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.
We almost came to an impasse before you tossed in the last line. If the mothers are struggling so badly perhaps they should be more open to sharing custody. Outside of your circle of friends I think you'll find a lot, if not a majority of fathers would love the opportunity. If they get to be involved beyond a marginal visitation schedule(that isn't enforced) they'll be more emotionally invested, and perhaps make their financial investment more of a priority. Seems the current status quo isn't working for anyone.
They DO have shared custody. But dad's a "busy guy".
In the cases I'm familiar with, it's almost always more about having to give the money to the custodial parent to spend at their discretion, which given that they often hate the custodial parent really burns. Also, they often think that the custodial parent is spending the money on themselves instead of the kids, or that they are trying to milk it by asking for more than they need.
IMO it is totally idiotic to expect anyone to pay child support, when the custodial parent does not even have to account for where that money goes! In the case of my granddaughter's mother,the 'ho' likes happy hour and the casinos,and my son has no say so about it,so he just buys for his daughter on his own.She is old enough now to see what her mother is.
They DO have shared custody. But dad's a "busy guy".
By shared I mean a 50/50 split. I know I know, your circle of friends are all 50/50 situations where the man wants nothing to do with his kids but I'm talking about the world in general, not your circle of friends who are apparently all one sided worst case scenarios.
Thank you for the most reasonable and sensible post on this thread. For the record, what you said in this paragraph is exactly the situation I'm coming from and why I don't have much tolerance for sob stories. In my 27-year marriage, we did have a time where our marriage was on the rocks in a very serious way. We did exactly what you said in this paragraph, including getting past an adultery situation, giving up a big home and moving to a smaller house, drastically changing our lifestyles considerably in order to resolve some serious problems and save the marriage. That was over 10 years ago and I'm extremely thankful I didn't let bitterness, selfishness, materialism and spite destroy what has become a very strong friendship and solid commitment. But it all started with the two of us putting our son ahead of our own needs, caring more about him than ourselves, and taking seriously our decision to be parents.
It seems people too easily forget that there was a time when this person was Mr./Ms. Wonderful, you got along so well and were so in love that you wanted to marry and have kids. What happened to that?
I'm very happy that you were able to fix your marriage.
I sincerely hope you realize that many people are in different circumstances than yourself. "There but for the grace of God, go I..."
We almost came to an impasse before you tossed in the last line. If the mothers are struggling so badly perhaps they should be more open to sharing custody. Outside of your circle of friends I think you'll find a lot, if not a majority of fathers would love the opportunity. If they get to be involved beyond a marginal visitation schedule(that isn't enforced) they'll be more emotionally invested, and perhaps make their financial investment more of a priority. Seems the current status quo isn't working for anyone.
I know women who hire sitters for their children instead of allowing the ex to have the kids. Then complain about not having enough money.
I don't understand why Dad does not have to pay to keep his children warm and housed. That's a new one one me. So Dad needs to pay for his children to be warm and housed when he lives with Mom but once he does not live with Mom, he know longer needs to pay for these things for his children. Interesting.
Dad can always fight for his children. Most Dads do not want that type of responsibility. This is why I say, yes, athletes should have to pay for their children to have the same lifestyle that a child of an athlete should have. They should live in a beautiful and expensive space. Dad does. Why not the children? If he doesn't want Mom to benefit, he can step up and take custody. But most are not interested in having that type of cramp on their lives. Issuing a check is a whole lot easier than taking care of a child.
And then to top it off, Mom is STILL paying to take care of the child, because what Dad provides does not cover everything, and Mom is also on call 24/7 with bad dreams, daily homework, etc. No, Dads are not stepping up in droves to take full custody so yes, let them pay for their children to be warm and housed where they do live. Sorry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magritte25
Because MOM has the kids living with her. Dad has to pay his own rent and utilities. The majority of financial responsibility should fall on the primary caregiver with whom the children live.
I don't understand why Dad does not have to pay to keep his children warm and housed. That's a new one one me. So Dad needs to pay for his children to be warm and housed when he lives with Mom but once he does not live with Mom, he know longer needs to pay for these things for his children. Interesting.
Um, basically yes. It is completely unfair to expect one person to support TWO households! The PC parent should be paying for his/her own house.
I don't understand why Dad does not have to pay to keep his children warm and housed.
Well if you're going to frame it that way it could be argued that as long as he is paying to keep himself "warm and housed" he is providing a means for his children to remain in that state as well. The courts and the mother just won't let the kids stay there on a regular basis.
Well if you're going to frame it that way it could be argued that as long as he is paying to keep himself "warm and housed" he is providing a means for his children to remain in that state as well. The courts and the mother just won't let the kids stay there on a regular basis.
Congratulations. This thread has just gone from laughable to downright ridiculous.
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.
