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.
Why? In many cases, one parent, usually the mom, has put her career on hold to take care of the kids, with the understanding that dad would earn the money. If they get a divorce and she has to go back to work, she could be making a fraction of what he makes. That could mean a huge change in socioeconomic circumstances for that kid. So you want dad to go off and live in his big bachelor pad while mom and kid scrape by in a crappy apartment?
Not to mention, the parent with primary custody is responsible to a much greater extent for getting kids where they need to be, staying home or making alternate plans when they are sick etc. That certainly can impact one's professional life and subsequently can limit promotions more than a NCP. It makes no sense that a child - or children- created by two parents should not be the responsibility of both. And that the parent with the least day to day responsibility (and hence the most professional flexibility and opportunity) would be the sole beneficiary of that flexibility at the expense of his (or her) children. That's absurd.
Last edited by maciesmom; 06-22-2015 at 09:31 PM..
You could easily say that, but it wouldn't make any sense. It takes 2 people to make a baby. 2 people should be on the hook to pay for raising that child. Would you make such a comment to a man, or just a woman because that's who actually "has" the baby?
It makes just as much sense as saying if you don't want to pay child support don't have kids. I'm not advocating not paying any child support but I don't feel as though the NCP need to supplement the CPs rent and utilities as well as having to provide their own. I stand by the comment regardless of gender, if you cant provide basic food, shelter and utilities for your child don't have them. If the CP cant afford that change custody.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibbiekat
Why? In many cases, one parent, usually the mom, has put her career on hold to take care of the kids, with the understanding that dad would earn the money. If they get a divorce and she has to go back to work, she could be making a fraction of what he makes. That could mean a huge change in socioeconomic circumstances for that kid. So you want dad to go off and live in his big bachelor pad while mom and kid scrape by in a crappy apartment?
That's what alimony is for. If a couple agrees mom should give up the career to be a SAHM she is compensated with alimony along with CS until she can "get up to par".
I'm not sure why people believe kids should be able to maintain their socioeconomic level when the socioeconomic circumstances of everyone declines in a divorce. It declines when a parent dies or loses their job or develops medical problems, etc. Its something people deal with and adapt to. And it is not like there is not assistance available for the CP.
It is seldom that dad is living high on the hog while mom and kids scrap by. How well do you think you could live after 30% is deducted from your gross POTENTIAL pay, don't forget the tax deductions from your gross pay. You may end up with about 50% of your take home pay, so dad isn't usually much better off than mom financially.
I just feel CS should be reasonable and based on what one actually makes. My biggest beef is custodial parents getting away with not abiding by the agreed visitation and custody agreement.
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.
That sounds logical.
It seems that people drift apart emotionally but women in particular want to withdraw their emotional connection and often take the kids from the husband but still want money from him.
It seems that people drift apart emotionally but women in particular want to withdraw their emotional connection and often take the kids from the husband but still want money from him.
It makes just as much sense as saying if you don't want to pay child support don't have kids. I'm not advocating not paying any child support but I don't feel as though the NCP need to supplement the CPs rent and utilities as well as having to provide their own. I stand by the comment regardless of gender, if you cant provide basic food, shelter and utilities for your child don't have them. If the CP cant afford that change custody.
Yes, because the most important thing for a child is who has the most money!
Yes, because the most important thing for a child is who has the most money!
You clearly are not a parent.
Actually I'm a parent and grandparent. Its not who has the most money, but if you cant afford the basic shelter, food and clothing is it not in the best interest of your children to let go your pride and let the other parent have primary custody if they can provide a better living situation.
Or do you think hanging on to custody, petitioning for more child support while receiving government assistance and refusing the other parent access to their children is the most important thing. Because that is what many CPs do. And that is the situation where some NCPs give up after being failed again and again by the court system and stop paying CS. Yes it is still their responsibility to HELP support their children but isn't it also their right to continue to be a physical parent also.
Actually I'm a parent and grandparent. Its not who has the most money, but if you cant afford the basic shelter, food and clothing is it not in the best interest of your children to let go your pride and let the other parent have primary custody if they can provide a better living situation.
Or do you think hanging on to custody, petitioning for more child support while receiving government assistance and refusing the other parent access to their children is the most important thing. Because that is what many CPs do. And that is the situation where some NCPs give up after being failed again and again by the court system and stop paying CS. Yes it is still their responsibility to HELP support their children but isn't it also their right to continue to be a physical parent also.
1) As has been stated repeatedly on this board and in many other threads, child support and visitation are two completely separate things. The court recognizes this. Providing financial support for your child is a legal obligation. Visiting your kid is not. There are many, many, many absentee parents (by choice) who think they have no obligation to their kids at all. That is why the court enforces child support.
2) What kids need is a loving, stable home with a parent who wants them there - not who can provide the most stuff. If that is really what you think, why not just auction kids off to the highest bidder? After all, they can provide a better living situation! Hell, let's just farm out all low income kids to rich families.
A loving, involved parent would not send their kid to live with an uninterested parent just because s/he had more money.
1) As has been stated repeatedly on this board and in many other threads, child support and visitation are two completely separate things. The court recognizes this. Providing financial support for your child is a legal obligation. Visiting your kid is not. There are many, many, many absentee parents (by choice) who think they have no obligation to their kids at all. That is why the court enforces child support.
2) What kids need is a loving, stable home with a parent who wants them there - not who can provide the most stuff. If that is really what you think, why not just auction kids off to the highest bidder? After all, they can provide a better living situation! Hell, let's just farm out all low income kids to rich families.
A loving, involved parent would not send their kid to live with an uninterested parent just because s/he had more money.
1. There are many, many, many(should I add one more for emphasis?) many absentee parents(not by choice) who have their children kept from them but are still required by the court to provide financially for them. The court refuses to recognize this. Providing financial support for your child is a legal obligation. Being allowed to exercise your custodial rights if you are the non custodial parent is apparently not. This is why the court needs to enforce the custody arrangements it imposes on the parents.
2. What kids need is a loving, stable relationship with both of their parents. When both parents are willing to provide that both parents should be given the opportunity to do so. Apparently which parent can afford to provide the most stuff does matter, and it matters to you as well, when financial obligations are considered. If that financial obligation is so paramount perhaps it should be considered when making custody decisions as well, if you are going to insist on a custodial parent/non custodial parent sort of arrangement. After all, the best interests of the children is the primary concern, or so we are always being told when the rights and needs of non custodial parents(usually fathers) are being ignored.
A loving, involved parent would understand the need for their children to enjoy a loving, involved relationship with both parents regardless of how much money they have or feel they deserve.
1) As has been stated repeatedly on this board and in many other threads, child support and visitation are two completely separate things. The court recognizes this. Providing financial support for your child is a legal obligation. Visiting your kid is not. There are many, many, many absentee parents (by choice) who think they have no obligation to their kids at all. That is why the court enforces child support.
2) What kids need is a loving, stable home with a parent who wants them there - not who can provide the most stuff. If that is really what you think, why not just auction kids off to the highest bidder? After all, they can provide a better living situation! Hell, let's just farm out all low income kids to rich families.
A loving, involved parent would not send their kid to live with an uninterested parent just because s/he had more money.
I know you are passionate about this topic and I totally see the situation you are describing but there are many different situations in child custody cases. While being a parent is not a legal obligation for either parent it is no doubt a very important obligation as you stated kids need a loving parent/parents who want them and one parent should not have more legal right than the other parent.
I am not talking about absentee parents by choice who want nothing to do with their children, I talking about those NCP who desperately want to be involved and have a real relationship with their children not just visit when the CP decides to abide by the court order. Im also not talking about the ability to buy stuff. Im talking about the ability to provide housing, food and clothing. If one can not provide the basics and the other parent can (all else being equal) why should the able provider not have custody instead of giving half their wages to the one who cant even provide basic necessities.
I'll give you a for instance. CP living in battered woman's shelter, homeless, no job, no car, constantly moving in with new boyfriends, living off government assistance and child support, NCP has job, car, stable long term home where kids have their own room. Both parents love and want children but courts still award custody to CP. To go further, NCP loses job, draw unemployment at a percentage of wages yet court requires NCP to pay CS at the wage rate, cant, go to jail, lose more work/income start sinking even lower financially into a vicious cycle but yet it is ok for CP to have no income (meaning not living up to their obligation to support their children) and is given government assistance because the kids live more days a year with them. Years of this and not being able to see your children much less actually be an active parent in their lives can take a toll on NCPs.
This is why the courts need to step back and really look at individual cases and apply the same obligation and enforcement to equitable visitation and parenting as they do cs payments. They also need to be reasonable about the amount of CS in relation to how much money the NCP and CP actually brings home instead of some calculated projected arbitrary monthly amount. Instead they tend to go by a default situation assuming every mother is the loving, stable best suitable parent regardless of her situation and every father is an absentee deadbeat if he cant pay XX$$$ every week.
I'm not sure why this thread was suddenly revived, but I'm not going to restate myself over and over again. There are many custody situations that are unique, and their unique needs should be addressed by the court. But people love to come up with rare or unusual circumstances (see above made up instances) and ask about them. I don't know - I'm not a judge or a lawyer!
Does the family law system need to be overhauled? Yes. Should a non-custodial parent be required to pay child support regardless if that parent is male or female? Yes. Should both parents be actively involved in the lives of their child(ren) (barring violence, drug use, illegal activities, etc., etc.,)? Yes.
Are financial support and visitation/custody two completely different matters? YES. The court recognizes this, parents (should) recognize this, most reasonable people recognize this.
That's really all I can say on the matter. I have my experiences and the experiences I have witnessed, you folks have yours.
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.
