Quote:
|
Originally Posted by hubby
Hoping Jeff or Lindsay can answer this one ...
You know the law stipulates both spouses are entitled to their children, yet, they (the law) turn around, rob one spouse of their ability to provide and say, 'tough'! -- I'm speaking purely finanacially at this point.
Casue really, lets face it, ya gotta have money in this world to raise a family and live ...
If I'm blowing this way out of context, please people, correct me.
Which brings us back to 'undue hardship' ...
Hubby
|
Ok, again, I've gotta ask, where the h-e-double hockey sticks do you people LIVE? For the non-custodial parent to be 'robbed of their ability to provide'? Again, my ex is the epitomy of an Albertan red-neck.. working the rigs for all his life, making good money, too caught up in his booze and drugs (can't prove the drugs, though) to give a damn about his other responsibilities, if that's what you'd call two sons.. My ex has so totally PROSPERED by not being with me and the kids. Suddenly instead of having a mortgage and a family of four to provide for, the law asks that he kick out $1010 child support for the two kids, and he's good.. at least until we establish a spousal support amount. Still, $1010 out of the average $7000 per month TAKE-HOME pay?! How is this a reasonable amount to expect? Yes, $1010 will keep two kids fed, sheltered and clothed with some thrifty budgetting, but let's face it.. if a parent earns that kind of money, shouldn't the kids be entitled to a little bit better than just getting by? Not necessarily the ex, mind you, but the kids?