Irrefutable proof of male oppression and female privilege in the USA (wages, illegal)
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.
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?
My best friend is in the process of getting divorced, they have 5 kids. They have 50/50 physical for 4 of them. No support order except to split expenses (according to income) for those 4. The oldest tho stays with dad all the weekdays due to issues with school. He gets support for the additional amount for food and utilities he takes on for the child being in dads home most of the time.
The order was just approved in May. So it appears it isn’t universally true.
Most of us dont and aren't complaining about paying for the child. We are questioning the system that for many has been extremely lopsided. I said it before and I will again. The system creates dead beat dads. They base the support on gross income , meaning before taxes. That isn't realistic nor fair. There are no checks in place to ensure the support is used for the children. That is what many of us complain about.
Its not feasible to ask for records for every dime spent on children. I'd guess if many custodial parents actually did it would show they arent getting enough money. The average CS payment is about 430$. Rent, food, utilities would probably eat that up. Just off the top of my head my grandson, 90$/month car insurance, $250 basketball fees for school, $30 this morning for parking permit, $250 a month ago for basketball camp, $50/month lunch. There are constant expenses for school. He is driving now but it was driving everyday to school, all over the state for travel ball games, paying to get into ball games, paying for food at ball games and $20 each game tournament fees. Church camp. Hair cuts every 6 weeks at $16. It adds up.
Forget checks in place to ensure support is used for the kids, Child Support services doesn't even check to ensure the custodial parent has physical custody of the kids. They could have been sold to human traffickers as far as child services knows or cares.
My best friend is in the process of getting divorced, they have 5 kids. They have 50/50 physical for 4 of them. No support order except to split expenses (according to income) for those 4. The oldest tho stays with dad all the weekdays due to issues with school. He gets support for the additional amount for food and utilities he takes on for the child being in dads home most of the time.
The order was just approved in May. So it appears it isn’t universally true.
Because the parents negotiated the agreement in bold. If it was contested, it wouldn't have gone down that way.
Applying for benefits they are entitled to is part of supporting them but I was under the impression that in the US there is a 5 year limit for welfare, isn't there? So eventually the mum will have to provide somehow else.
In some states the limit is only 12 months. The 5 year limit was many years ago before the states did their own reforms. It hasn't been 5 years in a lot of places in a long time.
I am all for both parents contributing to the financial support of their children based on actual income as well as physical support but I see many cases where the custodial parent doesn't work or hardly works and receives all sorts of monetary benefits while the non custodial parent is punished if he/she doesn't pay an predetermined X amount of dollars. If mom makes 100/week and dad makes 100/week, dad shouldn't have to pay 75$ a week in CS while mom keeps her 100 + gets food, housing, medical and child care subsidies. If dad pays 75 mom should also be accountable for 75. If mom and dad were still together the powers that be would not jail dad because he couldn't provide beyond his means.
If mom makes $100/week and dad makes $100/week, and there are children in the house, a substantial portion of the mom's $100 goes to support the children. I agree with you that dads should not be punished because they don't earn enough money. I've known men whose child support was so onerous that they forced men to become criminals, and that should not happen. But I think the idea that women are not contributing to the support of the children that live with them is ridiculous. The vast majority of custodial mothers support their children, often at great cost to themselves. Are their irresponsible mothers out there? Absolutely. And even if married, these women still behave badly. If they actually endanger their children, the children can be removed. Fathers who fear that the mothers aren't taking care of the children can take their concerns to the courts.
I knew a guy who was paying child support to his ex on a son who was living on his own, working and making more money than the father. The mother was remarried and also making more money than the father. The court refused to do anything.
If mom makes $100/week and dad makes $100/week, and there are children in the house, a substantial portion of the mom's $100 goes to support the children. I agree with you that dads should not be punished because they don't earn enough money. I've known men whose child support was so onerous that they forced men to become criminals, and that should not happen. But I think the idea that women are not contributing to the support of the children that live with them is ridiculous. The vast majority of custodial mothers support their children, often at great cost to themselves. Are their irresponsible mothers out there? Absolutely. And even if married, these women still behave badly. If they actually endanger their children, the children can be removed. Fathers who fear that the mothers aren't taking care of the children can take their concerns to the courts.
Yes I agree that the majority of single moms spend much much more than the CS caring for their kids. I'm talking about those that dont. The ones who are getting lots of assistance plus CS and may work just a little or not at all. How the courts excuse their inability to earn a certain income but hold the non custodial to doing so regardless of circumstances. Again I feel both parents should support their children and I realized there are a wide array of financial and personal circumstances involved in divorce.
I am amazed at the people who put themselves in situations. Those that have 4,5 6, kids, women who dont work and/or have no job training experience to get a decent job. Do they ever consider the marriage might not make it? It would scare the crap out of me to be the custodial or paying spouse in such a situation. I have always needed a contingency plan.
From personal experience its not that easy to remove children from their mother. This is try two and too late to save the first child. The courts are really into this family unification but my attorney is confident that after nearly 5 years with very very limited contact and no financial support I will win permanent custody. And again taking anyone to court cost lots of money and time off work. It can be done but its not that simple or cheap.
I knew a guy who was paying child support to his ex on a son who was living on his own, working and making more money than the father. The mother was remarried and also making more money than the father. The court refused to do anything.
Most likely because the father didn't do anything. Child support doesn't do anything automatically or on their own initiative. You have to file a petition of modification with the courts to stop child support obligation on a child once they reach 18 years old.
My son was in the same situation. Paying for his 21 year old who had been supporting himself since age 18.
When I got custody of the younger child and filed for child support, I also put the 21 year old down for support. The CS worker, in a hushed voice, asked if I wanted to apply for CS for him too. I said yes, his mother has been receiving CS on an able bodied, working adult for 3 years I WANT IT TOO. She was rather shocked.
Then I told her no of course not but do you see how ridiculous that is. I would like to have said a few more things but I think it all went right over her head anyway.
Most likely because the father didn't do anything. Child support doesn't do anything automatically or on their own initiative. You have to file a petition of modification with the courts to stop child support obligation on a child once they reach 18 years old.
My son was in the same situation. Paying for his 21 year old who had been supporting himself since age 18.
When I got custody of the younger child and filed for child support, I also put the 21 year old down for support. The CS worker, in a hushed voice, asked if I wanted to apply for CS for him too. I said yes, his mother has been receiving CS on an able bodied, working adult for 3 years I WANT IT TOO. She was rather shocked.
Then I told her no of course not but do you see how ridiculous that is. I would like to have said a few more things but I think it all went right over her head anyway.
He went back to court, was not behind, and the judge refused to change it. I know a guy right now who has his kids, has had them for 5 years and is probably going to jail for non support. His trial is in Sept. And he can prove it all. He has been fighting it for the whole five years.
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.
