Sense of Entitlement

[got2bkid]

My husband pays CS for his 2 kids, plus almost 100% of all "extra" expenses.

She lives in a bad part of town and doesn't spend any money on the kids because she used it all to go to University for herself (she was already employable and quit a good job to study more).

So now she finally has a job again (after about 8 years of not working or school) and says she is making good money. My husband suggested that they each put aside $200/month for the kids for future university fees etc.

Her response "No, I am banking the CS now ($900/month) becasue YOU have a house, so I deserve to have one too".

Why anyone thinks they "deserve" a house when they haven't worked for 8 years (even though young and employable) is beyond me, but nevertheless, my question is this:

She kept the kids poor by going to University and now she has ADMITTED she is not using the money for the children, but saving it for herself to buy herself a home. The kids are NOT being looked after properly and are teenagers that will not be there too much longer.

Is there anything we can do, or does this sense of entitlement she has mean we just have to sit back and watch the money sent for the children being used for her? And why do they call it child support. This sounds like SS to me.

[About_Time]

You can't control how the ex spends the CS. If she decides to use it selfishly and at the expense of her children, then the she can answer to the kids eventually. There is no recourse for you though. The courts can't force someone to be a responsible parent.

At the same time though, her child expenses don't magically disappear when she saves the CS. She may technically be banking CS, but the child expenses she's NOT paying with it then comes out of her own pocket. In this way, you can't look at it as "she's not spending CS on the kids" - she's just taking $900/mth from her total pool of money and putting it towards a house.

I don't think that's unreasonable, frankly. Having a house is better for the kids than living in a rental apartment somewhere and helps her long-term finances (hopefully), which again will benefit the kids. Should she be putting $200/mth away for university? Absolutely. If she cried poor and doesn't contribute once they hit university then you have every right to be upset. Until then though, I don't think this is the end of the world here.

[got2bkid]

I disagree. I think she should spend more of the child support sent to get a decent rental place, in a better area of town NOW, instead of subjecting the children, in their vulnerable teenage years, to living more years in the "bad part of town". By the time she is able to actually buy a house, the children will be ready to move out, and go to University. I think CS should be spent to help the children and their circumstances immediately, not at some future point, when by then her choice to save most of the money won't even benefit them.

She has already told my husband "they are going to university and YOU are paying", so we know that is her plan. Not to mention she didn't work for 8 years and spent the vast majority of the money sent to get a 3rd degree and keep her children poor, instead of working, she went to the food bank for christmas dinner!

The most awful thing is knowing your kids are POOR because your ex-wife CHOOSES not to work. We are not confident that she will be employed when University fees are to be paid. If past behavior predicts future behavior, she may very well be unemployed by CHOICE again, leaving us to pay for most of the univeristy fees.

Some custodial parents abuse the system, and she is one of them. it's just too bad there is nothing that can be done, as it is the children who are getting the raw end of this deal.

[Mess]

There are plenty of children in families that are still married who suffer the same issues and worse.

The fact that she is divorced and has custody and is receiving CS does not give you the right to make her decisions for her.

Please understand, I am not disagreeing with your assessment and the options you suggest seem to be wise choices, but they are not your choices to make.

Support is paid, and then it is up to the receiver to make their own decisions. That is sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse, but it is the way it is.

You are not her boss, supervisor, manager, mentor, parent etc. It's not up to you to tell her what to do. That means that, yes, she will sometimes make bad choices, selfish choices, or often choices that are decent but not absolutely perfect. But they are her choices to make.

Support must be paid, then it is out of your hands. If you have concerns for the children's future, put some extra money aside for an education fund.

Originally Posted by got2bkid

Why anyone thinks they "deserve" a house when they haven't worked for 8 years (even though young and employable) is beyond me...Is there anything we can do, or does this sense of entitlement she has mean we just have to sit back and watch the money sent for the children being used for her? And why do they call it child support. This sounds like SS to me.

If she was expecting a house to be provided for her tomorrow as a prize for completing university, that would be a sense of entitlement. What she is doing is working full time, caring for her children, and saving money for a down payment.

You seem to be expecting that because support is being paid, every last cent of her budget each month should be spent on the children. She is saving some money, being financially responsible. She is also, believe it or not, setting a proper example for her children, working full time and saving for a home. I hear a lot of bad stories about CS recipients but I think you are being overly judgemental toward someone who is trying to build something up, not just live paycheque to paycheque.

[got2bkid]

Well if not working for 8 years and scrounging off the system and her ex, using all the CS for her own selfish desires sets a "good" example for her children, that is news to me.

I just wonder why it's only up to the father to support their children financially, but if the mother doesn't want, to she doesn't have to.

Mess wrote "You are not her boss, supervisor, manager, mentor, parent etc. It's not up to you to tell her what to do. That means that, yes, she will sometimes make bad choices, selfish choices, or often choices that are decent but not absolutely perfect. But they are her choices to make."
I wonder if you'd say the same thing about a father who choose to go to school (when already employable) for 8 years and didn't pay CS for his kids?

I guess the answer to men and women in our situation is always the same "suck it up, there is nothing you can do".

Again I wonder how custodial parents would react if they didn't get any CS and were told by the system to "suck it up there's nothing you can do, those are his choices"

Seems like a big double standard - one for payors and one for recipients.

[Mess]

You said she got a university education during that time, that is not "scrounging from the system". It's working to improve her situation and that of her children. That would account for at least 4 of the eight years. She also had to go through application processes, gotten her HS transcripts, arranged tuition, etc.

Please don't bring up what I think about a man in that situation, friend. My ex-wife is the one with university degree and career, paid for by her family, and she earns 4 times what I do and I have been chasing her for child support for two years now. Spare me the gender bias. It takes time, money and effort to pick yourself up after having your world ripped apart, and if it took her 8 years but she is now fully employed, and as you have said "earning decent money" then she has done the work she needed to do.

If the children are negleted, underfed or wearing torn filthy clothes then call the Children's Aid. Otherwise leave her alone, you're not her masters.

If you think that 900 a month is covering the entire cost of caring for two children and she isn't contributing anything you are living in a sick fantasy world.

[got2bkid]

First off, $900/month is not supposed to cover the costs of the children, it is 1/2, SHE is supposed to contribute the other half.

Secondly, she QUIT a perfectly good job and good paying job, to get her THIRD degree. She was already educated, just doesn't like working.

Her world was not "ripped apart" they were seperated for 2 years before she quit her good job, and it was her decision to leave the marriage.

If a payor QUIT a perfectly good job, and didn't support his children, he'd be called a loser and FORCED to get a job. A recipient can do what ever he/she pleases cause it's always "for the best interest of the kids", or so everyone says

There is a huge double standard between what payors and recipents are allowed to "do". And if I want to post and talk about this double standard on a orum entitled "Political Issues" I have every right to expose the double standards most people will defend in the face of all logic and reason.

[About_Time]

If she is able to go back to school and still provide for her children then the courts have no say it, nor should they. There is no double-standard here.

The paying parent has an obligation to pay a set amount based on income. If they quit their job to go back to school, then the receiving parent is out that CS money and this greatly impacts her ability to provide for the kids. She and the kids are now disadvantaged by a decision they had no control over. This is why the courts have legal options for the receiving parent to mitigate this impact (none of which include a court order to force the payor to get a job).

Now, if the receiving parent looks at their finances and decides to quit her job and go back to school that's completely different. Any financial disadvantage this causes is completely under their control. It isn't a disadvantage which has been forced upon them. Even still, the payor has recourse through the courts if they feel the receiving parent is - due to their decision - unable to adequately provide for the children.

I just don't see the double-standard here and trust me, I am in a VERY similar situation with my ex. After a split, both parents have obligations and it is the courts' job to ensure they meet them. As long as the payor pays and provider provides, they stay out of it. I'd hate to be in a system where the courts pick over how both parents spend their money and dictate what they can and can't do based on what they feel is proper or improper behaviour.