A better child-support law would be...

[Luveno]

To have the mother of the child save the receipts for all products deemed necessary for child rearing each month, and submit them to the court so that half the monthly fee could be charged to the unfortunate father.

It's not perfect but its better than what we have now. It would prevent unscrupulous harpies from using the payments to get boob jobs and liquored up.

Call me crazy but I doubt it takes $750/mo to raise a baby.

 

[DJDamage]

Its hard to put a price on that.

A child has to be fed, clothed, housed and watched over.

It will create a mess from all the receipts for all products and no court would want to deal with.

A better way to look at it, is to be careful who you sleep with. Yes it may be easy to nail the town's slvt but sh1t happens and if you take that risk you could pay through the nose. High quality well balanced women would work with you on that issue if it ever arises then work against you.

 

[penkitten]

currently they take the mother and the father's annual gross income and add them together. then they have a chart that tells them how much it would cost to raise that child or children based on that income.
then they divide it up, and the parent that does not live with the child usually pays 50- 60% of what is needed to support the child plus medical and dental can be added in. sometimes daycare.

if joe makes 7 bucks an hour and his ex sue makes 6 an hour, they would be raising their child (together or apart) on a much lower realm than someone like steve who makes 22 an hour and his ex stacey who makes 12 an hour.
joe and sue need free lunches and handme down clothes whereas steve and stacey can afford catholic school and karate lessons.

your children are supposed to live accustomed to a certain sort of life style and that is based on the income that the parents have been and are capable of making.

 

[bsthatcher]

My opinion is that under circumstances where one party does not want to raise the children and the other party does, the party that wants them should pay 100% the cost of raising them.

 

[NewMan]

My opinion is that under circumstances where one party does not want to raise the children and the other party does, the party that wants them should pay 100% the cost of raising them.

my opinion is, that if your dumb enough to nut in her, then you get what you deserve.

it's preventable (exceptions to every rule)

 

[JUAN the Great]

my opinion is, that if your dumb enough to nut in her, then you get what you deserve.

it's preventable (exceptions to every rule)

I totally agree with this. I could give a damn how bad she is; I wear a condom. Also, use both a lubricant with a spermicide and condoms with spermicide; becuse like a doctor I know said if a child comes out of that and you used both of those then it is the second coming.

 

[Francisco d'Anconia]

If a guy is really concerned about the cost of raising the little one (along with his/her welfare of course), why doesn't he ask for primary custody?

Just saying.

 

[logicallefty]

If a guy is really concerned about the cost of raising the little one (along with his/her welfare of course), why doesn't he ask for primary custody?

Just saying.

It's tough for a man to get full custody or joint custody, especially in Illinois where I live... I hear that other states aren't as bad.

I think what we need to solve the custody problem is a federal law granting joint custody automatically. If one parent wants to fight it, then both parents take a very severe mental evaluation, background check, and go before a large objective panel and explain why they would be the better parent. Not one already biased judge who typically says 'oh you got a p***y, you get the kid'. (gavel down) In these tests the one who scores better overall gets to call the shots from that point on, either give themselves full or stick with joint.

During my divorce I threatened my ex wife with bringing her mental health records to the table, and I was able to scare her into joint custody. Think about it, all these psycho bi***es today, would they really be so trigger happy with taking men to the cleaners if they were required to prove that they were more mentally fit than him. We all know that if this test was done correctly, the man would win 80-90% of the time.

As for child support, with true joint custody than neither party should have to pay it. If one parent has full custody and wants child support, the child support should be paid. However, it should not be a % of net income, it should be a sent amount of $ and only up to a max amount, regardless of income of either parents.

 

[mrRuckus]

your children are supposed to live accustomed to a certain sort of life style and that is based on the income that the parents have been and are capable of making.

I don't care about their lifestyle! Kids who care poor can still be quite happy as long as the basic needs are met. Uggghhh too much pampering of children. This is the same stupid reasoning for alimony! Sh1t happens in life and one person shouldn't be the insurance agent of another. Boo hoo if the monies get a little tight for you.

I could have a $100 million and my kids would still be delivering pizza to pay for college.

My $100 million is my money. They can go get jobs and earn money for their own car and college so that they can earn their own $100 million.

My kids will learn to appreciate what they earn. I'm not handing them much of anything. I slave all day at work to have luxuries for ME.

I even heard that Bill Gates isn't leaving his kids much money. He's giving them some, but not enough where they never have to work to get by. Good on him.

Last thing i'd do is put them in catholic or private school whether I'm still with their mom or not. What is the point of that? If people want to learn they will learn whether it's in the classroom or not. If they don't; they won't. I've learned far more on my own in less time than i ever learned in my fancy college.


Those moms waste that damn money. I see the sh1t they buy. "Juice" boxes and other poisons for the children that are expensive as hell. Or bottle after bottle of coke. Why should I have to fund my children's mother poisoning my children while mismanaging funds? Karate is a huge unnecessary expense. There are plenty of activities and sports that are far cheaper to partake in that. Why should i have to pay for THAT just because their poor mommy wants them to do that instead of something else?

All i know is that their lifestyle is not going to be based on my income. Whether i make $200k or $40k they are going to have the same stuff. No car, no game system... unless they buy it themselves. *I* don't even have an xbox or playstation even though i'd want one because i consider it a waste of not only time but money.

 

[NewMan]

All i know is that their lifestyle is not going to be based on my income. Whether i make $200k or $40k they are going to have the same stuff. No car, no game system... unless they buy it themselves. *I* don't even have an xbox or playstation even though i'd want one because i consider it a waste of not only time but money.

What a bucket full of joy you must be to hang around.

 

[h_roberts]

It's tough for a man to get full custody or joint custody, especially in Illinois where I live... I hear that other states aren't as bad.

I think what we need to solve the custody problem is a federal law granting joint custody automatically. If one parent wants to fight it, then both parents take a very severe mental evaluation, background check, and go before a large objective panel and explain why they would be the better parent. Not one already biased judge who typically says 'oh you got a p***y, you get the kid'. (gavel down) In these tests the one who scores better overall gets to call the shots from that point on, either give themselves full or stick with joint.

During my divorce I threatened my ex wife with bringing her mental health records to the table, and I was able to scare her into joint custody. Think about it, all these psycho bi***es today, would they really be so trigger happy with taking men to the cleaners if they were required to prove that they were more mentally fit than him. We all know that if this test was done correctly, the man would win 80-90% of the time.

As for child support, with true joint custody than neither party should have to pay it. If one parent has full custody and wants child support, the child support should be paid. However, it should not be a % of net income, it should be a sent amount of $ and only up to a max amount, regardless of income of either parents.

HERE HERE!

I think this thread was started in reply to the introduction thread I posted where I mentioned my 750 a month child support and her getting a boob job. Of course, this same story has been played out a zillion times across America, so maybe it was coincidence LOL.

I don't have an answer, and I for darn sure don't mind taking care of my responsibility. The only problem with divorce law is that one of the divorcees ALWAYS has power/control over the other...usually the one with custody and that is usually the woman.

In my case, my ex wife cheated on me straight up. But I made a crucial mistake. I should have sucked it up, held in my emotions, and rode to the nearest lawyer and filed for divorce myself. Instead, I tried to do the "noble" thing and forgive her and attempt to work it out. Well, that lasted all of two weeks and then one day half the furniture (hers from before the marriage) was gone and I was served divorce papers. She saw greener pastures (which have turned out not so green/she remarried but isnt happy) and hit the road.

Well, she left me with a 1200 dollar mortgage, which I demanded that she help pay. She did, but do you know what the effing judge did? She...SHE (the judge was a she) made me pay her RENT for living there. SHE LEFT, but I had to pay HER rent. Well, that would be fine if I got my money back when we sold the house, but no. Still 50/50 split of the assets. So she MADE money off of me, isn't that some sh!t? She got half the value of the sale, plus I had to pay her 6 months of "back rent". Guess what happened to my half of the equity?

I wanted to fight for half custody, but I work bad hours for child caring. I would have had to pay more for aftercare and someone to take him to school, on top of feeding him and everything else, than it costs to give her child support. She works too, but is a teacher and has good hours. Also, her parents live close and fill in the gaps.

The problem arised when the guy, me in this case, tries to "work things out". I'm not talkng about reconcilliation. I'm talking about being friendly and expecting to do the right thing. Just yesterday, I got a call telling me that I wasn't going to get my son my Wednesday because she had to work and her parents had to leave town with him for the night. Not for anything important mind you, just out of convenience. I told her I wanted to see him. She threw in my face that I don't always get her child support check to her on the 1st and 15th...(sometimes its a few days until I see her or I forget my checkbook), but I assure you, I always get it to her and have not missed a payment. I get so sick of it being thrown in my face as some kind of "threat". Bottom line, 75% of the dads out there are deadbeats and don't even call their kids. I'm doing all the right things, yet she uses everything as leverage in a fight.

Women CAN BE such total beothches. I coule really go into a longwinded rant on how much she changed and why.

But bottom line, this country is full of sh1t when it comes to "equallity" for the sexes. And someone really should stand up for change. Unfortunately, too many deadbeats screw it up for those of us doing the right thing.

 

[penkitten]

I don't care about their lifestyle! Kids who care poor can still be quite happy as long as the basic needs are met. Uggghhh too much pampering of children. This is the same stupid reasoning for alimony! Sh1t happens in life and one person shouldn't be the insurance agent of another. Boo hoo if the monies get a little tight for you.

I could have a $100 million and my kids would still be delivering pizza to pay for college.

My $100 million is my money. They can go get jobs and earn money for their own car and college so that they can earn their own $100 million.

My kids will learn to appreciate what they earn. I'm not handing them much of anything. I slave all day at work to have luxuries for ME.

I even heard that Bill Gates isn't leaving his kids much money. He's giving them some, but not enough where they never have to work to get by. Good on him.

Last thing i'd do is put them in catholic or private school whether I'm still with their mom or not. What is the point of that? If people want to learn they will learn whether it's in the classroom or not. If they don't; they won't. I've learned far more on my own in less time than i ever learned in my fancy college.


Those moms waste that damn money. I see the sh1t they buy. "Juice" boxes and other poisons for the children that are expensive as hell. Or bottle after bottle of coke. Why should I have to fund my children's mother poisoning my children while mismanaging funds? Karate is a huge unnecessary expense. There are plenty of activities and sports that are far cheaper to partake in that. Why should i have to pay for THAT just because their poor mommy wants them to do that instead of something else?

All i know is that their lifestyle is not going to be based on my income. Whether i make $200k or $40k they are going to have the same stuff. No car, no game system... unless they buy it themselves. *I* don't even have an xbox or playstation even though i'd want one because i consider it a waste of not only time but money.

"daddy can we have a bite of your fillet ming-eon ?"
mr ruckus, " NO LICK THE FLOOR"!!

mr ruckus, i would like to tell you something i have seen judges say to parents "nobody gives a crap about your feelings. you will pay your child support based upon your income or you will go to jail. if you didn't want to be a provider, then you should have thought of that before and not have had children".

and juice is good for kids.

 

[h_roberts]

In fairness to Mr. Rukus penkitten, I disagree with him to the harshness that he insists upon (I have a feeling that he has no kids yet), but I do agree to some degree in spirit.

Just today, a coworker and I were having this conversation. In Louisiana where I live, if a divorced man suddenly "strikes it rich", the ex-spouse has the ability to fight for an increase in child support.

Now follow my logic. The whole idea of the "scale" that is set in stone is to provide for the child the same level of comfort that he/she had at the time of the divorce. OK, fair enough. But no matter how you slice it, the father (or otherwise non-custodial) gets the short end of the stick. But not complaining about the amount, it is all we can do just to recover and get back into a reasonable financial situation. So what happens if you remarry and even have another child? That situation is minus the child support (and I can accept that), but say the father decides to pursue an entrepreneurial (sp?) venture and is succesful. He doubles his income and the intention is to support the new family and provide the best he can for them. After all, this is a woman who loves him (hopefully) and is trying to live the "fairy tail" that marriage and family is supposed to be.

So, the ex catches wind that he's "made it" and she wants a piece of the action. I gaurantee, 99% of the time when this happens, the well-fare of their child/ren isn't at stake. 99% of the time it is $$$$$ in their eyes. What logic dictates that someone who succeeds on his own accord without the help of an ex-spouse that she(or he to be fair, though rare) deserves a piece of that? And if the child support is to maintain the quality of life that the child had before the divorce, how does increasing it because of secondary efforts follow suit? And how fair is it that such men (or sometimes women) should deny their current family all the comforts that their other child gets to enjoy?

I read a year or so ago about a man who married a second wife and had a child. He was paying child support to a similar tune that I pay. He was left with barely enough to make a house note on an average house and clothe his child in wal-mart attire. His new wife couldn't stay home to care for the kid for going to earn extra money.

The ex-wife married a Dr or something and was living the life of Riley. The extra money went to buying the latest fashions and expensive vacations for the child/family.

So the man decided his only option was to divorce the second wife. The logic was that when he took her to court (she was in on it BTW) that she could fight for the same percentage of his income that the other wife had. Actually, what would happen is that BOTH child support values would be lowered to equal one another to be equitable to both children. This increased the amount of funds that the second child had available and decreased the funds to the first child, but made both kids have equal lifestyles, or at least as far as he was providing.

He continued to live as a spouse with the second wife, though legally divorced.

This is to illustrate the inequities of it all, and to adress Mr. Rukus's point...there is a limit, even with the wealthy, as to how much a child "deserves" to be spoiled. Just because a family is rich does not mean that the child is automatically going to live life with a silver platter. Some people believe in instilling restraint and frugalness in children. Some people think it is more important to save their extra wealth for retirement or hard times rather than buying the latest x-box 360 for their kids, or a porsche on their 16th birthday. It isn't selfishness or mal-treatment, it is teaching them values that money isn't a "given" in life or something to be expected, but something to be valued, saved, and appreciated.

It's just a dang shame that the courts don't force two people to sit down and compromise rather than dictate a "shotgun" approach. A judge should proside over the discussion, and observe which parent seems to be honest and fair and who is trying to gouge the other. There should be balanced fairness that takes into account the future of both parents and the kids. The way it is now, built in resentment occurs that sometimes trickles down to the child and makes them unhappy. It just shouldn't be this way.

I think there should be a base amount, say $300 a month that all parents should pay. That is a lowball number, I think even poor kids deserve a little more than that, but its a good place to start. Now, the rest should be negotiated. It shouldn't be hard and fast. If the woman asks for more, it should be expected that a man who makes more pay a little more, but it shouldn't be a number set by his income in the strictest sense. A woman should have to come to the court with an estimated dollar amount above that which she feels she needs. It should be itemized based on the lifestyle that the child currently enjoys. The father should be able to bring his own list, and if certain things he disagrees with on her list, he should be able to dispute or refute them. Then the judge should consider both sides and make a judgement. The fact is, the current judicial system requires no accountability by judges. They have no responsibility to actually "judge" a situation. They basically collect a fat paycheck just to dole out the same cookie-cutter rulings to everyone. Very socialist IMHO.

 

[bsthatcher]

my opinion is, that if your dumb enough to nut in her, then you get what you deserve.

it's preventable (exceptions to every rule)

I would ask for the children first.

If she wanted the children until she found out she would have to pay the full cost of supporting them, then the end result would have been weeding out the parent who did not really want to make sacrifices for those children.

It's just pragmatic. Those that want the children would and should pay for them. It is not fair to make another pay for children he/she cannot have the benefit of raising.

 

[thedeparted]

"daddy can we have a bite of your fillet ming-eon ?"
mr ruckus, " NO LICK THE FLOOR"!!

mr ruckus, i would like to tell you something i have seen judges say to parents "nobody gives a crap about your feelings. you will pay your child support based upon your income or you will go to jail. if you didn't want to be a provider, then you should have thought of that before and not have had children".

and juice is good for kids.

I would like to see the judge that says to a woman,

"Nobody cares about your stinkin' feelings. Verbal abuse? Emotional neglect? You mean he yelled at you for wasting $50 on crap you didn't need and then didn't feel like screwing you after you pouted all day?

"You are getting divorced b/c you are a lying loathsome biatch who got caught with another guy's **** in your mouth and your ex-husband doesn't owe you a god-dammed thing in the world. It is not his job in to pay for 13-year old children in adult female bodies who believe they are accountable to nobody. And if you still want to have a kid, then you better learn how to pay for it.

"Now do not pass go and do not collect a dime. Go straight back to whatever rock you crawled out from under and stay there until you rot or learn the difference between your feelings and fvcking reality. You will also be branded with the letters LB on your forehead -- for lying biatch -- which shall remain there as a warning to other men until such time as you've demonstrated your ability to behave like -- never mind. Practically speaking, until forever.

Case closed. Good day."

~

Alas, the last honest divorce judges were run out of town by feminists long ago. And the security mom vote requires that politicians play it safe and assume that men are always at fault in their laws.

The result is that you cannot fvck a woman without the possibility of owing her your house and half of your future income for twenty years to pay for a kid that is quite possibly not yours, but will likely hate you even if it is.

On some days, I poll with the taliban... radical muslims vs. feminists? I know who I'm voting for, and I'm a fcking jew.

P.S. Juice in a box has the enzymatic activity of old shoe leather. You're basically feeding them sugar water which leads to diabetes and makes kids hyper. A good mother would make the juice fresh which provides far more nutrients, anti-oxidants, and lowers the glycemic index. But that would take effort.

 

[penkitten]

I would like to see the judge that says to a woman,

"Nobody cares about your stinkin' feelings.

i have seen a judge say that to a few mothers, some of whom wanted more child support for no reason, and others whom had to pay the child support.

P.S. Juice in a box has the enzymatic activity of old shoe leather. You're basically feeding them sugar water which leads to diabetes and makes kids hyper. A good mother would make the juice fresh which provides far more nutrients, anti-oxidants, and lowers the glycemic index. But that would take effort.

http://www.juicyjuice.com/Products/HarvestSurprise.aspx
http://www.juicyjuice.com/Products/FAQs.aspx#Question_4

4. Do NESTLÉ JUICY JUICE products contain added sugars, sweeteners or preservatives?
No. NESTLÉ JUICY JUICE products do not contain any of these things. NESTLÉ JUICY JUICE products are 100% juice. They contain only natural sugars (fructose) in the fruit juice concentrates used.

8. What does NESTLÉ think about the American Pediatrics Association article on juice consumption?
We agree that 100% fruit juice can be a healthy part of child’s diet because it can be an excellent source of Vitamin C and potassium. 100% juices can also contain antioxidants that reduce the risk of heart disease and cancer. NESTLÉ believes that all food and beverages should be consumed in moderation and that fruit juice should not be used as a replacement for milk or whole fruit.

what do nutritionists say about juice? lets start with wic since they only give away healthy food that are needed for child development:
http://www.fns.usda.gov/wic/benefitsandservices/foodpkgregs.htm#ADULT and INFANT JUICE
ADULT and INFANT JUICE
Requirements

* 100% fruit and/or vegetable juice
* Minimum of 30 milligrams of Vitamin C per 100 milliliters of Juice or 72 milligrams of Vitamin C per 8-fluid ounces (i.e., Vitamin C = 90% U.S. RDA for women per 6 fluid ounces juice)
* Label should indicate that an 8-ounce serving provides 120% of the FDA’s Daily Value (DV) of Vitamin C
* For Infant Juice: minimum of 30 milligrams of Vitamin C per 100 milliliters of Juice or 35.4 milligrams per 4-fluid ounces of juice (i.e., Vitamin C = 100% U.S. RDA for infants per 4 fluid ounces of juice)

now lets look at the food pyramid and guide
http://kidshealth.org/kid/stay_healthy/food/pyramid.html
Fruits

Sweet, juicy fruit is definitely part of a healthy diet. Here's how much you need:

* 4- to 8-year-olds need 1–1½ cups of fruit each day.
* 9- to 13-year-olds need 1½ cups of fruit each day.

A good mother would make the juice fresh which provides far more nutrients, anti-oxidants, and lowers the glycemic index. But that would take effort

who are you to call me a bad mother just because i do not own a freggin orchard in the back yard , in order to prepare homemade juice in my home?

 

[h_roberts]

tell it like it is brother "the departed"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Warrior74]

Child support should be issued on a state issued credit card. Just like food stamps. That way every expenditure can be tracked and even contested in court. It would provide some accountablility, yes it will be used by some to harrass as well, complaints would have to be filed with the state for missappropriation of funds and the other part will have to issue a statement defending the purchase or be ordered to reimburse that amount if they are found in the wrong. Yay! An extra layer of government!

BTW. My child support goes to pay the rent in their new house. This is what she told her mother who dissaproves and told me about it. Wonderful.

 

[penkitten]

I would really like to see the "statistics" behind this type of information. Most of the fathers I know are great dads and do everything for their children. I honestly think this is just another lie bandied about too frequently.

i gotta agree with you danger. most guys i know that are fathers, are the most wonderful fathers. they are paying their support, and if they get behind, they pay dearly for it. most of them are getting joint custody and having just as much a part of their lives with their children as the mothers are. however i do know some who could care less about their kids, and i also know some who want more to do with the child than what is allowed because they can not afford to go back to court and get more than what has already been established and the mothers just won't let them have an ounce more.

i think the numbers are wrong, it has to be more like 50 percent good father ratio to 50 percent deadbeat ratio.
wouldn't you think?

i see more men get full custody of their kids now a days than i ever did before.

 

[h_roberts]

I would really like to see the "statistics" behind this type of information. Most of the fathers I know are great dads and do everything for their children. I honestly think this is just another lie bandied about too frequently.

Yeah, I pulled that number straight out of my rear. But I wasn't using that point to imply that men are all basically sh!tbrains or something. In fact, I was trying to show that men are all basically good and most want SOME level of involvement with the kids, but the ones that abandon them for a girl half their age or who skid into alcohaul/drug addiction give the rest of us a bad name.

Its interesting that this thread is perpetuating, and I'd like to tell something else personal. I usually live to regret doing that on the internet, but if someone can glean some insight into the life of a single dad then it is worth it.

For a few months, I have been trying to coax my ex-wife to lower my child support by a small amount. Just enough to add a few bucks into my pocket for entertaining my son. As it stands, I don't have enough extra money to spend on him and to have a life for myself too. I pay 750 a month, and would be happy with 50 dollars back in my pocket. Couldn't she skip a few fast food meals and a new pair of high heels once a month to help? (sarcasm)

Well, the thing you have to know with women, at least biotches like her, is that when they have some power over you, you can't win that battle. And no matter how diplomatic you try to be, she's going to "pwn" you.

Anyway, just the other day was my Wednesday to see him. She calls and informs me that I cant have him because she's working, her parents are watching him, and they have to drive home (an hr away) to feed the dog. They've been living in a trailer on my ex and her new husbands property helping them build a house. They drive to their house every few days to take care of stuff. (She's an only child, and they go out of their way to interrupt their own lives to give her what she wants. Who in their right mind would dedicate their full time to this and buy a TRAILER to boot) Anyway, this kind of excuse has been layed on me over and over, and I call her on it and demand that the dog isn't as important as my sons time and that she should manage things better....A long pause on the phone..."Well, I'm getting tired of getting my child support checks a week late, you never get them to me on time".....GRRRRRR!!! I pay her every month twice a month, 375 a pop, but I don't drive across town to make a special trip. I give her the check when I see her. Just a BS retaliation to my anger and frustration.

So I say that I'm tired of hearing that BS and it escalates. She accuses ME of starting a fight, always starting a fight, always irritating her with asking to lower the support a bit, that she's getting a lawyer and having my visitation supervised and asking for more money. Well, the thing is, this woman is a cunning, manipulative, BIOOOOOTCH. She is frankenstein. She was always a little bit deceiptful, but she became a monster after the D. (All the more crazy is that SHE CHEATED ON ME)...Anyway, she also has a masters in PSYCHOLOGY and uses that crap to manipulate. I can just see the court proceeding now, and me walking out with a hose up my rear.

Anway, I'm getting it direct deposited in her account, a mistake I made a long time ago by not doing it. I'm not asking her sorry azz to help me ever again. I worked 6 years of my life, never skipped a day of work, to pay for her spending addictions, and I'm tied to her azz for another ten and I'm at the mercy of a screwed up court system.

Am I bitter? Hellllz yes