I have to agree that the laws are definately not set up in the best interest of the children. Are they skewed against men, well I don't know so much about that as they are biased against the higher wage earner.
I'm a mom who is getting asked for a ton of money so my ex can live the same lifestyle we did prior to our divorce. Ummmm, I don't live that same lifestyle because we don't have two incomes coming in anymore. Yes, i bought the house from him so the kids could maintain their home (and he wouldn't buy it from me and wouldn't agree to sell), and now I'm mortgaged to the hilt trying to do so. Shouldn't he have some responsibility to go out and make an effort to make more $. Currently he turns down about 30 hours of work a month so that his income is less than mine so he can go after me for child support.
Other cases I'm aware of that make it difficult for parents to try and be parents and not just banks designed to look after kids:
My stepfather is required to pay my mother $600 a month to look after my brother. He tried to negotiate with her a lower amount so he would have some funds to be able to take my brother once in a while and buy him some clothes or something She wouldn't budge. So, now he has to magically come up with some extra $ from who knows where to try and do anything for my brother, because conceiveably, the one parent deserves to have 100% of the $ the other parent "should" be contributing to his life. I know too many people in this situation and it really is ridiculous.
Take a logical look at the whole thing. OK, as a parent I may spend $1700 a month on my mortgage and $300 on a care, and furnish my home, which my children benefit from. Yes, they benefit from its use, but who at the end of the day owns everything. Let's be realistic, when one parent receives child support for their child they are likely receiving more than is needed to raise the child or maintain an equal home. They are receiving $ that can go towards their mortgage and a home they own at the end of the day. In the lower table amounts this is not likely very true, but certainly in the higher table amounts it appears to be.
Plus, if we were still parenting together and I was making enough that the table amounts indicated I should be spending $1000 a month to raise my child, would the law come after me and force me to spend more on that child if I wasn't? Easy answer, no. Parents choose to spend as much as they want on their children, and I'm no overly sure why after separation the law thinks they have a right to force them to provide their children with luxurious lives while they then have to barely scrape by.
It is a biased situation that really benefits only the parent who gets the $ and not the children as far as I'm concerned.
|