Quote:
Originally Posted by god knows the truth
Decent Dad
Regarding your statement that if parent's incomes were combined, your children would receive OVER $2500.00; you obviously pay at least $1250.00month. Why couldn't I have have married and divorced YOU? That's a nice chunk o' change!!
I'm only joking; trying to put a smile on your face.After reading your posts, sounds like you need a chuckle.
|
While Lindsay may have stated her points eloquently I feel she views the system through rose colored glasses in that what she says is the way it is supposed to work but in reality, the true results are quite adrift from the intended path.
The fact is that the bulk of payors are fathers and there is still a very real bias in the court system nation wide toward mothers in regards to with whom the children 'belong'. As such the bias is in favor of the mother the majority of the time and the father is simply a wallet to be picked clean. The problem IMO with the system stems from 7 little words that give license to rape the 'payor', those words as we have all come to learn are "in the best interests of the children!"
Judges have been given free reign to play Robin Hood armed with those words. How could anyone argue with a ruling based on these words, it's akin to taking candy from a baby, and an argument against, no matter how just, only causes those holier than thou judges to stare down their noses in righteous indignation.
Common sense, heck even common decency have no place in family law as it stands now. The system IS broken, sick and twisted heavily in favor of those that can position themselves as the "payee". Fairness is but a pipe dream.
The quote above strikes home as I am in that bracket that she calls "a nice chunk o' change". My custody is joint, my parenting time is 45%, my X is re-married so family income is higher than mine BEFORE factoring in the $20 grand a year I give her and yet I pay full table amount.
To add insult to injury, paying $16,000 per year after tax $, she also gets to claim all the tax breaks, equivalent to spouse (well at least until next year since she re-married), Fed tax credit etc etc. Rounded up to pre tax $ I'm paying about $22,000/yr for 2 children plus her income plus she has all the tax breaks, she makes MORE than I do once that is figured in...!
NEVER in my wildest dreams could 2 younger children cost $22,000 out of pocket NEVER.
Bottom line is, as stated here before, it's PAYEE support, the children are NOT the focus of the support. I suggested to my X that I would pay 100% of all the children's expense, clothing, food school you name it, all of it, of course that was flat out refused as we all know that the TRUE cost would be a tiny fraction of the table amount.
What it comes down to in 99% of cases is that MONEY is what's in the best interest of the children...PERIOD. The system needs to be scrapped and a new model adopted that revolves around common sense and fairness rather than 'entitlement' and greed.
What lobby group do you think would scream the loudest if that were to be tabled? I'm no expert but I'd be willing to bet the only noise you hear would be the screams of radical women's groups!... wonder why
