Roe v Wade for men

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

If the mother wants the child to live in a better lifestyle than she can provide, maybe she should let the child live with the father rather than demand that he provide her that lifestyle.

Totally disagreed. I've been down that road. Beck lived with her dad three different times, and all three times, it was a disaster. A disaster brought about by her stepmother's desire to avoid paying child support. (Her father just wanted to have her there, which is why I said yes, but her stepmother made life miserable for everyone, and that was the end of that.)

No court order, no argument (well, the second time, we argued, but I went along with it in the end anyway), just "the (theoretical) best interests of the child." (And yes, I paid child support.)

The whole idea is to provide the best possible environment for the child. Allowing the child to live with the parent who wants to avoid paying child support is not a very good choice.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[livendive 8]

Quote

The whole idea is to provide the best possible environment for the child. Allowing the child to live with the parent who wants to avoid paying child support is not a very good choice.

There is a difference between not wanting to provide a certain level of support for the child and not wanting to provide that level of support for the mother. I've always wanted my daughter to live in a good environment, with a nice house, newish clothes, good food, etc. and am willing to pay for them. However, I couldn't give a shit whether her mother has those things or not, and am not particularly interested in paying for her to have them. I don't have a problem with paying for "child" support, but don't think I should be responsible for "ex-wife" support. To be honest, my child support has always been a very reasonable amount, so we're talking conceptual here, not actual. I'd be fucking pissed if I had to pay over a grand a month in child support like the other guy posted in this thread.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And why is support payments often set (and raised) based on the father's income, rather than the actual needs of the child?

It's based on a number of factors. Basically, two competing thing; 1) comparison of incomes between mother and father; and 2) comparison of child's time spent with mother and father.

in the real world situation I'm thinking/talking about, the father isn't a father. He's a checkbook, alllowed no contact. Yet every year or so she forces a new hearing on the support level, and has successfuly argued that even if he didn't get a raise, he should have.

We're talking levels that have no relation to the needs of the child.

And in the world of real clarity, there is another situation - where the father actually asks for custody and visitation. And when he gets custody and visitation, support payments go down. Here's why...

Let's say there are two kids. The father has net disposable income (NDI) of $3000 and the mother has and NDI of $1000. Dad has 75% of the NDI. Let's also assume that dad has visitation 20% of the time.

Then a mathematical formula comes in. In Cali, both parents would be expected to spend 48 percent of the total NDI on the kids (in this example only - the math gets complicated as to why). So they would be expected to spend $1920.00 together on the kids.

Now the amount of time spent is factored in again. During the time that the mom has custody, they'd be expected to spend $1536 (80% of 1920). The mother is presumed to be paying her share, so the dad must pay the mom his share. Since his share is 75%, that means $1536 x .75, which is $1152.

The amount they both provide when dad has the kid is $384 (1920 x .2). Dad is paying his share, which chages mom with paying him hers, or $96 ($384 x .20).

1152 - 96 = 1056. So, in this case, dad would pay 1056 per month to mom.

So, if you increase the custody for dad, the amount he pays in support drops. Let's say that same facts, only the dad has custody 80 percent of the time. Even though he makes way more money, the mom will end up owing HIM.

---

Advice for your friends - get custody. And slowly get more and more. Payments become less and less.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[lawrocket 3]

Child support, as I explained, is not based on giving the child your quality of life. It's based on what you and the mother can afford.

Basically, they assume that supporting your child should be the first thing you do with disposable money.

You haven't had to pay much for child support? That's probably due to the following:

1) You spend a lot of time with your child; and/or
2) The respective incomes of you and the mother aren't too different, or she makes more than you; and/or
3) You don't make much money.

No dude living on minimum wage is gonna be required to fork over $1k per month in child support. That is, of course, unless he loses his well paying job and doesn't tell the court that he's making minimum wage now.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[RhondaLea 4]

I'll tell you what: $1000 a month is not that extravagant in some areas of the country. As I mentioned earlier, support doesn't just cover clothing, food and extras. It takes into account the additional housing and utilities (a single woman can live in a a lot of places that a woman with a child cannot), wear and tear on the car and so on.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/biznews/finance/020127-pf-children.shtml

You do the math.

The money I received each month paid the full cost of day care and not a penny more. Yes, I could've spent less on day care. Later, I could've spent less on a lot of other things. But I didn't. There was no reason for her not to have all the things his other children had. Still, I was paying the larger share of her support all the way along, even though his wife thought what he was paying was ridiculous.

A father who is responsible for his child is responsible for his share of all that child's expenses, not just for the ones he thinks are attributable to the child.

Unfortunately, most men don't want to accept that.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[skycat 0]

Quote

*** she could not get pregnant.

1- Sue for fraud. $600 a month.

It's very possible she couldn't get pregnant due to PCOS, ovarian failure, endo, and a myriad of other female fertility problems. The thing is sometimes there is break through ovulation and if his swimmers are up to the job she can get PG.

Heck I was diagnosed with a fertility problems and told I could never have kids, guess what a year ago I had a miscarriage. Imagine my surprise when for the last 10 years I thought it could never happen.

So don't assume she lied to him outright, she just may not have known about a change in her fertility condition.

Fly it like you stole it!

[likearock 2]

Quote

And in the world of real clarity, there is another situation - where the father actually asks for custody and visitation. And when he gets custody and visitation, support payments go down.

Of course, the flip side to that is the example of the mother who cares more for the dollars than for the child. If she knows how the formula works, she may push for minimal or no visitation rights for the father in order to maximize her own income. And, as I said before, that may sacrifice the child's greater need for emotional rather than financial support from the father .

I realize that's not what happens in the majority of the cases but I'd be surprised if it didn't occur with some frequency.

[Keith 0]

***and of course the woman is absolved of all responsibility is what you're telling me?
BS!

Quote

Nice try. Talk about BS. Passing the buck is BS. Just because women share the responsibility doesn’t mean the man can shirk his. Sheesh.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

• Quote

[bch7773 0]

Quote

***and of course the woman is absolved of all responsibility is what you're telling me?
BS!

Quote

Nice try. Talk about BS. Passing the buck is BS. Just because women share the responsibility doesn’t mean the man can shirk his. Sheesh.

I don't think the man should shirk his responsibility... but its not ALL his fault. You were saying its the guys fault she got pregnant... thats wrong.
its BOTH their faults. both need to take responsibility. that simple.

MB 3528, RB 1182

• Quote

[bch7773 0]

Quote

>and of course the woman is absolved of all responsibility is what you're telling me?

?? You do realize that the woman is the one who gets pregnant, right? Since both participated in the conception, both share the legal/financial responsibility (even though the woman ends up with more _actual_ responsibility.)

I totally agree. its both's fault, and both of them have responsibility.

and unfortionately, there tends to be a lot of deadbeat dads. so the woman usually has to take a lot more of the responibility.

MB 3528, RB 1182

[Keith 0]

Show me where I said it was his fault. You can't because I Didn't. I said he needs to take resonsibility for his actions. I'm done with you; you make shit up.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[happythoughts 0]

Quote

and unfortionately, there tends to be a lot of deadbeat dads. so the woman usually has to take a lot more of the responibility.

facts
Percentages -

Quote

The percentage of "deadbeat" moms is actually higher than that of dads who won't pay, even though mothers are more consistently awarded custody of children by the courts.

Census figures show only 57 percent of moms required to pay child support -- 385,000 women out of a total of 674,000 -- give up some or all of the money they owe. That leaves some 289,000 "deadbeat" mothers out there, a fact that has barely been reported in the media.

That compares with 68 percent of dads who pay up, according to the figures.

Paying more -

Quote

But men also still pay much more in child support. The Census Bureau last month also released numbers showing fathers paid an average of $3,000 to custodial moms in 1997. Women paid little over half that. Moms also get about 60 percent of what they are owed, whereas dads only get 48 percent.

Working and unfair govt subsidies-

Quote

While 7 percent of custodial moms work more than 44 hours a week, 24.5 percent of single custodial dads work more than 44 hours. And only about half as many custodial dads get government help than moms.

Stereotype-

Quote

"It’s not the exception anymore," Wood said, adding that before he became a single dad two years ago, "I would have almost bought into that stereotype" the dads are usually the deadbeats. But "that philosophy is just 30-40 years out of date."

Income differences explained-

Quote

Studies show the average income for non-custodial moms is only $15,000 a year, whereas non-custodial dads average about $40,000 a year.

And moms who don’t have custody of the kids often remarry and have more kids, and often choose to not work.

[bch7773 0]

Quote

Show me where I said it was his fault. You can't because I Didn't. I said he needs to take resonsibility for his actions. I'm done with you; you make shit up.

And here is Keith's words, which he will now eat (bold added by me):

NOPE it's your fault. You knew the consequences of drinking too much and to chose to do it anyway. It's the same thing with getting a woman pregnant. Men know the consequences of having unprotected sex and choose to do it anyway. You are the only one who can control Your actions.



yeah I was really "making shit up" huh?

think before you post

MB 3528, RB 1182

[Keith 0]

Ok, I'll admit I made it sound like it was all the mans fault. That was not my intent.

Keith

Don't Fuck with me Keith - J. Mandeville

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

A father who is responsible for his child is responsible for his share of all that child's expenses, not just for the ones he thinks are attributable to the child.

That makes no sense at all - what you are saying is that the father that "thinks" he's still paying everything he's responsible for, the one that is sincerely trying to support - is still a deadbeat.

In that case, it sounds more like a bitter mom trying to get too much or is really crappy at communicating the real needs of the child.

Either way, it sounds less like what's fair, and more like an issue that's not really about caring for the child.

(I suspect you meant the real deadbeat fathers that use as an 'excuse' discussions that minimize the total costs of support in efforts to lower child support payments. But it's crappy to phrase it in such a fashion to demean well meaning fathers that actually put a lot of thought into what support means and try to support that.

Let's not even get into mom's that are horrible money managers and are too lazy to learn since they can just pile all the expenses onto the ex..)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Quote

A father who is responsible for his child is responsible for his share of all that child's expenses, not just for the ones he thinks are attributable to the child.

That makes no sense at all - what you are saying is that the father that "thinks" he's still paying everything he's responsible for, the one that is sincerely trying to support - is still a deadbeat.

Dude, that's not what I'm saying.

A lot of guys bitch about their support orders because they think they are responsible ONLY FOR those items directly attributable to the child: clothing, toys, food--anything that the child directly uses.

They don't understand and don't want to hear that the additional housing and transportation costs--among other things--are also partly their responsibility.

I started my career as a legal assistant in family law, and I've heard it all. I also lived it--the support Beck's dad paid was not extravagant, and he never had a problem with it. But Beck's stepmother did, and it was the subject of neverending complaints from her to me (and worse, to Beck).

I see that the rest of your post clarifies this a bit, but it's not just so-called "deadbeat" fathers who have this issue. And more than a few allow this to leak over to the children, who then come home to mom wanting to know why she's bleeding daddy dry. Worse still, a lot of these guys have the idea that if they get custody, they no longer have to pay child support. What they don't realize is that the custodial parent usually ends up spending more, instead of less, than the total amount of the support order. Kids cost. A lot.

I realize that there are abuses, just as there are abuses in everything. But in general, support awards are reasonable, and good parents do the best they can for their children.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

They don't understand and don't want to hear

and mom doesn't want to explain it to 'that man', she just wants more money and him to suffer and not be with his kids...

two sides always - I understand and agree with your points. But I won't take the inference that it's mostly an issue with the parent that doesn't have primary custody. The primary custody parent has an obligation to handle that money responsibly and that doesn't happen to well when it's given to them instead of in trust to the child.

Instead of issues of 'how much money' the parents divide, I'd think it would be less contentious to divide the responsibilities of the parent along specific items. The primary custodian takes care of ALL housing, food, transportation. The other parent takes care of all education costs, clothing, college.

A total list could be developed and the parents could divide the list as part of the agreement.

I know married two-income couples that do this. Mom saves up for the kids' college expenses and family vacations and fun stuff on her income. Dad covers today's expenses of mortgage and bills and groceries, etc on his income.

Keeps it much cleaner.

For a divorced couple, then the primary custodian doesn't need to complain about the more subjective costs of having the kid live with them..

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

And in the world of real clarity, there is another situation - where the father actually asks for custody and visitation. And when he gets custody and visitation, support payments go down.

Of course, the flip side to that is the example of the mother who cares more for the dollars than for the child. If she knows how the formula works, she may push for minimal or no visitation rights for the father in order to maximize her own income. And, as I said before, that may sacrifice the child's greater need for emotional rather than financial support from the father .

I realize that's not what happens in the majority of the cases but I'd be surprised if it didn't occur with some frequency.

Oh, it does happen frequently. And if the dad doesn't fight back, she'll get what she wants. All the dad has to do is go through a minimum of effort. The problem is when you don't fight the first time. It's much harder to get back visitation that you lost than it is to never lose it to begin with.

Most of the screwed men I've seen didn't do anything for a few years. Then they have $10k in support arrears with no visitation because they didn't bother to fight - or actually do anything. THen they are so far behind that they simply will have to wait five years, going to court basically every 6 months to a year, to get what they could have had five years previously if they simply appeared that first time.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[likearock 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

And in the world of real clarity, there is another situation - where the father actually asks for custody and visitation. And when he gets custody and visitation, support payments go down.

Of course, the flip side to that is the example of the mother who cares more for the dollars than for the child. If she knows how the formula works, she may push for minimal or no visitation rights for the father in order to maximize her own income. And, as I said before, that may sacrifice the child's greater need for emotional rather than financial support from the father .

I realize that's not what happens in the majority of the cases but I'd be surprised if it didn't occur with some frequency.

Oh, it does happen frequently. And if the dad doesn't fight back, she'll get what she wants. All the dad has to do is go through a minimum of effort. The problem is when you don't fight the first time. It's much harder to get back visitation that you lost than it is to never lose it to begin with.

Based on your experience, how influential are the childrens' wishes when the courts decide custody?

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Quote

They don't understand and don't want to hear

and mom doesn't want to explain it to 'that man', she just wants more money and him to suffer and not be with his kids...

If the court ordered it, why does she have to explain it? Isn't that why he has legal counsel?

The rest of what you wrote...I don't think you understand the need the custodial parent has for cash on the barrelhead, but the legal system does understand, and that's why the support system works the way it does.

If you want to talk about bad parents--as if they are representative of the whole, I don't know what to say except there are ways of dealing with them. Penalizing good parents because of them, however, is not part of the program.

How do you give the money "in trust to the child"? The money is for the expenses associated with keeping the child fed, housed and clothed. These are ongoing and immediate needs, and saving up for college is not a priority when hunger is an issue.

If you can come up with a practical plan, I'm all ears, but talking about two-income married couples as if their experience has anything to do with that of a single parent is just silly.

I was a single parent for most of daughter's life, and it was a terrifying experience at times. I left at the beginning of my ninth month of pregnancy, and I had no job and very little money. I managed--I found a job when she was 2 and a half months old--but without the child support, we'd never have made it.

Yes, I could've let her live with her dad (and she did, three different times), but given the outcome he has had with his two sons (because of their mother), I think it was better for her to grow up with me.

rl

P.S. We did have a written visitation schedule, but I never held Tom to it. He got her most holidays, including Mother's Day (it meant a lot to her stepmother, but not a lot to me), and any other time he wanted her to come. After he moved an hour away (when she was less than a year old), we either met halfway or I provided the transportation. On the other hand, when I wrecked my car, he arranged to have it towed an hour to the shop and then he fixed it for the amount that the insurance company paid (i.e., he ate the deductible). He and I did the best that we could to give Beck two loving parents; the fly in the ointment was always her stepmother, who, even after she was treated for her bipolar condition, continued to manifest symptoms.

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Based on your experience, how influential are the childrens' wishes when the courts decide custody?

It depends on the age of the child. Usually, there is very little deference given to kids under the age of ten. As they get older, though, their wishes are given more weight.

When the wishes of the kids aren't given much weight is when it's pretty obvious that the kid wants to be with the totally lenient parent who will let the kids get away with murder. This is usually with teenagers, and you can often look towards the school records, etc., of those kids to show that the parent with primary custody
isn't doign the job.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

If the court ordered it, why does she have to explain it?

so the father understanding how his money is going in support of his child instead of just having it ordered as some arbitrary amount doesn't make sense to you???? that is nuts

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[RhondaLea 4]

Quote

Quote

If the court ordered it, why does she have to explain it?

so the father understanding how his money is going in support of his child instead of just having it ordered as some arbitrary amount doesn't make sense to you???? that is nuts

And he's going to believe her? Even if he doesn't believe his own attorney? Or the court?

Besides, if she knows, why doesn't he know?

Are you saying that men are too stupid to figure out where the money goes?

Most of the time (the way it has been told to me by clients), the guy thinks that the mother shouldn't have anything, that she should spend every dime she has on the children. It's her job, after all, as a mother.

So he doesn't really give a flying fuck about where the money really goes, because every dime she spends on herself is "his" money that she's spending frivolously.

Talk about nuts.

rl

If you don't know where you're going, you should know where you came from. Gullah Proverb

[livendive 8]

Quote

in the real world situation I'm thinking/talking about, the father isn't a father. He's a checkbook, alllowed no contact. Yet every year or so she forces a new hearing on the support level, and has successfuly argued that even if he didn't get a raise, he should have.

We're talking levels that have no relation to the needs of the child.

And in the world of real clarity, there is another situation - where the father actually asks for custody and visitation. And when he gets custody and visitation, support payments go down. Here's why...

Let's say there are two kids. The father has net disposable income (NDI) of $3000 and the mother has and NDI of $1000. Dad has 75% of the NDI. Let's also assume that dad has visitation 20% of the time.

Then a mathematical formula comes in. In Cali, both parents would be expected to spend 48 percent of the total NDI on the kids (in this example only - the math gets complicated as to why). So they would be expected to spend $1920.00 together on the kids.

Now the amount of time spent is factored in again. During the time that the mom has custody, they'd be expected to spend $1536 (80% of 1920). The mother is presumed to be paying her share, so the dad must pay the mom his share. Since his share is 75%, that means $1536 x .75, which is $1152.

The amount they both provide when dad has the kid is $384 (1920 x .2). Dad is paying his share, which chages mom with paying him hers, or $96 ($384 x .20).

1152 - 96 = 1056. So, in this case, dad would pay 1056 per month to mom.

So, if you increase the custody for dad, the amount he pays in support drops. Let's say that same facts, only the dad has custody 80 percent of the time. Even though he makes way more money, the mom will end up owing HIM.

---

Advice for your friends - get custody. And slowly get more and more. Payments become less and less.

[Michele 1]

Quote

If the state takes away a child from its parents, they accept the responsibility for the upbringing of said child. If a woman (or man) _places_ the child there, then they are responsible.

Well, half right. If the DCS removes a child under dangerous circumstances, or because the parents are incarcerated and there is no family to take the child/ren, the State indeed supports that child.

However, a woman can relinquish her child to the State immediately upon birth, and they are not fiscally responsbile. In certain hospitals and firestations, there is a "safe baby" site where no questions are asked; the baby is accepted, and the parent let go without even knowing their name. This was done to prevent children from being thrown in the trash, literally, and to give an option to those women who find themselves with a pregnancy carried to term and life circumstances preventing them from keeping them.

In all these situations, which are the main source of public adoption/foster situations, the state pays for the care of the child until they are placed with a permanent family. Which means, honestly, that we, the taxpayer, pay for it in the end.

Ciels-
Michele

~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek
While our hearts lie bleeding?~