Child Support is unfair

[Aristotle]

I think statistics bear out that all other factors being equal, women get custody koshergrl. I was fortunate to have nearly equal custody. I took me pay child support (she made more by far than me) and all the tax deductions to her as well. Oh, I also paid until they graduated COLLEGE. Small price to pay in my opinion.

I disagree with the statement child support is unfair though. Divorce is usually unfair to the kids. Using child support as a weapon against an ex spouse is wrong.

But I wasn't talking about divorce....If you read page, after page, my argument was about male accountability to pay, and no accountability of the women to maintain support for the child. I also established that all women are not responsible and that the greater portion of single mothers are young and under the age of 18, not only that these young kids still live at home and are either working part-time or do not have a full-time job.

Let me rephrase that this has nothing to do with divorce.

If I have sex with a woman and she gets pregnant and she decides to get me for child support I have to pay and maintain whatever established payment I am ordered to pay. As was demonstrated here by the women:

When a man cuts a woman a check through the mediation of the state, it is so-called "her money." But the idea of child support is not about "her money" the money is invested towards the welfare of the child. I believe I've already covered my argument with links and videos if you cared to read and look at them.

 

[koshergrl]

You've had it explained repeatedly by a variety of people, including an attorney, and me, both who have experience with the courts and specifically child support and custody. Your stance is that men should be able to control the mothers of their children by dictating to them where and how child support is spent. You have ignored the fact that child support is in fact reimbursement, because your motivation is to establish control. It isn't about the children; it's about exerting that control. Everyone else has left the discussion because you refuse to acknowledge the reality of child support; you just stick to the hardline that men should be able to take the children if they want them based on nothing except their desire to have them (or perhaps their income) and that if they do allow the children to go with the mother, they should be able to monitor and approve all expenditures made using the child support.

This is the way men control women, and it's actually recognized as abuse when it's put into play. You can continue to bloviate about how awful single mothers are, how they must be monitored and closely watched; how they should live strictly hand to mouth and not spend a penny of their child support on anything except that which is approved by their ex...but when you do that, you're just cementing the image of yourself as someone who despises women. Now I am out of this conversation as well. There's no point in continuing with someone whose only motivation is to control and degrade single mothers.

 

[koshergrl]

"The father’s rights movement seeks to destroy the legal protections of women and children, primarily custodial mothers. Fathers’ rights groups are not male-only groups. A large number of these groups are lead and supported by the second wives, girlfriends, grandparents and former in-laws of the men who are taking their ex-wives back to court. This article details the agenda of the fathers’ rights lobby, which despite its claims, is not concerned about the welfare of children. Even though it is a worldwide movement, this article focuses on the movement in the Chesapeake region, particularly Maryland. Fathers’ rights groups in America are national groups with satellite chapters in each state. These chapters meet in church basements, rented halls, and members’ homes. They also meet on the Internet, Usenet, America Online, and CompuServe. The leaders of these groups often have obtained custody of their children by taking the mothers back to court repeatedly over an average of five years. Financially and emotionally exhausted, the mother eventually loses custody by court order."
MOTHERS UNDER SIEGE: TACTICS OF THE FATHERS’ RIGHTS MOVEMENT- HOW CAN A “GOOD ENOUGH MOTHER” PROTECT HERSELF? « Crisis In The Family Courts

 

[koshergrl]

The story that men have a hard time getting custody is a lie. I know that from my experience, but since my experience is ignored and the lie that men couldn't obtain custody 25 years ago is going to continue to be voiced:

" fathers who custodially challenge mothers win their cases 50%-70% of the time, regardless of proof of paternal domestic violence, drug and alcohol abuse, child abuse, or sexual abuse. Even a “fit” mother – one who was the primary caregiver of the children during and after the marriage, who has had no history of drug/alcohol abuse or mental illness, and under whose care the children were thriving – stands a good chance of losing custody simply because her ex-husband has remarried and has more money at his disposal than she."

That was in 1996.

MOTHERS UNDER SIEGE: TACTICS OF THE FATHERS’ RIGHTS MOVEMENT- HOW CAN A “GOOD ENOUGH MOTHER” PROTECT HERSELF? « Crisis In The Family Courts

 

[koshergrl]

It is also a myth that most fathers do pay their child support in full, and that the awards are "too high". The story of the wonderful, responsible fathers who pay all their child support and are therefore reduced to homelessness is a fantasy;

"Fathers’ rights supporters insist that the reason some men pay little or no child support is that they are financially unable to do so. They claim that the child support guidelines are unfairly high, as high as 70% of a father’s income. Therefore, a true “deadbeat dad” – one who has the ability to pay yet refuses to do so – is rare. These statements are easily refutable. Child support is calculated by gross monthly income, not net income. In 1989-90 the average amount of child support due per custodial mother totaled $3,292; the average amount received was $2,252, half of which was paid through social services and court-ordered garnishment. The Child Support Recovery Act and state laws urging garnishment of paychecks are responsible for the increasing levels of child support monies being received by the custodial mothers. Federal law prevents child support calculations from going over 50% of both parent’s gross monthly income – 55% in some cases. When asked to provide sources for the dubious 70% figure, the father’s rights supporters are silent."

MOTHERS UNDER SIEGE: TACTICS OF THE FATHERS’ RIGHTS MOVEMENT- HOW CAN A “GOOD ENOUGH MOTHER” PROTECT HERSELF? « Crisis In The Family Courts

 

[koshergrl]

"According to the Maryland Special Joint Committee report on “Gender Bias in The Courts (May 1989),” between a quarter and a half of the male and female lawyers surveyed believe that child support awards rarely or never “reflect a realistic understanding of a particular child’s needs. Underestimating expenses attributable to a child’s needs is more likely to occur than overestimating, so the result of inaccurate determinations will be to overburden the custodial parent with uncompensated expenses for the child. Since most custodial parents are women, overburdening the custodial parent means requiring women to pay an unfair amount of child support.”

MOTHERS UNDER SIEGE: TACTICS OF THE FATHERS’ RIGHTS MOVEMENT- HOW CAN A “GOOD ENOUGH MOTHER” PROTECT HERSELF? « Crisis In The Family Courts

 

[koshergrl]

"
Myth #6: Women Do Not Use Child Support to Support The Children. They Spend The Money On Themselves.
Fathers’ rights supporters insist that custodial mothers want money in order to fund vacations or buy a fine new set of clothes. Child support is necessary to buy school supplies, books and food, pay for rent, electricity, the water and sewage bill, heat and air conditioning, and to contribute toward doctor and dental visits. Considering that the average yearly child support received by the mother is $2,252, it is highly unlikely that she’s catching some rays at a Jamaican beach or purchasing dressing gowns from Victoria’s Secret."

 

[ScienceRocks]

Nothing unfair about paying for what you helped make. Men need to step the fuck up!

 

[Luissa]

I received $11 two days ago. Yeah, child support is so unfair.
What is unfair is my child asking to see his dad and me telling him he is out of town. He isn't but I can't tell my kid his dad is a piece of crap.

 

[sealadaigh]

I received $11 two days ago. Yeah, child support is so unfair.
What is unfair is my child asking to see his dad and me telling him he is out of town. He isn't but I can't tell my kid his dad is a piece of crap.

that's sad and i am very sorry that has happened to you and your son.

i know it is hard and i really hope things turn out alright.

 

[sealadaigh]

The only conspiracy theory going in this thread is the one perpetrated by deadbeat fathers who claim there's a conspiracy against non-custodial fathers, and who claim that all single mothers are just out to ream their exes, and so must be carefully monitored when it comes to the spending of all these vast monies they're receiving as child support.

some women abuse the system and some men abuse the system. to paint either those abusive fathers or those abusive mothers as representative of their genders only hurts the child, be they a little boy or a little girl.

 

[sealadaigh]

that's right. This is where men come to lie about exes and complain about the fact that they have to pay child support.

oh c'mon. i haven't read every single post but i haven't seen any where men complain about having to pay child support. i think some are saying that the administration and the methods of determining it need to be changed to be more fair.

 

[koshergrl]

I view it differently.

 

[VolSmile]

You've had it explained repeatedly by a variety of people, including an attorney, and me, both who have experience with the courts and specifically child support and custody. Your stance is that men should be able to control the mothers of their children by dictating to them where and how child support is spent. You have ignored the fact that child support is in fact reimbursement, because your motivation is to establish control. It isn't about the children; it's about exerting that control. Everyone else has left the discussion because you refuse to acknowledge the reality of child support; you just stick to the hardline that men should be able to take the children if they want them based on nothing except their desire to have them (or perhaps their income) and that if they do allow the children to go with the mother, they should be able to monitor and approve all expenditures made using the child support.

This is the way men control women, and it's actually recognized as abuse when it's put into play. You can continue to bloviate about how awful single mothers are, how they must be monitored and closely watched; how they should live strictly hand to mouth and not spend a penny of their child support on anything except that which is approved by their ex...but when you do that, you're just cementing the image of yourself as someone who despises women. Now I am out of this conversation as well. There's no point in continuing with someone whose only motivation is to control and degrade single mothers.

I haven't read all of the posts in this thread, but I don't think that people are advocating not spending a penny of child support on anything except that which is approved by their ex. If someone did advocate that then I would disagree. I think that the point is that if one parent pays child support to the other then the money should be spent on the child and that is completely reasonable. I don't see how this has anything to do with despising women.

 

[koshergrl]

you need to read the thread.

 

[koshergrl]

1 in 5 isn't too bad, since about 2 in five actually file for custody.

 

[koshergrl]

There's actually more documented evidence of bias against females.

 

[sealadaigh]

I am in no way defending the irresponisbility of men who lack the fortitude to take care of their own responsibility as an adult, but I firmly believe any system that awards someone with money ought to be tracked. I'm not sure about you guys but I meet far too many men with no representation regarding child support and the issues they face regarding money. How is it that the state can track EBT payments but not child support? I personally believe the system is unfair towards responsible men and are soft on irresponsible women....What say ye?

Big can of worms there.................

While its true many of our courts award custody to the non bread winner for a piece of the pie. It is also true that the system is very soft on irresponsible women. There wont be a solution. The State is vested in the status quo. IE the easiest place to get their cut.....

If they gave custody to the bread winner, there is no need for state services....Thus the underlying problem.......

I agree. I never missed a child support payment in 6 years and started paying before the divorce was final. But, in the final two years of my custody fight the state ordered me to stop paying my ex directly and to start paying into the state's child support system, at a $40 monthly fee. They wanted to make sure I would pay.

i went through the same thing. i was sending money directly to my son's mom for the first year of his life. (she left before he was a month old because she wanted to feed him yougurt and i said "we have a doctor's appointment tomorrow. lets ask the doctor.") she decided to take me to court for more child suppoert. they ordered me to pay by check to DSHS...for a lesser amount than what i had been giving her.

i paid DSHS for six years, even though or most of the time after three years i had physical custody. i was awarded legal custody when he was seven. i sent it in like clockwork and i felt good about it, actually. i was on time for four years but i was late once. i called them and let them know i would be aa week late. thay garnished my checks after that. i mean, this was something i liked doing, writing out a check to care for my son. i called to complain and they said "there really isn't anything you can do about it. it will be easier for you." all i could think was "yeah, if you can't do anything about it, lay back and enoy it."

i ust don't think the courts should put anyone in these positions, moms or dads, but especially children. thank god they are getting better.

 

[koshergrl]

That link was provided as if it supported a statement.

Anyway, your post just confirms what I said previously. You want to control custodial mothers by controlling how they spend child support.

 

[PaulS1950]

In 1984, in Washington State, the only way for a father to get custody of his children was to prove, in court that she was an unfit mother. The fact that my ex was in a drug rehab center was an indication that she was, in fact, getting the help she needed.
The fact that she has been a practicing addict for the last 28 years shows they were wrong.
I paid my child support and I paid more because the state said I had to pay even after my children moved out because they couldn't live with an addict any more. She was fired from a nursing training center for "tapping into patients meds", She was not prosecuted because she went into treatment. Again, "doing what she needed to do" to be a responsible parent. She left our kids with her sister while she was partying to the point where she ended up in the hospital. but again she was "doing what was necessary" to clean up.
My mail was not delivered to my kids. They were threatened that she would commit suicide if they went to live with me. I called and sometimes got to talk to them. I travelled the 300 miles to visit and sometimes got to see them. Once they were of age and they got to know me things changed drastically. I gave them copies of the letters that I had sent, poems I had written and let them look through my journal. we have an excellent relationship now and they have quit believing the things their mom said about me because it just doesn't fit. My daughter, with her own family now, can't understand how her mother could do the things she does. She never did get the duality of the addict. I always told her that there were two people there - one was her mother and the other was the addict. As long as the addict is in control the mother is absent. She still doesn't understand that and cries when her mother flakes out on remembering days they are supposed to spend together or time when my daughter is in the hospital. "how can a mother forget that her daughter has surgery?" is what she asks. I try to remind her about the addict but she can't understand. My son and I have a good relationship - maybe better than my daughter and I because he understands that his mother is absent. He hopes for the day she returns but knows it is one of those things he has no control over.
I was fortunate - I raised my kids for the first nine years and tried to see them every other week. There was no summers or Christmas vacations with them just visit when their mother didn't say they were sick and could come outside. There was lots of worry and many phone calls and letters to Child Protective Services but none of that was real to them. I was, after all, just a father who was vindictive toward an ex-wife.
Supporting my children was never a burden to me - it was my right and responsibility. It wasn't always easy and I was late with payments twice in the 11 years of payments. I did have to separately pay back the welfare my ex was on between our separation and the final decree even though the decree called out the separation date it didn't matter. As long as we weren't legally divorced I had to repay what the state paid - in addition to the support I paid in the interim. So we all supported her habit and remarkably she is still alive - but not well. She probably won't live long enough to collect the SS benefits the court awarded her. My daughter still wants her mother and my son is losing hope. I have two of the best kids I could ever hope to have and they love me too. I am so proud of who they have become inspite of the way the system condemned them to live with an absentee mother and a drug addict.

Child support is not fair; it doesn't make up for all that you and your children lose because you are not there to share their lives. The system is not fair because it allows bad things to happen to children who are already in shambles because two adults can't put their kids first and do what is best for them.