Stand Your Ground

Stand Your Ground Forums => Main => Topic started by: zarby on Jun 28, 2006, 01:44 AM

Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: zarby on Jun 28, 2006, 01:44 AM
I was over 2 weeks behind on child support not because I didn't  have the money but because I hadn't had time to even breath. I finally got around to writing the check. I wrote two months at once -- the month I was behind and the next month. I threw in an extra $500 for good measure. I like to pay extra here and there. This way I am a few months "ahead" thus if I am "behind" I am not really "behind." I don't ever way to be "behind" because the consequences can be so severe. The bottom line is that I wrote what I consider to be a very large check.

I see the children yesterday. They are wonderful. Among other things, we do our standard shopping trips. I buy the girl some arrows. She has decided that she is going to do some archery this summer. I buy the buy a video card. His computer that I gave him needs a video card to play the games he wants to play. I of course buy them things all the time. I buy them an ice cream cake. I often buy them special foods. They tell me as usual about their mother really liked the last cake I had bought them.

I ask them about the TV I had given them six months ago. I had given them a very large TV. They say it is doing fine.

They then mention that their mother had bought a huge TV. My oldest son says it is as tall as he is and he is as tall as I am (or taller). I think gee whiz -- I am nearly six feet tall. I said something about how I guess they wouldn't be needing the TV I had given them anymore (it was big but not that big). They said no -- the TV mom just bought is in her bedroom. The new TV is used by her and her new boyfriend -- not them.

I think great. I just bought a massive TV for her and her boyfriend to watch -- not even the children. The wonders of modern child support.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: BRIAN on Jun 28, 2006, 04:14 AM
I am felling you Zarby. I know for a while my CS payments bought beer and cigarets for my Ex's scumbag BF and payed her car payment. I know she wasn't spending it on my daughter because every time I picked up my daughter for visitation she was dressed in rags.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: Assault on Jun 28, 2006, 04:22 AM
I see this with my children as well. My children will come to visit me in filthy torn clothes and they will look like they haven't bathed in days.

It's tough because they know they look terrible and it's not thier fault. Their mothers standard answer when asked by them for anything is "I don't have any money!!"; screamed at the top of her lungs, of course.

My ex wife goes on trips, and dresses very well. She makes sure SHE looks presentable and is more than comfortable.

Disgusting. I don't know how someone can treat thier own children so poorly. And since i'm merely thier father, there's nothing to be done. :?
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: TheManOnTheStreet on Jun 28, 2006, 04:35 AM
Maybe they are doing that just like the woman down the street from me.  She intentionally makes the kids look practically homeless when they go out for effect.  Especially when they are going over Dads.  Guilt trip.  Look how poor we are because of you!  You NEED to give us more money!  

I remember an argument that she had with him outside, everyone could hear it (most likely what she wanted).  From what I could hear; He had asked her to pack their swimming suits and some extra clothes for the weekend.  She said, very loudly I might add, "I am not sending them to your house with my clothes!  You want them to have extra clothes, then you buy them some for your house!"

I couldn't believe what I had heard.  "Her clothes"?  Unreal.  Anyhow, just my two cents based upon what I have seen.  Just more guit tripping and manipulation.

Meanwhile, the poor kids are sitting in the car watching/hearing all of this.  Truely sad.

TMOTS
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: SIAM on Jun 28, 2006, 04:43 AM
Custody is going to the wrong people.  These women are neglecting their responsibilities regarding CS payments - they simply see it as "money for me " - perhaps they'll give SOME of HER money (i.e. money she has called "her money") to the kids, perhaps not.  

Ultimately, CS is not child support - it's simply about giving your ex money - full stop.  

The same ex who initiated the divorce.  

Unbelievable.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: zarby on Jun 28, 2006, 04:49 AM
Yeah, my situation is not that bad.

The kids don't look like street kids, but they have been trained to direct their needs toward me. I buy them very many things -- some essentials and nearly all extras. I don't think she really spends that much on them. I know she buys food for them and some things but not nearly what she receives in child support.

The fact is that the child support pays for the mortgage, the electricing, and the huge TVs -- these things benefit her as much or in some instances more than they benefit the children.

She lives a much better life style due to the child support than she otherwise would. She also a free car (I make the payments).

I live a much worse life style. I have money but very little goes for my sole benefit. I spend it on weekends with the kids and for the kids.

I literally moved out of my house because I just couldn't see living in such a huge house for just one person. I rent it and this gives more money for the weekends and in theory to save for college (in practice not much has been saved). Even my extravagances are intended largely for the children (e.g. my airplane, etc.) -- interesting things to do with the kids -- of course also something I enjoy --not totally for the kids.

The child support I think is viewed by some women like the lottery. Hell, if someone got an equivalent monthly payment for 12 years in the lottery they would be jumping up and down and screaming. Child support is much the same. It leaves the woman free also to get income or goodies from a second or third or fourth, etc. man also.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: damnbiker on Jun 28, 2006, 04:54 AM
I hear ya man, I bought my kid a TV for her room for Christmas, it's now in the living room because her mom's TV broke.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: johnnyp on Jun 28, 2006, 05:15 AM
a father should be able to deduct what he spends directly on his children.

It would really burnd my butt to be giving money to a woman in that circumstance.

One disadvantage a man has is that his "assets" can easily be seperated from him.  Taking money as a form of compesation, or penalty has a long historical standing.

The two main "assets" a woman traditionally brings to a marriage is not seperable from her - vigina and domestic services.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: zarby on Jun 28, 2006, 05:40 AM
Exactly, but you left out one -- the children.

The system is much more willing to separate a man from his money than the children from the woman.

I am not just talking about change in custody. I am talking about routine visits. If the woman interferes with the visits, the courts very often will not do a damn thing. The same Judge who has no problem throwing  man in jail, taking his licenses, etc. for not paying child support (regardless of extenuating circumstances) will shrug his shoulders and say either explicitly or implicitly that there is nothing he can do when the mother interferes with and denies visitation. Further, missed visit(s) tends to disappear in the past, whereas a missed monetary payment never disappears. A missed payment from 18 years ago is accounted for to the penny (with interest) and will live nearly forever long after the child is an adult.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: Assault on Jun 28, 2006, 05:58 AM
Quote from: "zarby"
Exactly, but you left out one -- the children.

The system is much more willing to separate a man from his money than the children from the woman.

I am not just talking about change in custody. I am talking about routine visits. If the woman interferes with the visits, the courts very often will not do a damn thing. The same Judge who has no problem throwing  man in jail, taking his licenses, etc. for not paying child support (regardless of extenuating circumstances) will shrug his shoulders and say either explicitly or implicitly that there is nothing he can do when the mother interferes with and denies visitation. Further, missed visit(s) tends to disappear in the past, whereas a missed monetary payment never disappears. A missed payment from 18 years ago is accounted for to the penny (with interest) and will live nearly forever long after the child is an adult.


Exactly. And whenever I hear someone mention the phrase "It's for the children." or "In the best interest of the child" I want to puke.

It's not about the children, it's about money. Plain and simple. :roll:
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: zarby on Jun 28, 2006, 06:42 AM
No its not about the children.

It is not based on the needs of the children (it is usually based on the income of the father).

There is no requirement that it be spent on the children.

The mother's income is usually not taken into account.

There is no consideration of equities or facts (other
than the father's income). It is virtually automatic
without regard to anything about the children.

It is wealth redistribution pure and simple.

Why?

Catering to a powerful political constituency?

Destruction of the family?

Your theory is as good as mine.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: Quentin0352 on Jun 28, 2006, 06:44 AM
Hell, the court even documented that my ex demanded I drop charges against her for denial of visitation and buy a bunch of stuff fo the kids or I couldn't see them though I was ahead in my support at the time. No big deal as far as the court cared. She violated most every order of the court and they blamed ME for her violations. Now there is a dead child and I don't have the money to even file myself anymore and the judge refuses to do a thing to her.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: zarby on Jun 28, 2006, 06:52 AM
I am sorry that I have not taken the time to hear about your situation in detail, Quentin. What you just said sends shivers down my spine.

I would like to meet you and hear about your situation. I would be happy to get on Southwest Airlines at some point and meet in person.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: dr e on Jun 28, 2006, 07:16 AM
johnnyp said
Quote
The two main "assets" a woman traditionally brings to a marriage is not seperable from her - vigina and domestic services.


This is woman bashing.  Cut it out.  That's a warning.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: NobleTry on Jun 28, 2006, 07:54 AM
Quote from: "johnnyp"
a father should be able to deduct what he spends directly on his children.


Us father's deduct any alimony we give to her. CS is not currently allowed as a deductible becuase it's "for the kids". Even with all the problems that are inherent in the current system, I do agree that CS payments should not be tax deductible.

Quote from: "johnnyp"

It would really burnd my butt to be giving money to a woman in that circumstance.


As I've said before: The price of freedom is not free. (No denigration to what his means to the vets here.) I counted the cost when I decided I could not stay with her, and I choose to pay the cost of both CS and alimony. I would urge any man out there considering divorce to carefully count the cost, for himself, and for his children. These payments are temporary things in time and in time will go away. My mental health was more important than any amount of money. Before my divorce, I could envision paying her the money for x amount of time, and then be free and clear of her forever. I could not imagine continuing to live with her. So I left.

Quote from: "johnnyp"

One disadvantage a man has is that his "assets" can easily be seperated from him.  Taking money as a form of compesation, or penalty has a long historical standing.


It's only money. It's not who you are. You can always earn more money, and CS and alimony are temporary states.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: NobleTry on Jun 28, 2006, 08:05 AM
Quote from: "TheManOnTheStreet"
Maybe they are doing that just like the woman down the street from me.  She intentionally makes the kids look practically homeless when they go out for effect.  Especially when they are going over Dads.  Guilt trip.  Look how poor we are because of you!  You NEED to give us more money!  

I remember an argument that she had with him outside, everyone could hear it (most likely what she wanted).  From what I could hear; He had asked her to pack their swimming suits and some extra clothes for the weekend.  She said, very loudly I might add, "I am not sending them to your house with my clothes!  You want them to have extra clothes, then you buy them some for your house!"

I couldn't believe what I had heard.  "Her clothes"?  Unreal.  Anyhow, just my two cents based upon what I have seen.  Just more guit tripping and manipulation.


I don't know that this is intentional guilt tripping, manipulation, or playing the victim. I think American women in the broadly defined middle class, generally, truly believe what they are saying when they say these things. Women tend to live their lives through others. This is what makes women, generally, "other centered" and have the innate ability to take over child care in a home, and gain much enjoyment from doing it. In many women, though, this "other centeredness" becomes, I think (at least from my experiences in life), an ugly end in itself. It's the old cliche: the mother lives through her children or the wife lives through her husband. So, in her mind, she can talk about her children's clothes as "my clothes" and the children as "my children" (as every man I think on this board has experienced). It's just how women, generally, think and behave.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: johnnyp on Jun 28, 2006, 10:03 AM
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
johnnyp said
Quote
The two main "assets" a woman traditionally brings to a marriage is not seperable from her - vigina and domestic services.


This is woman bashing.  Cut it out.  That's a warning.


It is not woman bashing.  I just stated the fact that traditionally a woman provides sex and domestic services.  A man traditionally provides financial support.  When a relationship ends, the man's contribution is easily separated from him, while the same is not true for a woman.

Furthermore - in most cases courts give the children to the mother.  It is my impression that traditionally the children were viewed as belonging to the father (example - why do the children carry the father's family name?).

I find it odd that when a relationship ends, society sees an ongoing obligation on the part of the man even though the woman walks away with all of the assets.  The man is left without his children, sexual services, domestic services, and a child support bill.

Please retract your warning.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: Darth Sidious on Jun 28, 2006, 10:28 AM
Quote from: "johnnyp"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
johnnyp said
Quote
The two main "assets" a woman traditionally brings to a marriage is not seperable from her - vigina and domestic services.


This is woman bashing.  Cut it out.  That's a warning.


It is not woman bashing.  I just stated the fact that traditionally a woman provides sex and domestic services.  A man traditionally provides financial support.  When a relationship ends, the man's contribution is easily separated from him, while the same is not true for a woman.

Furthermore - in most cases courts give the children to the mother.  It is my impression that traditionally the children were viewed as belonging to the father (example - why do the children carry the father's family name?).

I find it odd that when a relationship ends, society sees an ongoing obligation on the part of the man even though the woman walks away with all of the assets.  The man is left without his children, sexual services, domestic services, and a child support bill.

Please retract your warning.


You are right, johnnyp, and you have my support.  I did not see your comments as "bashing" but as relaying the unvarnished truth of the matter.  Does a man get companionship in marriage?  Only if he is lucky; otherwise, he will be manipulated through mind games and constant nagging.  A man is supposed to carry on with his marital role as "provider" in a divorce which was likely forced upon him and gets nothing but grief and debt in return.  The man ends up objectified as a wallet.  There is no justice whatsoever to be found here.  Marriage today is a mockery of what it once was.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: Mr. Bad on Jun 28, 2006, 10:51 AM
Quote from: "johnnyp"
Quote from: "Dr Evil"
johnnyp said
Quote
The two main "assets" a woman traditionally brings to a marriage is not seperable from her - vigina and domestic services.


This is woman bashing.  Cut it out.  That's a warning.


It is not woman bashing.  I just stated the fact that traditionally a woman provides sex and domestic services.  A man traditionally provides financial support.  When a relationship ends, the man's contribution is easily separated from him, while the same is not true for a woman.

Furthermore - in most cases courts give the children to the mother.  It is my impression that traditionally the children were viewed as belonging to the father (example - why do the children carry the father's family name?).

I find it odd that when a relationship ends, society sees an ongoing obligation on the part of the man even though the woman walks away with all of the assets.  The man is left without his children, sexual services, domestic services, and a child support bill.

Please retract your warning.


Yeah Dr. E., I have to agree with johnnyp on this one - his clarification is exactly how I saw it initially, i.e., that he was simply outlining the assets that women have traditionally brought to marriage: sex, children and homemaking.  He could have, and perhaps should have, stated it in less 'charged' terms, but the message is the same.  To me it's the same as stating that a man's main assets to marriage are 'grunt work' and slave labor. Equally charged verbiage but no less true.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: johnnyp on Jun 28, 2006, 10:59 AM
Quote from: "Darth Sidious"

You are right, johnnyp, and you have my support.  I did not see your comments as "bashing" but as relaying the unvarnished truth of the matter.  Does a man get companionship in marriage?  Only if he is lucky; otherwise, he will be manipulated through mind games and constant nagging.  A man is supposed to carry on with his marital role as "provider" in a divorce which was likely forced upon him and gets nothing but grief and debt in return.  The man ends up objectified as a wallet.  There is no justice whatsoever to be found here.  Marriage today is a mockery of what it once was.


What I said was blunt, and did omit many other things involved in a relationship.  

But I think a big reason men get married is to have a sexual companion.  There are many other reasons... but I think sex is a pretty consistent reason.

I think a big reason women get married is to get access to children and support to raise those children.

How many marriages do you think would happen if men had no sex drive, and no resources to provide?  

I remember one thing from my college psychology class.  A study trying to determine if there was a universal appealing thing for people.  They showed pictures of food, and nature, and possessions...  In the end, the two things that had the highest probability to elicit a favorable physiological response were:

For men - it was pictures of attractive women

For women - it was pictures of babies.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: Davie_boy on Jun 28, 2006, 11:15 AM
Quote from: "NobleTry"
Quote from: "johnnyp"
a father should be able to deduct what he spends directly on his children.


Us father's deduct any alimony we give to her. CS is not currently allowed as a deductible becuase it's "for the kids". Even with all the problems that are inherent in the current system, I do agree that CS payments should not be tax deductible.

Quote from: "johnnyp"

It would really burnd my butt to be giving money to a woman in that circumstance.


As I've said before: The price of freedom is not free. (No denigration to what his means to the vets here.) I counted the cost when I decided I could not stay with her, and I choose to pay the cost of both CS and alimony. I would urge any man out there considering divorce to carefully count the cost, for himself, and for his children. These payments are temporary things in time and in time will go away. My mental health was more important than any amount of money. Before my divorce, I could envision paying her the money for x amount of time, and then be free and clear of her forever. I could not imagine continuing to live with her. So I left.

Quote from: "johnnyp"

One disadvantage a man has is that his "assets" can easily be seperated from him.  Taking money as a form of compesation, or penalty has a long historical standing.


It's only money. It's not who you are. You can always earn more money, and CS and alimony are temporary states.


Why is divorce so expensive?

Because it's worth it.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: NobleTry on Jun 28, 2006, 11:42 AM
Quote from: "Davie_boy"
Quote from: "NobleTry"
Quote from: "johnnyp"
a father should be able to deduct what he spends directly on his children.


Us father's deduct any alimony we give to her. CS is not currently allowed as a deductible becuase it's "for the kids". Even with all the problems that are inherent in the current system, I do agree that CS payments should not be tax deductible.

Quote from: "johnnyp"

It would really burnd my butt to be giving money to a woman in that circumstance.


As I've said before: The price of freedom is not free. (No denigration to what his means to the vets here.) I counted the cost when I decided I could not stay with her, and I choose to pay the cost of both CS and alimony. I would urge any man out there considering divorce to carefully count the cost, for himself, and for his children. These payments are temporary things in time and in time will go away. My mental health was more important than any amount of money. Before my divorce, I could envision paying her the money for x amount of time, and then be free and clear of her forever. I could not imagine continuing to live with her. So I left.

Quote from: "johnnyp"

One disadvantage a man has is that his "assets" can easily be seperated from him.  Taking money as a form of compesation, or penalty has a long historical standing.


It's only money. It's not who you are. You can always earn more money, and CS and alimony are temporary states.


Why is divorce so expensive?

Because it's worth it.


For all the men here I will add this, too: Because you are worth it. Believe it. Believe in yourself and what you do, outside of any "her" you might have in your life. Do not let her (or, for that matter, any other person) be the source of your purpose, your satisfaction, your mission, your calling. If you look for those things in people, you are guaranteed disappointment. We are men and we are uniquely made to heed a higher call. To often we men fall into the trap of letting a woman run our life. You see it all the time. Just look around. But, it is so incredibly liberating to be outside of any "relationship" with a woman. There is so much life to enjoy. You are worth it. Believe it!
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: NobleTry on Jun 28, 2006, 12:58 PM
While I am not defending anyone on the way in which CS payments are spent, I will use the old feminist term, "choice", and say that us divorced dads make the choice every month to play by the rules set down by the courts. I choose to make my payments on time. I do not choose how to spend that money because my money has now become her money through this state-sanctioned redistribution of wealth. However, I made a choice years ago to agree to the divorce. I chose not to stay with her, with the full understanding of what the consequences would be. I knew the financial hit I would take, but I made that hard choice. And while I sometimes regret my monthly check writing, I remind myself how better off I am without her. I could not survive living with her American woman madness. My children are suffering a little bit because of it. But, in the long run, the truth will come out. What is reaped will be sown, eventually, I really believe that. As my kids get older they are starting to really understand how kooky their mother can be.

It's all about choice, keep telling yourself that. You made that choice. Now stick to it.  :)

As the feminists say: It's your body, it's your choice.

Maybe I have a more positive attitude about all this because I'm not in such horrible circumstances as some of the guys here tell. I see my kids. I live pretty close to them. Things could be better. I'm in a tiny townhome now. My savings are pretty down to not much at all. I barely make it every month due to CS and alimony. But I know things could be a lot lot worse. So, all in all, I'm happy with the choices I've made.

That's all.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: Daymar on Jun 28, 2006, 11:05 PM
Quote from: "johnnyp"
I remember one thing from my college psychology class.  A study trying to determine if there was a universal appealing thing for people.  They showed pictures of food, and nature, and possessions...  In the end, the two things that had the highest probability to elicit a favorable physiological response were:

For men - it was pictures of attractive women

For women - it was pictures of babies.


So you're saying you would be interested in marrying a picture of an attractive woman? Well at least you wouldn't have to worry about divorce.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: typhonblue on Jun 28, 2006, 11:54 PM
Just to interject (once again) with a point of clarification.

Traditional women provide materially for their families. In fact in traditional societies I don't believe a vagina is considered an asset any more then a penis is. Legitimate children are the asset women provide.

Our matriarchal society has inflated the worth of female genitalia to the point where it replaces the material worth women used to invest in marriage, legitimate children, domestic service... hell, in western society having access to female genitalia for as little as seven years means a man owes a lifetime of support.

That is all.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: Daymar on Jun 29, 2006, 12:21 AM
Quote from: "typhonblue"
hell, in western society having access to female genitalia for as little as seven years means a man owes a lifetime of support.


Actually if they marry a military man and divorce them a month later, if the military man goes on to collect a pension then it will split in half with the ex once the husband retires. There have even been cases where the man was ordered to pay the ex-wife payments for half of the pension before the man even retired and started collecting the pension.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: dr e on Jun 29, 2006, 03:38 AM
Quote
n western society having access to female genitalia for as little as seven years means a man owes a lifetime of support.


Sadly, I think it is more like seven seconds.
Title: The Reality of Child Support
Post by: zarby on Jun 29, 2006, 03:55 AM
I wanted a lot more than female genitalia. I wanted a loyal life partner.

Although I was accused towards the end of just wanting that. I was told repeatedly "all you are interested in sex" -- despite the fact that there was nearly none towards the end and I didn't complaint -- I merely expressed interested periodically -- which was usually refused.

Of course, I later learned she was having sex elsewhere.

The point is that I don't think men generally think of women that way. Yes, sex is important and key ingredient, but they want a whole person -- a companion, a friend, a partner, etc. I think it is women who tend to objectify the sex part of it. You see it in the magazines, etc. Further, you hear to from them and you see it in how they act.