Child Support

[Sum1sgruj]

Child support is necessary, but has it gotten out of hand? I ask this because it doesn't seem to just be a matter of a child's interests and well-being, but also venom between the parents. Now some parents are capable of being fair and honest, but most seem to want nothing more than to drive the other in the dirt.
There doesn't seem to be much compassion in the courtroom when it comes down to it. For example: A woman makes 100,000 a year and has a new husband who makes nearly the same. The father makes 40,000 a year. With 15-25 percent child support rates, is it ok that he should pay that amount? In nearly all cases, the child can only visit the other parent on a very limited basis. It doesn't sit well with me, as the woman in this example would not be using that money on her child.
I believe there needs to be more discretion on this, as we can see the spite going on. In some cases, the parent refuses to pay simply because they cannot see their child. If it's the right thing to do, which it is, grudgingly,, they should be able to have joint custody. But hey, thats just me..

 

[Mitsuki]

This is better suited in The Sleeping Forest, so I'll go ahead and move it for ya'. =]

[Thread Moved]

 

[Bambi]

Unless the woman is stopping the guy from seeing the child, in regards to your last point, then why shouldn't he pay? That money is going (you hope) toward the upbringing of a child that the man helped to create. Just because he may only be a 'weekend dad' doesn't mean he shouldn't have to contribute, afterall, that kid needs feeding clothing etc and it's not cheap, so I think its very fair. The woman has the biggest financial and emotional commitment,a few quid a week is nothing

as for the earlier point, well, again, they both created that kid, regardless of what she earns, he has financial obligation. Though, i agree alot of the time, it is just about the money, which is shite, but still. It takes 2 to tango. Personally, if I was loaded, then I doubt I'd even chase for money as long as he saw the kid, as the kids welfare is all that should matter. It rarely works like that, unfortunately

and there are alot more men that dont pay, than those that do. My dad paid a fiver in the whole life of me and my brother, and he was never once not allowed to see us, he just wouldn't step up to his responsibilities

Ive barely seen a penny of my daughters dad. And even though he was an arse with me, and i would of had every right to deny him access (and no, im NOT going into details, but even his family would have agreed and understood if i tried to stop him) I never did, and never had, because its not about me and my feelings, its about her.

, as the woman in this example would not be using that money on her child.
.

So he keeps it all and spends it on himself than? How is that any different? Also, you don't seem to be taking into account that the woman IS spending money on the child, her own. ALL her own, so, so what if she get's the money and does spend it on herself? See it as it going toward what she already pays for in food, clothing etc for the month for the kid.

It's like, I go out, use my money, pay for the childcare, school dinners, food for home, new clothes and shoes etc, as kids grow, then I get say, £50 off her dad for the month, Ive already spent WELL in excess of that. Even with my bills, when I dont have Ellie, I dont use HALF as much gas. So, if Ive just spent all that, been handed 50 quid, and spend it say, on a pair of shoes or a night out, howis that any different than if i had it to put toward the above expenses, then drew my own 50 quid out and spent it on myself?

It doesnt make a blind bit of difference

It's ok for him to keep all his money to himself to spend in the pub or wherever is it then?

 

[Sum1sgruj]

You're missing the point, Kelly. And that kind of logic just ensures the instability of the idea of child support. I believe that you should pay child support, but you also have yourself to worry about, and if you are not even able to make decisions for your child, what the hell are you paying for? Humiliation? 25% of income towards a child you can't even see is absurd. It takes away the very idea of supporting a child, as the child will grow up and hate you anyways.
No, child support is two faced. On one side, it helps the child. On the other it stirs up a lot of bad blood. Whats the point of anything that does just as much harm as good? Thats why I think there needs to be more discretion on child support. 25% for the middle-class is just as bad for the upper-class, because the middle man is struggling and getting chewed up by the mother while the upper man is practically supporting BOTH the mother and child.
And of course, it's vice versa. Men vs woman,, whatever.
And besides, is what you say not exactly what I mentioned>> spite between parents? So you think that because in your case, you get the shit end of the stick,, that other decent ppl should still have to suffer?

I'm repeating some of the things you have already aknowledged, because you have to look at the big picture. People get screwed everyday with the current proccess of child support. 90% of the time, neither parent is exactly a 'saint' in the whole scenario. It becomes a cluster of heresy and spite and unneeded baggage that just carries on forever. If the one with custody was really so righteous, they would accept the fact that they dated a piece of crap to begin with and kinda have themselves to blame. It becomes a battle for money, not the childs interests. Someone needs to revise the current status on child support.

I, myself, had no father in the picture and my mom is a money grubber to no end. And it's not suprising really, because when you go without money for so long, you ironically become greedy when you have enough to sustain. If anyone has an opinion, its you and me. But you gotta see where I'm coming from as well.

 

[Bambi]

I do see where you are coming from, but that other parent does have a financial obligation whether they like it or not. I am also aware that there are many people with children who are just after nothing but the money, but what do you suggest? Folk stop paying? How would the single mothers on low income cope who depend on that money if the percentage was lowered? To look at it case by case and asses it more thoroughly, would be ideal, but I just can't see how it would work...

Either way you look at it, someone gets screwed over

I've never needed his money no matter how skint I've been, I don't particularily want it, I don't want to have to rely on his money to keep me financially stable, I'd rather cope without and go without, to me, depending on him in that way, is humiliating for myself, never mind if I was on the other end and I was humiliated at having to pay child support

Ive never wanted to depend on someone else ever

Fuck knows

that because in your case, you get the shit end of the stick,, that other decent ppl should still have to suffer?
.

did i say that? woe is me I am not, I just think both parents should support the child, it's not my fault some folk get it shit, on BOTH ends of the scale, some mothers getting sod all, that shock horror, may also be decent people, and the fathers getting rinsed for everything

It's shit. I know it's shit, I've thrown my opinion in, that's all. It's always going to be a messy situation when parents split. Shit happens

 

[Sum1sgruj]

I see where you're coming from. Sorry if I sounded harsh, but it's just like you said,, someone can get screwed in many different scenarios and it's hard to voice that without condemning child support in general.

With that in mind, I think that each case should be handled specifically with guidelines pertaining to how they go about everything else. I think a flat rate is simply unfair. A murderer, for example, doesn't get life in prison where others do. Why should there be a flat rate for civil cases?
I feel strongly upon it because it can easily be fixed, but they decide not to. It's not as if they make money on the deal like criminal courts do, so why are they not serving justice the way it should be?

The only reason I can think is that it's a sensitive subject and they don't want to drag out the specifics for any kind of change. But- isn't the way they do it just causing the same riff-raff anyways?

Courtrooms

 

[Æon Flux]

Actually raising a child could cost more than that my sisters father only had to pay 200$ a month wich is like food for what a week?
My mom was just happy to be rid of my dad so she didnt even bother fighting for support as long as she got custody of me. and she supported us alone by working without aid
I do find it vindictive of most women who fight for child support to be evil but if the man couldnt afford it they wouldnt make him pay it. Its the price one pays for breeding.
But pray tell why dosent the other party not see the child? My dad had visitation and CHOSE not to visit me.
The other party could have abused their child. So in turn they get limited visitation
They could be a drug offender
Live with drug abusers/dealers/child molesters ect
The current bf/gf of ex mate could be harming the child or doing any of the above

Who got the most percentage of parental rites? Based on who was most fit to care for said child? The courts do go threw this and in most cases,if the childs old enough ask the kid whom it prefers to live with
Also Most people try to be civil for the childs sake and be accomodating towards each other even if they dislike the other person in regards to visitation.

VISITATION should have no baring on Child support
Just because one dosent see the child its valid welfare and my taxes should suppliment paying for its upbringing I think not mainly when the man is more than able to pay 25% wich in most cases is shit. Cant aford it? Dowmgrade your lifestyle.
If a woman wishes to be vindictive its hard to do now a days being as there is a base max they are aloud to get out of the others income so its not worth the effort and simply saying "Hes not seeing the child enough for what hes paying" is shit thats when you get an attorney and fight for your rights,if they realy care, to see your child more. I say bullshit to those who say "what if they cant afford that" well there is a thing as 2d and 3d jobs find them

 

[Davey Gaga]

So you think that because in your case, you get the shit end of the stick,, that other decent ppl should still have to suffer?

When you say it like that, it does sound a bit of a shame. Poor man, having to pay so much money. I would feel sorry if he was decent but (1) if you're a father to a child and either want to see them and not pay, or do neither, then you're hardly 'decent' and (2) Kelly's ex-man is definitely not a suffering, decent person.

If you have any decency whatsoever you'd be forking out left, right and centre for your child regardless of whose house it's staying at. Both people were involved in creating that life so both people should be responsible for sustaining it.

 

[Sum1sgruj]

VISITATION should have no baring on Child support

I beg the differ. If one can't see their child, they should not be forced to pay anything. It's a moral standing that shouldn't be decided by anyone but the parent at hand.
If a parent refuses visitation for the other, than that parent should bite the bullet and take what they bargained for.

Either way, the courts have their limits to, and a paying parent eventually has their shot at seeing their child.

But if there are no other factors at all, such as drugs, unhealthy environments, etc., a parent should be able to know that they can see their child before child support even becomes a subject.

ADDING ON: and a 'healthy environment' should not be determined by the amount of money they have.