JOKER96BRAVO
Senior Member
- Aug 13, 2004
- 4,433
- 290
- 48
- Thread starter
- #21
Edited
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I'd support legislation like that too.dmp said:That's exactly right. I'd support legilsation which makes women accountable for how they spend "child support".
Ask the custodial parent to list expenses, and place all remaining funds into a college-tuition account for the kids.
gop_jeff said:OK... what accounts for child support?
Housing?
Food?
School supplies?
Clothes?
Car payments? Gasoline?
Ballet lessons? Piano? T-ball?
Lots and lots of questions there - not as cut-and-dry as one would think.
gop_jeff said:Unfortunately, deadbeat dads get more press than deadbeat moms, because the typical feel-good story you always see is all about the Empowered Single Mother who Works so Hard to Raise her Kid in this Crazy World. Now, don't get me wrong, there are many women like this - I should know, I married one! But there are plenty of moms on welfare that have more kids for the sole purpose of getting more welfare checks. There are also mothers who just choose to walk away from their kids. I have a stepcousin who did this. It was really sad to see.
I also think part of the "deadbeat dad" story that no one wants to touch is that, in many states (including WA), the child support scheduling is always biased against the father. Two kids could cost a single father upwards of $1000/month. That's a lot of cash, and if you fall behind on your payments, you're a deadbeat! I think the larger issues are 1) the bias against men in today's society, and 2) the ever-decreasing role of the traditional nuclear family.
JOKER96BRAVO said:I know many fathers who want their children and can't get them, for no good
reason. A mother with no job and no career training has a better chance of
being "awarded" custody than a hard working middle class dad.
JOKER96BRAVO said:If they live somewhat close, he can file for joint custody.
That's the best bet!
Trigg said:She's the custodial parent and so she gets the support. They did live close until she got remarried and moved 2 hours away.
It's a shame. He's dedicated to those kids.
dmp said:Ya know? Having the kids every-weekend is not something the mother would concede - MOST mothers would find that PERFECT. Durring the week, they wake the kids, get them to skewl, feed them dinner at night. EVERY weekend is theirs to enjoy w/ their new partner. For her, it's PERFECT. She gets, often, Thousands of dollars to let kids sleep there, and eat a few meals a day.
Father can't date or do ANYTHING during the week because he may be working two jobs to support oppressive child-support payments. Weekends are always with the kids, so no social life.
I tell ya - If the ACLU had balls, they'd find a way to ensure a father's right to fair treatment by family courts.
JOKER96BRAVO said:If they live somewhat close, he can file for joint custody.
That's the best bet!
GotZoom said:Even having joint custody doesn't lessen the child support responsibility.
I have joint custody of our kids..but with her being the custodial (where the kids live) parent, I pay her.
Trigg said:She's the custodial parent and so she gets the support. They did live close until she got remarried and moved 2 hours away.
It's a shame. He's dedicated to those kids.
Tried to rep you. Good points.Kathianne said:I think the two worst decisions made regarding children were the enactment of 'no fault divorce' and 'joint custody.' Seems to me if a divorce is 'no fault', the state shouldn't be granting it.
For the same reason, 'joint custody' is a farce. If the parents can get along well enough to 'raise the children' they should be in marriage counseling rather than 'no fault divorce court.'
Divorce is something that should be entered into with much trepidation, for the costs are great to the children, society, and the 'couple.' It should be something that is so bad, that only for the safety and well being of the 'non-offfending' spouse and children, (notice not 'or'), should it be granted. Yes there are marriages that meet that type of criteria, but much fewer than the divorce rate would accomodate.
mom4 said:I BELIEVE (although I don't have any statistics) that it's more often the women who are "stuck" with the kids.
True.dilloduck said:I'm glad you put quotes around "stuck" because any mother who feels stuck with her kids shouldn't have had any in the first place.
Kathianne said:I think the two worst decisions made regarding children were the enactment of 'no fault divorce' and 'joint custody.' Seems to me if a divorce is 'no fault', the state shouldn't be granting it.
dilloduck said:And just when did government get in the business of deciding which parent would be better for the child and what exactly is in the "childs' best interest".
Kathianne said:I think the two worst decisions made regarding children were the enactment of 'no fault divorce' and 'joint custody.' Seems to me if a divorce is 'no fault', the state shouldn't be granting it.
For the same reason, 'joint custody' is a farce. If the parents can get along well enough to 'raise the children' they should be in marriage counseling rather than 'no fault divorce court.'
Divorce is something that should be entered into with much trepidation, for the costs are great to the children, society, and the 'couple.' It should be something that is so bad, that only for the safety and well being of the 'non-offfending' spouse and children, (notice not 'or'), should it be granted. Yes there are marriages that meet that type of criteria, but much fewer than the divorce rate would accomodate.