# Is there anyone here who refuses to pay child support?



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

And if so, how do you justify it?

I've never seen this question on a message board, anywhere.

eep:


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

My brother in law did everything he could not to pay it, including job hopping, working under the table, etc.
Never could convince him he couldn't outlast it.
Now his kids are in their late 20/early 30s, and he finally got it all paid.
Whether you think it's fair or not, you'll pay it now or later.
Might as well pay it while it's doing your kids some good.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

I raised my kids without the benefit of court ordered child support and his reason for not paying was because he felt I might spend it on myself, even though I requested no alimony.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

My friend refuses to pay it. His justification, the kid is not his. His wife had an affair and lied but in his state it is almost impossible to get your name off the birth certificate after 6 months. In the meantime, this woman has been using the screwed up laws to do everything in her power to destroy his life.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

wr said:


> I raised my kids without the benefit of court ordered child support and his reason for not paying was because he felt I might spend it on myself, even though I requested no alimony.


How did he not end up in the pokey?


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

See what happens when you seek the benefits of the State? They tell you how much that you have to pay and enforce it under penalty of law.


----------



## RichNC (Aug 22, 2014)

Oldshep said:


> My friend refuses to pay it. His justification, the kid is not his. His wife had an affair and lied but in his state it is almost impossible to get your name off the birth certificate after 6 months. In the meantime, this woman has been using the screwed up laws to do everything in her power to destroy his life.


One simple little paternity test would fix that.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

I thankfully don't have that problem. I waited until I was with the right person to have children. But I know guys who don't pay. Mostly because the women go out and buy clothes phones and jewelry for themselves while the kids are wearing hand me downs and yard sale stuff that grandparents got them. I see that far too often.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Shine said:


> See what happens when you seek the benefits of the State? They tell you how much that you have to pay and enforce it under penalty of law.


If most would take care of their own the state wouldn't need to be involved :cowboy: Don't breed em if you don't want to feed em :stars:

My ex WIFE tried getting out of paying ,she spent near as much on lawyers as child support :hysterical:

My sister never got much support from her X ,but anything that child wanted, needed or dreamed about daddy went out and bought it .Including a almost new sports car on the child's 16th birthday .


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

basketti said:


> How did he not end up in the pokey?



He would but he hides, work for cash and occasionally lives in a tent in BC to avoid it.


----------



## Oldshep (Mar 28, 2015)

RichNC said:


> One simple little paternity test would fix that.


No, its not that simple. He already had one done thats how he knew it wasnt his.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

I know a man who pays but doesn't pay all he is supposed to. The reason, he simply doesn't have the money, can't afford a lawyer to ask for a reduction, and feels he would be shorting his children if he lowers his support. But when his ex got some back payments she spent it on a lavish vacation for her and her boyfriend.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Sawmill Jim said:


> If most would take care of their own the state wouldn't need to be involved :cowboy: Don't breed em if you don't want to feed em :stars:
> 
> .


So are you pro or anti choice? As far as abortion rights.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

There should be a way for a child support "payer" to buy things for the children and not let the other ex have their hands on it.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

basketti said:


> So are you pro or anti choice? As far as abortion rights.


... not breeding meens never haveing to say your're preggers.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

basketti said:


> So are you pro or anti choice? As far as abortion rights.


If anyone needs that statement of If you can't feed em don't breed em, explained to them they may be beyond help :grumble:

No where did I say if you breed em and won't feed em kill em instead .At my house the old crap I didn't know the gun was loaded just don't cut it .:bdh:


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

7thswan said:


> ... not breeding meens never haveing to say your're preggers.


We have a winner Thanks :cowboy:


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Sawmill Jim said:


> We have a winner Thanks :cowboy:


I have a sticker on the back my helmet-stupid people should not breed .:cowboy:


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

7thswan said:


> I have a sticker on the back my helmet-stupid people should not breed .:cowboy:


Two thing I have found stupid people are really superb at breeding and voting Dimocrat


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I absolutely refuse to pay the first dime of child support and you can't make me! Nor can the state. What I have done instead is to take three other deadbeat dads kids and raise them as my own. My last boys (Yvonne's) dad was just a horses pattoot, but credit where it's due he did pay the support ordered by the judge. He growled about it a lot, but he sent the checks.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

Well, it just goes to show...the front of same helmet says-mean people suck. Guess that covers both parts of your learnen! (mine too)!


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

7thswan said:


> There should be a way for a child support "payer" to buy things for the children and not let the other ex have their hands on it.



I actually tried that and if they don't want to pay, they won't buy essentials either.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

7thswan said:


> There should be a way for a child support "payer" to buy things for the children and not let the other ex have their hands on it.


There is. The NCP can pay certain bills - medical bills, school expenses, child care, paying the rent or mortgage, clothing for the kids, etc. Many people are doing that nowadays.

HOWEVER, that's not even a guarantee that those things are paid, either.

My own personal observation is that parents who don't pay child support have a slight tendency to not pay any of their other bills either.

BTW, my question was if anyone here dodged payments, not that they're the ex, sibling, etc. of someone who did.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I absolutely refuse to pay the first dime of child support and you can't make me! Nor can the state. What I have done instead is to take three other deadbeat dads kids and raise them as my own. My last boys (Yvonne's) dad was just a horses pattoot, but credit where it's due he did pay the support ordered by the judge. He growled about it a lot, but he sent the checks.



I have a great deal of respect for men like yourself and hope you realize how wonderful guys like yourself are for kids with disinterested fathers.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I absolutely refuse to pay the first dime of child support and you can't make me! Nor can the state. What I have done instead is to take three other deadbeat dads kids and raise them as my own. My last boys (Yvonne's) dad was just a horses pattoot, but credit where it's due he did pay the support ordered by the judge. He growled about it a lot, but he sent the checks.


Well I raised one extra child too . That child's dad was in court so many times the last time he was there the Judge told him the next time he saw him in his court for non support, he would give him five years for starters . That man became reformed before he left the court house that day . :whistlin:

Judge said he couldn't make him pay but he could give him enough time to wish he had .:hysterical: All for less than a hundred a month :cowboy:


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Many men don't pay because they don't think it's fair for them to pay for what she wanted in a marriage and she doesn't have to pay for what he wanted.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I've found the best way out of child support payments is to support the child.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

wr said:


> I have a great deal of respect for men like yourself and hope you realize how wonderful guys like yourself are for kids with disinterested fathers.


Thank you, I never did it for anyone else, I did it coz the kids needed it and seemed to appreciate it.bthe first threes dads all stayed out of the picture most of the time, made my job easier. The last clown lived close and had visitation every other weekend.... If you could get him to take the boy! Always some excuse. Took the boy several years to figure out that dad just didn't want to spend time with him. Now that he's grown dad wants the credit for how good the boys doing. Last I heard the boy has turned the tables and wants nothing to do with him. Sad.


----------



## Danaus29 (Sep 12, 2005)

My dad would have dodged payments if he had been able to. But one thing the USAF is a stickler about is those support payments, except for the month I turned 18. I never did get that $40 check. And how he grumbled about that money being taken from his check. He had no excuse, wouldn't do his share when they were together, wasn't about to do anything after.

I don't think you'll find anyone here who will admit to dodging payments even if they have a truly legitimate reason for it. Most of the posters here are decent human beings who feel strongly about supporting their family. 

In many states if you are behind on support you can't get a fishing, hunting, or drivers license.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

All fathers should want to support their children - for those who don't, I see nothing wrong with their being made to do so - or sit around in jail eating bologna and pork and beans.


Now, I also think if a court assigns child support, there should be some guidelines. I do know women who waste the money and the kids have no food. I know women who have a live-in and uses the child's money to support him.


----------



## mreynolds (Jan 1, 2015)

Interesting thread. I have a friend who pays child support to a child he knows is not his because he knows the dad wont do it. Has even for ten+ years too. 

There are all kinds I guess.


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

There really needs to be some way to insure the kids themselves are the ones benefiting from any child support payments (and there might be nowadays...IDK).

I worked with a woman years ago that was griping about "her" child support being late because she and her boyfriend "wanted to party" that weekend. She was a waste of flesh IMO and I was glad to see her go when she finally quit.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

A man who worked for my husband was told he was a father of a woman's child. This was before DNA, and since he said it was 'possible' the child was his, he didn't argue.
He was married to someone else by that time, but both he and his wife accepted it and he was her father. She was 4 at the time.

When she was 12, the mother broke down and told him he was not the father, she just named him because he had a good job.

It made no difference to him, he said she was his daughter, he was her father and nothing was changed. 

There are a lot of men and women out there raising, supporting and caring for other men and women's children. For the most part, the children are better off for it.

Parents still should be responsible for the children they produce.

*hippygirl,* I remember hearing a woman complaining because she and her husband (not the children's father) couldn't go to the 'boats" (gambling) because the child support was late.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

A guy I worked with had his live in girlfriend surprise him outside the guard shack as we were leaving for lunch with a "Honey I just got back from the doctor and we're pregnant. We need to rent a larger apartment or look for a house."

He told her "Honey , congratulations but you need to go talk to the father about moving in with him because I had a vasectomy six years before we met and I have to go talk to my attorney to make sure you don't name me as the father on the paperwork after I stop at the apartment to load my stuff up to put in storage until you move."


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

I pay child support now even though the ex and I each have one kid living with us full time. Turns out, the state doesn't see it as break even if she goes and gets welfare...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

If the sex was voluntary the child support should be too


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

It's sad that 'adults', and I use that term loosely, squabble over child support.
Then they squabble over visitation, and then, and then....

But the common denominator is this: The kids, are in the middle.
It's bad enough that the children's lives are forever altered; can the adults grow up please?

I know a guy who got full custody of his 4 kids, and his ex wife paid ZERO support. She was in and out of jail most of the kids lives (other issues) but had never paid ONE DIME in support. She owes 10's of thousands of dollars......

I know a gal, who had custody of the kids, one was bio one was adopted by the exhusband. He occassionally picked up the bio kid; totally ignored the adopted. 
Mind you he adopted the kid when he was 5 or 6, and he was 10 or 11 when they got divorced.......Ex owned and operated a successful business, and paid 25.00 a week in support because he put the business in his new wifes name and claimed he made no money. The mother was working 2 jobs, living in a trailer, trying to keep the kids fed and the lights on......

What is the answer?

It starts, with the heart. It's about commitment, honor, respect, integrity, honesty.
Kids today don't have decent role models today, that they can look up too.
I remember when kids used to think their dads and moms 'were heros'; today it's some 'gag me with a spoon' flash in the pan pop singer, or empty headed actor/actress......

We are reaping what we have sown.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Support goes for things like housing, electricity, water, sewer, phone, insurance, transportation, medical, clothing, food, school supplies/college, entertainment, child care, extracurricular activities and more I'm sure I'm missing, like tooth paste and deodorant.

I've paid and received support.

I try to surround myself with positive people and maybe that's why I don't see these bad parents that turn out rotten kids.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I trust (gasp) my ex. I never expected her to mark the bills I gave her to be sure those very bills bought this or that. 
In fact I'm pretty sure that some of those very bills bought beer. 
But she fed and clothed the kid paid the gas bill with a lot of bills that came outa her pocket. 
Never worried whichever pocket she paid which bill out of.


----------



## Tiempo (May 22, 2008)

Shrek said:


> A guy I worked with had his live in girlfriend surprise him outside the guard shack as we were leaving for lunch with a "Honey I just got back from the doctor and we're pregnant. We need to rent a larger apartment or look for a house."
> 
> He told her "Honey , congratulations but you need to go talk to the father about moving in with him because I had a vasectomy six years before we met and I have to go talk to my attorney to make sure you don't name me as the father on the paperwork after I stop at the apartment to load my stuff up to put in storage until you move."


Can't have been much of a relationship in the first place if he never told her in all the time they were together that he had had a vasectomy.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

The courts will always err on the side of awarding child support for the "benefit of the child" if the case is brought before them. Anytime the court is involved and cs is ordered, the debt doesn't go away. I know men who thought they were being smart while their kids were under 18 - working under the table, not working at all, etc - only to find that all their tax refunds were garnished until the back debt was paid off no matter what age the kids were. Some of them have kids who are in their 30's, but the Dad is still getting his wages garnished because he owes the mother that money one way or another. He didn't pay it while the kids were younger, the mother struggled to ensure the kids were taken care of while they were minors, and now the Dad is paying her back in a manner of speaking. 

I also know of cases where the child was NOT the husband's kid, DNA tests proved it, but since they were married when the child was born the courts make the ex-husband pay CS for the kid (that isn't his). I wasn't married to my DH when I had our ODS, and he had to sign paperwork to be placed onto his birth certificate stating that he was waiving his right to a DNA test and that he was willing to admit to being the father of the child....it was several pages long and full of legal terms. Apparently in the state of Virginia they no longer allow a woman to put down the name of the father (if they aren't married) without his express consent & witnessed signature; the named father has to sign forms to be placed on the birth certificate. If he won't consent, she can court order a DNA test to have him placed on the birth certificate anyway, but she can't just write down a name in the hospital anymore and have that man attached to the kid.

There was a big case I read about a few years ago where the couple had fertility problems and froze a number of embryos before they divorced. The husband was under the assumption that the embryos would be destroyed or donated, but in fact his now-ex wife had the embryos implanted after their divorce, without his knowledge or consent, then after the kids were born she went after him for CS. Initially the courts granted it  because it was deemed to be in the best interest of the children to have that extra support. I think it was overturned upon appeal, but I don't recall that for sure..... 

I also read about a man who donated sperm to a friend of his, they signed all kinds of legal forms beforehand stating that it was a no-strings attached donation, but after the baby was born she went after him for CS and the courts granted it - again because it was in the best interest of the child to be financially supported by the father.

Heck, I have a personal friend who's ex-wife put their kids into Catholic school against his wishes, neither of them were Catholic and the kids were doing fine in public school. He couldn't afford the outrageous tuition that she demanded he pay half of, so off to court they went. The judge reviewed his financials and said "I can see that you can't afford this, but I think Catholic school is great so I'm going to order that you pay for it anyway." Appealing it would put him in the position where he couldn't afford to pay for the attorney and his now-court ordered support of the private school tuition, which he already had to take out a HELOC to afford, so he had to let it go :shrug:.

No matter how bad a father thinks he has it in the child support department, there's always someone out there who has it worse IME.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

I think that sometimes the noncustodial parent forgets that the child must eat, use utilities, keep a roof over their head/s, and so forth. Child support is meant to reimburse the custodial parent for the child's room and board, ad if the money stretches to new clothes great, but the child support was created for room and board. 

Yes, I have heard of children of famous people getting $1500 a month, but I believe that is very rare.

So, the custodial parent who wishes to part with the child support money has ALREADY fed the child and paid for the utilities, and paid both parents share of it, and the child support is to reimburse her for the other parent's share. Though the non-custodial parent well may be a waste of skin, that is two separate things.

As for a person who does not feed their child in spite of collecting child support, they belong in jail.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Tiempo said:


> Can't have been much of a relationship in the first place if he never told her in all the time they were together that he had had a vasectomy.


Yep, what a sleaze ball..... Tricking her like that. :yuck:


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Child support is one of the most screwed up aspects of our society. I don't think I have ever seen a case where child support was implemented fairly for everyone. 

A former co-worker had 1 child with an ex-husband, another later with a deadbeat dad boyfriend. The ex husband had custody of kid #1 and took her to court for child support. I don't know how he got it, since he was much better off than her and had no other kids, but he did. She could barely keep food on the table afterwards. One Friday night, when she picked up kid #1 for her weekend visitation, the child asked, "Why are you buying Daddy a boat?". Oh, yeah, slime bucket ex was making boat payments with his child support and actually TOLD the child, mommy had "bought him a boat". 

A cousin was thrown in jail for back child support. One of his two sons came to live with him, so he halved his child support payments. Didn't go to court and make it official, though, so the vindictive ex turned him in and had him jailed. He still had to pay it even after the situation was made known in court.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I didn't think kids could live in jail to be wth dad. :shrug:


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I doubt that $1500 a month is rare. 
In Illinois child for two is expected to be about a third of the fathers income. A yearly income of just over a grand a week. 

I know of payments owed of $3000 a month.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I didn't think kids could live in jail to be wth dad. :shrug:


And you are right. Kid was with grandparents during that time.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Same ol', same ol'. Nothing uglier than two adults behaving like children. Well, maybe one adult and one acting like a child is just as bad.
But in the battle of exwhatevers, the ugliest of uglies is the non involved parent complaining about what the involved one does, usually everything the involved one does. 
Of course the involved spouse has bouts of poor judgement- that's what caused the relatiinship in the first place.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Trixie said:


> All fathers should want to support their children - for those who don't, I see nothing wrong with their being made to do so - or sit around in jail eating bologna and pork and beans.


Mothers too. Non-custodial mothers are even less likely to pay than fathers, although the reasons for that are quite complex.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> All fathers should want to support their children - for those who don't, I see nothing wrong with their being made to do so - or sit around in jail eating bologna and pork and beans.


And how does locking them up get the kids fed? :shrug:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And how does locking them up get the kids fed? :shrug:


Not getting fed anyway.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

AmericanStand said:


> I doubt that $1500 a month is rare.
> In Illinois child for two is expected to be about a third of the fathers income. A yearly income of just over a grand a week.
> 
> I know of payments owed of $3000 a month.


You are correct: mental hiccup time! I should have said $15,000 per month for the rich and famous: it is just hard for me to write those numbers!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I know a guy, a farmer who had 2 kids.
His wife had an affair and eventually ran off with the other guy, and of course, Dad was ordered to pay child support.
The court looked at his gross farm earnings and set the CS based on that, it was a huge windfall for Mommy Dearest, but it almost destroyed the family farm.
Anybody who has been involved with farming knows how slim the profit margin is.
He was forced to farm and work full time.
He lived the life of a pauper while she and her new boy toy lived it up.
"Dad" kept his nose to the grindstone, never missed a payment and after several years of 16 hour days eating beans and Ramen noodles, never taking vacation, rarely having a day off, he made it through.
Lots of guys don't make it, they try and wind up losing everything because the courts are too corrupt or too stupid to leave the guy enough to live on.
My brother raised 4 girls by himself, his ex was ordered to pay, but she never paid a dime.
Think she went to jail?


----------



## tiffnzacsmom (Jan 26, 2006)

My ex would complain if I went out to eat when he actually picked up the kids because the $50 a month he was supposed to pay when the kids were small sure covered clothing, food, housing and medical for two little ones. When the next baby came along I forgave all the arrearages to give his new family a fresh start.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

where I want to said:


> Not getting fed anyway.


Then the custodial parent needs to be looked at. There is no excuse for them to let their children go hungry. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Cornhusker said:


> I know a guy, a farmer who had 2 kids.
> His wife had an affair and eventually ran off with the other guy, and of course, Dad was ordered to pay child support.
> The court looked at his gross farm earnings and set the CS based on that, it was a huge windfall for Mommy Dearest, but it almost destroyed the family farm.
> Anybody who has been involved with farming knows how slim the profit margin is.
> ...


puts me in mind of the guy my bio mother ran off with. He had recently been divorced too. His first wife got the farm in the divorce, all his money, farm equipment, everything. She was also awarded child support and alimony which he paid til the baby was grown, and the alimony til he died. When he died she went ahead and married the guy she had been living with. He also paid my bio mother child support for the two she had with him.... Poor old guy worked his tail off keeping those two women up all of his life. Drove a bus for the city for thirty years, retired and was run over by one and squished like a bug within a month of retiring. :stars:


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Then the custodial parent needs to be looked at. There is no excuse for them to let their children go hungry. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.


So, since according to that reckoning, the non paying, non custodial parent can choose to pay nothing to feed the children, while the custodial is to be (unclear what "looked atc means but sounds ominous) if the children go hungry. 
Since that rarely happens, it is really either the custodial parent, if they pay everything, or the State, if they pay welfare benefits, who gets screwed over by the non payer. Sounds like a perfect recipe for everyone ignoring child support as it suits them without penalty.

Any solution?


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

where I want to said:


> So, since according to that reckoning, the non paying, non custodial parent can choose to pay nothing to feed the children, while the custodial is to be (unclear what "looked atc means but sounds ominous) if the children go hungry.
> Since that rarely happens, it is really either the custodial parent, if they pay everything, or the State, if they pay welfare benefits, who gets screwed over by the non payer. Sounds like a perfect recipe for everyone ignoring child support as it suits them without penalty.
> 
> Any solution?


i have no idea what "looked atc" means either, or where you see it? As to the solution.... I am not sure what it may involve, but taking away a persons means of income (locking them up) probably is not part of it. That merely reduces their ability to pay. I would prefer some punishment for failure to pay that doesn't remove the ability. Perhaps lashes or caning? No time lost from work and it gets their attention.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

One thing I notice with the postings here is that many trot out a story about a 'she or he done him wrong' story as a suitable reason for not paying child support. For their sex only. And with such venom. 
It seems that:
1) it is always the other sex who is the evil one, however mathematically unlikely as that would mean everyone is evil and 
2) no ex is ever allowed to have a life as long as child support is demanded, let alone actually paid, having to be acceptably dressed in rags as a matter of justice and
3) no matter how little is paid, and how irregularly, there is always some extra low life whatever living a dissipated yet lavish life off it.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> i have no idea what "looked atc" means either, or where you see it? As to the solution.... I am not sure what it may involve, but taking away a persons means of income (locking them up) probably is not part of it. That merely reduces their ability to pay. I would prefer some punishment for failure to pay that doesn't remove the ability. Perhaps lashes or caning? No time lost from work and it gets their attention.


If they won't pay, what does it matter whether they can as the child doesn't get the money.

This has been so illuminating a thread in the most personal, yet TMI way.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> And how does locking them up get the kids fed? :shrug:


If he isn't contributing, he isn't paying for their food anyway.

Sitting in jail couldn't be fun. I'm thinking sooner or later he/she is going to decide it might be better to face up to the responsibilities and pay for your children.

Again, if it is mandated child support, there should be some guidelines. In one case I know, the wife was a spend thrift - could spend several hundred dollars at Wal Mart 'because it was half priced' (No matter whether it was needed or even useful. 

When the husband mentioned this fact, he was told it didn't matter how she spent the money - his job was to pay.

*these days* - I agree mothers are guilty as well.

The sad fact is the kids suffer when both parents don't do the right thing.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Cornhusker said:


> I know a guy, a farmer who had 2 kids.
> 
> His wife had an affair and eventually ran off with the other guy, and of course, Dad was ordered to pay child support.
> 
> ...



Farmer I knew thought he made $100,000 a year on a 1000 acre farm.
He paid a third of that. 
And she got half the farm. Later on he got a good account and that showed him is best year ever was about $40,000 and at that time he was down to about$5000 a year. 
Of course by then he had sold most of what was left.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Question 
Why are kids ENTITLED to a third ?
Just cause someone makes a million do the kids really need $ 333,333 a year to live on ? If they still lived with Dad no one would claim they were abused if the entire family lived on a tenth of that.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

tiffnzacsmom said:


> My ex would complain if I went out to eat when he actually picked up the kids because the $50 a month he was supposed to pay when the kids were small sure covered clothing, food, housing and medical for two little ones. When the next baby came along I forgave all the arrearages to give his new family a fresh start.


I just can't get over the women who trample each other to breed with guys like this.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Tiempo said:


> Can't have been much of a relationship in the first place if he never told her in all the time they were together that he had had a vasectomy.


 They only dated and shacked up for about a year, never discussed having kids and although he was sterile he used protection to avoid exposure to HIV or other STDs.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

AmericanStand said:


> Question
> Why are kids ENTITLED to a third ?
> Just cause someone makes a million do the kids really need $ 333,333 a year to live on ? If they still lived with Dad no one would claim they were abused if the entire family lived on a tenth of that.


 Because it's in a book somewhere. ound:

If I made a million bucks a year (on the books and taxable and all) why wouldn't I just take the kids. If you're pullin in that kinda money it's cheaper to have them at home, it's better (cause you know, kids are kinda fun and all) and you get to crap all over the Ex by making her pay support :hysterical:
:hysterical::hysterical::hysterical:http://www.homesteadingtoday.com//www.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/


----------



## hippygirl (Apr 3, 2010)

oneraddad said:


> Support goes for things like housing, electricity, water, sewer, phone, insurance, transportation, medical, clothing, food, school supplies/college, entertainment, child care, extracurricular activities and more I'm sure I'm missing, like tooth paste and deodorant.


And that's what is "should" pay for, but, sadly, in a lot of cases what it actually does is fund a good time and whatnot for the custodial parent.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

hippygirl said:


> And that's what is "should" pay for, but, sadly, in a lot of cases what it actually does is fund a good time and whatnot for the custodial parent.


Huh?

Are you saying that the child does not have a roof over his head and water to drink? Or that the child has no heat in the winter and has no food to eat? The custodial parent will have already paid for this, and paid for all of it not just half, and the child support is to reimburse him or her. 

If the child has no food or water, then it is a matter for the police, I would say


----------



## tiffnzacsmom (Jan 26, 2006)

thesedays said:


> I just can't get over the women who trample each other to breed with guys like this.


Wow. You got that from where? Yep he has a child younger than mine. To hear him talk about me I'm evil incarnate, his current wife probably felt bad for him with how nasty I am.

But then with six years between my youngest and the next there wasn't much trampling. Heck there was barely a mosey.


----------



## rkintn (Dec 12, 2002)

hippygirl said:


> And that's what is "should" pay for, but, sadly, in a lot of cases what it actually does is fund a good time and whatnot for the custodial parent.



Ahhhh, the ever elusive ex getting rich off of the ex's tens of dollars worth of child support lol. That fairy tale ranks right up there with the welfare queen driving a rolls Royce and buying t-bones with her gold mine of food stamps. Lmbo.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I wonder if there is a way to go to your local county court's public records and see how much child support is ordered to be paid AND who is behind, and how far behind they are.

I'm sorry, 25.00 a week for 2 kids doesn't cover their school lunches.

SO MANY parents just 'drop it' when it comes to child support. 
They never see it, and though the courts have the unpaid support on record?? 
Rarely does the deadbeat get sued, have their wages garnished, tax checks seized because the parent that raised the kids got away from the dead beat for a reason.........and they are ready to be free of them forever.

You call a man/woman who has to pay support 'a victim'......
What do you call a man/woman who WAITS till the kids are past the support age, to ditch their spouse? Smart?
Not sure who the bigger dirt bag is......but I do know this; if folks really thought about "I DO" and the vows that go along with it BEFORE they committed or made a baby w/ the other person? They would be fewer 'support issues'.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

tiffnzacsmom said:


> But then with six years between my youngest and the next there wasn't much trampling. Heck there was barely a mosey.



Lol mosey huh ?
I think he was referring to the new woman. 
But do you mind if I ask , why did ya pick the guy out in the first place ?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Do you suppose there would be less divorce if there wasn't any child support. ?
Less random sex ?


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

AmericanStand said:


> Do you suppose there would be less divorce if there wasn't any child support. ?
> Less random sex ?


Are you heading into the virtues of holding women as a man's property? Or just saying that holding children hostage will keep worried mother's under their husband's thumb? And just who are you expecting will be the less random sex person?


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

I for one think divorce in this country is far to easy. "irreconcilable differences" should not be allowed. Adultery and abuse should be the only allowances. If you weren't compatible that would be known right away. Less divorce would mean less of this mess we have today. Look how many women have multiple children by multiple fathers. No wonder kids are so screwed up.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

rkintn said:


> Ahhhh, the ever elusive ex getting rich off of the ex's tens of dollars worth of child support lol. That fairy tale ranks right up there with the welfare queen driving a rolls Royce and buying t-bones with her gold mine of food stamps. Lmbo.


No fairy tale, I have known several women who played the game just that way, one in particular drove a new Mercedes and lived it up off of her ex. I was working in the Mercedes service dept with her ex who was living in a remodeled chicken house. She had kept the family home and their vacation home on big bear lake. He was paying her five grand a month in child support. Fairy tale for her, nightmare for him.


----------



## Terri (May 10, 2002)

Vahomesteaders said:


> I for one think divorce in this country is far to easy. "irreconcilable differences" should not be allowed. Adultery and abuse should be the only allowances. If you weren't compatible that would be known right away. Less divorce would mean less of this mess we have today. Look how many women have multiple children by multiple fathers. No wonder kids are so screwed up.


They already tried this. It was a mess.

Basically, hired investigators went over a person's background with a fine tooth comb to look for dirt, people lied through their teeth, lawyers got rich, hearings drug out for a long time, and people who were honestly afraid of their spouses hesitated to get rid of them, because a man who would hit a woman or a woman who would attack her husband will not hesitate to destroy them in a court of law. And, kids were brought into testify against the parents, and the lawyers were NOT kind to the kids.

There is no good idea that human nature can't foul up.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Then I say whoever files for the divorce outside of those two reasons, pay the support to the other with 50/50 time split.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

where I want to said:


> Are you heading into the virtues of holding women as a man's property? Or just saying that holding children hostage will keep worried mother's under their husband's thumb? And just who are you expecting will be the less random sex person?



Ick !
No I was thinking about the virtue of thinking before you leap
And wondering how many marry for child support or at least veiw it as a fallback benifit.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> No fairy tale, I have known several women who played the game just that way, one in particular drove a new Mercedes and lived it up off of her ex. I was working in the Mercedes service dept with her ex who was living in a remodeled chicken house. She had kept the family home and their vacation home on big bear lake. He was paying her five grand a month in child support. Fairy tale for her, nightmare for him.


And no man ever showed up to buy one with the money he was spending so his ex couldn't get her hands on it? Well then, he was probably over at the Ford place buying a $60,000 work truck.

Truth is that women abusing their children to appropriate with child support money are far less than the number of men using that idea as an excuse not to pay it in the first place.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

rkintn said:


> Ahhhh, the ever elusive ex getting rich off of the ex's tens of dollars worth of child support lol. That fairy tale ranks right up there with the welfare queen driving a rolls Royce and buying t-bones with her gold mine of food stamps. Lmbo.


Well not a Rolls, but I do know someone who drove a new Corvette courtesy of her ex paying alimony. And I already cited another instance of an ex using child support for a boat payment. I don't think it's a fairy tale at all. For every honest parent who is using their support wisely in the best interest of their children, you can find others who spend it on themselves to spite the ex. And you don't have to look very hard.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

MO_cows said:


> Well not a Rolls, but I do know someone who drove a new Corvette courtesy of her ex paying alimony. And I already cited another instance of an ex using child support for a boat payment. I don't think it's a fairy tale at all. For every honest parent who is using their support wisely in the best interest of their children, you can find others who spend it on themselves to spite the ex. And you don't have to look very hard.


But is anyone even looking for the honest ones? Since there aren't skeletons of starving children littering the streets, most must be doing fairly well. Too many use the few examples of misuse to justify wholesale nonpayment when their personal resentment is the real basis for their objectiins. 
So if someone wants a car and uses alimony to get it, why does make it wrong? And what does that have to do with child support? You may question her judgement, always an option when talking about women, but it is her money.


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

MO_cows said:


> Well not a Rolls, but I do know someone who drove a new Corvette courtesy of her ex paying alimony. And I already cited another instance of an ex using child support for a boat payment. I don't think it's a fairy tale at all. For every honest parent who is using their support wisely in the best interest of their children, you can find others who spend it on themselves to spite the ex. And you don't have to look very hard.


Have heard in many cases that they take into account that the child's standard of living is took into account .If the child living standard was big boats and fast sports car before the divorce why should their standard of living change ,to a shack and a row boat


----------



## Shine (Feb 19, 2011)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Have heard in many cases that they take into account that the child's standard of living is took into account .If the child living standard was big boats and fast sports car before the divorce why should their standard of living change ,to a shack and a row boat


An often missed idiom within the "Quality of Life Gambit" - Let's say that the parent paying CS gets a paycheck reduction or, God forbid, loses their job. It is months upon months to get any reduction at great resistance from the state and often the other parent. Often there is no reduction citing prior standard of living.

Unless the former couple agrees to a reduction it is almost impossible to get any relief from the state.

Now, had that family remained intact then this is the current standard of living in that the reduction in household expenses is immediate, so the question here is why is there so much resistance in insuring that the one parent is not unfairly burdened by these changes in circumstances?

ETA: Once the CS is paid in there is no accounting required of the receiving parent, they may do as they choose with those monies received, the only restriction is that the child receive the necessities to thrive...


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

where I want to said:


> But is anyone even looking for the honest ones? *Since there aren't skeletons of starving children littering the streets*, most must be doing fairly well. Too many use the few examples of misuse to justify wholesale nonpayment when their personal resentment is the real basis for their objectiins.
> So if someone wants a car and uses alimony to get it, why does make it wrong? And what does that have to do with child support? You may question her judgement, always an option when talking about women, but it is her money.


Enough with the melodrama. This is America and there is both public and private assistance. A parent who is low income and not getting reliable child support can apply for public assistance and also use the local food bank. And that's in addition to any help they might get from their friends and family. Their children are in very little danger of starvation. Even in the poorest of countries they don't leave the bodies of their children in the streets to become skeletons. Just a total fallacy and a very ugly one at that.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Have heard in many cases that they take into account that the child's standard of living is took into account .If the child living standard was big boats and fast sports car before the divorce why should their standard of living change ,to a shack and a row boat


Agreed.... They don't need no row boat.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Vahomesteaders said:


> I for one think divorce in this country is far to easy. "irreconcilable differences" should not be allowed. *Adultery and abuse *should be the only allowances. If you weren't compatible that would be known right away. Less divorce would mean less of this mess we have today. Look how many women have multiple children by multiple fathers. No wonder kids are so screwed up.


I would go so far to say that Adulterers and Abusers (male and female) should have to PAY THRU THE NOSE if it is proven, they have abused, or cheated. THRU the nose.........

Folks will think twice before they said "I do".


----------



## Sawmill Jim (Dec 5, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Agreed.... They don't need no row boat.


If all things came down to needs a tepee and a bag of beans ,could do the trick . My X before she became my X latched on to a rich farmer ,so I took no prisoners . I waited a few years after the divorce and hit her for support I got a huge $125 .00 almost every month that lacked $25.00 paying for his shoes .


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

where I want to said:


> And no man ever showed up to buy one with the money he was spending so his ex couldn't get her hands on it? Well then, he was probably over at the Ford place buying a $60,000 work truck.
> 
> Truth is that women abusing their children to appropriate with child support money are far less than the number of men using that idea as an excuse not to pay it in the first place.


1975.... A good work truck (ford) could be had for $2500. And no I never knew of any man who was having to pay child support and bought "stuff" to get out of it. Most of the men I worked with paid their child support and did without in order to pay it. I do recall one guy getting behind a month.... His ex showed up at the shop one morning and dropped their 6 month old off saying something along the lines of "here, you take care of pieface, I will take her back when you get your finances straight and get the support caught up", handed over the little girl, turned and walked out of the shop. She had her money before lunchtime.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Vahomesteaders said:


> I for one think divorce in this country is far to easy. "irreconcilable differences" should not be allowed. Adultery and abuse should be the only allowances. If you weren't compatible that would be known right away. Less divorce would mean less of this mess we have today. Look how many women have multiple children by multiple fathers. No wonder kids are so screwed up.


What about couples who never married? 

What about couples who change over the decades and realize they are better off not being together, even though there was no infidelity or abuse? There are as many reasons for divorce as there are people who get divorced.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Laura Zone 10 said:


> I would go so far to say that Adulterers and Abusers (male and female) should have to PAY THRU THE NOSE if it is proven, they have abused, or cheated. THRU the nose.........
> 
> Folks will think twice before they said "I do".


What if both parties were unfaithful?

If both parties were abusive, the kids shouldn't be living with either of them either. 

Both of these things happen more than most people think.

I will add that when I was in high school, I had a friend whose mom was always hauling her dad into court for nonpayment of child support, and while I'm not really defending his actions, I can understand now where he was coming from because this was where she got her Bingo money - and yes, she would play Bingo before paying bills.  

It wasn't like he didn't support her in other ways, either. He bought clothes for her, paid for school activities, and also paid the deductible when she got really sick and was admitted to the hospital for a few days. No, he was not obligated to do any of that either. However, it didn't count because it wasn't The Child Suppport.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> 1975.... A good work truck (ford) could be had for $2500. And no I never knew of any man who was having to pay child support and bought "stuff" to get out of it. Most of the men I worked with paid their child support and did without in order to pay it. I do recall one guy getting behind a month.... His ex showed up at the shop one morning and dropped their 6 month old off saying something along the lines of "here, you take care of pieface, I will take her back when you get your finances straight and get the support caught up", handed over the little girl, turned and walked out of the shop. She had her money before lunchtime.


Sounds like he just didn't want to change diapers, which may have been a factor in their split to begin with. :yawn:

When I was growing up, the stereotype of the divorced father with a sports car and a stable of teenage girlfriends was NOT an urban legend. It was quite normal.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

thesedays said:


> Sounds like he just didn't want to change diapers, which may have been a factor in their split to begin with. :yawn:
> 
> When I was growing up, the stereotype of the divorced father with a sports car and a stable of teenage girlfriends was NOT an urban legend. It was quite normal.


This guy did have the sports car, a falling apart tr4, no string of ladies though, and he didn't mind taking care of pieface at all, just didn't seem to think a dealership service dept bay was a good place for her to spend her days.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

thesedays said:


> What about couples who never married?
> 
> What about couples who change over the decades and realize they are better off not being together, even though there was no infidelity or abuse? There are as many reasons for divorce as there are people who get divorced.


All goes back to commitment and morality. Til death do you part. Preceded by do you swear to. Get to know people before dropping trow. Make a commitment to make it work no matter what. Being bored or midlife crisis isn't a good excuse. It's part of why society and the family structure is crumbling away.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> 1975.... A good work truck (ford) could be had for $2500. And no I never knew of any man who was having to pay child support and bought "stuff" to get out of it. Most of the men I worked with paid their child support and did without in order to pay it. I do recall one guy getting behind a month.... His ex showed up at the shop one morning and dropped their 6 month old off saying something along the lines of "here, you take care of pieface, I will take her back when you get your finances straight and get the support caught up", handed over the little girl, turned and walked out of the shop. She had her money before lunchtime.


Poor child with such a poor inheritance. From both sides.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

where I want to said:


> Poor child with such a poor inheritance. From both sides.


There's many thousands of piefaces out there... They seem to work through it.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

http://news.yahoo.com/divorcing-husband-urges-ny-court-accept-silence-money-210252169.html
How timely.......


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Sawmill Jim said:


> Two thing I have found stupid people are really superb at breeding and voting Dimocrat


I believe you mean Republican. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-26-fertility-gap_x.htm



> House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic mother of five from San Francisco, has fewer children in her district than any other member of Congress: 87,727.
> Rep. Chris Cannon, R-Utah, a Mormon father of eight, represents the most children: 278,398.
> These two extremes reflect a stark demographic divide between the congressional districts controlled by the major political parties.
> Republican House members overwhelmingly come from districts that have high percentages of married people and lots of children, according to a USA TODAY analysis of 2005 Census Bureau data released last month.


----------



## Vahomesteaders (Jun 4, 2014)

Patchouli said:


> I believe you mean Republican. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-26-fertility-gap_x.htm


Yep. More families staying families with good morals where Republicans are in control.


----------



## Rivmage (Dec 24, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> I believe you mean Republican. http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-26-fertility-gap_x.htm


Children in Democratic districts are far more likely to live in poverty and with single parents than kids in GOP districts. 

Rep. JosÃ© Serrano, D-N.Y., has 227,246 children in his Bronx district, the 10th most in the House. Only 29% of those children live with married parents. 

By contrast, 84% of children live with married parents in Cannon's central Utah district. 

Nevertheless, a big difference in family life is clear:

â¢ Democrats represent 59 districts in which less than half of adults are married. Republicans represent only two.

â¢ Democrats represent 30 districts in which less than half of children live with married parents. Republicans represent none.

"The biggest gaps in American politics are religion, race and marital status," says Democratic pollster Anna Greenberg.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

I don't think it's a Republican or Democrat thing. 

It should be apparent to all of us that it took both so called parties to get us in the mess we are in today and I certainly don't see how the party you vote has anything to do with it.

There may be another reason the district in Utah has such a high percent of married couples - if you think about it.

Some states have the 'no fault' divorce and it doesn't matter who did/does what.

I do believe there should be some oversight to mandated child support.

I also think a father - or mother - should be willing to do whatever they possibly can to see their children are fed, clothed, and housed.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

Some newspapers tried printing the names of long-term deadbeats in the newspaper; one of them was in my region. Sounds like a good idea, but it caused more problems than it solved. One of them was (mostly) women calling up the agency and saying "He didn't pay", hoping to get him in trouble. Didn't work, if he was paid up.

One woman wrote a letter to the paper stating that her ex-husband had the same name and lived in the same town as a man who was on the list, and he was certainly aware of that other man's existence because he was in other kinds of trouble and didn't pay any of his other bills either. She was worried that people would see that name and think it belonged to a man who had never missed a payment in more than 10 years.

Yet another called the newspaper in tears, because her ex-husband's name was on that list. Yes, it was true that he hadn't paid support in several years, but he had a legitimate excuse: he was deceased AND he was fully paid up at the time of his unexpected death. She was so upset on behalf of her children, who loved their father very much and missed him enormously.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

thesedays said:


> Some newspapers tried printing the names of long-term deadbeats in the newspaper; one of them was in my region. Sounds like a good idea, but it caused more problems than it solved. One of them was (mostly) women calling up the agency and saying "He didn't pay", hoping to get him in trouble. Didn't work, if he was paid up.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Publishing names seemed like a good idea to me until I realized that kids can also read papers and websites and I'd rather my kids not have to deal with that. 

Mine chose not to pay but I felt no desire to share that with my kids. That's adult business and while I felt their father was a fool to live like he did to avoid his obligations, I also felt no need to share that with the kids.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> Publishing names seemed like a good idea to me until I realized that kids can also read papers and websites and I'd rather my kids not have to deal with that.
> 
> Mine chose not to pay but I felt no desire to share that with my kids. That's adult business and while I felt their father was a fool to live like he did to avoid his obligations, I also felt no need to share that with the kids.


For young kids, yes. But knowing all the issues may lead to better choice when a missing parent suddenly comes back into their lives at a point there is no danger of support being needed or if the adolescent child feels abused by the custodial parent and seeks out the fantasy parent that they have created in their minds. They don't have to hate the missing parent for nonpayment of support but having the facts is grounding.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

where I want to said:


> For young kids, yes. But knowing all the issues may lead to better choice when a missing parent suddenly comes back into their lives at a point there is no danger of support being needed or if the adolescent child feels abused by the custodial parent and seeks out the fantasy parent that they have created in their minds. They don't have to hate the missing parent for nonpayment of support but having the facts is grounding.



Maybe but mine figured it out. I focused their training on budgets and stretching a paycheque rather than daddy didn't send money. 

I might be wrong but they learned that wringing their hands and hoping for financial help wasn't as effective as rolling up their sleeves and getting things done.


----------



## Allen W (Aug 2, 2008)

InvalidID said:


> I pay child support now even though the ex and I each have one kid living with us full time. Turns out, the state doesn't see it as break even if she goes and gets welfare...



Wife's nephew found himself owing a lot of back child support when the child's mother applied for government aid of some type. They had an informal agreement between them but no formal agreement or records.

The other side is i told a friend if his daughter applied for government help of some kind she wouldn't have to pay for a lawyer to get the child support she should be.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

where I want to said:


> when a missing parent suddenly comes back into their lives at a point there is no danger of support being needed or if the adolescent child feels abused by the custodial parent and seeks out the fantasy parent that they have created in their minds


When I was in college, I worked with several guys who said they planned to get married with the intention of doing this - abandon the kids when they're very young, and then make the Big Hero Dad Comeback when they're teenagers. I'm not sure they were kidding, either.

One of them said his family had to move into a homeless shelter when his dad left; I replied, "Why would you want to do that to your own kids?" His answer? "Dad had a 17-year-old girlfriend."  Good heavens. Just don't breed, mmmmkay?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

The system is set up to encourage non payment. A non custodial parent who falls on hard times and tries to make partial payments will generally be told their offer is unacceptable and they are in default unless they may full payments or hire a lawyer to get support reduced. 

I don't think the system is all that terrific for either parent under ideal circumstances and it's less workable if one parent is difficult.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

I was on the deadbeat list for years because I paid in advance.


----------



## where I want to (Oct 28, 2008)

wr said:


> Maybe but mine figured it out. I focused their training on budgets and stretching a paycheque rather than daddy didn't send money.
> 
> I might be wrong but they learned that wringing their hands and hoping for financial help wasn't as effective as rolling up their sleeves and getting things done.


That wasn't what I meant at all. It is just that if an adolescent runs into difficulties with the authority of the parent and they have a non custodial parent, they tend to think that their life would be so much better with that parent because, in the absence of contact, they tend to create a fantasy. A little reality can allow them to look at the idea more clearly.
Then there is the tendency to want to "reconnect" with children once they are close to grown- that sudden letter from a parent who has not contacted them for almost all their life. It may be a much more realistic understanding to have the history and can be helpful in dealing with this. I can even tell you the age of the parent when this tends to happen- age 57. I don't know why but it does happen and around that age.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

where I want to said:


> That wasn't what I meant at all. It is just that if an adolescent runs into difficulties with the authority of the parent and they have a non custodial parent, they tend to think that their life would be so much better with that parent because, in the absence of contact, they tend to create a fantasy. A little reality can allow them to look at the idea more clearly.
> Then there is the tendency to want to "reconnect" with children once they are close to grown- that sudden letter from a parent who has not contacted them for almost all their life. It may be a much more realistic understanding to have the history and can be helpful in dealing with this. I can even tell you the age of the parent when this tends to happen- age 57. I don't know why but it does happen and around that age.


I don't know about the age - but you are right. I have seen it so many times. The parent they live with has to make rules and enforce them - be the bad guy.

Out of sight/out of mind - parent doesn't do any of those things, so the kids creates a great parent or pretend it's the custodial parent's fault they have no contact with the absentee parent. 

Sometimes when there is only sporadic contact, the absentee parent reinforces that.


----------



## InvalidID (Feb 18, 2011)

wr said:


> The system is set up to encourage non payment. A non custodial parent who falls on hard times and tries to make partial payments will generally be told their offer is unacceptable and they are in default unless they may full payments or hire a lawyer to get support reduced.
> 
> I don't think the system is all that terrific for either parent under ideal circumstances and it's less workable if one parent is difficult.


 I think that depends a lot on the state you're in. Washington isn't too bad about it. One of my buddies was out of work for over 6 months with a busted back. When he got back to work he owed something close to 2500 in back support. 
He was going to pay over half of it with what was left of his savings but the state decided he would have to pay a little more out of every check... 45 bucks a month more, because he'd made partial payments some of the time. 

In my own case, when I explained to the judge that I was self employed and my company paid me a % of each job; and that the ex has one kid and I have the other... She decided I would pay at a rate for a minimum wage earner. She then strongly advised me to file a claim for support. :hysterical: (I haven't in case it matters)


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

InvalidID said:


> I think that depends a lot on the state you're in. Washington isn't too bad about it. One of my buddies was out of work for over 6 months with a busted back. When he got back to work he owed something close to 2500 in back support.
> He was going to pay over half of it with what was left of his savings but the state decided he would have to pay a little more out of every check... 45 bucks a month more, because he'd made partial payments some of the time.
> 
> In my own case, when I explained to the judge that I was self employed and my company paid me a % of each job; and that the ex has one kid and I have the other... She decided I would pay at a rate for a minimum wage earner. She then strongly advised me to file a claim for support. :hysterical: (I haven't in case it matters)


There is nothing wrong with making arrangements and I truly believe that those would do, don't deserve to be on a deadbeat list and those who have legit difficulties also don't deserve to be labelled a deadbeat and unfortunately, these things tend to be used broadly and occasionally clerical mistakes are made. 

I've never interfered with my kids seeing their father and because of a mistake he made, his visitation had to be supervised so I'm sure that probably played some part in his lack of involvement. I also made it clear to my kids that I was not preventing him from seeing them and have always left the option for contact open. 

I'm not sure how old he was when he did decide to make contact but the results were likely not what he expected. My daughter keeps in touch by email and facebook, my eldest has never responded and remains uncertain as to what how he would like to respond and my youngest sent a fairly harsh message letting his father know that if he was too busy to keep in touch for 22 years, my son was far too busy with the people who were in his life for those same years. 

In a lot of ways, a fully absent parent is likely easier to deal with than one that drops in and out randomly.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

where I want to said:


> That wasn't what I meant at all. It is just that if an adolescent runs into difficulties with the authority of the parent and they have a non custodial parent, they tend to think that their life would be so much better with that parent because, in the absence of contact, they tend to create a fantasy. A little reality can allow them to look at the idea more clearly.
> Then there is the tendency to want to "reconnect" with children once they are close to grown- that sudden letter from a parent who has not contacted them for almost all their life. It may be a much more realistic understanding to have the history and can be helpful in dealing with this. I can even tell you the age of the parent when this tends to happen- age 57. I don't know why but it does happen and around that age.


Could age 57 be because s/he realizes their time may be more limited than they thought, and also because they figure they probably have grandchildren by now?

Child support is one of those things that has no right or wrong answer; every family is going to have different needs, and different ways for which they can be met.

As for absentee parents, I HAVE known families where the custodial parent really did block contact with the NCP without justification, even in some cases refusing child support (or lying to the kids about it not being paid), intercepting Christmas presents, and in one case telling the kids that he had died!  In these cases, it really can blow up big time in the CP's face when the child finds out the truth.


----------



## NickyBlade (May 27, 2008)

I always find it hilarious the fathers that complain their child support doesn't go towards the kids... just an example, mom makes 2,000 a month take home and dad pays 200 a month child support... but then dad complains to anyone who will listen about he he is paying for his ex's car, vacation, jewelry, clothes, etc... how far does he think his $200 goes? lol


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

My son in high school locker room was asked about how many girls he scored with well... he said none. my son average he was a 3to 4 years older than the other freshmen. He took a bit of razzing but that ended quickly.

He asked it they new that forty percent of their gross could be handed over for supporting one child for up to 22 years... and that did not include medical... 
That also the safest way not to get a std. Was to not a have sex. He also mentioned that that once the girls get the sperm... the guys have no right cause they gave those rights away with the sperm.

It was never an issue from that time on... when girls did get pregnant the guys talk was about the cost and the lost of an easy time for those involved.

When parents talk about sex with their kids do the talk about babies and child rearing and cost and life changes...or is that chapter left out.

Mom called it the shotgun chapter.

Teach it preach it. You might make a change for the the better.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

thesedays said:


> Could age 57 be because s/he realizes their time may be more limited than they thought, and also because they figure they probably have grandchildren by now?
> 
> Child support is one of those things that has no right or wrong answer; every family is going to have different needs, and different ways for which they can be met.
> 
> As for absentee parents, I HAVE known families where the custodial parent really did block contact with the NCP without justification, even in some cases refusing child support (or lying to the kids about it not being paid), intercepting Christmas presents, and in one case telling the kids that he had died!  In these cases, it really can blow up big time in the CP's face when the child finds out the truth.


I never lied or maligned my kid's father in any way nor did I ever attempt to block any visitation because I felt that those that do simply destroy their own credibility and would make that mythical missing father seem much more appealing.


----------



## thesedays (Feb 25, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> My son in high school locker room was asked about how many girls he scored with well... he said none. my son average he was a 3to 4 years older than the other freshmen. He took a bit of razzing but that ended quickly.
> 
> He asked it they new that forty percent of their gross could be handed over for supporting one child for up to 22 years... and that did not include medical...
> That also the safest way not to get a std. Was to not a have sex. He also mentioned that that once the girls get the sperm... the guys have no right cause they gave those rights away with the sperm.
> ...


The more a guy brags about how much he's getting, the chances are, he isn't. At all. eep:


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> My son in high school locker room was asked about how many girls he scored with well... he said none. my son average he was a 3to 4 years older than the other freshmen. He took a bit of razzing but that ended quickly.
> 
> He asked it they new that forty percent of their gross could be handed over for supporting one child for up to 22 years... and that did not include medical...
> That also the safest way not to get a std. Was to not a have sex. He also mentioned that that once the girls get the sperm... the guys have no right cause they gave those rights away with the sperm.
> ...


It was certainly part of the talk with mine - 

Along with the fact you are producing a life -


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> It was certainly part of the talk with mine -
> 
> *Along with the fact you are producing a life *-


Well, that is the our sole purpose on this planet is it not?


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Well, that is the our sole purpose on this planet is it not?




Yes, but along with that 'sole purpose' is the responsibility of that life - and once you have produced it - it's yours - forever.

You can terminate it. If you believe in a soul, then it is forever alive and you have a child - you just can't hold it. If you don't believe in a soul - you still have produced a life - and that is a truth of your life - forever.

If you give it up for adoption - not the worst of the options at all, you will always have a child - somewhere. While I think it is a very unselfish thing in most instances - it can't be easy.

If you keep it - you have a responsibility for that child - forever. It differs as the years go by - but it's there.

Whatever way - your life will be changed - 

Something I think people should think about -


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> Yes, but along with that 'sole purpose' is the responsibility of that life - and once you have produced it - it's yours - forever.
> 
> You can terminate it. If you believe in a soul, then it is forever alive and you have a child - you just can't hold it. If you don't believe in a soul - you still have produced a life - and that is a truth of your life - forever.
> 
> ...


people should think about a lot of things in my opinion.... But alas they don't seem to want to... Too much trouble I spose and some even get headaches when they try. It's good to see that you have a grasp of why we are here.... Many don't get that.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> people should think about a lot of things in my opinion.... But alas they don't seem to want to... Too much trouble I spose and some even get headaches when they try. It's good to see that you have a grasp of why we are here.... Many don't get that.


Well, not only should people think about it - they and society should teach the young - while they are teaching them the 'how to's.'


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> Well, not only should people think about it - they and society should teach the young - while they are teaching them the 'how to's.'


I taught mine they had taken on the job, now get in and do it. So far so good.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> I taught mine they had taken on the job, now get in and do it. So far so good.


Yes, mine as well. 

It's just that if the schools are going to take over the 'how tos', I'm thinking they should put forth the consequences as well.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> Yes, mine as well.
> 
> It's just that if the schools are going to take over the 'how tos', I'm thinking they should put forth the consequences as well.


It might be better just to give them the education that will enable them to take care of their families whenever they have them.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> It might be better just to give them the education that will enable them to take care of their families whenever they have them.


Oh, but that wasn't the discussion - it was sex education.

I'm not sure how that teaches them to be able to care for their families.

I agree that is what a school should be - but apparently there are some who think the school should teach a lot of other things. I'm just thinking if they are going to teach them other things - they need to teach them the consequences.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Trixie said:


> Oh, but that wasn't the discussion - it was sex education.
> 
> I'm not sure how that teaches them to be able to care for their families.
> 
> I agree that is what a school should be - but apparently there are some who think the school should teach a lot of other things. I'm just thinking if they are going to teach them other things - they need to teach them the consequences.


Looks like we will just have to agree to agree.


----------



## Trixie (Aug 25, 2006)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> Looks like we will just have to agree to agree.


I think you are right.


----------

