Lawyer Advice needed (child support)

[TheBrain]

Unfortunately it is a fact of life that the courts are very biased towards women in terms of custody.

 

[G.T.]

He's not paying alimony. He is paying child support.

And yes it makes sense to provide your children with the same lifestyle they were accustomed to...it isn't their fault your marriage fell apart.

It doesn't make sense that the Father alone bears that responsibility.

It doesn't sound to me that he does. It sounds as if he makes more money and therefore is paying his fair share.

It's pretty hard to comment on this without knowing the exact details of who makes what and how much each spends on the children.

If the situation were reversed and the mother was making more money, she'd be the one paying more.

I'm not sure how it can get any fairer.

We can assume he makes more money, but that doesn't mean that it's "Fair" to subsidize her half of the Custody. If she cares about the kids keeping the same quality of life, which she should, than she should bear the responsibility to get her cheddar up. I don't agree with the argument that 1/2 of a Relationship bears 100% of the Responsibility of quality of life while only maintaining 50% of parental rights.

 

[NoEconomist]

Why in a divorce does the man have to make sure the ex wife can afford to have the same lifestyle she had when they were married? that makes no fucking sense, child support for an adult.

I know it sounds strange to the average Joe, but to Jane the house wife it makes perfect sense.

She has developed no marketable professional skills in the interest of pursuing the well being of the marriage. If the marriage ends and he makes all the money what is she to do with herself? Get a job? What ever value she may or may not have in the private sector is irrelevant compared to the value that she at one point represented to him and she spent a life time investing in that perception of value.

He can't just change his mind and revoke that value. If he can she is just a slave to his whims.

 

[G.T.]

Why in a divorce does the man have to make sure the ex wife can afford to have the same lifestyle she had when they were married? that makes no fucking sense, child support for an adult.

I know it sounds strange to the average Joe, but to Jane the house wife it makes perfect sense.

She has developed no marketable professional skills in the interest of pursuing the well being of the marriage. If the marriage ends and he makes all the money what is she to do with herself? Get a job? What ever value she may or may not have in the private sector is irrelevant compared to the value that she at one point represented to him and she spent a life time investing in that perception of value.

He can't just change his mind and revoke that value. If he can she is just a slave to his whims.

Jane makes her own destiny.

 

[Two Thumbs]

[and I got even money that the Browns are winning the Super Bowl]

Hopefull it's not a n.e.w.

Help a middle aged man that still thinks "drop it like it's hot" is a "down with the hood" kinda thing to say.

 

[Ravi]

It doesn't make sense that the Father alone bears that responsibility.

It doesn't sound to me that he does. It sounds as if he makes more money and therefore is paying his fair share.

It's pretty hard to comment on this without knowing the exact details of who makes what and how much each spends on the children.

If the situation were reversed and the mother was making more money, she'd be the one paying more.

I'm not sure how it can get any fairer.

We can assume he makes more money, but that doesn't mean that it's "Fair" to subsidize her half of the Custody. If she cares about the kids keeping the same quality of life, which she should, than she should bear the responsibility to get her cheddar up. I don't agree with the argument that 1/2 of a Relationship bears 100% of the Responsibility of quality of life while only maintaining 50% of parental rights.

Again, we don't know what amount of her salary goes toward the children. For all you know, it is 75%, or even 100%.

You're claiming gender discrimination without even knowing the details.

 

[G.T.]

It doesn't sound to me that he does. It sounds as if he makes more money and therefore is paying his fair share.

It's pretty hard to comment on this without knowing the exact details of who makes what and how much each spends on the children.

If the situation were reversed and the mother was making more money, she'd be the one paying more.

I'm not sure how it can get any fairer.

We can assume he makes more money, but that doesn't mean that it's "Fair" to subsidize her half of the Custody. If she cares about the kids keeping the same quality of life, which she should, than she should bear the responsibility to get her cheddar up. I don't agree with the argument that 1/2 of a Relationship bears 100% of the Responsibility of quality of life while only maintaining 50% of parental rights.

Again, we don't know what amount of her salary goes toward the children. For all you know, it is 75%, or even 100%.

You're claiming gender discrimination without even knowing the details.

It doesn't matter what amount of her Salary goes towards the children, she should be fully responsible to pay for her shared time, and he should be responsible to pay for his, and it should end there, as they each have 50% of the time, and should each be responsible for their own parenting and not the others.'

 

[NoEconomist]

Why in a divorce does the man have to make sure the ex wife can afford to have the same lifestyle she had when they were married? that makes no fucking sense, child support for an adult.

I know it sounds strange to the average Joe, but to Jane the house wife it makes perfect sense.

She has developed no marketable professional skills in the interest of pursuing the well being of the marriage. If the marriage ends and he makes all the money what is she to do with herself? Get a job? What ever value she may or may not have in the private sector is irrelevant compared to the value that she at one point represented to him and she spent a life time investing in that perception of value.

He can't just change his mind and revoke that value. If he can she is just a slave to his whims.

Jane makes her own destiny.

Joe makes his own commitments. Marriage is a real legal commitment. You are binding two people. Their successes and failures in a very real and legal sense are the acts of one entity

 

[G.T.]

[and I got even money that the Browns are winning the Super Bowl]

Hopefull it's not a n.e.w.

Help a middle aged man that still thinks "drop it like it's hot" is a "down with the hood" kinda thing to say.

Drop it like it's hot has a slew of meanings, but it's inherently a stupid assed phrase.

n.e.w. is never ending wipe.

 

[G.T.]

I know it sounds strange to the average Joe, but to Jane the house wife it makes perfect sense.

She has developed no marketable professional skills in the interest of pursuing the well being of the marriage. If the marriage ends and he makes all the money what is she to do with herself? Get a job? What ever value she may or may not have in the private sector is irrelevant compared to the value that she at one point represented to him and she spent a life time investing in that perception of value.

He can't just change his mind and revoke that value. If he can she is just a slave to his whims.

Jane makes her own destiny.

Joe makes his own commitments. Marriage is a real legal commitment. You are binding two people. Their successes and failures in a very real and legal sense are the acts of one entity

Marriage is not a slavery pact and each of the two parties involved has the freedom to terminate said contract.

 

[Ravi]

We can assume he makes more money, but that doesn't mean that it's "Fair" to subsidize her half of the Custody. If she cares about the kids keeping the same quality of life, which she should, than she should bear the responsibility to get her cheddar up. I don't agree with the argument that 1/2 of a Relationship bears 100% of the Responsibility of quality of life while only maintaining 50% of parental rights.

Again, we don't know what amount of her salary goes toward the children. For all you know, it is 75%, or even 100%.

You're claiming gender discrimination without even knowing the details.

It doesn't matter what amount of her Salary goes towards the children, she should be fully responsible to pay for her shared time, and he should be responsible to pay for his, and it should end there, as they each have 50% of the time, and should each be responsible for their own parenting and not the others.'

I can't agree with you. The children are the ones that are important, not some butt hurt from the parents that gave birth to them and then split up.

I'd say the same thing if the situation were reversed and she was the one whining about paying child support.

 

[G.T.]

Again, we don't know what amount of her salary goes toward the children. For all you know, it is 75%, or even 100%.

You're claiming gender discrimination without even knowing the details.

It doesn't matter what amount of her Salary goes towards the children, she should be fully responsible to pay for her shared time, and he should be responsible to pay for his, and it should end there, as they each have 50% of the time, and should each be responsible for their own parenting and not the others.'

I can't agree with you. The children are the ones that are important, not some butt hurt from the parents that gave birth to them and then split up.

I'd say the same thing if the situation were reversed and she was the one whining about paying child support.

Yea, we just disagree then. If she can't pick her ass up and pay for her 50% of the time, she needs to drop it to 25% or however much she can afford and consider how much hard work her kids are worth to her, as opposed to requesting an unequal balance of Responsibility.

 

[NoEconomist]

Jane makes her own destiny.

Joe makes his own commitments. Marriage is a real legal commitment. You are binding two people. Their successes and failures in a very real and legal sense are the acts of one entity

Marriage is not a slavery pact and each of the two parties involved has the freedom to terminate said contract.

Not true, That is where you get the language, "I will sue for divorce" or "I will grant you a divorce". Often people part amicably but they in no way have to without cause.

 

[Ravi]

It doesn't matter what amount of her Salary goes towards the children, she should be fully responsible to pay for her shared time, and he should be responsible to pay for his, and it should end there, as they each have 50% of the time, and should each be responsible for their own parenting and not the others.'

I can't agree with you. The children are the ones that are important, not some butt hurt from the parents that gave birth to them and then split up.

I'd say the same thing if the situation were reversed and she was the one whining about paying child support.

Yea, we just disagree then. If she can't pick her ass up and pay for her 50% of the time, she needs to drop it to 25% or however much she can afford and consider how much hard work her kids are worth to her, as opposed to requesting an unequal balance of Responsibility.

I think your buddy is full of shit. She's bi-polar but she's not. He wants to live with his girlfriend so suddenly starts complaining about child support.

Cry me a river.

 

[High_Gravity]

This all makes the case for never getting married, s0ns. You're merely signing a contract for lifetime servitude. This is one of the reasons I am for gay marriage - anyone stupid enough to get married deserves what they get. If they're that stupid, more power to them!

Fuckin A.

 

[G.T.]

I can't agree with you. The children are the ones that are important, not some butt hurt from the parents that gave birth to them and then split up.

I'd say the same thing if the situation were reversed and she was the one whining about paying child support.

Yea, we just disagree then. If she can't pick her ass up and pay for her 50% of the time, she needs to drop it to 25% or however much she can afford and consider how much hard work her kids are worth to her, as opposed to requesting an unequal balance of Responsibility.

I think your buddy is full of shit. She's bi-polar but she's not. He wants to live with his girlfriend so suddenly starts complaining about child support.

Cry me a river.

He's been living with his girlfriend for years. He says she's bipolar because of her actual behavior, not a diagnosis, and for you to try to judge the situation knowing as little as you do? Sit down, on this one.

 

[High_Gravity]

Why in a divorce does the man have to make sure the ex wife can afford to have the same lifestyle she had when they were married? that makes no fucking sense, child support for an adult.

He's not paying alimony. He is paying child support.

And yes it makes sense to provide your children with the same lifestyle they were accustomed to...it isn't their fault your marriage fell apart.

This whole thread just confirms that marriage is a joke and a failure, and a death trap for men.

 

[Ravi]

Yea, we just disagree then. If she can't pick her ass up and pay for her 50% of the time, she needs to drop it to 25% or however much she can afford and consider how much hard work her kids are worth to her, as opposed to requesting an unequal balance of Responsibility.

I think your buddy is full of shit. She's bi-polar but she's not. He wants to live with his girlfriend so suddenly starts complaining about child support.

Cry me a river.

He's been living with his girlfriend for years. He says she's bipolar because of her actual behavior, not a diagnosis, and for you to try to judge the situation knowing as little as you do? Sit down, on this one.

You are doing the same thing. You don't know her side of the story. It could be quite different than what he is saying.

Instead of whining he should talk to an attorney about his options.

 

[California Girl]

He's not paying alimony. He is paying child support.

And yes it makes sense to provide your children with the same lifestyle they were accustomed to...it isn't their fault your marriage fell apart.

It doesn't make sense that the Father alone bears that responsibility.

It doesn't sound to me that he does. It sounds as if he makes more money and therefore is paying his fair share.

It's pretty hard to comment on this without knowing the exact details of who makes what and how much each spends on the children.

If the situation were reversed and the mother was making more money, she'd be the one paying more.

I'm not sure how it can get any fairer.

She has the kids 50% of the time.

He has the kids 50% of the time.

Why is either of them paying anything to the other? There is no legitimate reason for either to pay jack shit. Each meets the cost of providing for their children equally. That is fair.

Him paying her because he happens to earn more is NOT fair.

 

[TheBrain]

It doesn't sound to me that he does. It sounds as if he makes more money and therefore is paying his fair share.

It's pretty hard to comment on this without knowing the exact details of who makes what and how much each spends on the children.

If the situation were reversed and the mother was making more money, she'd be the one paying more.

I'm not sure how it can get any fairer.

We can assume he makes more money, but that doesn't mean that it's "Fair" to subsidize her half of the Custody. If she cares about the kids keeping the same quality of life, which she should, than she should bear the responsibility to get her cheddar up. I don't agree with the argument that 1/2 of a Relationship bears 100% of the Responsibility of quality of life while only maintaining 50% of parental rights.

Again, we don't know what amount of her salary goes toward the children. For all you know, it is 75%, or even 100%.

You're claiming gender discrimination without even knowing the details.

What are you babbling about? Do you even know how child support works? Each state is different, but in NY the non custodial parent pays 25% of their net income regardless of how much the custodial parent earns or contributes.

The point the OP is making, and it is a fair point, is that if BOTH parents have equal time with the child and each provide separately for said child then why should either parent be paying child support? How much of their individual income they actually spend on their child is irrelevant to the discussion.