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.
Will be honest in that usually it is because many men are too lazy and self centered to take on caring for their children full time.
I'll note I have very close relatives like this - dads who basically don't want to deal with their kids everyday. Luckily my relatives don't whine about paying child support though but one I'm thinking of in particular, his wife cheated on him and moved his kids into another guy's house and even had his kids calling that new guy "dad" which was outrageous to me BTW.
They are actually still married even though they've been separated for over a year. I told him to go get a divorce and ask for full custody of the kids. He has a lot more financial resources than their mother and a family (including myself) that are willing to help with the children while he is at work, etc.
He refuses to take any steps to do so and he admitted he "works too much" to take care of the kids - that he is "tired." Which makes me roll my eyes. I'm a mother and I get tired too and I work just as much as him but I'd never willingly not see my kids or demand custody of them. Lots of men and deadbeat moms are just lazy and just want to complain. The woman who gets everything, she is not lazy and she took steps to make sure that she got what she wanted/needed. IMO the one who complains and doesn't "get" things they wanted, they often were the weak link in the marriage. I told my relative that his wife was going to leave him 5 years ago because he's lazy. His laziness extends to not advocating for himself and his kids. Many women when they divorce, they advocate for themselves and their kids. Many do not BTW as I know a lot of women who get nothing at all except the kids because the dad/ex didn't want the kids - they are too much work.
It really doesn't matter how much you or anyone else use stereotypes to bash Dad's and men in general, it doesn't change the fact that men are the only gender financially obligated to support their kids. Women are not held accountable even if they pay 0 towards their kids.
Imputed income is not the same as financially supporting the child; in fact imputed income by definition proves my point. It should also be noted that even if Mom worked during the marriage, post marriage she can quit her job, or voluntarily drastically reduce her income, and no one cares. Whereas if Dad does this, Dad goes to jail.
As far the bold, your argument is the famous "let them eat cake." What you are suggesting is laughably impossible for the vast majority.
Not in some states.
NJ judges HATE drama and LOVE to punish. They have no patience for parents who quit jobs or go part time then cry poverty.
One set of men IS screwed. Men who marry eye candy with no employment skills... I know a dude who did not learn the lesson the first time. The judge imputes 21K onto his ex. She does not work but is happy living with the alimony after the imputed income. (plus CS which ends around age 22 in NJ)
It's going to be very rare that child support would cover all expenses so it stands to reason that mothers are contributing too, though if they are the primary caregiver they are contributing doubly - financially and with their time. If child support isn't enough and the mother doesn't contribute anything financially that's child neglect and CPS would get involved.
That doesn't make much sense. If the non-custodial parent can't pay enough child support, then the custodial parent would apply for welfare benefits. CPS doesn't take kids away from their parents because the parents are poor.
If financial support for a child that approximates 25-40% of Dad's gross income is so important, why are those in authority perfectly ok with Mom providing 0 financial support to their child?
For the same reason why it’s “perfectly okay” for the noncustodial parent to have a disproportionately small portion of the actual parenting responsibilities.
A significant portion of my generation (Gen X) were children of divorce. We watched how our noncustodial parent often got to be the Fun Parent during visitation, while the custodial parent (in my case, my father) shouldered all of the day-to-day responsibilities.
If financial support for a child that approximates 25-40% of Dad's gross income is so important, why are those in authority perfectly ok with Mom providing 0 financial support to their child?
Because the child support system is totally effed up. There is absolutely no logic inserted into their game.
I have recently had the pleasure of dealing with them.
If its so expensive to raise kids, then why aren't Mom's required to financially support them?
What does that mean to you? In what way is a Mom or Dad who has their kids living with them NOT financially support them? And by what reason does it NOT make sense for the parents to support their kids according to their means?
Don't get me wrong, the historical pendulum of justice had swung way too far in the direction of reaming men in family courts. But the pendulum is swinging back now. This is a good thing though it could be helped in the more "traditional family values" states. North Carolina, from what I understand, is evil to men in family court.
For the same reason why it’s “perfectly okay” for the noncustodial parent to have a disproportionately small portion of the actual parenting responsibilities.
A significant portion of my generation (Gen X) were children of divorce. We watched how our noncustodial parent often got to be the Fun Parent during visitation, while the custodial parent (in my case, my father) shouldered all of the day-to-day responsibilities.
Many parents are forced to be the non custodial parent, and are not allowed to spend a lot of time with their kids, so they try to make the best of what they can get. Other parents are not even allowed to see their kids during their scheduled "visitation" hours, and the courts do nothing to enforce it. It's not only just "perfectly ok" for the non custodial parent to spend less time with the kids, it is "required by a family court ruling" or "forced on them by a bitter and uncooperative custodial parent".
No this is not true. Not even remotely. Child support is a part of just about every case out there.
The non custodial parent must remain very proactive. The problem is being proactive cost money and time. Child support attorneys work for the custodial parent at no cost but non custodial parents have to pay for their own attorney. Most people do not know how to maneuver through the courts and many cant afford constant attorney fees.
My son had a 50/50 arrangement but then his ex moved out of the county when the oldest started school. There was no way he could hold up the agreement with the school being 40 miles away and he couldn't afford an attorney so he ended up paying support and only seeing the kids on the weekend.
His mistake was he did not fight the courts. I have two male cousins who did fight and forced their exes to stay put and keep the children in the school district.
Many parents are forced to be the non custodial parent, and are not allowed to spend a lot of time with their kids, so they try to make the best of what they can get. Other parents are not even allowed to see their kids during their scheduled "visitation" hours, and the courts do nothing to enforce it. It's not only just "perfectly ok" for the non custodial parent to spend less time with the kids, it is "required by a family court ruling" or "forced on them by a bitter and uncooperative custodial parent".
Exactly my point: neither situation is "perfectly okay". The problem is that the OP only addresses one side of a dysfunctional coin.
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.
