Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unbelievable.... I nearly threw up!!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by paco View Post
    She has no kids on her own, if I'm not wrong. There were no personal attacks whatsoever, and closing discussion.

    Sent from my SGH-I717D using Tapatalk
    Originally posted by paco View Post
    Berner_Faith, don't come here and preach us on parenting, you have no idea what you're talking, so please go back and control your hard earned money and your hubby, eventually.

    Sent from my SGH-I717D using Tapatalk
    Originally posted by paco View Post
    The way she talks and attitude it doesn't look a moderation way, you can't come here and preach us beeing a parent when you're not even close to that! Me personally I'm not here to complain, but I'm not going to keep my mouth shut when I see this kind of attitude, I may be wrong, I may be wright but she has no right to say that we have "control issues" when she has no ideea what's accountability is for.

    Sent from my SGH-I717D using Tapatalk
    Originally posted by paco View Post
    Berner_Faith, ...let me tell you this, a person who doesn't have kids will never know the feelings of being a parent!

    Sent from my SGH-I717D using Tapatalk
    Why am I asking?

    Because it seems that Paco feels justified in dismissing BF's comments merely due to her "not being a parent", however feels that 'Concerned's' posts and opinions are right and just, worth supporting DESPITE the fact that he is neither married nor a father, and has no actual experience in being married, a father or a participant in the family law system - all of which BF DOES have experience with.

    I find the irony and hypocrisy absolutely staggering.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
      For people that believe C/S should only be for basic needs of the kids, when the children enjoyed a much broader lifestyle when the parents were together, those people are simply taking out their frustrations on the kids.

      Again, lifestyle is not the same after divorce for all involved, parents and kids, and yes, financially speaking is frustrating, because the expenses are doubled now.

      For example, if the kids went away on vacations each year when their parents were married, they should be able to continue to enjoy such things to an extent once divorced. People are too focused on the ex's lifestyle, and how they see c/s is maintaining that, when it is the kids lifestyle that c/s is supposed to maintain. The ex's lifestyle will be moderately increased as a result.

      "...to be able to continue to enjoy such things to an extent once divorced" - you need to be more specific, like if their financial situation permits to do so of course, why not, that's fine, not a problem, the problem is to use these funds in the right direction, otherwise it's called spousal support.

      People who think like that are pretty narrow minded. To use an analogy that I believe suits the situation:

      If one is playing poker, any chip put into the pot, now belongs to the pot not to the person who put the chips into the middle. And the pot will be pushed to the winner, who now owns those chips until they decide to put them in the middle, or get up and leave.

      That's a simplistic point of view, kids are not a poker game.

      People who think their CP should have to justify how they spend c/s likely believe that C/S is their money. It isn't. It now belongs to the CP who is free to do with it as they wish. So long as the child isn't malnourished or dressed inappropriately (which would be child protection concerns and could cause the kids to be taken from the CP), one shouldn't concern themselves with what the other person does with their own money.

      Wrong, cs doesn't belong to neither parents, belongs to the kids and how these funds are spent falls under CP responsibility and accountability.

      Your employer doesn't ask for an accounting of how you spent your income, all they ask is that you do your job to the best of your ability. Same goes here, all you ask is that your ex, who may be the CP, raises the kids to the best of their ability.
      Again, this is not a business with your own kids, it's an obligation for CP to prove that he/her spent it in the right direction, what's so hard to understand people?!


      Sent from my SGH-I717D using Tapatalk

      Comment


      • Originally posted by blinkandimgone View Post
        Why am I asking?

        Because it seems that Paco feels justified in dismissing BF's comments merely due to her "not being a parent", however feels that 'Concerned's' posts and opinions are right and just, worth supporting DESPITE the fact that he is neither married nor a father, and has no actual experience in being married, a father or a participant in the family law system - all of which BF DOES have experience with.

        I find the irony and hypocrisy absolutely staggering.
        What?! Are you here for point fingering people?!

        Sent from my SGH-I717D using Tapatalk

        Comment


        • I think there's a difference between situations which we don't like and situations which are unjust.

          I have 50/50 and am a net payor of offset CS to the ex, whose wealth (inheritance) and household income (high-earning second wife) are much greater than mine. He also has much higher-flying lifestyle than I do, with lots of vacations and toys, some of which benefit D8 and some of which do not.

          Do I like this? Not one bit. I hate giving him no-strings-attached money, and I would much rather keep the CS for me and D8 to have more fun things to do.

          But is this unjust? I don't think so. It's an outcome of a system which is fundamentally fair in that it hold parents financially accountable for supporting their children after a marriage ends. For every person like me, who is chafing at "unnecessary" CS payments, there are a dozen parents who wouldn't be able to make ends meet if it were not for CS. Any change to the system which would force the ex to account to me for how he spends child support would also cause big problems for other recipients of child support.

          (And the amount of CS I send him every month is small potatoes compared to the amount of my salary which went into his toys and luxuries while we were married, so I'm getting a good financial deal, in my view).

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Links17 View Post
            I find it hard to believe that people would say

            A. It is ok for Custodial Parents to spend C/S money on themselves.
            Whether I would be OK depends. I wouldn't be ok if my kid was going without as my ex spent c/s money she received on lavish items. But I am ok with my ex taking my kid on a trip to Disney or enjoying the benefit of a mutually enjoyed experience. In the trip scenario, my ex would have put in money from her employment, simply due to the cost. But I wouldn't want my kid to not go simply because it was my ex taking her.

            B. There should be 0 procedures/laws for accounting for CS money.

            Very disappointed with people's narrow thinking.
            Would you be willing to open up your books and your families books to the ex? If there was that kind of accountability, the door would swing both ways. Further, the reason why we don't have such accountability is simply because you are now separate households, each entitled to parent and spend your monies as you deem fit. The connection is severed.

            I know if I was a payee, I'd be offended at the notion I should have justify my expenses to a person who is no longer my spouse, who I no longer live with, whom the courts says I have no obligations to outside of co-parent.

            It isn't narrow to think that way. It is understanding that people divorce for a reason. And there is no good reason to require unnecessary contact between people who aren't spouses. C/S isn't a leash to keep parents attached. It is amount paid to ensure the kids lifestyle is impacted in the least possible way post divorce. Yes, the ex will benefit from. But in most cases, it will benefit the kids more.

            I pay a good chunk of c/s. Over $700 for 1 child. My ex doesn't live extravagantly. She has a newer car, lives in a good neighbourhood, takes my kid on trips regularly. She lives a decent life. And that is good, because if my ex was struggling, that means my kid would likely be struggling. My kid would see that daddy just bought a new 3k sqf home, while mom struggles to get by. Most kids would wonder why one parent allows the other to struggle, impacting the kids life. The kid would likely become resentful of one or the other parent.

            I used to think that there should be some accounting for c/s years back when we brokeup. Then I got over the emotional BS of it all and started to look big picture. That my kid was well cared for, got to go on trips and had two happy homes. Yeah, the ex got to go on the trips too, but who cares, my kid is having fun. There are now two homes, and what my ex does in hers, so long as it doesn't negatively impact my kid, I couldn't give crap about.

            Comment


            • Aww shucks... thanks everyone for the kind words.

              Unfortunately for Paco, his opinion of me or my situation means very little. I may not be a "natural" parent, but blood doesn't make you "true" parent. Having a partner with kids, I know 100% what it is like when CS doesn't necessarily get spent on the kids, but instead goes towards car payments and other things. My step kids have a lot more at our place than they do Mom's, despite her receiving full CS, but that is her choice on how she spends her CS. We certainly don't report to her how we spend our money so we don't expect her to report to us how she spends hers.

              Even though she gets CS, we still provided the kids with new spring coats and rain boots just last week. Should she have been able to afford the $50 we spent to buy these out of her CS? Yup, but oh well. The kids needed them and we provided them. That is what TRUE parents do. They don't worry about how an ex, whom they have no control over, spends their money. If the kids grow up and resent Mom for not providing for them more, that is between them and Mom. They have a roof over their head, clothes on their back and food in their belly. Do they need TV, Internet and all those extras? Nope, they really don't. But as a parent, if you can afford to provide it, even if it is at the other parents house, why wouldn't you?

              There were times in the past we paid Mom's cable bill, used our CAA for her and called one of MY friends to come help her out when her car died, why did we do it? Because it is a good example to set for the kids, that when someone is in need you help them. As much as she has screwed us over, multiple times, we would most likely still help out in the future. Because as "true" parents, we love those kids more than we despise the ex.

              Unfortunately, some people will never be able to get over the fact that they have no control over how people spend their own money. One has to remember that once that money is in the receivers hand, it is no longer the payers money.

              Go ahead Paco... try your best to knock me down, I have been called worse by better people

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                Having a partner with kids, I know 100% what it is like when CS doesn't necessarily get spent on the kids, but instead goes towards car payments and other things.
                I get where you are coming from but a couple comments on this, as it has been mentioned before by others:

                1. look at the money as going into one big pot called the ex's account. To what part the money is transferred, and whether that money was c/s or the ex's, is unknown. It is like soup, you can't tell who made what broth and at the end of the day it doesn't matter.

                2. If the ex does directly pay their car payment with c/s directly, and does it right in front of you. OK, not the most appropriate. But is it not logical to think that, because the car payment was paid with c/s, there would leave a larger chunk of the ex's money to cover the needs of the child? Thus ultimately everything balancing out in the end?

                Comment


                • Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
                  I get where you are coming from but a couple comments on this, as it has been mentioned before by others:

                  1. look at the money as going into one big pot called the ex's account. To what part the money is transferred, and whether that money was c/s or the ex's, is unknown. It is like soup, you can't tell who made what broth and at the end of the day it doesn't matter.

                  2. If the ex does directly pay their car payment with c/s directly, and does it right in front of you. OK, not the most appropriate. But is it not logical to think that, because the car payment was paid with c/s, there would leave a larger chunk of the ex's money to cover the needs of the child? Thus ultimately everything balancing out in the end?
                  I understand it completely. I have said before that it may seem like CS is going towards things for her, but how do we know that she didn't purchase something for the kids the day before with all HER money, which is why she had to use CS to pay her car bill.

                  To us, it really doesn't matter. Sure in the start my partner was very upset, because the first two CS cheques she got, she went and got a tattoo one week and then the next bought a new ipod. Such is life. The kids are not suffering, in fact they get a pretty good deal.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                    Aww shucks... thanks everyone for the kind words.

                    Unfortunately for Paco, his opinion of me or my situation means very little. I may not be a "natural" parent, but blood doesn't make you "true" parent. Having a partner with kids, I know 100% what it is like when CS doesn't necessarily get spent on the kids, but instead goes towards car payments and other things. My step kids have a lot more at our place than they do Mom's, despite her receiving full CS, but that is her choice on how she spends her CS. We certainly don't report to her how we spend our money so we don't expect her to report to us how she spends hers.

                    Even though she gets CS, we still provided the kids with new spring coats and rain boots just last week. Should she have been able to afford the $50 we spent to buy these out of her CS? Yup, but oh well. The kids needed them and we provided them. That is what TRUE parents do. They don't worry about how an ex, whom they have no control over, spends their money. If the kids grow up and resent Mom for not providing for them more, that is between them and Mom. They have a roof over their head, clothes on their back and food in their belly. Do they need TV, Internet and all those extras? Nope, they really don't. But as a parent, if you can afford to provide it, even if it is at the other parents house, why wouldn't you?

                    There were times in the past we paid Mom's cable bill, used our CAA for her and called one of MY friends to come help her out when her car died, why did we do it? Because it is a good example to set for the kids, that when someone is in need you help them. As much as she has screwed us over, multiple times, we would most likely still help out in the future. Because as "true" parents, we love those kids more than we despise the ex.

                    Unfortunately, some people will never be able to get over the fact that they have no control over how people spend their own money. One has to remember that once that money is in the receivers hand, it is no longer the payers money.

                    Go ahead Paco... try your best to knock me down, I have been called worse by better people
                    Don't take it personally, there's no shame of being a step parent, it's not what where talking here, and attacking people here doesn't make you a better or experienced member than other people here.
                    We definitely have different vision here of how c/s is managed.

                    Sent from my SGH-I717D using Tapatalk

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by paco View Post
                      Don't take it personally, there's no shame of being a step parent, it's not what where talking here, and attacking people here doesn't make you a better or experienced member than other people here.
                      We definitely have different vision here of how c/s is managed.

                      Sent from my SGH-I717D using Tapatalk
                      This I can agree with. And I think Paco, you should take your own advise to heart.

                      Comment


                      • My... my ... aren't we a bunch of non giving-up critters now aren't we!

                        Okay, can we stop bashing PACO here... He like everyone else, simply wants to get his point across and sometimes we may go over board due to misaligned point of views... and that's normal, so lets just cool it here and try to discuss this in a LOGICAL manner shall we.

                        You may call this thread a "rant", but its much more than that since we cannot see eye to eye on a simple issue being that the CP should not spend any CS money on him/herself. I see there is great opposition to this. And that's fine, everyone has the freedom of seeing things the way they please.

                        Notice my last word >>> "please" .... And that's the problem, we have become a society of indulgers. We believe that no one should be deprived of anything no matter the situation. That in itself is wrong. Simply because, everything in this world that one wants must be earned. Money needs to be earned, respect, needs to be earned, a house needs to be earned, a car needs to be earned and even the food we eat needs to be earned.

                        You can't just throw that away. Here, let me be clearer on this, when you people say stuff like this:

                        For people that believe C/S should only be for basic needs of the kids, when the children enjoyed a much broader lifestyle when the parents were together, those people are simply taking out their frustrations on the kids.

                        For example, if the kids went away on vacations each year when their parents were married, they should be able to continue to enjoy such things to an extent once divorced. People are too focused on the ex's lifestyle, and how they see c/s is maintaining that, when it is the kids lifestyle that c/s is supposed to maintain. The ex's lifestyle will be moderately increased as a result.

                        People who think like that are pretty narrow minded. To use an analogy that I believe suits the situation:
                        By the way, I believe that the third sentence was supposed to be:

                        "The ex's lifestyle will be exuberantly increased as a result."

                        But getting back to what I was trying to say, that when fellows speak this way, without realizing it, they are opening the doorway for single individuals to think that they can marry up, have a kid or two and if they divorce, no complications would arise in their personal life because the CS will essentially take care of all the financial loose ends while maintaining the so called lavish life style that was provided by the significant other.
                        Its like feeding desert to a child for years without eating his veggies and thinking that he will always be healthy.

                        This is awful and wrong perception gentlemen! You are paving the way for disaster. Don't you fellows realize that this horrendous CS free bee way of thinking is being publicized through the internet like wild fire. Successful and mediocrely successful individuals simply won't marry or even get into relationships anymore. There is plenty of evidence of this, as marriage rates have already started to plummet, don't you think?

                        People who think their CP should have to justify how they spend c/s likely believe that C/S is their money. It isn't. It now belongs to the CP who is free to do with it as they wish. So long as the child isn't malnourished or dressed inappropriately (which would be child protection concerns and could cause the kids to be taken from the CP), one shouldn't concern themselves with what the other person does with their own money.
                        I am getting tired of always repeating myself. But what the heck, let me explain one more time. You are soooo wrong on this. CS is the money destined to the well being of the child. If the money I give my child is used to buy an ice cream cone, well guess what, its MY MONEY that was used to buy the darn ice cream. Get that!

                        The receiving custodial parent is using the non-custodial parent's money to support the child and therefore definitely not free to do as they wish... especially spending it on the custodial parent's personal pecher-mignions!

                        Its all a matter of proper budgeting and responsibility. If the CS payor is giving out CS money, he is expecting that HIS money is properly administered and not foolishly spent. This is economics 101 people.

                        Your employer doesn't ask for an accounting of how you spent your income, all they ask is that you do your job to the best of your ability. Same goes here, all you ask is that your ex, who may be the CP, raises the kids to the best of their ability.
                        I don't understand how you perceive this comment as logical. Look here a second...

                        IT'S NOT THE CUSTODIAL PARENT'S MONEY!!!!

                        When an employer pays you a weekly salary, it is because he is paying you for the work that you have properly produced for him. And therefore 100% of the money will be paid out to you for the work you produced in relevance to the companies' requirements. When a custodial parent receives the CS money, the CS payor just as well, expects that the receiver of CS is to also properly produce the work expected which is to responsibly manage the CS money given to buy stuff and shelter for the child.

                        You are confusing the two types of labor sources. One labor source is the work the employee does for his paycheck, the other is a monetary handout to be
                        administered and spent accordingly and assuring that the child is properly taken care of. CS is not petty cash for spending at the mall.

                        In other words, all the work the employee is producing is totally 100% for the company and it is expected just the same that 100% of the CS money is properly administered by spending it ON THE CHILD. Now if the custodial parent wants to get paid for the responsibility task of managing the CS money, well, then that's why there would be an extra amount tacked on the CS payment... As I already explained see previous post of how we got to 1200$/month CS >>> ****CAP****.

                        People, I am not arguing that there shouldn't be any child support.... I am stating that there should be a reasonable maximum cap for CS.


                        con't ..... next post

                        Comment


                        • No, but children are very materialistic, and he may translate this difference into dislike of poor parent, and want to spend more time at the wealthy parent's when he gets old enough to choose, purely because that's where the Xbox and the giant TV are. Which is not good for him.
                          Aaaaaahhhh finally a good point!!!!!!

                          Let me begin with a question. What is money? Well let me help!!!

                          MONEY is legal tender that allows you as a human being to survive! In other words money is vital, money is power, money is survival, money is everything why this BS freaking divorce court system exists... do we get this so far!!!!

                          If I am a man, with *MONEY*, then I shall have the right to survive for the rest of my life. Kids have to learn this. Men with money, never and I repeat never signed up for accomplishing power and survival just to one day be reduced to dirt. NEVER!

                          And so, when a child goes over to daddy's or mommies, he will by himself learn that one parent is a survivor. This will impact the child's opinion between the parents but on the other hand the child will decipher the difference between being outgoing and productive vs being lazy.

                          If the CP can't keep up the financial survival bar, then tuff ... there was a divorce and there is no reason for us to share privileges anymore. This will motivate the struggling parent to get off his/her arse and do something productive and lucrative with their life.

                          In other words, I don't think there is anything wrong with letting the cat out of the bag by showing the child the truth about his/her parents. One is better than the other big freaking deal.

                          Table CS usually amounts to about a quarter of a person's earnings, depending how many children are involved. There is plenty leftover for the wealthy parent. And it is not meant to maintain the ex's lifestyle. It is meant to maintain the child's lifestyle. That the ex also benefits is a side effect that family law considers acceptable
                          Yes in an ideal world..... that's not what's really happening and you know it!

                          Your anger and frustration are misdirected. Don't rail against the system itself, but against those few parents who abuse it.

                          To be honest, I'm really surprised your vehemence is directed at CS. I would have thought SS to be the far more likely target.
                          Please don't get me started on SS... we will be here for the next 100 pages!

                          So you are ok with your kids receiving less solely because you don't want your ex to receive any benefit of your kids having a better lifestyle. Ergo, you hate your ex more then you love your kids.
                          Jesus... again the same question.... The kid will always be taken care of!!! What the argument here is that she shall not profit from extra CS money... its not her money.... how many times do I have to say it!

                          No not necessarily, but we all just need to acknowledge that is in fact NOT FAIR. Can we do something about it, maybe or maybe not - but do we at least agree that CP should not in theory benefit for child support?
                          aaaaaaabsolutely!

                          And because the law agrees with it, it is right. You just don't want to agree because you can't get over what you see as a benefit to your ex.
                          And who said that just because it is law, it is 100% right?

                          It isn't narrow to think that way. It is understanding that people divorce for a reason. And there is no good reason to require unnecessary contact between people who aren't spouses. C/S isn't a leash to keep parents attached. It is amount paid to ensure the kids lifestyle is impacted in the least possible way post divorce. Yes, the ex will benefit from. But in most cases, it will benefit the kids more.
                          This makes sense but why don't you explain to me in detail what you really mean by "yes, the ex will benefit from". :

                          - How much will the ex benefit from >>>> aprox. amount please: $

                          are we taking loafs of bread and pints of milk and ice cream cones or are we talking hundreds and hundreds of dollars (if not thousands) ?

                          I used to think that there should be some accounting for c/s years back when we brokeup. Then I got over the emotional BS of it all and started to look big picture. That my kid was well cared for, got to go on trips and had two happy homes. Yeah, the ex got to go on the trips too, but who cares, my kid is having fun. There are now two homes, and what my ex does in hers, so long as it doesn't negatively impact my kid, I couldn't give crap about.
                          Are you paying for her trips??

                          If so as some men do....

                          To all single ladies, if and when you get divorced, you get to do all these expense free wonderful things with your kids and friends simply because men won't give a crap so long as their children are having fun.

                          That's the message being sent out to the singles pool.... and that's because men cave in and let the financial rope go ...

                          I wonder if there are any men out there that go on paid vacations from CS money with their kids ? Just curious! that's all!

                          Unfortunately for Paco, his opinion of me or my situation means very little. I may not be a "natural" parent, but blood doesn't make you "true" parent. Having a partner with kids, I know 100% what it is like when CS doesn't necessarily get spent on the kids, but instead goes towards car payments and other things. My step kids have a lot more at our place than they do Mom's, despite her receiving full CS, but that is her choice on how she spends her CS. We certainly don't report to her how we spend our money so we don't expect her to report to us how she spends hers.
                          Berner_Faith, I don't know if you are man or woman but from the looks of it I think you are a woman. That being said, as much as I admire your generosity, that mom that's spending your CS money on her car payments is an exact example of why I am pro-accountable! Now I don't know that lady, and she may be a wonderful person, but I really question her ethics with money! This infuriates me when people take advantage of such situations. Now, how is it that logically speaking you wouldn't agree with me that she should not be doing that ? huh? I don't know if the mom is capable of working or what not.... but if she is, then she should get a job (if she isn't already working) and make her own car payments. Jeeeezzzze does that piss me off!

                          Even though she gets CS, we still provided the kids with new spring coats and rain boots just last week. Should she have been able to afford the $50 we spent to buy these out of her CS? Yup, but oh well. The kids needed them and we provided them. That is what TRUE parents do. They don't worry about how an ex, whom they have no control over, spends their money. If the kids grow up and resent Mom for not providing for them more, that is between them and Mom. They have a roof over their head, clothes on their back and food in their belly. Do they need TV, Internet and all those extras? Nope, they really don't. But as a parent, if you can afford to provide it, even if it is at the other parents house, why wouldn't you?
                          A responsible gesture in your part... you are being way too nice. Now, if this is a temporary helping hand until she gets on her feet, then I have nothing against that... HOWEVER, if she is taking advantage... I truly believe accountability solves these issues.

                          There were times in the past we paid Mom's cable bill, used our CAA for her and called one of MY friends to come help her out when her car died, why did we do it? Because it is a good example to set for the kids,
                          Honestly, look at me straight into the eyes (or screen for this matter lol), do you sincerely and honestly think that having the kids know that there mom is taking advantage of you this way is a good example for them.....

                          Those kids one day will go out in this very very cold world of ours and they will think that everyone is out to help them.... How do you think they will react when they see the opposite!!!

                          No, no, no please people, see the light, I am not here to insult anyone or to be arrogant, I am simply here for what's right.... cap CS!

                          I understand it completely. I have said before that it may seem like CS is going towards things for her, but how do we know that she didn't purchase something for the kids the day before with all HER money, which is why she had to use CS to pay her car bill.
                          I know its none of my business but can you give me an idea of what she is receiving as CS... please do not feel obligated to say... I am just trying to understand as to why she is like this.

                          Boffff.... I realize that all this message posting really won't help the issue at hand but one thing is for sure, I saw many different points of view in which I agreed to and disagreed to. However, to me, that was very important.

                          Cheers
                          c

                          Comment


                          • Berner_Faith, I don't know if you are man or woman but from the looks of it I think you are a woman. That being said, as much as I admire your generosity, that mom that's spending your CS money on her car payments is an exact example of why I am pro-accountable! Now I don't know that lady, and she may be a wonderful person, but I really question her ethics with money! This infuriates me when people take advantage of such situations. Now, how is it that logically speaking you wouldn't agree with me that she should not be doing that ? huh? I don't know if the mom is capable of working or what not.... but if she is, then she should get a job (if she isn't already working) and make her own car payments. Jeeeezzzze does that piss me off!
                            I am a woman and a step mother for two wonderful children. That car payment she is making with or without the CS, is for the same car she drives the children around in. Sure she could go get some used car that may or may not break down, but with a new car, we know the children are safer. Mom works full time and actually makes more money than Dad, plus gets full CS.

                            A responsible gesture in your part... you are being way too nice. Now, if this is a temporary helping hand until she gets on her feet, then I have nothing against that... HOWEVER, if she is taking advantage... I truly believe accountability solves these issues.
                            Making $50K a year should be enough to be on her feet... but I also assume she has a lot of legal debt because of the mass amount of letters we use to get from her lawyer. I do know at one point, her lawyer told our lawyer that she was no longer representing her, this was due to a large bill she had yet to pay. But that is neither her nor there, we had the money, we helped her out. Whether we did or not, she owed the money so our choices were, pay the bill and let her have some money to spend on the kids, or not help her out and have less money to spend on the kids. We chose option A, in hopes the kids benefited from it.. did they? It is hard to say.

                            Honestly, look at me straight into the eyes (or screen for this matter lol), do you sincerely and honestly think that having the kids know that there mom is taking advantage of you this way is a good example for them.....

                            Those kids one day will go out in this very very cold world of ours and they will think that everyone is out to help them.... How do you think they will react when they see the opposite!!!

                            No, no, no please people, see the light, I am not here to insult anyone or to be arrogant, I am simply here for what's right.... cap CS!
                            The kids only know what the parents tell them. We never told the kids we paid the cable bill, all they know is that they had cable back. Whether she did or not is hard to say. I know she talks to the kids about money and how she is broke, because they tell us that all the time. If she chooses to speak about her financial matters with the children that is her choice, we choose not to.

                            I don't think it teaches the children to expect everyone to help them. I think when they saw their Mom stranded because her car wouldn't start, they saw their father and step mother stand up and help her out. That shows the children that we are not above helping her out. We would do it for anyone else and have on numerous occasions, why would we turn our backs on their mother?

                            I know its none of my business but can you give me an idea of what she is receiving as CS... please do not feel obligated to say... I am just trying to understand as to why she is like this.
                            She gets just under $600 a month for CS, for two kids. This is on top of her salary and any benefits she might receive. When they split, she took over the mortgage, had no car payment and they lived a simple life. After the split, she had a couple accidents, wrote off 2 vehicles and then went and bought a brand new car. So she has upped her spending on the car payment and her insurance due to the accidents. She is in the same house with a mortgage of under $80K. Who knows what she spends her money on... we really don't care. Although it is safe to assume that if it wasn't for the $600/m in CS, she wouldn't afford what she does.

                            Honestly, we have enough dealings with her, neither of us would want to have to deal with having to approve or disapprove her CS spending.

                            I often wonder if those who complain about having to pay a lot in CS, were complaining when they were out making their career while their spouse ran the household and raised the kids? It seems that the majority of those who complain about high CS were supported by their spouse while they advanced their career. I don't understand how one can honestly say they would be happy their children would have a decreased standard of living at the other parents house.

                            Comment


                            • Concerned:

                              If you think this is so important than why don't you and Links and Paco stop crying, get offline and go start a movement.

                              Personally, I doubt you'll have much luck. Your kind seems to always repel far more than you attract but if you're so angry, stop whining and go do something about it.

                              I won't be joining you...the only thing I got from this thread was a sense of relief about how glad I am that women in this country have the right to get divorced. It must be pure hell to live in a country where you are forced to stay married to a control-freak.

                              Comment


                              • I don't understand how one can honestly say they would be happy their children would have a decreased standard of living at the other parents house.
                                You're assuming their main motivation is their children.

                                The main motivation is that they hate their ex for living their own lives and are infuriated that the money they pay to support their children filters through the ex's hands. Its a factor of seething anger due to the loss of control.

                                Consider this language:

                                My whore ex (yes I said whore) goes and meets soulmate #622 and decides to have 2 kids with him (he is a drug addict deadbeat and hits up his mom for 20$ to buy crack) - surprise surprise deadbeat drug addict runs away......

                                Now my ex has 4 kids and since she is a loser and refuses to work she gets welfare (which i think gets canx by CS) + my 2500$ child support. What are the chances that the other 2 bastard children aren't going to be paid for with my CS money that was for my kids?
                                This is a guy who's so out of control raging that this is the way he talks about the mother of his own children.

                                Where do you think his focus is?

                                Comment

                                Our Divorce Forums
                                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                                Working...
                                X