Petition for "second" families and child support reform

[stepmom+mom]

Originally Posted by Shelda

When a woman gets with a man who has been married before and has children with her why should he not have to pay for his children? Also when you get with a man from a previous relationship with children you should be aware that his income is not just his. I feel men who marry and have children again should have to pay the full amount. Maybe then men will have to act responsible and will learn they have to be Men.

Not that he should not pay for his children, but it needs to be re evaluated becuse if a "second family " is present in other words another child, that child will suffer becuase the Guidlines look at income and number of children, and in reality the number of children that the man is supporting is now bigger. they say the a % of your income is what is used in the guidline amounts well now the number of children being supported by that man has gone from 2 (first wife) the 3 (2nd wife)
the money needs to be adjusted

[Shelda]

Originally Posted by stepmom+mom

Not that he should not pay for his children, but it needs to be re evaluated becuse if a "second family " is present in other words another child, that child will suffer becuase the Guidlines look at income and number of children, and in reality the number of children that the man is supporting is now bigger. they say the a % of your income is what is used in the guidline amounts well now the number of children being supported by that man has gone from 2 (first wife) the 3 (2nd wife)
the money needs to be adjusted

I would never get with a man who has been married before and has children he can not afford to support. That should be an indication of things that will happen to me if I ever had children with him.
He should think about this before he has more children...

[stepmom+mom]

Originally Posted by Shelda

I would never get with a man who has been married before and has children he can not afford to support. That should be an indication of things that will happen to me if I ever had children with him.
He should think about this before he has more children...

That is your choice not to be involved with a man with children, but I have and my husband goes above and beyond, his children have there own bedrooms here filled with everything they will ever need or want, he also sees his children 3 or 4 times a week, is more involved with the extra curricular activities then their mother, and pays his child support+ med expenses, and child care, anything those kids need they will get from us.
So to say that a man should not have children after a seperation is ludicrus and makes no sense,

My husband does take care of those other two children and our child but the Guidline amount need to reflect this( because He spends more on his child then the mother)
And its not about the money all the time!!!

[Shelda]

Originally Posted by stepmom+mom

That is your choice not to be involved with a man with children, but I have and my husband goes above and beyond, his children have there own bedrooms here filled with everything they will ever need or want, he also sees his children 3 or 4 times a week, is more involved with the extra curricular activities then their mother, and pays his child support+ med expenses, and child care, anything those kids need they will get from us.
So to say that a man should not have children after a seperation is ludicrus and makes no sense,

My husband does take care of those other two children and our child but the Guidline amount need to reflect this( because He spends more on his child then the mother)
And its not about the money all the time!!!

Money is important you can not live without it. If your husband is with you still why are you so upset then? He is providing for you and your child is he? Or is it because you want more money left in your bank account?And have issue's with the first wife?

[Shelda]

Originally Posted by paris

Shelda, you are not helping.

*sigh*

paris

you know anything at all?

sigh

[stepmom+mom]

Shelda, I am starting to believe that you are one of those women that only cares about the money, I could care less about the child support if i new it was going to the kids and not in her pocket, like i said before all of our children are very well takien care of but there are women out there that want Custody of there children for the wrong reasons ($$$$$) again each case should be on a case by case basis, Cuase the mighty dollar is what causes so many fight, AND THE KIDS GET HURT

[About_Time]

I've simply decided not to have any more children or pursue relationships with women who already have them. My primary responsibility is to my "first" children, and I'm not prepared to jeopardize my ability to provide for them.

The Child Support Guidelines are messed up - absolutely - but I'm not so sure we should be cutting the amounts given to "first" children simply because a parent decides to have more and suddenly realizes they can't afford to do so. If you can't afford a second family, then don't have a second family.

I do agree that the guidelines need to take into consideration the extra expenses incurred by non-custodial parents though. It seems ridiculous to me that someone would craft legislation and not consider this.

[got2bkid]

We want changes so a man is able to provide for ALL his children. The problems with the current guidelines are that they are based on faulty mathemetics. The equation that calculates CS amounts has 3 assumptions:

1) the man has no other children in his care to support
2) he is a bachelor and has minimal expenses
3) he spends no other money on his kids (ZERO) after child support.

This creates the problems becasue men are made to pay TOO MUCH. Especially when he has another family. Then you have to add on "extra" expenses and access costs for the payor.

However, the guidelines allow the custodial parents choices to DIRECTLY affect him and his "second" family, as they guidelines do not hold BOTH parents financially responsible after divorce.

In our case the custodial parent quit her job and moved accross the country. We now pay 100% of extras and 100% of airfare, which DOUBLES the child support we pay. The guidelines allow HER poor choices to directly impact our family and our children.

Divorced men shouldn't have to pay so much for one of their children (the first) that they can't afford to have another and the chance to be part of an intact family again. That is cruel and inhumane.

I really can't stand it when people say my children ought not have been born if we couldn't "afford" it. My husband could easily afford ALL his children if he paid a REASONABLE amount and if OUR FAMILY wan't held finacially accountable for HER POOR choices.

[phoenix]

Originally Posted by About_Time

My primary responsibility is to my "first" children, and I'm not prepared to jeopardize my ability to provide for them.

The Child Support Guidelines are messed up - absolutely - but I'm not so sure we should be cutting the amounts given to "first" children simply because a parent decides to have more and suddenly realizes they can't afford to do so. If you can't afford a second family, then don't have a second family.

Amen to that!

[got2bkid]

As I said before:

"I really can't stand it when people say my children ought not have been born if we couldn't "afford" it. My husband could easily afford ALL his children if he paid a REASONABLE amount and if OUR FAMILY wan't held finacially accountable for HER POOR choices."

If BOTH parents were held financially accountable for their children after a divorce my husband would have NO PROBLEM providing adequately and equally for ALL his children.

In our case, the exes poor choices were made AFTER we had children, which DOUBLED the amount of CS we pay. "Second" families do not have crystal balls in which they can look into the future and see what POOR choices the ex wives may make down the road for which OUR family will suddenly become financially responsible.