The Reality of Child Support

Started by zarby, Jun 28, 2006, 01:44 AM

previous topic - next topic
Go Down

zarby

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.

BRIAN

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.
You may sleep soundly at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence upon those who seek to harm you.

Assault

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. :?
Feminism is the product of female selfishness, compounded by male chivalry.

- Peter Zohrab -

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.

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

TMOTS
The Man On The Street is on the street for a reason.......
_________________________________
It's not illegal to be male.....yet.

SIAM

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.

zarby

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.

damnbiker

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.
It's not illegal to be a man...yet.

johnnyp

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.
 woman needs a man like a fish needs water

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.

Assault

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:
Feminism is the product of female selfishness, compounded by male chivalry.

- Peter Zohrab -

zarby

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.

Quentin0352

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.

zarby

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.

dr e

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.
Contact dr e  Lifeboats for the ladies and children, icy waters for the men.  Women have rights and men have responsibilties.

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.

Go Up