[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
It’s massively fucked up that you have to pay for the mother [/quote]
oops, you fall into the same category as uncle gabby.
You aren’t paying for the mother, you are providing for your child.
How long have you been fighting with your ex over your kids? (I’m sorry that you seem to be having a very hard time with it too.)
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
I’m glad you’re so eager to play the martyr. [/quote]
I would sacrifice my life for my child, any time, any day. That isn’t being a martyr, that is called being a dad.
[/quote]
As in all things, there’s a right time for sacrifice, and a wrong time for sacrifice. Knowing the difference, and acting appropriately is the difference between being a martyr, a coward, or an honourable man. Don’t be afraid to give your life for them, but don’t be eager to deprive them of their father either.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
If you think massive child support bills are the only way to make sure kids have rooves over their heads, you’ve clearly not thought about this. [/quote]
How about you come talk to my 13 year old before you start trying to judge me and what I’ve thought about from one exaggerated post made to make a point.
The 13 year old that lives with me, that I provide for.
[/quote]
How about you consider that all men should have the right to provide the same way you do.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
How much are those kids going to enjoy that card board box of yours when they spend their time with you? Or do you plan to abandon them and just write their mom a cheque every month if this ever happens to you? [/quote]
Do you honestly not see I was making a point not actually speaking literally? Or do you just disagree with my stance and need to find some part of what I’m saying to rally against?
[/quote]
I took nothing literally. The point that you missed was that every dollar out of dad’s pocket is one less dollar that dad has to spend on his kids. By lowering dad’s standard of living, you lower the kids standard of living if they spend any time with him at all, and yes at the lowest income levels, “card board boxes” (or tents, or vans down by the river,etc…) do come into play. Although eventually CAS takes your kids, and while they no longer have to spend time in the box / tent / van, they lose out on time and lessons with dad.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
As someone who grew up without access to his father, I assure you it’s not the money that the kids really miss out on. [/quote]
My father is a runaway deadbeat also… Another reason I keep mentioning the CHILD should be the focus here, and not the fucking father and his rights.[/quote]
See, my dad wasn’t a runaway deadbeat. He was a forced out father of the lower class. I used to think tha he was a “runaway deadbeat”. Until I myself was hauled away in cuffs for trying to excersize my court ordered access time. My dad gave up, as alot do. And while I myself wouldn’t (and haven’t) done the same when faced with the same situation, I recognize and acknoledge the problem. Deja vu can be a rude awakening.
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
It is not my biological child, so why should I damn well better choose to pay for it, or get custody? [/quote]
Because, blood or not, after 10 years, it will be your child. Particularly if you’ve been around since birth.
I think it would depend on the facts of the situation.
Because you, not the law, are going to put the child’s needs ahead of yours. So what the law thinks won’t matter.
Unless someone is a scumbag, then they will abandon the kid to punish the whore of a mother.
If you have been around 2 months and find out it isn’t yours, go ahead and leave.
If you have been “daddy” for ten years, you are “daddy” to that child. The child doesn’t give a fuck if it was your sperm or not at that point. That is why you damn well better choose to take care of that kid.
[quote]
I’ve never said fuck the kid,[/quote]
Fair enough, I was playing dirty.
I do. But I don’t have as much of an issue if you have been “daddy” for a decade.
Because, it won’t be someone else offspring at that point. It is your kid at that point, your sperm or not.
As a woman, I have to say a lot of times, women use the kids to get money that they spend on them not the children. There are lots of women with custody that actually need help and lots of great Dads contributing. What I don’t like is women that use the kids to punish Dad and keep them from seeing their fathers. Its not about you and Mom its about those kids and being able to help them function after the divorce,which is very traumatic whether you realize it or not. Whatever happen you are the parents and keeping them from one or the other is fucked up and all I can say is that you will get your - payback is a bitch. I’ve noticed more single Dads taking care of their kids then I have ever before and I say congrats! The court system is not going to automatically give custoday to the Moms any longer so DADS - FIGHT FOR CUSTODY, especially if Mom is a deucsh (sp) bag!
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
It’s massively fucked up that you have to pay for the mother [/quote]
oops, you fall into the same category as uncle gabby.
You aren’t paying for the mother, you are providing for your child.
How long have you been fighting with your ex over your kids? (I’m sorry that you seem to be having a very hard time with it too.)[/quote]
4 years. We’re in court constantly. My ex-wife uses the patented 3 step program to widdle my time down each trip: Step 1: acuse man of abuse, Step 2: demand full custody, Step 3: Profit. When we started out I had my kids 3 1/2 days each week, PLUS all the time their mother spent at work as we do not work the same hours. So they spent more time with me than with her, and I STILL had to pay her. Than it went down to 3 days 3 times a month PLUS the time she was at work. Nowadays it’s 2 1/2 days 3 times a month. My kids go to a baby sitter when I’m at home which I AM ORDERED TO PAY FOR, and I no longer have shared custody, as “high conflict” situations eliminate that as a possibility regardless of why the conflict exists.
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
It’s massively fucked up that you have to pay for the mother [/quote]
oops, you fall into the same category as uncle gabby.
You aren’t paying for the mother, you are providing for your child.
How long have you been fighting with your ex over your kids? (I’m sorry that you seem to be having a very hard time with it too.)[/quote]
4 years. We’re in court constantly. My ex-wife uses the patented 3 step program to widdle my time down each trip: Step 1: acuse man of abuse, Step 2: demand full custody, Step 3: Profit. When we started out I had my kids 3 1/2 days each week, PLUS all the time their mother spent at work as we do not work the same hours. So they spent more time with me than with her, and I STILL had to pay her. Than it went down to 3 days 3 times a month PLUS the time she was at work. Nowadays it’s 2 1/2 days 3 times a month. My kids go to a baby sitter when I’m at home which I AM ORDERED TO PAY FOR, and I no longer have shared custody, as “high conflict” situations eliminate that as a possibility regardless of why the conflict exists.[/quote]
It isn’t a simple situation in the states either, and I’m sorry for the massive trouble your situation is.
I have seen it work in dad’s favor though, so all hope is not lost.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You aren’t paying for the mother, you are providing for your child.
[/quote]
Wrong. Especially in my case, where 100% of my contributions are taken by the government to recoup the cost of my kid’s mom’s welfare cheque. But a family is not a business. You don’t take the cost of the household as a whole and divide it evenly amongst it’s members. The responsability of the overhead should be wholly attributed to the adults. Kids do not cost nearly as much as statisticians claim, and you know it. Do you have any idea how much better kids like mine would live if they weren’t stuck with the dead weight. I do better for my kids on less (after tax / after support / etc…) money than their mother does. Alot better. How much better would they have it, if I had that 1500 dollars to spend on them myself? How much better would your kids be off if you had an extra 1500 dollars to blow on them every month? It’s fucking rediculous.
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You aren’t paying for the mother, you are providing for your child.
[/quote]
Wrong. Especially in my case, where 100% of my contributions are taken by the government to recoup the cost of my kid’s mom’s welfare cheque. But a family is not a business. You don’t take the cost of the household as a whole and divide it evenly amongst it’s members. The responsability of the overhead should be wholly attributed to the adults. Kids do not cost nearly as much as statisticians claim, and you know it. Do you have any idea how much better kids like mine would live if they weren’t stuck with the dead weight. I do better for my kids on less (after tax / after support / etc…) money than their mother does. Alot better. How much better would they have it, if I had that 1500 dollars to spend on them myself? How much better would your kids be off if you had an extra 1500 dollars to blow on them every month? It’s fucking rediculous.[/quote]
I agree with you and based on what you say it is good you keep fighting.
But you contradict yourself in the above post.
kids are expensive, no question, overhead included.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
Laying down and playing the martyr does NOT do your kids a favour. It does them a great injustice. And it gives them a completely ass backwards view of the capitalist world where work hard = live in a box, and helpless = handouts = proffit.[/quote]
LOL, are you serious with this?
Actually I think it teaches them to fulfill the responsibility they created by having kids in the first place.
If you don’t want to give the mother $, fight for custody.
[/quote]
WRONG!! Than your no better than them. It’s not about the money, and kids need both their parents. I don’t condone persuit of custody for financial reasons, and I practice what I preach. But a cheque doesn’t equal provision. You most certainly should be obliged to provide for your children, but a cheque to the mother isn’t the answer. Buy them what they need. Make your place an awsome place to be. But don’t subsidize their seperation from you. And teaches them that BOTH sexes have responsabilities,and that if EITHER of them neglect those responsabilities there are consequences.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
Meanwhile the true contributions of the father go neglected because all that the legal system truely cares about is the amount of money changing hands. [/quote]
False, very very false. YOU may have gotten a bad deal, bad lawyer or whatever, but this is not true. If it was, my best friend’s daughter would still be with the mother.
[/quote]
[/quote]
The vast majority of custody disputes result in the mother being awarded custody. Last stat I saw was 90%. The laws are written “gender nuetral”, but because of traditional roles in the home, and simple biology women have a tremendous advantage in gender nuetrality. I.E. maintanance of the status quoe is generally deemed to be in the childrens best interest, so if the children are very young, and mom isn’t a CONVICTED crack addict who blackens the kids eyes, she auto wins. And let me be clear - no one should “win”. Trophys are won. Prizes are won. Kids shouldn’t be.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
They would rather have you PAY for a baby sitter, than CARE for the children yourself. How does THAT benefit the children?![/quote]
You see the mother as a babysitter?
[/quote]
No. I see my kid’s mom’s baby sitter as a baby sitter. I’m at home. She’s at work. Kid’s are at the sitters. By the order of the court, I pay for it.
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
You most certainly should be obliged to provide for your children, but a cheque to the mother isn’t the answer. Buy them what they need. Make your place an awsome place to be. But don’t subsidize their seperation from you. And teaches them that BOTH sexes have responsabilities,and that if EITHER of them neglect those responsabilities there are consequences.[/quote]
Fair enough. How would they measure if both parties are providing, and that the split between parties is right? How and who would determine consequences if either party failed?
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
The vast majority of custody disputes result in the mother being awarded custody. Last stat I saw was 90%. The laws are written “gender nuetral”, but because of traditional roles in the home, and simple biology women have a tremendous advantage in gender nuetrality. I.E. maintanance of the status quoe is generally deemed to be in the childrens best interest, so if the children are very young, and mom isn’t a CONVICTED crack addict who blackens the kids eyes, she auto wins. And let me be clear - no one should “win”. Trophys are won. Prizes are won. Kids shouldn’t be.[/quote]
Well, things aren’t going to change over night. But I do see more fathers today with the kids than I did when I was a kid.
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
No. I see my kid’s mom’s baby sitter as a baby sitter. I’m at home. She’s at work. Kid’s are at the sitters. By the order of the court, I pay for it.[/quote]
Yeah, that statement makes a ton more sense now.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
You aren’t paying for the mother, you are providing for your child.
[/quote]
Wrong. Especially in my case, where 100% of my contributions are taken by the government to recoup the cost of my kid’s mom’s welfare cheque. But a family is not a business. You don’t take the cost of the household as a whole and divide it evenly amongst it’s members. The responsability of the overhead should be wholly attributed to the adults. Kids do not cost nearly as much as statisticians claim, and you know it. Do you have any idea how much better kids like mine would live if they weren’t stuck with the dead weight. I do better for my kids on less (after tax / after support / etc…) money than their mother does. Alot better. How much better would they have it, if I had that 1500 dollars to spend on them myself? How much better would your kids be off if you had an extra 1500 dollars to blow on them every month? It’s fucking rediculous.[/quote]
I agree with you and based on what you say it is good you keep fighting.
But you contradict yourself in the above post.
kids are expensive, no question, overhead included. [/quote]
What’s contradictory? Kids have a baseline cost of a bedroom, some food, some clothes, etc… - Half the cost of your kitchen, living room, bathroom, etc… isn’t theirs just because they’re their sometimes. That cost exists wether they’re there or not. It’s a cost you have for being an adult. After that, there are luxurious optionals like a bigger yard, sports teams, cable t.v., vacations, cars, etc… that are just that - luxurious options. We’d all like to have everything in spades for our kids all the time, but the reality is few people can afford the kind of life they want their kids to have. Especially when a portion of the money they want to spend on their kids is paying for their kid’s moms choices. Why should my son go without a dirt bike for the choices his mother has made? Why should my daughter be without ballet lessons? When a woman decides she doesn’t want to be married anymore, that should be her fucking problem. Cost of the family as a whole goes up because of a decision she made, why do dad and the kids pay for it? You know what happens if a dad with a support obligation takes a pay cut at work? He’s imputed an income, because he’s not allowed to make decisions that lower the kid’s standard of living. But mom got fucking PAYED to do just that. And you think that’s right?
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
When a woman decides she doesn’t want to be married anymore, that should be her fucking problem. [/quote]
And there are countless examples of men that left. Dude, you, no offense, can’t see this situation objectively. I don’t blame you, and I doubt I see it 100% objectively either.
They don’t always. Well, the kids do, 99% of the time.
I don’t see it that way. You make it sound like women are leaving to spite the man and kids, and I doubt that is the case.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
You most certainly should be obliged to provide for your children, but a cheque to the mother isn’t the answer. Buy them what they need. Make your place an awsome place to be. But don’t subsidize their seperation from you. And teaches them that BOTH sexes have responsabilities,and that if EITHER of them neglect those responsabilities there are consequences.[/quote]
Fair enough. How would they measure if both parties are providing, and that the split between parties is right? How and who would determine consequences if either party failed?
[/quote]
This is of corse the tough part, but basically right now the “custodial parent” is presumed to be providing for the kids with whatever money she’s given, no questions asked. I see no reason why both parents shouldn’t be presumed to be providing appropriately with the money they themselves earn. Gaurentee the day in, day out contributions don’t measure as equal as proportoinate, as for example one parent may buy the kids brand new clothes at the mall every season, while the other shops at the thrift store. However when thrifty parent is putting the money away for college, that’s not denying your kids support, that’s just sound financial planning, and good use of what for most people is a modest income.
You presume each parent wants what’s best for their children, and you let them do as they see fit. Unless there is a LARGE discrepancy in the standards of living where one parent has an olympic swimming pool, and a ferris wheel in the back yard, and the other lives in a shack across from willy wonkas chocolate factory where they eat cabbage soup every night, I see no reason for the current model to be used at all.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
You most certainly should be obliged to provide for your children, but a cheque to the mother isn’t the answer. Buy them what they need. Make your place an awsome place to be. But don’t subsidize their seperation from you. And teaches them that BOTH sexes have responsabilities,and that if EITHER of them neglect those responsabilities there are consequences.[/quote]
Fair enough. How would they measure if both parties are providing, and that the split between parties is right? How and who would determine consequences if either party failed?
[/quote]
This is of corse the tough part, but basically right now the “custodial parent” is presumed to be providing for the kids with whatever money she’s given, no questions asked. I see no reason why both parents shouldn’t be presumed to be providing appropriately with the money they themselves earn. Gaurentee the day in, day out contributions don’t measure as equal as proportoinate, as for example one parent may buy the kids brand new clothes at the mall every season, while the other shops at the thrift store. However when thrifty parent is putting the money away for college, that’s not denying your kids support, that’s just sound financial planning, and good use of what for most people is a modest income.
You presume each parent wants what’s best for their children, and you let them do as they see fit. Unless there is a LARGE discrepancy in the standards of living where one parent has an olympic swimming pool, and a ferris wheel in the back yard, and the other lives in a shack across from willy wonkas chocolate factory where they eat cabbage soup every night, I see no reason for the current model to be used at all.
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
It’s massively fucked up that you have to pay for the mother [/quote]
oops, you fall into the same category as uncle gabby.
You aren’t paying for the mother, you are providing for your child.
How long have you been fighting with your ex over your kids? (I’m sorry that you seem to be having a very hard time with it too.)[/quote]
4 years. We’re in court constantly. My ex-wife uses the patented 3 step program to widdle my time down each trip: Step 1: acuse man of abuse, Step 2: demand full custody, Step 3: Profit. When we started out I had my kids 3 1/2 days each week, PLUS all the time their mother spent at work as we do not work the same hours. So they spent more time with me than with her, and I STILL had to pay her. Than it went down to 3 days 3 times a month PLUS the time she was at work. Nowadays it’s 2 1/2 days 3 times a month. My kids go to a baby sitter when I’m at home which I AM ORDERED TO PAY FOR, and I no longer have shared custody, as “high conflict” situations eliminate that as a possibility regardless of why the conflict exists.[/quote]
Your situation totally bites Andy. I guess it can’t be taken care of just between the 2 of you especially not if it’s been like this for 4 years. What can be done? Is it possible for you to get full custody?
Is it that the courts see it as whatever is good for the kids? Joint custody is bad due to disagreement so it has to be one or the other? So you or Mom not both? Is there anything she has said would make her agree to more sharing of the kids time?
Real quick question,
I’ve been with a woman for 10 yrs. She had a kid when we met but we had a falling out and are no longer together.
Am I that kids father w/financial responsibility to that kid?
Story moves on:
I meet a great gal a year or so later. We get married and start a family. I’ve been writing checks for $600 a month to this “other woman’s kid” for the last year or so. How do I explain that to my “understanding” wife?
Wife, who somehow understood me taking care of a kid that wasn’t mine now gets pregnant and leaves her job to take care of our kid. Finances are tight. Do I take food out of my family’s mouth to feed the other or do I get a second job to take care of both?
[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
Real quick question,
I’ve been with a woman for 10 yrs. She had a kid when we met but we had a falling out and are no longer together.
Am I that kids father w/financial responsibility to that kid?
Story moves on:
I meet a great gal a year or so later. We get married and start a family. I’ve been writing checks for $600 a month to this “other woman’s kid” for the last year or so. How do I explain that to my “understanding” wife?
Wife, who somehow understood me taking care of a kid that wasn’t mine now gets pregnant and leaves her job to take care of our kid. Finances are tight. Do I take food out of my family’s mouth to feed the other or do I get a second job to take care of both?[/quote]
Are you court ordered for the $600 to the X? Or are you “doing the right thing”?
^is one bette than the other.
Court ordered is crazy and I’m not paying.
Second is misleading as “doing the right thing” is subjective and based on personal views. But for the sake of argument I’m doing the right thing.
It is all of the “falling outs” I hear about that make marriage an illogical act to me.
I mean, no matter how great ANY of you think your relationships are, there is a risk it could end badly.
It is very clear that most of you try to tell yourselves this is not the case…and I imagine I would as well if I were in that position. But the truth is, these are GIANT issues here and the man does not seem protected at all in these situations.
For instance, I could get married right now to a woman who doesn’t even work, stay with her for one year…she cheats on me…and I get stuck paying her for years.
That’s fucked up.
[quote]Loudog75 wrote:
^is one bette than the other.
Court ordered is crazy and I’m not paying.
Second is misleading as “doing the right thing” is subjective and based on personal views. But for the sake of argument I’m doing the right thing.[/quote]
Of course LD I was just asking, cause if it is court ordered then how much would it cost to go get it lowered/dropped etc.
Doing the right thing is personal agreed, subject to heavy debate on that topic.
Personally I would only be paying the X if I had a relationship with that child. If I was just paying out of honor and no relationship with the child then I would not pay.