What do people here think of parents who don't pay child support?

[ManlyBanisters]

Maybe the US system is very different, Here both sets of income are judged.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

But I'll primal scream "DEADBEAT!" if it will make everyone feel better.

I know you're being cute and all Silver my love, but you can't deny that there are an awful lot verifiably deadbeat parents out there who do decide not live up to their responsibilities towards their children and who contribute nothing but tribulation and hardship to their children's upbringing.

I know there are plenty of situations in which this is not the case, and certainly courts do not always get things right in relation to family law, but we have no other ways to really deal with this kind of issue and we have to start from the proposition that it is possible that the law can be adapted and rewritten by our legislators (for whom we vote) to make our courts fairer and more able to deal with the variety of different situations which effect children.

To dismiss the possibility that courts are fair, ever, is somewhat flippant and peremptory I would have thought. Especially when some court systems in some parts of the world do a better job than in others and that lessons may be drawn from these systems to improve systems which are less successful.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Maybe the US system is very different, Here both sets of income are judged.

Yeah (as you probably know) it's like that here too... I think. :tongue:

 

[SilverTrain]

I know you're being cute and all Silver my love, but you can't deny that there are an awful lot verifiably deadbeat parents out there who do decide not live up to their responsibilities towards their children and who contribute nothing but tribulation and hardship to their children's upbringing.

I know there are plenty of situations in which this is not the case, and certainly courts do not always get things right in relation to family law, but we have no other ways to really deal with this kind of issue and we have to start from the proposition that it is possible that the law can be adapted and rewritten by our legislators (for whom we vote) to make our courts fairer and more able to deal with the variety of different situations which effect children.

To dismiss the possibility that courts are fair, ever, is somewhat flippant and peremptory I would have thought. Especially when some court systems in some parts of the world do a better job than in others and that lessons may be drawn from these systems to improve systems which are less successful.

Tons of irredeemable deadbeats, no doubt.

But we seemed to have the "castigate the deadbeats" covered by just about everyone else, so I was offering a window into other aspects. By no means intending to make light of children living without appropriate food, shelter, parenting, etc.

Next, we could get onto the discussion of incarcerating unemployed people for their failure pay child support.....

But in light of the current climate in this thread, perhaps not.

 

[SilverTrain]

Maybe the US system is very different, Here both sets of income are judged.

In a 50-50 case, both incomes are counted. And in some, but by no means all, primary custody cases, a court will consider both incomes. And in almost no cases, are the incomes of a party's "significant other" counted. I've seen plenty of poor people paying support to rich people. And sometimes it's just and proper. And sometimes, IMO, it's not.

 

[Bbucko]

My little sister's dad walked out on us when she was 2, she's 22 now. He never paid a penny towards her upbringing and left our mum with a house about to be foreclosed on by the bank and a ton of debts (because it was recession and the house was in negative equity) which left my mum and us in serious penury for all of my teenage years and all of my little sisters childhood and teens, while he fucked off to Germany with some tart and conveniently forgot about his debts and his daughter.

My little sister has nothing but contempt for her dad, with whom she's hardly had any contact in 20 years. He's a selfish, narcissistic piece of shit who could be knocked down by a bus tomorrow and nobody would give a fuck.

If you have kids you pay for their upbringing, no arguments, no ifs no buts, you just get on with it and shut the fuck up. If you don't you can rightly be considered contemptible and pathetic.

Though the specifics differ, the actual situation involving my dad and youngest sister (who is developmentally disabled and whose affect is similar to autism) boil down to the same bitter broth.

My parents, both of whom were and still are active alcoholics and drug addicts had a very rocky marriage from the beginning; when I was 10, my sister Sherry was born, conceived from the beginning as a "reconciliation baby". Five years and hundreds of drunken tirades later, my mother (who was no innocent party in any shape or form) threw him out in a drunken fit of rage.

My dad kept a small apartment in Boston and continued supporting my sisters, my mother (who wouldn't/couldn't work) and me for another five years in an informal, verbal agreement. At that point, the large insurance company which had employed my dad as an executive for about 16 years finally let him go (with a lavish severance bonus) after his umpteenth time at Detox had failed.

He eventually made his way to his parent's house in Palm Beach at the age of 44, unable to support himself. One of the conditions imposed was that he attend AA, where he met a woman 24 years his senior who was there due to being court-ordered following a DUI. This woman was a millionaire's widow who lived on the interest of a trust set up by her deceased husband. Finding him to be a suitable (and easily manipulated and controlled) escort/companion, she and her lawyer came up with a way to rid my father of his wife and two remaining minor daughters (I was already 20 and independent). This was done through a dicey but somehow legal divorce in Haiti, where my mother's presence wasn't required. She received her papers in the mail, but instead of getting a lawyer, she went on a bender and raged against everything and everyone.

Though just 17, my first sister left home and started her life somewhat prematurely. My second sister, the "reconciliation baby" was 10 and wasn't removed by the state until she was 15, where she moved to the group home she still lives in today. My first sister is her primary guardian.

From 1980 until her death in 2008, my dad and his second wife lived royally in a beach-front high-rise condo in Palm Beach, traveling frequently (first class all the way); as my father had no actual income and a pre-nup stipulated that neither he nor anyone else could claim any of his wife's money to aid in his ex-wife or his (former) family, they got away with it.

My dad would visit Boston every now and then and want to treat us to lavish dinners out, which my first sister and I would accept warily at first, then with an increasing defiance (my sister, especially, eventually became so belligerent that they became estranged). My mother refused any meetings and (IMO rightfully) denied him the right to see my second sister, which my first sister has continued as a strict policy since gaining control.

Now that his wife has finally passed, my dad is attempting a few rather feeble attempts at amends, but it's much too little and nearly 30 years too late.

 

[SilverTrain]

To dismiss the possibility that courts are fair, ever, is somewhat flippant and peremptory I would have thought. Especially when some court systems in some parts of the world do a better job than in others and that lessons may be drawn from these systems to improve systems which are less successful.

If I really believed that you really believed that I "dismiss the possibility that courts are fair, ever", I'd respond to this with some passionate diatribe.

 

[D_Ivana Dickenside]

i think that what most people in child custody cases tend to forget that it's about what's best for the child, not the parents/guardians involved. i see it happen all the time with the kids i've worked with who come from single parent homes, or are split between two homes because their parents are not together. often, the parents/guardians are so caught up in their own hatred and bitterness towards each other that it becomes more about what they can get out of the other person.

i notice that most of the time in child support cases, the parent who owes usually doesn't want to pay child support to spite the parent who has custody of the child/children. it's a sad thing because they (the child/children) are usually left helpless and it isn't even their fault. to me, that's irresponsible parenting and they obviously aren't thinking of the child/children, but only of himself/herself.

of course there's always the case where the parent who owes does pay, and the other parent takes advantage of the pay and fucks off with the money instead of supporting the child. that's just wrong on all counts and there should be no excuse for it. and if that's what's going on, the support should be re-negotiated as well as the custody of the child/children involved.

but no matter how many scenarios there are, the right thing to do is to put differences aside and claim responsibility to be there for the child/children in need. even if a person hates their child's other parent/guardian, it's not about them. it's about making sure they are taken care of and that the needs are met.

 

[SilverTrain]

i think that what most people in child custody cases tend to forget that it's about what's best for the child, not the parents/guardians involved. i see it happen all the time with the kids i've worked with who come from single parent homes, or are split between two homes because their parents are not together. often, the parents/guardians are so caught up in their own hatred and bitterness towards each other that it becomes more about what they can get out of the other person.

i notice that most of the time in child support cases, the parent who owes usually doesn't want to pay child support to spite the parent who has custody of the child/children. it's a sad thing because they (the child/children) are usually left helpless and it isn't even their fault. to me, that's irresponsible parenting and they obviously aren't thinking of the child/children, but only of himself/herself.

of course there's always the case where the parent who owes does pay, and the other parent takes advantage of the pay and fucks off with the money instead of supporting the child. that's just wrong on all counts and there should be no excuse for it. and if that's what's going on, the support should be re-negotiated as well as the custody of the child/children involved.

but no matter how many scenarios there are, the right thing to do is to put differences aside and claim responsibility to be there for the child/children in need. even if a person hates their child's other parent/guardian, it's not about them. it's about making sure they are taken care of and that the needs are met.

Absolutely.

Well said.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

If I really believed that you really believed that I "dismiss the possibility that courts are fair, ever", I'd respond to this with some passionate diatribe.

Well no that's not what I believe of course. :tongue: But it's easy for us all to fall in to a trap of cynicism in relation to family law courts, since there are so many horror stories told about them, and because the stories of when these courts do get things fairly right don't get as much attention. :wink:

 

[ManlyBanisters]

i think that what most people in child custody cases tend to forget that it's about what's best for the child, not the parents/guardians involved. i see it happen all the time with the kids i've worked with who come from single parent homes, or are split between two homes because their parents are not together. often, the parents/guardians are so caught up in their own hatred and bitterness towards each other that it becomes more about what they can get out of the other person.

i notice that most of the time in child support cases, the parent who owes usually doesn't want to pay child support to spite the parent who has custody of the child/children. it's a sad thing because they (the child/children) are usually left helpless and it isn't even their fault. to me, that's irresponsible parenting and they obviously aren't thinking of the child/children, but only of himself/herself.

of course there's always the case where the parent who owes does pay, and the other parent takes advantage of the pay and fucks off with the money instead of supporting the child. that's just wrong on all counts and there should be no excuse for it. and if that's what's going on, the support should be re-negotiated as well as the custody of the child/children involved.

but no matter how many scenarios there are, the right thing to do is to put differences aside and claim responsibility to be there for the child/children in need. even if a person hates their child's other parent/guardian, it's not about them. it's about making sure they are taken care of and that the needs are met.

Very true. And very naive.

Of course that is what parents should do. Any reasonable parent knows that you don't let Solomon cut the baby in half. But what is the reasonable parent then meant to do when the other is unreasonable? Just sit back and get fucked over, let the child(ren) get fucked over?

So thanks for the long, impassioned post telling us all what we already know. Very helpful. Top marks

 

[L_Lynn]

I have sole legal and physical custody of my daughter, though I have upped her time with her dad as she has gotten older to 3 nights a week. So it is almost a 50/50 split now. And this is despite his lack of support payments. In the five years we have been separated, our support order has been reviewed 5 or 6 times. I have updated the information whenever changes occur, whether in my situation or his.

For the record, the child support calculator included my gross income as well as his. Since I had been a stay at home mom for 3 years, the judge went by what I was paid in my last job. That was significantly more than what I was able to get when I went back to work because truthfully, getting back into the job market after staying at home is very, very difficult.

Also added into the equation was the number of nights during the year each of us has her and what the average "cost to raise a child in the state of Oregon" is supposed to be. From there it's all ratios and percentages and what he is supposed to pay is about $260 a month. What they would take out of his check, should they garnish, will be closer to $500 but that is due to his own lack of making even a partial payment for years so I don't feel too bad about it.

As long as the parent receiving the support is providing the basics, ie. food, clothing, shelter, health care, education, etc., there should be no griping about how the money is spent. (As the custodial parent, I am obligated to provide my daughter a home with her own room; my ex is not and can move live in a cheaper one bedroom or studio apartment.) If the child is not receiving those things, the issue needs to be addressed regardless of support payments.

There are dead-beat dads* out there who intentionally take jobs under the table and stay "off the radar" so that they don't have to pay support. There are also dads who pay their support on time, every month, without court interference because they know it's the right thing to do. I dated a guy who continued to pay the same amount for all 4 of his kids even after the two oldest were out of the house. It helped his ex finish her education, which in turn helped her to get a better job, which in turn helped his kids.

By the way, when discussing separating, my ex told me flat out that he thought child-support was "bullshit" and there was no way he was going to give money to a "fucking bitch" like me. So there ya go....


Oh and last thought- to the guy who wrote about getting "accidentally" pregnant while on the pill- dumbass! There is no 100% effective form of birth control except abstinence, and I mean keeping your pants on and your hands away from each other's parts because even 3rd base can result in a pregnancy. It's a miniscule chance, but there IS the possibility.

Okay. I'll get off my soap box now.


*I type "dads" to use the phrase "dead-beat dads" but there are certainly some moms out there who don't pay as well.

 

[L_Lynn]

But what is the reasonable parent then meant to do when the other is unreasonable? Just sit back and get fucked over, let the child(ren) get fucked over?

Oh God! Don't even get me started on that one!!

 

[helgaleena]

All the humans in this world who have children and then do not care for them hurt my heart. If only there were a test for humans of reproductive age which could tell whether or not they had the ability to love a child or not! We could spay or neuter the ones missing that vital instinct.

 

[gretchenweiner]

Another issue I have is with what happens when an estranged father meets someone else. I couldn't believe it when one of my friends told me she and her partner weren't going to get married because if they did, his ex-wife would have a claim on her salary as well as his to support kids

I've heard something similar to that before, elsewhere and find it very hard to believe. Very, very hard to believe.

That is a very true fact and something people should take into consideration before marrying someone with a child support agreement, especially if you live in a community property state. There are states here in the US at least, that allow the custodial spouse to have their child support recalculated, when the non-custodial parent gets remarried, this changes the gross household income of which the child support is based on. Therefore the custodial parent would be entitled to more money, even if the non-custodial parent hasn't had an income change other than joining bank accounts with his new wife.
Generally, most people don't act upon this rule. The ones that do are usually the ones who are bitter and trying to stick it to the ex as much as possible. (I know 2 people who've done this to their exes, it was completely "how dare he get over me and remarry, i'll show him" situations)

 

[Drifterwood]

Is it still a straight percentage of gross income in the UK? I thought that there were limits now, somewhere between £200 and £400 per month if it can be afforded.

Also as far as I am aware UK courts are recognising the need for fathers in a child's life more and custody is moving more towards 50/50, so the payments are pro rata.

If you can pay, you should pay.

However almost every divorced couple I know, play games, or worse are downright unpleasant or seriously bad parents because of their animosity to the previous partner.

I think that Silver Train made the point that the courts are quicker to do something about non payment than thay are about other issues. I know one guy who pays £600 a month for his two kids and the mother spends most of it on herself. The kids get maybe £1 a day of food and when I saw them this year, they were wearing last year's clothes which didn't fit.

I have another friend who I would say is a very honourable man and he is watching his child support go down his exes neck in wine and she keeps coming back for more, even though she has a new husband.

For fairness, I do know a man, who is deliberatly hurting his ex and effectively taking money off her that ought to be for their kids, even though he has remarried a much wealthier women.

 

[Viking_UK]

And in almost no cases, are the incomes of a party's "significant other" counted. I've seen plenty of poor people paying support to rich people. And sometimes it's just and proper. And sometimes, IMO, it's not.

That's the situation my friend found herself in. Her partner's ex-wife, although she was involved with another man who earned more than either my friend or her partner, could claim against my friend's salary if she married her partner. Because the ex-wife wasn't married to her new man, his income wasn't factored into the calculation (although, as far as I know, he lived with her and contributed to her income in terms of food, gifts, travel etc), and as she was unemployed, a large percentage of my friend's partner's salary went on child support.

On top of all that, he's since found out from his elder son that every time she cancelled his plans with the kids, she told them that he was the one who had cancelled and also that he wasn't paying child support. And still the courts side with her.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

Just on this whole poor dad still paying child support to the mean, nasty mum who shacked up with the rich boyfriend business... or poor mum - mean, nasty dad - but so far all examples of "I have this friend" have been blokes talking about blokes. Actually, funny that, isn't it - the first hand stories we have here are from women (or Bb talking about his mother) done over by men not paying. All the stories about the nasty bitch mums are "there's this bloke I know, right...". Hmmm... second hand stories down the pub about what a cunt the ex-wife is, anyone?

Anyway - to the point - I can totally see that argument for alimony. But we aren't talking about alimony - we are talking about child support. Are you people really arguing that a father should not have to financially contribute to the upbringing of his own biological children if they have a step-parent, married to their mum or not, who earns more than him? Are you fucking kidding? How does the new partner's salary have anything to do with a person's responsibility to contribute?

Look - I know dads have it tough in a lot of ways, that the custody system tends to favour the mother, that there are mothers out there making access intentionally difficult, that women do lie to their kids about their dads actions and intentions. I really don't want to go into my own circumstances here but I will say I know my ex tells people I lie and manipulate when I really don't - he may even believe what he's saying and his friends probably all consider me a fire-breathing cunt. But that's not the truth of the situation. What do you think Meg and Lynn's exs say about them - that they are lovely women just doing their best? I wouldn't be too sure.

Most parents not paying to support their kids have a sob story behind the non-payment, many of those stories do not contain the entire truth.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Just on this whole poor dad still paying child support to the mean, nasty mum who shacked up with the rich boyfriend business... or poor mum - mean, nasty dad - but so far all examples of "I have this friend" have been blokes talking about blokes. Actually, funny that, isn't it - the first hand stories we have here are from women (or Bb talking about his mother) done over by men not paying. All the stories about the nasty bitch mums are "there's this bloke I know, right...". Hmmm... second hand stories down the pub about what a cunt the ex-wife is, anyone?

I know right? I knew you'd notice this reported pub-talk bullshit about how some mate of someone's gets fucked over by his bitch ex-wife. It's similar to the kind cynical urban mythology which is passed by word of mouth about the family courts system.

Oh and it wasn't just Bb with firsthand stories :redface:

Anyway - to the point - I can totally see that argument for alimony. But we aren't talking about alimony - we are talking about child support. Are you people really arguing that a father should not have to financially contribute to the upbringing of his own biological children if they have a step-parent, married to their mum or not, who earns more than him? Are you fucking kidding? How does the new partner's salary have anything to do with a person's responsibility to contribute?

Look - I know dads have it tough in a lot of ways, that the custody system tends to favour the mother, that there are mothers out there making access intentionally difficult, that women do lie to their kids about their dads actions and intentions. I really don't want to go into my own circumstances here but I will say I know my ex tells people I lie and manipulate when I really don't - he may even believe what he's saying and his friends probably all consider me a fire-breathing cunt. But that's not the truth of the situation. What do you think Meg and Lynn's exs say about them - that they are lovely women just doing their best? I wouldn't be too sure.

Most parents not paying to support their kids have a sob story behind the non-payment, many of those stories do not contain the entire truth.

I hate the mentality some men seem to have regarding paying child support after their ex's have remarried, it's as though they suddenly think that the new husband is now responsible for their kids! But these same men are the one's who will have made spurious claims in family court regarding access and custody the minute the ex-wife became involved with another man, they frequently cut up dark about unfamiliar men having access to their children (painting their ex wives as sluts and unfit mothers) and yet as soon as the ex-wives marry these unfamiliar men the fathers are trying to palm off the responsibility for paying for their children's upbringing on to the new husband.

It seems to be a surprise to these kinds of father that the new husband has no legal responsibility towards their children until such time as those responsibilities have been legally formalised in guardianship agreements and the like.

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I know right? I knew you'd notice this reported pub-talk bullshit about how some mate of someone's gets fucked over by his bitch ex-wife. It's similar to the kind cynical urban mythology which is passed by word of mouth about the family courts system.

Oh and it wasn't just Bb with firsthand stories :redface:

Goddammit! I knew when I was typing that I was forgetting someone! :redface::redface::redface: Sorry.

I hate the mentality some men seem to have regarding paying child support after their ex's have remarried, it's as though they suddenly think that the new husband is now responsible for their kids! But these same men are the one's who will have made spurious claims in family court regarding access and custody the minute the ex-wife became involved with another man, they frequently cut up dark about unfamiliar men having access to their children (painting their ex wives as sluts and unfit mothers) and yet as soon as the ex-wives marry these unfamiliar men the fathers are trying to palm off the responsibility for paying for their children's upbringing on to the new husband.

Yes - it is odd that. The new man's emotional support of the child(ren) is to be questioned and suspected but as soon as it comes to financial support then the new man's the only man for the job! Weird.

It seems to be a surprise to these kinds of father that the new husband has no legal responsibility towards their children until such time as those responsibilities have been legally formalised in guardianship agreements and the like.

Which of course the biological father goes out of his way to prevent because "those are MY kids, dammit!" :no: