Larry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 I have never heard of child support being used to support the mother's expenses. It certainly isn't supposed to work that way. And believe me, I know plenty of divorced people (as do we all). In every case, the woman works and pays for her own household. Maybe it's a California thing. Now, anecdotal, secondhand, information, from my brother in Oregon, who's paying for a son that's about to turn 10. But, once the money goes to Mommy, then as a practical matter, she can do almost anything she wants to, with it. If she decides that it's to the kid's benefit for her to move to a bigger house, then the child support money goes to pay for the house. If Mom wants a new car, then "well, I take the kid to the park in it." The utility bills are for the child's benefit. (Since it's certainly to the child's benefit to live in a house with electricity.) About the only way he can claim that she's using the money for improper things is if she, say, buys clothes for the kid that isn't Mike's, and she spends more than her total non-child-support income on it. He has to catch her spending money on something that isn't for the child's benefit (and almost everything is for the child's benefit) and that the money she spent was the child support money, not money from somewhere else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Here in FL and I suspect elsewhere too a women who receives "child support" court ordered or not is under no obligation whatsoever to account to anyone how that support is spent. drugs, gambling, boyfriends/girlfriends are all fair game for the CS receivers. I'd hope that many do spend it on the child for "the best interest of the child" but legally there is no mandate. IMO it's all a big game with one desired outcome and with "in the best interest of the children" the biggest misnomer in the annuals of legalese. Exactly right. Child support goes to the mother to be spend on what she sees fit. How about we at least make child support deductible like alimony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 Now, anecdotal, secondhand, information, from my brother in Oregon, who's paying for a son that's about to turn 10. But, once the money goes to Mommy, then as a practical matter, she can do almost anything she wants to, with it. If she decides that it's to the kid's benefit for her to move to a bigger house, then the child support money goes to pay for the house. If Mom wants a new car, then "well, I take the kid to the park in it." The utility bills are for the child's benefit. (Since it's certainly to the child's benefit to live in a house with electricity.) About the only way he can claim that she's using the money for improper things is if she, say, buys clothes for the kid that isn't Mike's, and she spends more than her total non-child-support income on it. He has to catch her spending money on something that isn't for the child's benefit (and almost everything is for the child's benefit) and that the money she spent was the child support money, not money from somewhere else. All that is true, but basically meaningless. If I have kids, no one checks to see that I spend X dollars on the kids vs. X dollars on myself. No on checks to see if a father or mother who is supposed to be paying child support is spending money on alcohol. There is no way to do stuff like that. The best we can do is to say "I think it costs X to raise a kid in this community. Each parent is responsible for half of X, so whichever parent gets custody gets half of X from the other. And if one parent doesn't have enough, the other parent has to pay more. Because making sure that X is available to raise the kids is the paramount concern." It's rough justice, the best we can do as a society without massive extra government involvement and expenditure. :whoknows: ---------- Post added June-7th-2011 at 04:27 PM ---------- Exactly right. Child support goes to the mother to be spend on what she sees fit. No. Child support goes to the custodial parent, whoeverit may be. And I find the idea that all of these evil mothers are spending all of the support money on manicures and jewelry rather than oatmeal and school books to be kind of insulting and unrealistic. The mothers I know sacrifice just as much for their kids as the dads do. :whoknows: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GibbsFactor Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 All that is true, but basically meaningless. If I have kids, no one checks to see that I spend X dollars on the kids vs. X dollars on myself. No on checks to see if a father or mother who is supposed to be paying child support is spending money on alcohol. There is no way to do stuff like that. The best we can do is to say "I think it costs X to raise a kid in this community. Each parent is responsible for half of X, so whichever parent gets custody gets half of X from the other. And if one parent doesn't have enough, the other parent has to pay more. Because making sure that X is available to raise the kids is the paramount concern." It's rough justice, the best we can do as a society without massive extra government involvement and expenditure. :whoknows: They will adjust the mother's income to 40 hours at minimum wage if she does not make that. The child support is figured out by some formula that combines both HOUSEHOLD (if she is married the spouses income is added to hers) incomes to figure out the payment. I'd like to see a system put in place that lets the father deduct the payment even if that means the mother needs to claim the support as income. No. Child support goes to the custodial parent, whoeverit may be. And I find the idea that all of these evil mothers are spending all of the support money on manicures and jewelry rather than oatmeal and school books to be kind of insulting and unrealistic. The mothers I know sacrifice just as much for their kids as the dads do. :whoknows: And in this circumstantial thread we are assuming the custodial parent to be the mother. And YES. The mother, as you just said ( :doh: ) can and will spend the money on what she wants. It's basically just extra income. If the child isn't getting the proper care, take her to court. She can get her nails done with it, whatever. If she can care for her kid with her income, the child support can be used to pay for her heroin addiction. To think otherwise is kind of insulting and unrealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 They will adjust the mother's income to 40 hours at minimum wage if she does not make that. The child support is figured out by some formula that combines both HOUSEHOLD (if she is married the spouses income is added to hers) incomes to figure out the payment.I'd like to see a system put in place that lets the father deduct the payment even if that means the mother needs to claim the support as income. I don't see any problem with that suggestion, myself. Honorary_Hog has convinced me on that one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 7, 2011 Share Posted June 7, 2011 The best we can do is to say "I think it costs X to raise a kid in this community. Each parent is responsible for half of X, so whichever parent gets custody gets half of X from the other. And if one parent doesn't have enough, the other parent has to pay more. Because making sure that X is available to raise the kids is the paramount concern." It's rough justice, the best we can do as a society without massive extra government involvement and expenditure. At least the way my brother explains it, the amount of the payments is a mathematical formula, and it's based strictly on "how much can he afford to pay?" I can see some reasoning behind that. If the Daddy's rich, then shouldn't the kid have a nicer lifestyle? OTOH, I could certainly understand how it might appear, to Daddy, like it's a fine or a punishment, too. My brother also explains that any time she suspects that he's gotten a raise, she gets to call him into court, so that he can tell the court how much he's making, now. If his pay goes up, then the amount of the payment gets re-calculated. If his pay goes down, then the child support stays the same. The latter is supposedly to prevent daddies from taking pay cuts on paper, and working under the table. But again, I can certainly see how it would feel like punishment. And I find the idea that all of these evil mothers are spending all of the support money on manicures and jewelry rather than oatmeal and school books to be kind of insulting and unrealistic. The mothers I know sacrifice just as much for their kids as the dads do. Hope you're not including me in that group. ---------- Post added June-7th-2011 at 08:04 PM ---------- I'd like to see a system put in place that lets the father deduct the payment even if that means the mother needs to claim the support as income. I know that's a gripe of my brother's that has some traction, with me. It really irks him that he's paying far more towards his child than Mommy is. (My brother makes a very good salary, and Mommy is darned near unemployed.) My brother earns money. Probably pays 35% marginal federal tax on it. He send it to Mommy. He can't deduct it. Mommy receives money from brother. Doesn't have to declare it as income. Mommy spends the money on kid. Mommy gets a tax deduction. The thing that really ticks him is, if he got that tax deduction, it would be worth 35%, to him. Instead Mommy's taking the deduction, and getting 10% for it. (Or maybe zero.) Not only does he figure he's entitled to the deduction (because he paid for it), it would be worth a lot more, to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 And I find the idea that all of these evil mothers are spending all of the support money on manicures and jewelry rather than oatmeal and school books to be kind of insulting and unrealistic. : You're forgetting cocaine, which is what the vast majority of evil mothers buy to feed their kids. Oh, and abortions...cause you know, you can never have enough of those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 What's a life worth?? Depends on who's life it is. If it's an unborn baby then there is a huge amount of money spent to both protect it from abortion, stop it from ever coming in existence outside of wedlock, and protest a womans right to abort it. If it's a teenage mexican girl, people couldn't care less, as we see American's continue to party their asses off in Tijuana. It's been known for a while now that the bar owners there operate a human sex slave trade and we happily march south of the border to keep them flush with cash. What about underage hookers in general? Until recently a minor caught prostituting herself was outrageously charged in a court of law even though any rational human being would think "hey maybe we should look closer at the guy she's living with" and realize that this treatment from law enforcement traps them in "the life". We can move out of the sex trade and into illegal immigration if you like. You'll find much of the same attitude. Illegal alien child that did nothing wrong and knows no other life? Not my problem! What do you think a Pakistani life is worth to your average American? What do you think an American life is worth to your average Pakistani? The only answer to "what is a life worth" I can come up with is "depends on if we like the group they belong to". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I've dreamt of a debit card on an ex that kept track as it would fix quite a few issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I just wanted to stop in this evening and say that I'm sorry if I was a douche, or offended anyone in this thread earlier today. I've done pretty well of late, of not getting to heated in this kind of discussion. But my gut tells me I had a relapse today. Again, sorry if I upset anyone. Have a great night, all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevenaa Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 This is beyond legal resposibiliies this is dictate what a person does with their body for the next 9 months, in that time to be fair a woman should be allowed to tell a man what he will do with his body for the the same nine month period Then she shouldn't have gotten pregant. It is simple/easy to avoid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 The only answer to "what is a life worth" I can come up with is "depends on if we like the group they belong to". Too true btw ya can find sex slaves 10 miles from me,no need for Tijuana. http://www.texasmonthly.com/2010-04-01/feature3.php http://www.ultimateeastend.com/stories/234954-paper-game-kept-east-houston-sex-slave-ring-open Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCSaints_fan Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Initially read that as "Jihad ex-boyfriend", I think I've been playing waaay too much Medieval II: Total War... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sacase Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I will be honest here. I hate abortion. When I was younger I was in the pro choice crowd. I thought that hell a woman should choose. But as I get older, I am adamantly against it. I find it disgusting. I wish people would not do it. I cannot force my belief on anyone but I don't have to like the behavior. I just wanted to preface my comments with that statement. There are several issues here that need to be addressed. 1) The billboard and lawsuit. She pretty much outed herself. He expressed his views. He made no mention of her name. He has every right to express his views. I find it odd how some people in this thread call his behavior disgusting or what other adjective they use. He expressed his pro life viewpoint. Something he had every right to do. She is the one who outed herself nationally, by the lawsuit. 2) Abortion and rights. There is no winner in this situation, all three parties lose. The mother holds all the power to affect three lives, not just hers. The child has no rights. The father has no rights. The argument that the father should wear a condom is crazy. It completely absolves the mother of any responsibility. Fact of the matter is BOTH parties are equal when it comes to protected sex. The decision to engage in the behavior is mutual, the decision to use protection is mutual, the decision to have the child should be mutual. If both parties do not consent to the abortion, then it should not happen. 3) Child support. Is not fair, probably will never be fair. It has gotten better in many cases. I have a friend, who got a woman pregnant, he went to court and got hosed. 1000 a month. He lives in a crappy apartment, drives a crappy car, while the mother owns her own home and has two late model cars, one of which is a luxury car. Who got screwed? I will say this, it was his own fault for going to court and saying I want to take care of my child instead of just hiring a lawyer. Sad but true. The system is not as easy as people think. The FIRST part of the formula was a simple calculation. How much is the total income of the two people. Then that was cross referenced to a chart that said at that income level that is how much it cost to raise a child. For instance at 100,000 the cost to raise a child is 1000. (simple numbers, not true numbers). then depending on the income levels a percentage is assigned. So if the father made 80,000 and the mother 20,000, then the father is responsible for 800 or 80%. But that is just the first part, Now medical costs are figured in, which raise it. Here is where it really is not fair. If you do not have a lawyer you are about to get screwed. Along, with the things that are allowed to increase the child support there are deductions as well. some of it can be reduced if the courts figure in tax breaks (which they do not have to do) Long distance visitation (if they choose to do) and other breaks. Unfortunately, the courts try to get the mother as much as possible if there is no lawyer present. People like to say, its the woman's body, let her choose. The man's body is affected also, if he does not pay or cannot pay, his drivers license, his passport and even his freedom is at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special K Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I ain't touching this thread; I might get burned at the stake just for being an evil female... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RansomthePasserby Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I ain't touching this thread; I might get burned at the stake just for being an evil female... That all depends on whether or not you float or sink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I believe that women should be permitted to have abortions in the first trimester of their pregnancies, with or without consent of the would-be father. However, I do not believe that a woman's right to have an abortion encompasses the right to gag the would-be father. He's not subject to any oath of confidentiality. So why should he have to keep his mouth closed? Because it's spiteful and distasteful? That's not a good enough reason to suppress the man's freedom of speech. Like I said she could post a billboard with all his faults and shortcomings Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lombardi's_kid_brother Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I ain't touching this thread; I might get burned at the stake just for being an evil female... It did turn into the He-Man Woman Haters Club, didn't it? ---------- Post added June-8th-2011 at 07:51 AM ---------- PS I have a sneaky suspicion that a lot of people are confusing the concepts of "child support" and "alimony." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DRSmith Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 One where a woman can kill a man's child whenever she wants to shirk her own responsibility, but he's on the hook for 18 years (minimum) if she carries to term. Maybe people should think about that before having sex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Popeman38 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 I have a sneaky suspicion that a lot of people are confusing the concepts of "child support" and "alimony."No. Child support is not taxed as income. Alimony is. Neither is tracked in any way once the mother receives it. Both are used as tools by the receiver. I know many women who abuse the system by taking jobs they know will not result in much advancement. To the point she gets a new boyfriend that "lives" with her but they will not get married because that would impact both alimony and child support. She moves from low paying job to low paying job, and is constantly re-petitioning to increase child support based on cost of living. The child support payment is like 99% the responsibility of the father. Her new BF makes 6 figures and her ex makes 6 figures. She makes min wage. She gets $481 a week in alimony and $1300 a month in child support. That is over $40Gs/year in support. She treats alimony and child support as her primary means of income. Added to her min wage money and her BF 6 figure income, she is milking the system. Good news is alimony is only for 5 years. Bad news is she ain't gonna get remarried until the child is 18. That means that when the 5 year alimony runs out, she will likely re-petition for more child support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teller Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Maybe people should think about that before having sex Sure. And if she really does have more to lose, she should put even more thought into it, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Sure. And if she really does have more to lose, she should put even more thought into it, right? She should put thought into too..yes. But if she doesn't. She still has an ace up her sleve. A card that's legal. A card you'd love to take away from her. So, since it is ultimately HER decision, I'd say in order to prevent her from needing to make a decision, the man should still take more precaution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Sure. And if she really does have more to lose, she should put even more thought into it, right? Agreed. Oh, I'm sorry. Was that post directed at some poster who claimed that women shouldn't think about the consequences of having sex? I mean, if you had quoted some poster who actually said that women shouldn't think before sex, then I would have known that you were directing that comment at whatever idiot it was who said that. (But then, you would have had to find somebody who actually said that, wouldn't you?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinInsite Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Life's not fair, don't knock any crazy ****es up. It's really not hard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
addicted Posted June 8, 2011 Share Posted June 8, 2011 Because there has to be a "tie breaker" and possession in 9/10ths of the law. Possession of what exactly? Can you possess a person? And things should be more fair There is no legal way to say that you are going to be with somebody the rest of their life. That part of marriage is religious in nature; not legal. Cop out answer. Marriage by the very nature is meant to be forever until broken and it's not just the religious who think that. Anyone getting into marriage thinking they are just taking a layover for a few years shouldn't be thinking about marriage But there isn't. That's the problem. In the event of one person wanting an abortion and the other not, there is no compromise. You can't have a 10th of a pregnancy. Thats old way of thinking. If we never were able to come to compromises then nothing would ever be possible. It takes work and a willingness to change but I don't believe that it is impossible to find middle ground for both men and women. ---------- Post added June-8th-2011 at 12:13 PM ---------- No one has satisfactorily explained how any of this would work (except addicted who doesn't seem to give a damn about privacy laws and civil rights). Only in your eyes is that the truth. I do care deeply about privacy laws. With regards to what I suggested your making it sound as if a Dr is wrong to inform someone of something affecting them because your one sided on this issue. You fall into the group that thinks a man has very little rights to his baby' date=' something as a Father I do not agree with at all. Both men and women have rights here And as for civil rights, again your mistaken about this. Why would you say that? I'm guessing because I pushed for more fairness towards men in this regard. How is it that you can see only one side mattering here and disregard the other? Woman gets pregnant. There is an exception created to HIPAA that requires the physician to notify her husband. How he knows there is a husband is beyond me. He asks her. If she lies and its later discovered that she lied then she gets punished for lying. Anyway....physician contacts husband and says' date=' Your wife is pregnant and she wants to terminate the pregnancy. May I? The husband says, no. The physician tells the wife to, I guess, go home to a really pissed off husband. What happens next?[/quote'] Sure that's possible to happen, but if everyone in the country realized that abortion laws changed then the outcome would be determined by the two people involved. I wouldn't think that as men you and I could always react the same way to every situation. And your suggesting its a good idea for a married woman to go have an abortion without talking to her husband first? Really why would that be good at all? Only case I can see is she was steppin out on him and posted up on the wrong guy which is an issue all by itself altogether or that the marriage is toast and shes keeping stuff from him. Again not a good situation imo ----- Edit... I want to apologize to anyone offended by my thoughts on this for anything I could have said to make it sound as if I was anti woman, anti abortion, or anything. I am not any of these things. I've thought a lot about this issue, and think the compromise here is to separate married and single women's rights on this issue. I respect any woman's decision to have or not have an abortion but I don't think that my feelings extend to married women the same as a single woman. If a married woman wants to have an abortion I think the husband should have say in that, if the woman is single then I see the crowd that says its her body to do what she wants with it. Maybe something like this would end the debate but guess not. Sorry if anyone got upset or the wrong idea about me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.