But I'll primal scream "DEADBEAT!" if it will make everyone feel better.
Maybe the US system is very different, Here both sets of income are judged.
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.
Maybe the US system is very different, Here both sets of income are judged.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.