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.
Sorry, I have no sympathy for men who brought children into this world and are trying to avoid paying their share. It doesn't matter what the woman is paying, a man looks out for his children if he wants to call himself a man.
But you apparently have sympathy for women who bring children into the world and are trying to avoid paying their fare share...correct?
Sure, a court theoretically can award custody to Dad. Problem is, effectively the court won't award Dad custody, that's the issue. Laws may be written gender neutral but they are certainly not enforced in a gender neutral way.
Another important point is that even under the rare circumstances that Dad is awarded custody, many courts will not enforce a child support order against a woman. The court where I reside is one example. I know of one cases where Dad won custody because Mom tried to hire someone to murder Dad. Even after winning custody, Mom never paid child support. Dad took her to court 8 times over several years and the Court would not enforce the order.
The same exact court will throw Dad in jail if he gets 4 weeks behind.
There is an appalling gender bias in American family court.
I hear you talking but I see no links supporting your claims.
It depends on the time each parent has with the child, that is part of the support formula. If one parent has the child 20% of the time and the other parent 80% of the time the court determines child support based on that, if parent's don't like that they should push for shared custody, that way each parent has the child 50% of the time and if they both make the same amount of money neither of them would pay support to the other.
My daughter's sperm donor was court ordered to pay only $32/week for the majority of the time I had my daughter. At one point he was nearly $20k in arrears. He was a government worker making decent money and deliberately did all he could to avoid paying. The courts refused to ever punish him for it.
I had to stay in college supporting us on student loans because no employer was willing to employ and retain me due to all of my health problems. I owe over $170k in student loan debt and that figure keeps rising with interest. I am still unemployable by employer standards, so it is impossible for me to ever repay that money. I have trouble getting money now since I have no income.
After the court stripped me of custody and gave her to the man who raped and tortured me, I was court ordered to pay child support to my rapist, even though by then I was on SSI receiving little over $600/month. I spent a lot of time living in my car because I couldn't afford a place to live. The court system was going to jail me for six months at one point because I was in arrears of $30 (ex never did have to pay his arrears). I was facing homelessness yet again at the time. I was not even allowed supervised visits with my daughter because of false abuse allegations made against me by my family (who years later lied to the government and caused me to also lose my SSI). I was treated far worse than my rapist for falling behind in support. Not only that, but my arrears weren't intentional while his always was.
The courts are far harder on women for arrears than the men, as my case shows. He owes nearly $10k in arrears, but the courts won't ever make him pay it, but I was threatened with jail for being $30 behind. Fortunately, my mother got a $30 money order and paid it so that I wouldn't go to jail. She's the only one in the family that has ever been even a little sorry for lying about me to the government and helping my rapist get custody. It cost me a lot more to raise my daughter than he was ever ordered to pay in child support, even though I had to borrow the money. I took on massive debt to take care of my daughter, and her biological father did all he could to avoid providing for her.
How old was your daughter when your X was ordered to pay child support?
When parents divorce they are required to fill out a financial statement. They have to claim how much their rent/mortgage payment is, health insurance, school tuition etc. That is considered in determining support, If you ex spouse indicated that they pay $2,000 for rent but they really only pay $500 the other parent would have the opportunity to challenge that. I am not sure what you want them to 'prove'? Most child support goes toward housing, food, transportation and medical care, what part of child support would you like them to prove?
As far as I know there is no State that uses expenses other than health insurance to determine child support. Alimony or temp spousal support, yes....but not child support.
If Mom has custody, the courts are probably presuming that she already is providing support (shelter, and also electricity, gas, water, if the child is living with her) and food (since again, the court presumes Mom is going to feed the kid.) Therefore, food and shelter count as support.
Whether 25-40% of Dad's income is fair, however, depends on a variety of factors. Your question may be simple, but it's too much of a blanket statement to be useful in every situation.
If that is the case how come Dad can't refute that presumption? Examples- Mom has no job and no income, Mom quits her job, Mom voluntarily reduces her hours at work, etc...
If what you are saying is true there would be a mechanism for Dad to compel Mom to earn income to provide that support. There is no such mechanism...which brings me back to the original point of this thread...
No one cares if Mom financially supports her children, they only care if Dad does.
When parents divorce they are required to fill out a financial statement. They have to claim how much their rent/mortgage payment is, health insurance, school tuition etc. That is considered in determining support, If you ex spouse indicated that they pay $2,000 for rent but they really only pay $500 the other parent would have the opportunity to challenge that. I am not sure what you want them to 'prove'? Most child support goes toward housing, food, transportation and medical care, what part of child support would you like them to prove?
In a perfect world that is all very true. The real world? Not so much. I can tell you that my ex hoarded that support money. I was the one buying school clothes, paying for doctor's visits etc. If I didn't the kids went without and she was getting some serious cash, especially since she was living in a house that was paid off and had no debt. She was getting over $1400 a month for 2 kids back in the 90's. No over sight no consequences.
She also built a fairly impressive stock portfolio on it. She actually bragged to a mutual friend what she did with the money.
That financial statement is a joke and anyone who has been through the system knows it. They took my cover sheet and disregarded the rest. My bills had no bearing on the decision. Fact.....
I have said it before and will again. The system creates dead beat dads. It is lopsided and anything but fair. I was fortunate. I had a good job and I had skills to make money on the side. Were it not for my skills I would have lost everything I ever worked for.
I am not alone in the ranks of the screwed. There are very few people who went thru the system who feel as the dad we were treated equally or fairly.
Most child support is supposed to go to the things you mentioned. That doesn't mean that it always or even usually does. Then mom finds a replacement and he moves in. Thats fine with me, she stops nagging me to fix things. But his income isn't counted as hers and I pay for his home, his ac, his power, his water. While they bank that money and if my kids were lucky they got something besides Walmart sneakers out of the deal.
Shared custody is not laughably impossible, most courts (if not all) presume that both parents can and should care for their children equally. Courts should not be biased toward one parent over the other. The only latitude a mother usually gets is if the child is very young she may not be expected to work.
You do this a lot in threads like this 2sleepy...you try to twist and conflate the arguments. Here is what you said in quotes:
Quote:
so I would suggest that the parent with the large child support obligation file for either shared or full custody.
Quote:
if parent's don't like that they should push for shared custody
So let's start with the obvious. The nebulous term 'shared custody' can mean many things. Most of the time, when courts or even people in threads like this use that term, they are referring to joint legal custody.
As you already know, joint legal custody often refers to joint legal decision making, but not 50% of overnights. This is especially true in certain States- examples include MA, TX, and many others. However, this type of joint legal custody has little to do with child support obligations. It is very common, for example, for parents to have joint legal custody but Dad only sees the child every other weekend and pays full child support (25-40% of his gross income).
As to...
Quote:
Courts should not be biased toward one parent
Of course they shouldn't, but they are. And that's the point.
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.
