Tweet
FYI, I am not oblivious to the costs and what non-custodial parent's ultimately pay, as I said, I live both sides of the fence, struggling to get my ex to pay something, anything!, and my husband pays well over $770/month for one child, plus "extra expenses" and travel and gifts excreta (and not because he has high income but rather because he now cannot afford a lawyer). (Yes I know there are those that pay more for one).
Decent Dad, I know what you are saying, we’re living it. But I was just being the devil’s advocate, and voicing my views, I know F.L. is against the dad’s but I am still hopeful some ex couples can put that aside and “actually” think of the children first and stop trying to make Mr. Q. Public think they actually put this kind of support directly into the care of the children. I have two teens and of course the cost of food and cloths is expensive, but I’m sure I’d spend close to that without them, my hydro is the same with or without them, the cost to heat is the same if there are 2 or 10 people in the house, my mortgage doesn’t change, nor does the cost for anything else. So when I hear a mom, (yes I am a custodial mom) say things like so and so doesn’t pay enough, does so and so expect me to raise kids on this? It angers me because I wonder if they are putting the money on the kids or their bills, and this by no means, includes those unfortunate people like myself struggling to get something for the children or are only getting scraps and working two or more jobs to make ends meet.
I’m talking about parent’s with jobs and the ability. My views are that although every parent has an uncontested obligation to support the children they helped bring into this world, support should not include supporting the ex or paying all the extras because the ex uses her money on other things. Both parents’ incomes should at least be looked at when determining the “need” for Child Support when both incomes are high or mom makes more than dad And yes I believe this is the case more and more these days. After all one of the bases for these table amounts is to “equalize” the standard of living not deplete the non-custodial income and raise the standard of living for the custodial parent.
Case in point, my husband’s ex easily makes more than three times what we do "together", yet we pay through the nose. If a judge would look at what the custodial parent “should” be contributing to the child’s care, they’d quickly realize she does not “need” all the extras she constantly is awarded. Some month's she doesn't even cash the cheques!!! If you go by the table amounts, according to dad’s income, he is responsible for approximately $500, and mom should be contributing more than $1100/month (tables only go to $150,000). Not to mention the high cost to excercise access which dad covers. I’d like to know what family, with both spouses still married to each other that spend more than $1600/month on each child and I’m not talking about costs that they would have if they did not have children, as these expenses are a given. As I see it, the extras when having children are clothing, day care if they are young, and high grocery bills if they are older (i.e. teens). And I know I’ll get posts on day care costs, we all know good child care is sparse, and therefore costs are "very" high, but both parent’s are supposed to share these costs proportionate to income just as if they were married. If married and mom made less than dad, dad’s income would cover a proportionately larger portion and mom’s less, and similar if the situation was reversed. So why do the rules change when they are no longer married? Because they have breasts and not testicles? The courts are living in the dark ages because they assign the “women cannot possible support themselves” cloak on all women. And gave them the undeniable right to be supported as if they could not do so themselves. That’s absurd! Like my user name says, Family Law Needs To Change, for the “best interest of the children” not the best interests of the “Mothers”. So when I hear about extra things like birthday gifts for children not even the children of the parents involved it’s both sad and maddening that the system has come to this. Why can’t the parent's understand parties make the children happy, if still married would they be having this discussion? If they could afford it they'd do it, if not the child unfortunately would not participate. But would one parent bad mouth and place blame the other? NO! Again why do the rules change after separation? This is not only the case with gifts; it is in alot of issues including child care and all extraordinary expenses.
I apologize if I have offended anyone, that is not my intention, I’m just frustrated at the entire FL B*** S***.
Decent Dad, I know what you are saying, we’re living it. But I was just being the devil’s advocate, and voicing my views, I know F.L. is against the dad’s but I am still hopeful some ex couples can put that aside and “actually” think of the children first and stop trying to make Mr. Q. Public think they actually put this kind of support directly into the care of the children. I have two teens and of course the cost of food and cloths is expensive, but I’m sure I’d spend close to that without them, my hydro is the same with or without them, the cost to heat is the same if there are 2 or 10 people in the house, my mortgage doesn’t change, nor does the cost for anything else. So when I hear a mom, (yes I am a custodial mom) say things like so and so doesn’t pay enough, does so and so expect me to raise kids on this? It angers me because I wonder if they are putting the money on the kids or their bills, and this by no means, includes those unfortunate people like myself struggling to get something for the children or are only getting scraps and working two or more jobs to make ends meet.
I’m talking about parent’s with jobs and the ability. My views are that although every parent has an uncontested obligation to support the children they helped bring into this world, support should not include supporting the ex or paying all the extras because the ex uses her money on other things. Both parents’ incomes should at least be looked at when determining the “need” for Child Support when both incomes are high or mom makes more than dad And yes I believe this is the case more and more these days. After all one of the bases for these table amounts is to “equalize” the standard of living not deplete the non-custodial income and raise the standard of living for the custodial parent.
Case in point, my husband’s ex easily makes more than three times what we do "together", yet we pay through the nose. If a judge would look at what the custodial parent “should” be contributing to the child’s care, they’d quickly realize she does not “need” all the extras she constantly is awarded. Some month's she doesn't even cash the cheques!!! If you go by the table amounts, according to dad’s income, he is responsible for approximately $500, and mom should be contributing more than $1100/month (tables only go to $150,000). Not to mention the high cost to excercise access which dad covers. I’d like to know what family, with both spouses still married to each other that spend more than $1600/month on each child and I’m not talking about costs that they would have if they did not have children, as these expenses are a given. As I see it, the extras when having children are clothing, day care if they are young, and high grocery bills if they are older (i.e. teens). And I know I’ll get posts on day care costs, we all know good child care is sparse, and therefore costs are "very" high, but both parent’s are supposed to share these costs proportionate to income just as if they were married. If married and mom made less than dad, dad’s income would cover a proportionately larger portion and mom’s less, and similar if the situation was reversed. So why do the rules change when they are no longer married? Because they have breasts and not testicles? The courts are living in the dark ages because they assign the “women cannot possible support themselves” cloak on all women. And gave them the undeniable right to be supported as if they could not do so themselves. That’s absurd! Like my user name says, Family Law Needs To Change, for the “best interest of the children” not the best interests of the “Mothers”. So when I hear about extra things like birthday gifts for children not even the children of the parents involved it’s both sad and maddening that the system has come to this. Why can’t the parent's understand parties make the children happy, if still married would they be having this discussion? If they could afford it they'd do it, if not the child unfortunately would not participate. But would one parent bad mouth and place blame the other? NO! Again why do the rules change after separation? This is not only the case with gifts; it is in alot of issues including child care and all extraordinary expenses.
I apologize if I have offended anyone, that is not my intention, I’m just frustrated at the entire FL B*** S***.
Comment