he has zero connection to her. Well that could probably be the sociopath thing as well.
But the same scenario applies to a couple who are not married as well. The issue here is child support not alimony. Women can collect whether there is a divorce or not. the reason we got away from fault divorces is because people did not want to be held accountable for their actions and get stuck holding the cruddy end of the stick because they were harpys to their husbands or sorry excuesses for human beings of a man.
BUT the issue is women have the default sympathy of the courts regardless of what they did in the relationship, they may just be hot and wanted a new guy because they can. Why should courts be making the landings soft for this kind of behavior?
It is destroying our society because we are now mostly a fragmented suspicious country because all the mechanisms for social accountability are being eroded away. You can just do your own thing no matter how it effects someone else.
Women can collect what whether there is a divorce or not? Child support? It should not matter if there was a marriage or not. Both parents should be equally responsible for the support of their children so no fault divorce doesnt even apply. The reason we got away from fault divorces is that it was expensive, bogged down the courts and drug out and made worse a very stressful situation which was harmful to everyone except the attorneys. In order to prove fault one must have the means to hire an private investigator, have photos, eyewitness testimony, etc. etc. This caused a load of problems.
You do realize that a very, very small number of divorces actually go to court, right? Terms are usually worked out between parties without hashing it out in court.
Why is it that everyone gets fired up about single moms collecting welfare or government assistance, but no one gets fired up when the same mom can't collect child support?
We seem to be directing our anger at the wrong issue. I am a firm believer that if they fix the child support system we will see great improvement in the welfare system.
Why do they not do more to collect support from dead beats? Why are the tax payers not pushing for child support enforcement to collect these bad debts?
Because the woman chose the deadbeat to have kids with? Often not just once...but multiple times (if there's more than one kid). The govt will help you collect, but you were the one in total control of who you chose to have kids with. At least that's one view.
I don't know what you mean about fixing the child support system. The courts decree child support. The guy either pays for his kids, or his wages are garnished, or he goes to jail. Now, if he hides out or goes into business for himself so he can hide income, that would be hard and unrealistic to expect hte govt to hunt him down. Should we hire private detectives to find the tens of thousands of deadbeat dads? Is that the situation you're speaking of? Seems to me there's a clue early on about a man's character, whether he wants to support the kids he brings into the world or not. I don't mean to be harsh, but at some point, the govt can't fix everything. The people involved have to be involved in fixing the problem themselves at some point.
Some women have kids with a man who is already not paying child support for prior kids. I don't understand that.
The courts should not be forcing the marriage to stay together, they should be carefully examinaing who is going to get cash and prizes and who is going to suffer. People should be able to leave if they want but they should not be able to start collecting checks if they are the ones at fault. If a woman caused a divorce then the child support amounts should be modified and the dad should get more custody at his convience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 46H
The reason for no fault divorce is based on the inability of the court to define what each party should have to tolerate after one party decides to leave the marriage. The judges have zero stake in the marriage and therefore cannot make the decision to force people to stay together. Also, no fault eliminates making false statements or revealing intimate and embarrassing truths about a marriage in order to get a divorce that requires fault. Most divorces fall into the gray areas of life - there are no clear right or wrong parties.
It is not destroying our society. The idea that the government should force a person to stay married when that person wants out of a marriage is unconscionable.
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.
