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

[Phil Ayesho]

OK I really sympathise with your story Phil, but this last suggestion totally ignores that fact that the custodial parent is generally doing most of the child rearing. If payments in to this escrow account are going to be fair they need to be adjusted for this fact, that would mean that parents would compete for greater access on the basis that they might not have to pay as much in maintenance and ultimately the system would collapse.

The custodial parent does not deserve "PAY" for doing the child rearing.
Period.

apparently, my friend's children only required $400 per month to cover the "child rearing"... whereas mine cost nearly ten times as much?

That is bullshit.... the system is based NOT upon the cost of raising children, but upon the money earned by the parents...
And the way it is rigged, the LESS money the custodial parent earns, the MORE money the non-custodial parent has to pay.

This incentivizes the custodial parent to NOT bother with brining in their own money... or to under-report their own income... and incentivizes the noncustodial parent to under-report their income.


But to tell BOTH parents that each will pay the SAME amount into a fund to cover the children's costs... incentivizes the custodial parent to earn, and to agree to an amount that is more realistic, since she will have to fork over a matching amount.
Once the money is in the escrow account... of COURSE it gets split up based upon percentages of custody...
Meaning that if I got the kids 20% of the time, 20% of those funds would go to my costs for the kids.
Or the ex-couple would have to negotiate the fair disbursement of the funds...
( that might include an amount for the larger home the primary custodian requires... but at least the extra value of that home would be factored as an offset... for example, if the support funds pay for 20% of the mortgage payment on the house, then upon the sale of that house 20% of the equity gets paid back into the children's support fund... or their college saving...)


as it currently stands, the support system demonizes men by saddling them with arbitrary payments that have no real bearing on the cost of raising children. And when they simply can not support themselves AND pay the full support... it turns them into criminals.

And, frankly, once a man is unfairly labeled a criminal... he might as well run with it and pay nothing.

The better a living the man earns... the more he is punished and the more a non-working ex is rewarded. To the point of financial ruin for the person who is out there earning.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

The custodial parent does not deserve "PAY" for doing the child rearing.
Period.

apparently, my friend's children only required $400 per month to cover the "child rearing"... whereas mine cost nearly ten times as much?

That is bullshit.... the system is based NOT upon the cost of raising children, but upon the money earned by the parents...
And the way it is rigged, the LESS money the custodial parent earns, the MORE money the non-custodial parent has to pay.

This incentivizes the custodial parent to NOT bother with brining in their own money... or to under-report their own income... and incentivizes the noncustodial parent to under-report their income.


But to tell BOTH parents that each will pay the SAME amount into a fund to cover the children's costs... incentivizes the custodial parent to earn, and to agree to an amount that is more realistic, since she will have to fork over a matching amount.
Once the money is in the escrow account... of COURSE it gets split up based upon percentages of custody...
Meaning that if I got the kids 20% of the time, 20% of those funds would go to my costs for the kids.
Or the ex-couple would have to negotiate the fair disbursement of the funds...
( that might include an amount for the larger home the primary custodian requires... but at least the extra value of that home would be factored as an offset... for example, if the support funds pay for 20% of the mortgage payment on the house, then upon the sale of that house 20% of the equity gets paid back into the children's support fund... or their college saving...)


as it currently stands, the support system demonizes men by saddling them with arbitrary payments that have no real bearing on the cost of raising children. And when they simply can not support themselves AND pay the full support... it turns them into criminals.

And, frankly, once a man is unfairly labeled a criminal... he might as well run with it and pay nothing.

The better a living the man earns... the more he is punished and the more a non-working ex is rewarded. To the point of financial ruin for the person who is out there earning.

It appears to me as that you may have had bad experience with a particularly flawed family court system. I don't think your experience is necessarily one upon which to base a postulated alternative system though since I would hazzard a guess that your's is not a universal experience. Nor does you're proposed alternative solve any of the problems of your situation, it would in fact make it even more complicated and probably a lot more unfair on you, your ex-wife and your children too.

But like I said before, you're not hard-done-by, none of these problems are ones which you could not have been avoided, and you are the author of your own circumstances.

You decided to get married, you decided to have children, you allowed your marriage to disintegrate, you obtained a divorce, every time you made one of these decisions you knowingly or perhaps unknowingly accepted the possibility that all of these decisions have possible negative outcomes. In your case it looks like there were some negative outcomes.

However, no one forced you to make those decisions, no one forced you to take on those responsibilities, no one forced you to accept the possible down sides of these responsibilities. You are by your own choice a parent, and you are an adult, both being a parent and an adult requires you to accept that life may be hard, difficult, and full of frustration and heartache.

You can now choose to be bitter about it and feel hard-done-by, therefore rejecting your own role in and responsibility for your circumstances or you can accept your role and get on with dealing with the consequences of your actions.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Phil - you are a notorious misogynist and, while your experience is undoubtedly valid, I'm reluctant to engage someone with such an obvious bias.

Ahh, yes... because I do not agree with you I am a misogynist.

I know LOTS of women, manly... and not one of them thinks I am a misogynist.
I have nothing against women... The laws, as they are currently, were formulated around a world where women were supported by men, and so the LAWS and their execution are biased.

But if women want true equality, which I am all for, then that comes with equal treatment, and equal responsibility.

That should include responsibility for the costs of raising children.

Also, your post makes the issue a man verses woman issue - that was not my intention for the thread.

look, you can "pretend" that everything in custody and support is "fair"-- but that is nothing but gender biased propaganda.
There is no such idiom of speech as "dead beat moms" because there is no INDUSTRY dealing with all the support women are supposed to be paying to custodial dads.

How about you face the reality that child support is predominantly a one way street, gender-wise?

My story is not new, nor is it even rare... its common.

There are men who have been told to pay support in excess of their income because AT ONE TIME, they had a much higher paying job.


Frankly, manly... your presentation of this as being a NOT gender based issue is transparently disingenous.

Why don't you post a thread about how White people get stopped for driving while white?


I am not a misogynist because I can identify inequity against men.
Because I think women are just as capable as men are of taking advantage and acting badly...
and that men are, generally, just as noble and good as women.

That hardly makes me a misogynist... and calling me one is really nothing but an ad hominem argument...

I am not calling you any names in hopes people will discount your arguments because you are a 'bad person"- which is what you are trying to do in calling me an epithet.


And I would point out that, as unfair and untenable as I found the court system.... I paid my child support, even tho at considerable cost to myself.

 

[Drifterwood]

You decided to get married, you decided to have children, you allowed your marriage to disintegrate, you obtained a divorce, every time you made one of these decisions you knowingly or perhaps unknowingly accepted the possibility that all of these decisions have possible negative outcomes. In your case it looks like there were some negative outcomes.

I think in reality a lot of guys (maybe women too, I'm not qualified to comment), don't think past point one, deciding to get married.

People also don't allow their marriages to disintegrate, but that aside, if men looked at str8 marriage in the way that you list the downside outcomes, then I really don't think that many people would want to get married.

This is an issue on which I have been something of a broken record. But, the stats are; 50% of marriages undertaken now will be over in five years, the average marriage of all people alive and maybe still married, is 11 years and 95% of divorces are petitioned by the woman (I don't think that this truly represents break downs though).

So, you are a 25 year old man and you look at the above. Get married and have a couple of kids, start paying for the family home, working your butt off for your career. Chances are that before you are 35 the marriage is over, but you have all the responsibilities left to contribute towards or pay for fully. You have lost your wife, your home, your kids and you are left with a fraction of your earnings to live a new life. If you had assets before you got married, at least half of these may have gone as well.

Whether I am being pessimistic about this or not, you are asking people to take one hell of a gamble with their lives.

I know that there is a modern woman's perspective on this with many personal sacrifices also etc etc, but I am ONLY talking about what it looks like from a guy's pov.

 

[D_Budd_Hert]

My story is short and simple . I told my X to give me full custody or Id nail her to the wall ! lol....She knows that I can finacially support my kids and she couldnt ... She and I are still friends and the kids see her when ever they want or can see her depending on her work schedule. Even tho the Judge told her she had to PAY BY LAW ! Im not going after it ... Its not really woth it to me to fight with her any longer.

Like I said . I have full custody and that's all that mattered to me .

 

[IntoxicatingToxin]

Hey guys. Bit of happy irony. After my post on the first page of this thread... I just received $235 in child support today! First time in over a year! Yay for docking wages!?

 

[ronin001]

I was a little hesitant in posting my reply to this subject, as it hits a little close to home. I agree that 2 people make children and that 2 people should share in the expense.

However the system as it exists is somewhat unfare, the insanity of the percentage of gross incom to the custodial parent is often flawed. I live in NY and make an above fair income. I have partial custody, maintain a residence in the country for the children and i was hit with a 15% increase this year.

The hardest thing is that my money is not even enjoyed by the childred as much as the mother. If you work at McDonalds and are ordered to pay $40 per week it is one thing. I on the other hand pay out enough to buy 2 new top of the line cars each month I am talking Caddies. On top of that My monthly expenses with the kids and my medical coverage add another $700 on top of the fortune i already payout monthly.

The courts will literally tell the non custodial parent just pay and if you never see or spend time with the kid, that is ok, just pay. Pay and you are a responsible parent

Good luck you poor bastards out there, just pay and live your lives as best you can with what is left. Yes ladies you deserve help, just remember the line in the good book " the lord helps those who help themselves"

Well I had my say>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

[ManlyBanisters]

I on the other hand pay out enough to buy 2 new top of the line cars each month I am talking Caddies. On top of that My monthly expenses with the kids and my medical coverage add another $700 on top of the fortune i already payout monthly.

A quick search suggests two new 'Caddies' a month would cost a bare minimum of $70,000. Are you saying you hand over $70,000 a month and yet you notice the extra $700?

Something here just is not right, unless you are Paul McCartney

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Acuick search suggests two new 'Caddies' a month would cost a bear minimum of $70,000. Are you saying you hand over $70,000 a month and yet you notice the extra $700?

Something here just is not right, unless you are Paul McCartney

I thought this too :tongue: TBH if you're rolling in that much money quit yer bitchin. Anyone with enough money to pay for two top-o-the-line cars a month in child support can't seriously expect anyone to feel sorry for their predicament. Besides people with that much money tend to have nice little sources of liquidity stowed away for a rainy day and I can't believe life could really be that spartan for them.

 

[Jason]

So, you are a 25 year old man and you look at the above. Get married and have a couple of kids, start paying for the family home, working your butt off for your career. Chances are that before you are 35 the marriage is over, but you have all the responsibilities left to contribute towards or pay for fully. You have lost your wife, your home, your kids and you are left with a fraction of your earnings to live a new life. If you had assets before you got married, at least half of these may have gone as well.

Yes.

A guy about 35 moved into my (UK) neighbourhood, living in a sub-let, basically a bed-sit. Professional. The story is that he came home from work early and found his wife in bed with a man. The divorce followed and she got custody of the two children - which is pretty much standard in England. She now obstructs his efforts to see them. And the financial settlement is that she remains in the family home, not working. He pays the mortgage and all the bills, supposedly for the good of the children, though as a by-product it keeps her and her new man (also not working). He pays additional money for this, that and the other. And he's left with next to nothing to survive on - he's living in the cheapest accommodation available, and he runs an old banger (which he probably needs to get to work). He looks ill.

This situation cannot be right.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Yes.

A guy about 35 moved into my (UK) neighbourhood, living in a sub-let, basically a bed-sit. Professional. The story is that he came home from work early and found his wife in bed with a man. The divorce followed and she got custody of the two children - which is pretty much standard in England. She now obstructs his efforts to see them. And the financial settlement is that she remains in the family home, not working. He pays the mortgage and all the bills, supposedly for the good of the children, though as a by-product it keeps her and her new man (also not working). He pays additional money for this, that and the other. And he's left with next to nothing to survive on - he's living in the cheapest accommodation available, and he runs an old banger (which he probably needs to get to work). He looks ill.

This situation cannot be right.

OK yeah, some bloke in your neighbourhood. More pub talk possibly? You have no idea of the other side of the story so whether or not this bloke's situation is fair is perfectly impossible to tell.

 

[ronin001]

A quick search suggests two new 'Caddies' a month would cost a bare minimum of $70,000. Are you saying you hand over $70,000 a month and yet you notice the extra $700?

Something here just is not right, unless you are Paul McCartney

Dude i was refering to the cost to finance a new car or Lease a new car, Or if you can imagine buying 2 new Caddies ever 3 years with no trade in.

70K now that is funny dude

 

[ronin001]

I thought this too :tongue: TBH if you're rolling in that much money quit yer bitchin. Anyone with enough money to pay for two top-o-the-line cars a month in child support can't seriously expect anyone to feel sorry for their predicament. Besides people with that much money tend to have nice little sources of liquidity stowed away for a rainy day and I can't believe life could really be that spartan for them.

Dude i was refering to the cost to finance a new car or Lease a new car, Or if you can imagine buying 2 new Caddies ever 3 years with no trade in.

Not to mention my old house

70K now that is funny dude but no

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Dude i was refering to the cost to finance a new car or Lease a new car, Or if you can imagine buying 2 new Caddies ever 3 years with no trade in.

Not to mention my old house

70K now that is funny dude but no

Ah well that's a horse of a different colour :tongue:

 

[Jason]

OK yeah, some bloke in your neighbourhood. More pub talk possibly? You have no idea of the other side of the story so whether or not this bloke's situation is fair is perfectly impossible to tell.

You are of course right. Gym talk actually, but same difference. But there are so many stories like this that it is reasonable to wonder if some of them are true.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

You are of course right. Gym talk actually, but same difference. But there are so many stories like this that it is reasonable to wonder if some of them are true.

Yeah and there are a lot of men who like to bitch about their ex-wives. And conversely a lot of women who like to bitch about the ex-husbands, that's the problem with a lot of this anecdotal stuff. Divorced couples frequently paint one another as monsters to justify their roles in the collapse of their relationship. Saying "my ex-wife is a lazy, greedy, nagging bitch who gets everything she wants handed to her on a plate", or "My ex-husband is a deceitful, selfish, irresponsible loser, who doesn't do his bit for his kids" etc etc etc makes people feel better about the fact that they're now divorced from their ex-spouse and it allows them to excuse themselves from their own role in the situation.

This is exactly why court systems have to be as disinterested and as little involved in the details of the back and forth of an estranged couple as possible other than where this interchange is directly relevant to the lagel issues of the divorce or the children involved. This leads to the kind of unsubtle court ordered situations we see so commonly. It's a symptom of people's inability to get divorced without behaving like arseholes to each other.

 

[Drifterwood]

It's a symptom of people's inability to get divorced without behaving like arseholes to each other.

Often very true, though the new collaborative system in the UK is trying to deal with this.

You also need to accept two things IMO.

First, some people are not just arseholes over the divorce. Some were arseholes before and will be afterwards. Men and women equally.

Secondly, maternity is held as more bankable over paternity and old fashioned notions of men's and women's roles are enforced in parenting when they would not be tolerated in almost any other sphere of life. Then there is the strange (to me) concept that somehow one partner has a duty to maintain another person when their relationship is terminated. Weird.

 

[B_Hickboy]

Support is generally calculated using gross income, which often offers a distorted view of reality, and in a primary custody case it's often only the supporter's income that's taken into account. As to courts doing what's fair, excuse me for a sec....
[Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!]
....ahem, pardon me. [Courts deal with the law. Justice is a concept of which I am extremely fond. But, real world, the law and justice, not always hanging out together.]

As to how often that scenario: I can only speak for the region of the USA in which I reside, but it's a lot more often than one might think. Let's put it this way, a single attorney who handles domestic cases will come across that scenario many times in a year.

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

Not true in all cases. When my child support was calculated, the court took into consideration my income, my expenses like rent, utilities, food, and fuel for my car. The court assessed an amount that took into account my child's needs, and calculated a number which, although it put a strain on me, was fair. And I paid every dime of it, on time.

What it came down to for me was this: This is my child. He didn't ask to be born. He is not ready to take care of himself. I need to help him any way I possibly can, and the consequences to myself take a back seat.

I can tell when I'm dealing with a person who has never had to deal with a situation himself and is speculating about what others should do. That's not objectivity. It's detachment and indifference, two things I find it hard to stomach.

 

[SilverTrain]

Not true in all cases. When my child support was calculated, the court took into consideration my income, my expenses like rent, utilities, food, and fuel for my car. The court assessed an amount that took into account my child's needs, and calculated a number which, although it put a strain on me, was fair. And I paid every dime of it, on time.

What it came down to for me was this: This is my child. He didn't ask to be born. He is not ready to take care of himself. I need to help him any way I possibly can, and the consequences to myself take a back seat.

I can tell when I'm dealing with a person who has never had to deal with a situation himself and is speculating about what others should do. That's not objectivity. It's detachment and indifference, two things I find it hard to stomach.

Obviously you cannot, you narcissistic ass.

 

[B_Hickboy]

Obviously you cannot, you narcissistic ass.

Your understanding of the situation is superficial, and you appear to have not given it much thought.

How many children do you have, and how much child support have you had to pay? Answer me that honestly. If the answer to either question is anything other than zero, I will issue a public apology.