Child Support rant :wow:

[Woodwerkz]

I've nevet heard of a court telling the Dad to pay cs and NOT get visitation.

When a court order is drafted so is visitation and just like how a man can go to jail for contempt (not paying cs) the same can go for a woman who won't allow a man to see his child.

Nope...that's not how it goes. Visitation is not drafted at that time...that's a whole separate thing. They do however use it to determine who is the custodial parent and who isn't. The only exception is when it is a divorce...that's when both are drafted at the same time but not because it's required...but because it's part of trying to consolidate all legal proceeding into one. You have to file for joint custody and it is encouraged to come up with a "parenting plan"...yes... a list agreed upon by both parties for scheduled drop offs/pick ups, holidays, and etc. While it isn't required...again it's highly encouraged that the parents do so prior to going to court. At that point it is decided on and if you are behind on child support...it is less likely you will get joint custody...but you may get supervised visits or weekends. Only then can the woman get in trouble if she denies the man or misses scheduled times for drop off/pick ups.

Obviously the court isn't saying "hey...pay up and don't see you child". But by giving sole power to one parent it gives that parent full rights to do so by law. Her doing so isn't condoned by the courts but it's not technically wrong for her to limit it. That's why filing for joint custody is the smart thing to do even prior to a woman placing you on child support. I mean...if y'all are together...then it's irrelevant to follow it. However if y'all were to break up then you'd already have legal paperwork that would prevent her from fukking with your rights to see your child.

 

[5n0man]

I absolutely do not believe that all baby mamas are good just by the virtue of the fact that they are women. For a while my brother had custody of his children because the mother didn't have her stuff together. I really wish that he had kept them.

I also stated earlier in the thread that if a man isn't married to the mother, he should put himself on child support (even if things are good) because you could easily get screwed for back support if things go left.

However, with that being said, not all women are bad. He seems to have a situation that works. It's pointless to try to fit in with a bunch a bitter men when your situation is cool and your woman hasn't proven herself scandalous.

I thought my situation was good but then women change their minds like the wind.

You say you don't believe all women are innocent but in this thread you have made it seem like every situation is some random nikka bussin in a random female, that's not even close to the truth, people have real relationships tied to their children and sometimes the relationship doesn't work out, you want to make it seem like every father just decides to up and bounce on their child's mother, but women are usually the one to end the relationship, I'm not religious and marriage isn't that important to me, I don't see why a man should put himself on child support, risking jail time and having to conform to a court system set up against them no matter the situation.

Women fukk up relationships and their family just as much as men do, why should women get the benifit of the doubt over men?


Your next reply will be that not all single mothers are bad even tho you have painted this picture that ALL father's not with the mother are deadbeats running from responsibility.

 

[Queen]

God this is some of the dumbest shyt i have read all year

Get the fukk outta here

Don't worry about what I am doing. Get your money up loser.

You react this way because you are a broke ass sex crazed bum. You could disagree with me on an intellectual level or based on your principles, but you are reacting emotionally which is very feminine. Blame your deadbeat father for that.

Ignored.

 

[aqualung]

I always wonder what "taking care of" kids means. I always hear guys say this but they never really know what that means. It just seems like an ambiguous statement that actually means the opposite of what it's intended.

Right. If he was paying for the kid before she put him on CS, then being put on CS should make little difference, yes?

The whining indicates that he paid very little money very infrequently before the CS system began to hold him accountable.

Whoever decided to carry his kid to term had a major lapse in judgment. I hope his CS money does the child some good and is not blown on Mama's hair and nails.

 

[Queen]

Some of these posts got me tight, but I'ma bite my tongue.

I'll just say this. When you have a kid with somebody it's a joint venture. If you are a women you are still responsible for your child's life, and yes that includes financially. Having a kid shouldn't be a free ride for you to enjoy an expense free life. If the man can afford to put a roof over the child's head, feed him, clothe him, pay his health insurance, but YOU need his money to do the same, then why on earth should you be granted custody in the first place?

Especially if you voluntarily left that stability for personal reasons. And if you are financially capable, but still use only the fathers money then you have a twisted view of the world. Yes it is a mans job to provide, but it is equally a woman's job. This idea that women aren't financially responsible is an archaic idea. Women fought hard for equal rights and still suffer from some societal disadvantages. But they benefit still from these archaic ideas at the same time. You can't have it both ways.

i.e. "I want equal treatment, equal status in society, equal pay, equal respect, equal standing, but still I want to be coddled by society because you know, Im a girl"

If you want all that, the same hardships men deal with come along with it. I know not all women are like this, though this modern entitlement is crazy sometimes. You want equal respect as a human being, then you will be treated as a human being not a lady; and with that comes equal responsibility. Unless there is a huge gap in income between parents (and not from voluntary unemployment) then I see no reason why raising a kid separated should not be a 50/50 venture. And more and more courts are agreeing with this sentiment.

I assume you are talking to me since I am the only one in this thread the comments apply to. You have no ideal how my household runs so let me school you on why I deserve to be respected as a human being despite the fact that my main job is not to provide income.

My husband receives 3 homecooked meals a day. Not junk food, not fast food, not cereal but homecooked meals for my husband and kids. Secondly I handle everything related to kids appointments, scheduling maintenance for the house, personal errands, plan all vacations, personal events, etc.

My husbands job is to go to work and not worry about a thing except advancing and loving our family.

Also, out kids are homeschooled. So that means I have to teach, plan curriculum, drive here and there to activities, plan when we go to homeschool conferences, etc. My husband does not trust babysitters unless it is a family member so there are few breaks for me.

Finally, I run a business from my home. And no, that money does not get spent. Unless there is an emergency like when all of our pipes burst and the bathroom flooded. Then that's what my money is for.....emergencies and whatever else I may want. But it is mainly to be saved.

So yes I do feel "entitled" to be treated with respect. I am equal to my husband but I am not the same. His job is to provide income and protection. My job is to manage the household and educate the children. We are both responsible for the well being of our children and this household. And he is responsible for making sure that I am okay financially no matter what between the two of us. He does not have the option to use up my services and then decide to no longer worry about if I will be able to live okay. This agreement is for life.

Do you have any questions?

 

[™BlackPearl The Empress™]

Right. If he was paying for the kid before she put him on CS, then being put on CS should make little difference, yes?

The whining indicates that he paid very little money very infrequently before the CS system began to hold him accountable.

Whoever decided to carry his kid to term had a major lapse in judgment. I hope his CS money does the child some good and is not blown on Mama's hair and nails.

I agree.

 

[aqualung]

I pay about $700 a month in child support.....



...the worst thing in the world is dropping off the check on Friday and then your son hitting you up on Saturday cause he needs new shoes...

Kids are not cheap.

Your son requires more than $700/month: food, clothes, housing, utils, health insurance, transportation, edu, entertainment, etc. Do you expect to pay for his undergraduate tuition?

Children are not cheap. :-D

 

[KushSkywalker]

I assume you are talking to me since I am the only one in this thread the comments apply to. You have no ideal how my household runs so let me school you on why I deserve to be respected as a human being despite the fact that my main job is not to provide income.

My husband receives 3 homecooked meals a day. Not junk food, not fast food, not cereal but homecooked meals for my husband and kids. Secondly I handle everything related to kids appointments, scheduling maintenance for the house, personal errands, plan all vacations, personal events, etc.

My husbands job is to go to work and not worry about a thing except advancing and loving our family.

Also, out kids are homeschooled. So that means I have to teach, plan curriculum, drive here and there to activities, plan when we go to homeschool conferences, etc. My husband does not trust babysitters unless it is a family member so there are few breaks for me.

Finally, I run a business from my home. And no, that money does not get spent. Unless there is an emergency like when all of our pipes burst and the bathroom flooded. Then that's what my money is for.....emergencies and whatever else I may want. But it is mainly to be saved.

So yes I do feel "entitled" to be treated with respect. I am equal to my husband but I am not the same. His job is to provide income and protection. My job is to manage the household and educate the children. We are both responsible for the well being of our children and this household. And he is responsible for making sure that I am okay financially no matter what between the two of us. He does not have the option to use up my services and then decide to no longer worry about if I will be able to live okay. This agreement is for life.

Do you have any questions?

You are fulfilling your role as a stay at home mom entirely then. And you seem to have that worked out respectfully.

So my comments wouldn't apply to you. If you weren't doing all of the patriarchal duties then that would be a different story.

You also don't sound like you are separated, or in a situation where child support applies.

My comments are geared towards two parents with split custody each working a day job. If we each have separate houses, heating, cars and insurances to pay for, and see the child on equal terms, and make similar money, then we should be splitting child care costs 50/50.

The fact that you are both willingly in this agreement already, and Im assuming have been for a certain period of time, would play into a court decision in your favor.

I just think if you are also making income, then your money should either be saved for the family, or also used for the child. Not just some personal expense account because your husband is a provider. God forbid he lost his job, got injured, sick etc.

If he died, and life insurance ran out would you be able to support your family the same way as you do now? Or are you entirely reliant on his income? I mean maybe you aren't I don't know.

And I was a stay at home dad for an entire year to help avoid daycare costs where I live for my family. So I know all about making the meals, cleaning the house, caring for a child, doing laundry and handling the day to day stuff of raising a child virtually by yourself.

I've also been the provider working making the main source of income. So I see both sides of the fence. When I was a stay at home dad however every cent I made on my own went towards my son. Diapers, wipes, food, etc. And I never once asked my girl to buy me something personal. I never got to save my money to use on myself, nor would I have considered it. In fact I would watch my son all day until my girl got home from work, and go to my own job at nights.


But I have nothing against a stay at home mom that actually works hard all day to take care of her family. You're arrangement is actually an ideal one. However there are a lot of women out there that use their child support as an excuse to have a free ride financially though. If you split from your man it is not his job to take care of ALL of YOUR financial needs. It may be his job to help. But if he left you, he should not have to pay 100% of your rent for life, 100% of your food for life, 100% of your clothes for life, 100% of your bills for life. At some point you would have to pick up part of the tab. Just my opinion though, don't take it too personally.

I mean my girl left for no reason other than she wanted to start seeing other people. We grew apart. Currently she is living with her parents and has essentially threatened to extort me so she can get an apartment without using her own money. She actually said this "i'll just make you pay for my own place" So because she voluntarily left to no fault of my own beyond her personal preference it is now my sole job to pay for two residences? Helping her, yes, paying for her entire life, no. If my son needs clothes food, diapers, supplies, or she needs gas or help on a bill I'll pay. But she has a job too, so I should not be expected to pay for EVERYTHING.

Also if you're husband makes most of the money, pays most of the bills with a solid income, owns the house, and can afford day care and to support the child financially by himself. Then if you did do a custody battle for some reason, wouldn't he technically be more fit to have primary custody? Or does your gender somehow give you a benefit in this decision?

Edit: also do you have a problem with role reversal?

Is it an issue if the mother provides financially and the father is the caregiver? Is it somehow shameful if the mother has a stronger financial career and the father takes on patriarchal duties? and if so is the father entitled to the same lifetime financial security you expect? Or does it suddenly not apply because of gender biases?

 

[Raava]

I love it when men have so much to say about things they know nothing about. Easy to tell someone what they should do when you aren't the one dealing with the problems.

I just watched the video and...that poor baby lost

 

[KushSkywalker]

Me and my girl live separately. We each work full time day jobs with separate insurance plans that cover our son.

We make about the same amount of money and each have a roof over our sons head. I pay for everything my son needs when I have him, she pays for everything he needs when she has him.

Of course I would help where needed, without question.

My question is, with this arrangement, do I owe my sons mother anything else besides providing 100% for my son when I have him 50% of the time?

 

[NoSingleMothersB]

Stop nutting in these women and you wouldn't have this problem.

Kids

 

[Queen]

@KushSkywalker

I just think if you are also making income, then your money should either be saved for the family, or also used for the child. Not just some personal expense account because your husband is a provider. God forbid he lost his job, got injured, sick etc.

Then that would be considered an emergency, and thank goodness the money would be there as opposed to living a life that requires two incomes. I was taught to live on one income and save the other.

Like I said, my money is for emergencies, or for whatever I want. But mostly to be saved. That's how I was raised. That doesn't mean they if my kids want or need something that I am not going to buy it. I am not saving to floss or impress, I am saving in case the money is needed.

But for day to day life, my husband is the provider.

But if he left you, he should not have to pay 100% of your rent for life, 100% of your food for life, 100% of your clothes for life, 100% of your bills for life.

That is where we disagree. And I suspect most would disagree. When he agreed to marry me, he agreed to be financially responsible for me for life. If I stayed with my father, my father would take care of me forever but that torch has been passed to my husband. He knows what's up. I didn't have this talk with him, my father told him what his responsibilities would be if he wanted to marry me.

Now if I left him due to no fault of his own, then okay. I would not be entitled to that protection. I can't decide to leave for no reason and think he is still supposed to support me. But otherwise, a deal is a deal.

Also if you're husband makes most of the money, pays most of the bills with a solid income, owns the house, and can afford day care and to support the child financially by himself. Then if you did do a custody battle for some reason, wouldn't he technically be more fit to have primary custody?

My husband is on the mortgage by himself, but I am on the deed along with him. That means we both own the house.

If there was a custody battle he is not more fit to parent simply because he makes the money. That's the problem with American culture, you let it brainwash you into thinking money is everything. He provides the money but I have been providing the care. He provides the money but I am their teacher. He couldn't organize their lessons each year, he doesn't know the different learning styles of each kid, he couldn't tell you when they need to have checkups. That doesn't mean he isn't a great dad, it means he is at work while I handle these things.

So simply because he has the money it doesn't mean he is the more fit parent. You cannot pay someone to unconditionally love your children.

Edit: also do you have a problem with role reversal?

In general, yes.

As a temporary solution while things get reorganized, then no. The world isn't perfect and you have to do what you you have to. Sometimes things happen so I can see why sometimes men need to stay with the kids while the women work.

But as a permanent thing involving a healthy man- it is unacceptable to me. I could not respect my husband if he decided he wanted to be a stay at home dad as a permanent thing.

I am not a feminist. Men and women are equal as human beings deserving of respect. However, men and women are not the same. And I would not be involved with a man who thought that women are the same as men.

 

[KushSkywalker]

@KushSkywalker


That is where we disagree. And I suspect most would disagree. When he agreed to marry me, he agreed to be financially responsible for me for life. If I stayed with my father, my father would take care of me forever but that torch has been passed to my husband. He knows what's up. I didn't have this talk with him, my father told him what his responsibilities would be if he wanted to marry me.

First off I appreciate a civil discussion without emotional name-calling etc.

A couple thoughts in response to the quoted...

You are saying you've been raised to believe you should never have to have a regular job? Meaning for your entire life you expect either your father or husband to take care of every single need you ever will have?

While this is valiant of your father, and it is a parents job to provide, I would also call it spoiled to a degree. Not everyone is raised with the comfort of knowing they will never have to work a real job a day in their lives. A parents job is to take care of their children. But it is also to raise them to be self sufficient adults. A woman shouldn't plan her life around finding financially secure men. While it is a good trait to look for, making decisions solely based on what a man can financially provide for you is what some would call gold digging. (not saying this is you)

There are also good parents that financially would never be able to provide lifetime monetary security to a son or daughter. At some point as an adult that becomes your responsibility.

If you're father really is willingly ready to pay your every expense through your adult life I personally think he did you a disservice on work ethic. No human being period should be raised to not know how to provide for themselves.

If your father and husband both vanished today along with their money would you then work full time? Or would you look for another financially secure man to take care of you?

These gender constructs come from evolution and old society. You live in a village the men are strong so they build, dig, hunt, fight, fish etc. The women bear children and are genetically and generally physically weaker so they care for the children, make clothes, food, gather etc.

However it is 2015. A woman can be a CEO of a company and a man can raise a child. A woman can fight in the army a man can run a daycare. The civilization we've built has moved passed the genetic pre-dispositions that forced these gender roles in the first place.

Remaining a slave to this construct is archaic to me. Equal is equal period. I see no shame in a woman running a company. Same way I see no shame in that woman's husband watching their kids.

If a mother runs a Fortune 500 company making 250k a year but the man is making 50k a year , should he feel ashamed? Or proud of his wife?

Should his wife not respect him because she is the provider? Is there no respectable situation where a woman makes more money?

That's all I have to say on the subject though.

 

[Citi Trends]

american women are a lost mostly unworthy group of entitled children and the system keeps it that way

nikkas need to start importing bytches like coke and have the prices dropped and standards raised

 

[Queen]

@KushSkywalker

You are saying you've been raised to believe you should never have to have a regular job? Meaning for your entire life you expect either your father or husband to take care of every single need you ever will have?

No. That would be inaccurate because my sister works a regular job. But she isn't married. My father provides for her, but she still is expected to work because she is an adult.

If she were to get married then the man would be expected to not have an issue with being a provider.

I am spoiled though. That is accurate.

A woman shouldn't plan her life around finding financially secure men. While it is a good trait to look for, making decisions solely based on what a man can financially provide for you is what some would call gold digging. (not saying this is you)

A woman should not spend her life screwing around with broke men who cannot provide for them or any children they have. I say don't have sex outside of marriage to begin with. But many women are not virtuous or chaste, so if you are going to be screwing around, why set yourself up to struggle if you end up pregnant? Get a vibrator and save the hassle.

I have two degrees. I've run a business since I was 19 years old. I have my own money, my own investments, and my own (small) staff. I don't NEED a man, but if I am going to have one then he is going to make life easier for me and any children we have. I have my own, but my husband has more. I am not in a competition with him therefore I don't need to prove that I can make more than him.

I can more than him because I am entrepreneurial and he is not. But then how will I have time to homeschool the kids? How will I have time to cook all these meals? How will I have time to pursue my interests? No, I keep my business at a level where I don't need to be as hands on, and that allows me to use my time how I want to use it. Should something happen where I need to scale up, then I have created a situation where I can do that.

I value having time to do what I want and not worry about money. There are plenty of women who will do everything for you and work two jobs. I am not one of them. If I am busting my butt at two jobs, then I am single and my business has failed.

I don't mind being called a gold digger. I am one. Better to dig for gold than for scraps. What do I look like praising the struggle? Please.

However, my husband does not like me being referred to as a gold digger because he said that a gold diggers means someone who will do anything for money and not care - and that doesn't describe me. If that is a gold digger then no I am not. But if it means that money matters (not the only factor but it matters) then yes I am.

If you're father really is willingly ready to pay your every expense in through your adult life I personally think he did you a disservice on work ethic. No human being period should be raised to not know how to provide for themselves.

If your father and husband both vanished today along with their money would you then work full time? Or would you look for another financially secure man to take care of you?

As I said in an earlier post I am perfectly capable of taking care of myself and any children I have. However, if we are married then making money is not my primary concern.

I want to be a wife and a mother. That is my focus. That is what interests me. So no, I would not deal with a man who could not financially provide for me above or at the same level to which I can provide for myself. And I am sure my husband wouldn't deal with a fat, ugly, and dumb woman so we are even. Not "the same" but even.