A common fathers' rights position which is problematic
April 15th, 2009 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
I discussed the problems faced by child support obligors during the recession on The John Oakley Show on AM 640 in Toronto this morning.
The interview was prompted by a new front page Boston Globe story discussing both this issue and Fathers & Families' highly-publicized lawsuit against Massachusetts' child support guidelines. To learn more, click here.
One caller espoused a common fathers' rights position which is problematic. He said (paraphrasing):
After divorce the property should be divided and there should be no child support--the children should live with each parent equally and each parent should support them when they're in their house.
This is a common idea, and often a good one. However, it only works in certain circumstances.
If dad earns $70,000 a year and mom earns $67,000 a year, it's definitely the solution. But what if dad earns $120,000 and mom, because she was the children's primary caregiver during the marriage, earns only $30,000?
In this case it would neither be fair to the woman nor productive for the children for there to be no financial support from the father to the mother. In effect, the mother is being punished because she diminished her earning capacity to be the children's primary caregiver. Also, her ability to care for her kids and provide for them when they're with her is compromised.
"));
19 queries. 0.637 seconds.
April 15th, 2009 at 12:54 pm
Glenn: One bit of pushback I think might be warranted is that the wife deserves alimony until she can increase her earning power. I think if she was given a small, but meaningful, child support payment that would be in force during the raising of the child; and a more substantial alimony payment for 36 months.
I agree that it isn't right to drop her like a bad habit; but putting it into child support isn't right. The CS system is clumsy at best (corrupt at worst) and feeding it as a back door alimony mechanism doesn’t make a lot of sense.
Later,
B
April 15th, 2009 at 1:01 pm
This is a tough one. We need to be mindful of the situation where child support is set at such a high rate that it is, in effect, a hidden form of alimony.
There is also the case where the mother refuses to work even though qualified in order to claim higher child support and the case where a woman seeks to have a child with a wealthy man in order to earn generous child support payments. All of these cases create perverse incentives.
In an equal society, women should not have choices that men do not. I am more sympathetic to the case where the couple agree that one spouse stays at home as primary caregiver but what if they didn't agree? My ex had a master's degree and a teaching license but refused to work through the whole marriage (and after).
April 15th, 2009 at 1:05 pm
I agree with the following qualification. The woman should be compensated for the time spent home taking care of the kids....but not for the fact that she makes less money. Although I am happily married, I make close to 200K a year....my wife makes 25K. Before we were married I had a BS in Engineering and an MBA. She had a AS degree. So before we ever even talked about kids, she was never going to make anywhere near the money I make. Why should I be punished for that in the event of divorce ?
April 15th, 2009 at 1:11 pm
Glenn,
I think you are spot wrong on this one, for the most part. What if the tables were turned? If the mother were making $100,000 a year and the dad making $30,000? Do you think the mother would want to pay child support? No way Jose....
There has to be accountability. There should be an equal division of property and custody of any kids. Each parent should pay for the children themselves. If they cannot, the children should spend most of the time with the high wage earner.
Here is the accountability part: DON'T GET DIVORCED if you can't manage it financially!!!!! If all of these women knew they would not get a finacial windfall they would not be getting divorced.
Have you not been telling us Glenn, for several years now, that things need to be equal and fair? What is fair about getting half of the custody time, which each father SHOULD get, and still paying child support??? How is that fair?
This is like the female sentencing discount: get divorced, but you still get the kids half of the time AND get paid for it.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
The other problem I have with a lot of these types of situations, is that if 70% of the divorces are instigated by the woman, then she should be responsible for being able to support herself and the children. Yes, the father should be contributing some form of support, but not at the current insane levels.
Another thought, if he is making so much more, then isn't he better able to care for the child and give it a better standard of living? Shouldn't he have primariy custody in that situation?
Lets bring back fault divorce, and maybe people would then be a little more willing to work out their problems, and not run away knowing they will get a payoff for doing so.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
sorry,
That should read:
Shouldn't he have primary custody in that situation?
Fat fingers at work.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
"But what if dad earns $120,000 and mom, because she was the children's primary caregiver during the marriage, earns only $30,000?"
I agree that there should be some financial support in that situation, but that financial support should not be based on the past income of the married couple. The Dad in your scenario is going to have to pick up a lot of work outside of formal employment to maintain a household on his own. His earning power is going to decrease.
The Mom in that scenario should be expected to increase her earning after the divorce, at the very least to the point of self-sufficiency.
And whoever has to set up a new household is going to bear the brunt of the immediate financial impact. The house 'winner' should allow the house 'loser' some ramp-up time to make that adjustment.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:23 pm
wolfboy69, you are right on! Get rid of the no-fault divorce and watch the divorce rate drop through the floor! Brings to mind the "Cheaper to keep her" philosophy, except reverse the genders...
April 15th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Damsels in Distress
ChrisC and Glenn, it's as simple as this: Are women capable of handling equality or not? Here's a few facts/observations:
1) If a man has problems making money then (most) women label him as a loser and refuse to marry him. If he has to work hard to live up to the male breadwinner role, that's his problem.
2) Women who are able to spend time at home with their kids view that as an entitlement and/or luxury and few would share it with men. So why the tear jerking at them suffering if a wealthy man leaves them?
3) If a woman uses her attractiveness to land a wealthy man and decides later she can do better and his heart is broken, that's his problem. Nobody cares about men who are abandoned emotionally.
4) If a man becomes a workaholic and his wife leaves him, that's his problem. But if a woman abandons her career and decides to stay at home because she wants to spend more time with the kids because that's what she wants, again, she's a victim.
5) When a woman marries up... she's a, get this, victim? Because at divorce she earns less? What about all the time she spent living an extravagent lifestyle she couldn't have otherwise afforded?
6) It's ironic that alimony is now largely awarded to wealthy women who never needed it (such as Robyn Gibson asking for alimony ON TOP OF a HALF BILLION DOLLARS) precisely because working class men with a housewife rarely earn a lot of money to justify it via income disparity or are willing or able to support a woman in that role either economically or due to legal risk. So this hurts women who want to become housewives when working men run away from them.
I mean, really, we can go on and on but it's plain to see that we're bending over backwards here to protect women even as we spend a lot of time griping that society regards women as spoiled children. If a man earned only $30K, his wife wouldn't support him for long before throwing him out the door and he'd be lucky to see his children ever again.
But thanks Glenn for pointing out that among all the other misery in the world including that befalling men in family courts and piracy and the economic crisis, we seek to protect women from having to work a little harder after divorce to earn money to support themselves and their kids. That would be an unimaginable horror none of us could live with, right?
April 15th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
[i]And whoever has to set up a new household is going to bear the brunt of the immediate financial impact. The house 'winner' should allow the house 'loser' some ramp-up time to make that adjustment./i]
Isn't this called alimony? I think this is a good idea as long as it doesn't get too carried away (i.e., higher earner must pay for lower earners "re"education).
April 15th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Consider that the man who earns $100K had to work long hours before and during the marriage to provide that stability for the family. It's amazing that the family courts regard the breadwinner as this unimportant person who doesn't do important stuff like "hands on" care and is tossed away and then the court turns around and complains that if he doesn't pay alimony and child-support, the children and mother will starve. Yet, the courts don't force women to provide hands on care when they dump them in daycare and go to med school. "Primary parenting" is only important to the courts when justifying alimony but is not court ordered.
April 15th, 2009 at 1:42 pm
Mairrage is a contract. As such, no-fault divorce is a breach of contract. For that breach, the breacher should get nothing. To the breachee should go everything. If the breacher is the breadwinner, then they should pay. Mabey then people would work things out. Almost every no fault I see in my small town area has the SAH wife bringing the no fault. If they want to opt out, then they can get out, but they get nothing.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:03 pm
The government should not give Incentive to women to divorce, as they do now.
The stay at home mother's, if there are any left in The United States, income ought to be imputed.
Because woman have choices - work, stay-at-home, or work and stay-at-home - that men do not enjoy in general. The wife decided to stay-at-home to "watch the kids." She enjoyed watching television (Oprah, Lifetime and The View, among the hundred other), and or shopping and or going to lunch with friends.
Men are not given the the same options compared to women.
The Family Judge ought to impute woman's income, because of given her decision to stay at home, so the judge will weigh her education, previous work experience, her potential to earn.
This ought to work fine because today woman mostly get married on average later in life, because they have more options.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:05 pm
Almost every no fault I see in my small town area has the SAH wife bringing the no fault. If they want to opt out, then they can get out, but they get nothing.
Exactly. If it wasn't for the ability to actually profit (financially) from divorce I bet a lot of people would think twice about it.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:13 pm
Glenn says: “But what if dad earns $120,000 and mom, because she was the children's primary caregiver during the marriage, earns only $30,000? In this case it would neither be fair to the woman…”
My response: So the man worked 40 (or more) hours a week to financially support his family while the wife got to stay home and spend more time with the children. Is that fair to the man? Additionally, the wife benefitted from the man’s higher earnings during the marriage. Is that fair to the man?
Glenn says: “…nor productive for the children for there to be no financial support from the father to the mother”
My response: ????????. Are you saying that the father must financially support his ex- wife so his ex-wife can be a “mother” for her children? What if the mother has little incentive and doesn’t want to work? What if the mother chose to purse a career that is a low paying career?
Glenn says: “In effect, the mother is being punished because she diminished her earning capacity to be the children's primary caregiver.”
My response: I disagree. She chose to be a stay-at-home mommy. You want to financially protect people who choose to take the easy and fun path in life. In effect, you seem to be saying that the father should be punished because of the decisions made by the mother.
Glenn says: “Also, her ability to care for her kids and provide for them when they're with her is compromised.”
My response: If she can not care for the children, then the children shouldn’t be with her.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
I am shocked at the number of people that say that the mother "chooses" to stay at home. It happens, but other times both parents decide together that they want one of them to stay home and raise the children.
Also, do not assume that Glenn would not stand for the same situation with the roles reversed. He uses this argument quite a lot, and he thinks about what he says. He would not be that hypocritical. I feel that he is simply pointing out that the movement is damaged by some folks who demand an all or nothing approach, or at least one that is currently unrealistic. We cannot forget that many of the issues men face are far less extreme and rare than many people think, but we also cannot assume that these are the only situations that exist.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Not that I necessarily agree with this as a solution, but if there is a set rate for foster children who are in a family's care FULL TIME... then that should be the benchmark maximum in child support anyone should have to pay the other regardless of gender in a shared-parenting situation where one parent's income is substantially different from the other's.
What's the national average for a foster child? Or two? Or more? I think for one it's somewhere in the neighborhood of $8,000 annually. So how is the government can conclude that the meaningful costs of a child in a foster care situation is $8,000 annually and in far too many private, divorce situations, it's so often many times higher than that?
April 15th, 2009 at 2:38 pm
I have mixed feelings about this. I understand the point that many are making. Obviously someone who makes more money should reap the rewards of that and not be forced to give to someone else.
But consider that in a shared-parenting situation the parents need to live in the same school district. What if the lower paid parent cannot afford to maintain a household in that neighborhood?
So there are some practical ramifications.
I also agree completely with taidan....most fathers would prefer 50/50 shared parenting and pay their ex some amount rather than the current situation where they barely can see their children. So even if you disagree with this...it is still better than the status quo and if helps get shared parenting on teh table then I think everyone should be willing to accept this.
I do agree with Mister-M there should be some cap. I have always though all CS should have a cap and that would reduce women intentionally getting pregnant from high-earners sole for the CS.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
taidan Says: I am shocked at the number of people that say that the mother "chooses" to stay at home.
My response: Are women forced to get pregnant? Are women forced to stay at home? If a woman is a stay at home wife, then it is her decision. Her husband may agree with her decision, but it is still HER decision. It is not really a "mutual"decison because she can veto the decison anytime she chooses.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
I tend to agree with Glen on this one BUT i must say a few couples that I know while talking about "before they had children"..
1 common theme was, that they were like any other couple. Both working their ass off to make it pay to pay. Babbies came, and they got the hell out of the work force and were happy to and hubby had to step up and get two jobs or better jobs.
In general though when couples make enough to look after the kids needs I am ok with each providing for the children in their home. My wife and her X have exactly that agreement. They even stupulated that SHOULD one of them lose their job, then the other would take their daughter full time until the other parent gets on their feet. No money exchanges hands. He makes a fair bit more then her, and her lawyer was trying to tell her that she HAD to take the money and she told her NO.
I still think that if both incomes should be taken into account. 1 thing that really bugs me that is slightly off topic is when a they say a NC parent is under working (or taking a lower end job on purpose) WTF? So women can stay at home to spend more time with the kids, but the father after a divorce cannot take a job that lets him spend more time with his kids without being called a dead beat and charged child support payments based on what a judge says he "should be making" WTF?
April 15th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
Kat and Taidan, sometimes concessions are necessary and sometimes they are not. Why come across as half-apologetic if we don't need to? Do we need to accept the paradigm that a woman needs to be protected from all risk in life including her own decisions, at all costs, while men should be on their own and call that "equality?"
In regards to both parents needing to live in the same school district: This is possible if the parent who earns less gets a smaller place than otherwise. I have lived in Beverly Hills by renting a room, for example.
All that said, there is a case to be made for non-shared parenting if the goal is for one of the parents to get on a better financial footing. For a temporary time, why not have the parent who supposedly gave up her career go back to school and get a job and have the other parent raise the kids without any child-support? In a way, that's a cost/subsidy since he's raising her kids for free.
It sounds like the traditional system or shared parenting with alimony is just a ruse to make men pay for a luxury for women to divorce without penalty. When men divorce, they understand that they'll lose sex and their companion. It's amazing that men are told that on the one hand, the woman's contributions to his life are invaluable but on the other, if she leaves, it's not a big deal since she didn't do much anyway and, hey, don't forget to pay the support since she and the kids will die without him.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:51 pm
What Paternalistic, old-fashioned Tripe this is!! Why anyone thinks Mom should live just as good as Dad after Divorce (or vice-versa) is totally beyond me. I thought this kind of bull***t thinking disappeared with women getting equal access to the workplace.
Seems I was wrong.
To wit:
First of all, I was a stay home Dad in my children's early years, and my ex continues to make substantially more than me to this day. I had 50/50 custody of my kids, and lost them because I couldn't afford to keep them anymore.
Where was the need to be fair to me, or productive to my children? No one, not even once, no one ever suggested I should be getting money from her, or offered gov't services. Not even me.
Your assertion that he would somehow owe her for supporting her for those years is totally disgusting, when used as a generality. There are certain instances (such as him leaving her for selfish reasons) where some sort of compensation for breach of contract (which goes BOTH ways) may be in order...
But as a default stance? No freakin' way!
If she doesn't make as much as him, and hates the disparity...well, then I guess they should have stayed together eh? As for the kids, frankly an education on how the "other half lives" would likely prove beneficial.
Your whole argument is essentially paraphrased feminist dogma.
She is NOT "giving up her earning capacity for him", she IS doing what she would rather do, or as close to it as possible. Staying home with children is a LUXURY these days, not a sacrifice...the idea that it should be compensated for after Divorce is anathema to the very concept of sexual equality.
She can work hard, and get ahead...just like he did.
April 15th, 2009 at 2:58 pm
Factory, I would go out on dating with aging women who were desperate to get married and settle down. But they still had massive entitlement complexes and would openly gripe if I didn't pay their way ("asker pays", nickname for men? "asker") and would start making plans for a family where I paid the bills and they cashed the checks. Plus the man would be thankful for the "sacrifice" she was making.
Until I suggested that maybe she should continue working rather than her "sacrifice."
Then the shaming ploys came out: "WHAT?!?! You don't think a MAN should support his wife's SACRIFICE to be a good MOTHER? WHAT'S WRONG WITH YOU?!!?!"
I would shake my head, tell them that if they thought they could do better go ahead, and walk off. In nearly all cases, my phone would be ringing a week later with them begging me to reconsider and that they'd take a smaller diamond ring and work part-time. I am not making this up.
It seems that the modern traditional role for men is to be an ATM machine that dispenses unlimited cash and then apologizes for oppressing the customer. Simply amazing.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:06 pm
Amen, PolishKnight!
April 15th, 2009 at 3:16 pm
"If dad earns $70,000 a year and mom earns $67,000 a year, it's definitely the solution. But what if dad earns $120,000 and mom, because she was the children's primary caregiver during the marriage, earns only $30,000?"
How about this...if dad made a unilateral decision to leave then he is required to make up some difference as he's broken the implied contract.
If mom is making 30K and decides to leave then she has broken the contract and deserves only what "the wallet" decides. She shouldn't be able to unilaterally end the contract, not provide any of her requirements, but expect him to perform his.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
It's funny how often women flip back and forth between a "traditional girl" and "Modern Woman" isn't it?
The trick here is not to establish a level of child support that we can live with. The trick here is to make it plain that, if men no longer enjoy the benefits of Marriage (whatever those may be...sex, emotional support, maid services, whatever...), why should women?
What concept of equality allows for this sort of special treatment, exactly? Are we redefining things again???
The problem raised in this article is one of contractual obligation, not morality. She is not morally entitled to share in his lifestyle (much as she may want to) simply because SHE'S NOT MARRIED TO HIM!
I know, tough concept to wrap one's head around...
As for the kids, it should be his CHOICE (hey, there's that word again) as to support for his children. Sure, there's some real jerks out there that will just walk away...maybe women might want to become a tad more selective of who they have babies with eh?
This whole idea of staying home being a "sacrifice" is bull***t, and as a former stay home Dad, Glenn is quite well aware of this I would suppose.
But the truly frustrating thing is seeing articles written on major MRA sites that parrot feminist dogma unquestioningly.
Thank God the rank and file (us) can speak up once in a while...
April 15th, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Why would a woman want a man in the house pestering her when she can leave, keep the kids, and most importantly keep his money...? Without having to differ for him about anything because she is on her own..., with his kids and his money?
April 15th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Having the non-custodial parent provide extra financial support for the needs of the children seems like the best decision to an extent. Having the non-custodial parent provide financial support for the custodial parent seems unfair, and it seems grossly unfair if there is joint custody. In the latter instance, both parents are required to provide for the children. Forcing one parent to pay for the other parent's needs seems like a tacit admission that one parent cannot manage his or her financial responsibilities. In that case it would seem like the best option would be to give primary custody to the parent with the more stable economic situation. Since the money would (supposedly) go towards the children's needs anyway, this would ensure that the kids are being taken care of.
That said, it would be alright to have one parent provide some extra money if the court placed a limit on the amount that could be requested and set a time limit for how long the extra financial support would last. Using Glenn's example (and assuming there is no child support arrangement), if the mother received $250 there could be a limit of six months attached to it. So in six to twelve months she would have to find a way to make more money or the joint custody arrangement would be reviewed by the court. The reason I think something like this is necessary is because quite a few people would, if given money in this fashion, simply stay in their current situation without trying to improve it. Having a limit would give them incentive to try to find a better job or take classes to get a better job, if the problem is literally that they have no job skills and no means of working.
Otherwise, it just seems like one parent, most likely the father, will be forced to support an adult when that money could be better spent on the children.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:31 pm
Common sense says that two people who are unhappy together will separate when some particular point of unhappiness is reached. A women making 30K will consider that as one of her factors in deciding to leave. If the law demands that dad pay her upon leaving, then the particular point of unhappiness will be different. As usual in Moms favor.
They chose to marry together. They, presumably, chose to have children together. What are her responsibilities after such important decisions made together.
She should not be incentivized to leave on his back.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Interesting thread of the word "choice" popping up in this thread. I guess if you make a choice that turns out badly you don't have to take accountability...you can just cry victim and get what you want. It is clear that "choice" for alot of folks is not really choice, it is "my choice to do whatever I want, when i want, with no accountability...err...unless it turns out to be a bad choice, then I want to blame someone else...
I agree with the above poster who wondered who wrote the golden rule that said there had to be equality in income after divorce??? Did anyone care that I was almost on the street after my divorce becaue of the whopping CS obligation? No. But NOW, since I make so much more money, and NOW, since ex-wifey went back to school, and NOW, since I have custody of my child, it MUST be unfair!!!! She deserves for me to pay her something right? Since I worked my butt off to make so much and she has so little!
"
April 15th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
someone get rid of "IG"...sounds like a troll, unless I read that wrong.
April 15th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
This concept you are talking about is handled with spousal maintenance.
In regards to child support, no parent should have to pay more than the childrens actual substinance needs and those costs should be shared equally. If one or both parents can't afford their share to maintain at least poverty in how they want to work it out, it's the states problem and then the percent of the parents income for qualification for welfare benefits comes into play.
These welfare programs don't work for non-needy families and every enforcement action for non-needy families needs to qualify for services instead of only having applied. It's the application for services without qualification that is unfair for non-needy families and by them doing this it is allowing the states to use their unlimited special interest powers to take advantage of the American family. -HD
April 15th, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Microeconomists who study utility theory with respect to the choices made by adults in families as it relates to having children, show that children are seen as a positive-utility producing "good".
In other words, people have children because they enjoy having their own children in their lives.
This also implies that in a split family, each parent loses this form of value when they lose some custody of their child.
What is bizarre is that the evolved convention is to:
1. punish men by depriving them of the enjoyment of being with their children
2. punish men again by taking all of their money.
Obviously, many a many would gladly pay an ex to HAVE THEIR CHILDREN IN THEIR LIVES.
But of course, that would never do in our society.
Better to act like children are a terrible inconvenience to the parent having custody, and therefore send a big whopping bill to the other parent.
It is through that type of injustice that the family courts are guaranteed lots of litigation.
And of course, that is what they are all about now isn't it? Lots of business for their friends on the bar. Lots of money for those who will hire the same judges when the judges wish to retire.
April 15th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
"she was the children's primary caregiver during the marriage"
Who gave the mother her primary care? The husband and father I presume. Who pays him for having cared for mom? It comes down to who does what in the marriage, funny thing is team work never seems to come into it.
Does dad get diaper changing credits at divorce time?
Child support, alimony and the idea that the mother should somehow be compensated for doing what she chose to do is a projection of our fixation with MONEY MONEY MONEY.
The courts, crusaders, do gooders and the arm chair super intellectuals need to get out of peoples lives and stop using money as an influence to induce families to fight,,,,,,for profit.
April 15th, 2009 at 5:14 pm
Wow I want to get a job that I will work at part time for 5 years....then quit that job and get a RAISE for NOT working !
Which is exactly what Alimony, palimony and child support play out to.
April 15th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
My ex used her ridiculous weekend schedule and availability during the school week (yes, while the kids are at school) to "win" a recommendation of primary custody back in the early days of our custody battle. Once she got the kids and a big fat "child support check" every month, she promptly took a 8-5 day job and still had the kids and the CS checks. What's worse, she told me that this was the exact tack she would take and the powers that be went right along with her and right over me.
She makes good money. I made better money.
I'm now unemployed (involuntarily). If I had any guts (or thought there was a snowball's chance in hell it would work) - I would file a petition for primary custody, show the judge the recommendation and logic from years ago when we went through a custody evaluation... claim my availability during the day puts me in a "better position to tend to the children's day-to-day needs" and I should expect to get custody and a nice child support check, right?
April 15th, 2009 at 5:35 pm
THIS attitude or perspective represented in this write up by Glenn is one of the major problems driving the current divorce nightmare. Why does the mother DESERVE to be compensated for CHOOSING to stay home?
Here in America, isn't a marriage nothing but a free choice, free will, decision to engage in a contract?
If both sides mutually agree to certain things, then if the marriage/contract fails, why does one party OWE the other when BOTH parties made their decision on their own accord and without a gun to their head?
If EITHER parent agrees to stay home then they should understand the potential down side if things do not work out. Both sides should recognize there is risk in any contract.
Under the current setup the parent who works to support the family is irrelevent in the equation except when it comes to their ability to provide welfare to the other parent.
If any parent has to be chosen as primary, then the children should be given to the parent who has the greater means to take care of them which is the parent who usually has more income. FORCING the parent with more income to become like the US Government and provide welfare to the other parent does nothing to incentivize the recipient to better their lives by getting education, job training, etc...they just milk the other parent as long as the judges allow. Just look how alimony is handled - as long the recipient does not marry they get the money for however long the judge permits = incentive = do not marry or you lose your welfare.
When you are the one being milked, stolen from, forced into being a welfare provider for the other grown adult, then you can say you walked a mile in many of our shoes.
Until then you dont know how is is to be in the position of welfare provider for another drown adult and have no rights to do anything about it. Shut up and give us your money.
If you are the breadwinner, primary MONEY provider, the one NOT defined as the primary caregiver of your own flesh and blood (I don't know how they have clothes or eat or play ball without the money u bring in), then you are the one that will get the short end of the stick under current law.
Marriage = Buyer Beware
April 15th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I think money should be taken out of the equation - period. Each partner gets 50% custody and NO money changes hands. This is the only way to ensure money is not a motivating factor for either party, and then it truly WILL be about the children.
As for spousal support, I do believe in some cases a support payment, for a defined time period of no more than 4 years (enough to get a diploma or degree) should be given if training is needed for a partner that spent many years outside the workforce.
April 15th, 2009 at 6:28 pm
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvhIMT4iu5Q
Is the message presented in the youtube video incorrect?
April 15th, 2009 at 6:41 pm
2ndwife too Says:
April 15th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
I think money should be taken out of the equation - period. Each partner gets 50% custody and NO money changes hands. This is the only way to ensure money is not a motivating factor for either party, and then it truly WILL be about the children.
Exactly... But that will never happen because these women are getting $$$$$ for this... And they want to keep getting free $$$$ who wouldn't... They will fight you tooth and nail before they will give up their money.. The hell with the men! Pimp the system...
April 15th, 2009 at 6:42 pm
razor Says:
April 15th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
someone get rid of "IG"...sounds like a troll, unless I read that wrong.
I'm no troll razor... Just very sarcastic...
We must stop the "oppression" of women you know. :-)
April 15th, 2009 at 6:56 pm
2ndwife too
“Each partner gets 50% custody and NO money changes hands. This is the only way to ensure money is not a motivating factor for either party, and then it truly WILL be about the children.”
I have enjoyed many of the posts here, but I was waiting for someone to say just what you did.
I would think it would be far greater for children to learn economics 101 then to be taught that everyone has a right to live well. What does it say to a child when they see a person who chooses to work in a low stress low pay job and yet lives in a big house and eats out all the time? Or witness their other parent working 60 hours a week at a good job and living in a trailer park?
Don’t get me wrong, I do favor a temporary bridge to help gain financial independence. However this seemingly endless parade of incentive checks has gotten out of hand.
All the best
April 15th, 2009 at 7:47 pm
The system is really messed up. It rewards women who stay at home and refuse to work, and punishes women who do work.
In my case, one of the reasons for the divorce is that she would not contribute financially, now thanks to her laziness, she gets more child support than she would have received if she had helped out.
She still doesn't work and lives off of child support and alimony.
She didn't sacrifice her earning potential to care for the kids, she just didn't want to work and is now being rewarded for it.
April 15th, 2009 at 8:26 pm
I’m with you, but I still don’t understand it.
Every time I speak with the ex (which is not something I enjoy) the first thing that comes out of her mouth is how much she hates working. This was a stay at home mom for years. What did she think would happen if she got a divorce? I am starting to believe that it’s a mental disorder (some men have it also). Or maybe the grass just looked greener at the time.
She would tell me how guys were just waiting for her to get a divorce so that they could go out (how do you respond to that). What she didn’t know was that a married women looks much better (due to the challenge) to some guys then a single mom tagging along three kids.
Now she wants to start dating with me (yes, the ex). After trying to take our children, the house and my money she now informs me that I should wine and dine her. I think silently “why in blank blank would I do that” and how can she possibly feel like there is even a remote chance of that happening. I just keep my distance and don’t bother trying to figure it out anymore because the hits just keep on coming.
BTW: I use to be very angry with her but now I just feel pity, perhaps that’s part of the trap.
All the best
April 15th, 2009 at 8:55 pm
Glenn,
I have studied child support systems in as many as a dozen countries (the rationale was to find a place where it is still possible for a man to raise a family without being thrown under the bus if wifey gets bored - or greedy).
I haven't found one country (other than the US) where the income of the non-custodial parent is taken into consideration when determining child support obligations. It is simply not part of the equation (and it is not even entered anywhere on the forms used to compute CS).
I believe this is true in Canada, UK, Spain, France, Australia, New Zealand and a bunch of other countries I studied... The US is the only country I know of, where to determine the cost of raising a child, we look at the income of the mother.
I believe fathers have only an obligation to the child, and possibly daycare. The income of the mother is absolutely irrelevant. If the mother is poor, and we as a society feel like it would benefit her and the child to be helped, then let the WELFARE STATE do it.
I think Glenn misunderstands the responsibilities here:
- the parents are responsible for providing for the child
- the welfare state is responsible for providing for citizens that fall behind
Now, the details of welfare programs should be decided collectively by taxpayers..
April 15th, 2009 at 10:22 pm
The divorce applicant makes their own choice. If that applicant be a mother with no income, she chooses to dissolve her relationship and chooses a life of self manufactured poverty.
I always wondered, if the courts really wanted to benefit the children then why give them to the parent least likely to be able to afford them?
April 15th, 2009 at 11:55 pm
I really enjoy reading these posts, and pretty much agree with all of them. That said, I think that Glenn is only trying to frame the debate. This "position" is "problematic" just like he says. We have to go beyond truth and justice to look at the political debate. When we mention money or CS in the same discussion as shared parenting, we lose credibility. Let our opponents bring up the money, because we all know that for them, it is all about the money. Just as one stated in an earlier post, most all of us would gladly give up the money if we could only have meaningful contact with our children. So for most of us, shared parenting is probably our highest priority, and it would be nice to be able to take the high road and not discuss child support.
But it's not that simple is it? For many of us, staying out of jail is a big priority right now because we might have lost our jobs. All non custodial parents are potential felons just one job loss away from incarceration, whose immediate priority upon job loss is to retain an attorney just to stay out of jail. I did some back-of-the-napkin calculations using basic assumptions. If 5.1 million people have lost employment since the recession began, I project that at least 75,000 non-custodial dads will be incarcerated due to job loss if immediate relief is not granted in some form. There's no law in Texas granting such relief (automatically). You have to prevail in court, and we all know too well how that goes. Most of these people are just going to go to jail and get further behind (and have the arrears doubled for attorney fees and interest, etc.) Deadbeats as they call us.
So I and a group of other dads were at the legislature recently shopping a few bills, one of which was a straight-forward "child support obligors who suffer job loss are automatically entitled to a (temporary) modification of their support orders" ...duh, right? Real complicated legislation. Man, you would have thought we were trying to get salmonella approved as a food additive.
Now after the diatribe, here's what Glenn is talking about. The people who are having some success with the same legislature on a shared parenting bill wanted nothing to do with the group shopping the bills such as the one cited above. The argument being "any mention of CS is death to shared parenting legislation."
How do we reconcile these positions?
April 15th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Shhhh! Bell, you're asking the wrong question! Women's equality is supposed to be about women's empowerment and doing what they like and having fun careers. They can live up to responsibility when it suits a few of them, or when that doesn't involve _having_ to get a job rather than live off of alimony if it suits her, or going on welfare and having children into poverty, or getting a socialist nanny state to take care of the childcare costs if they can't find a liberated man who both earns lots of money and does at least half the home chores.
Come on! Doesn't that sound reasonable to you? And what's even more reasonable is that if we defend women's absolute right to equality and hope that more than a few of them catch on, it will work out real soon.
Care to buy a house? It's a great time to buy!
April 15th, 2009 at 11:58 pm
Thomas, Australia has changed their formula to include both incomes:
Formula = {(Payers CAP Income - Exempt Income) - [(Payees Income - Disregarded Amount) / 2]} x Child Support Percentage
Example for 2 children:
Formula = {(113,763 - 15,378) - [(100,000 - 45,505) / 2]} x 27%
Estimate = $19,207 Per Year
The formula also includes allowances for children from other relationships and different levels of shared custody.
Also, the formulas vary by state in the US. In Nevada, for example, they only consider the non-custodial parents income in the statutory formula.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:10 am
AlanPaustin, I appreciate what you're saying but note that from what I read at NYMOM's blogger website, she'll still say that shared parenting is about men being "greedy" and out of paying child-support. Taking the "high road" is just a sign of weakness and blood-in-the-water to these people. Either say that the men should all pay child-support anyway, in ALL cases even with shared custody, or just don't bother.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:09 am
In this case it would neither be fair to the woman nor productive for the children for there to be no financial support from the father to the mother. In effect, the mother is being punished because she diminished her earning capacity to be the children's primary caregiver. Also, her ability to care for her kids and provide for them when they're with her is compromised.
Huh? How do you figure it's not fair? It's already unfair that the spouse who doesn't work is going to get at least half of the marital assets. That's not taking into account that more marital income is spent on the wife than on the husband.
And I don't like the notion that she "gave up" her career to have children. She made a choice to have children and she has to be responsible for that choice. Blaming her husband later on for the income she "gave up" is ridiculous. Will he be reimbursed for all the time he lost with his kids because he was the sole provider?
If wifey wants to leave she gives up the right to her husbands income and all the benefits that come with it--that's what divorce should be. What we have now is the woman is divorced from any obligation to her husband but the husband isn't divorced from his obligations to his wife.
Maybe if we make divorce more onerous for both parties--but women in particular since they fill for 70+% of all divorces--then maybe we won't have a 50% divorce rate in the first place.
April 16th, 2009 at 2:57 am
"Maybe if we make divorce more onerous for both parties--but women in particular since they fill for 70+% of all divorces--then maybe we won't have a 50% divorce rate in the first place."
Make it more onerous for the party fileing and i'm with you. Making it more onerous for the woman is just as wrong as anything that exists at the moment. At least at the moment things aren't specificaly worse for the man (as in it's worded that way in the law), they're just worse for anyone in the male role, (Not counting judicial male predjudice which is more cultural than legal)
April 16th, 2009 at 10:53 am
"How about this...if dad made a unilateral decision to leave then he is required to make up some difference as he's broken the implied contract. If mom is making 30K and decides to leave then she has broken the contract and deserves only what "the wallet" decides. She shouldn't be able to unilaterally end the contract, not provide any of her requirements, but expect him to perform his."
Exactly. The benefits of marriage are for the married. What has caused the decline of marriage and family in the first place? It's been the gradual extension of all the benefits, rights and responsibilities of marriage to those who either chose not to marry in the first place or chose to end a marriage. No wonder it's called "just a piece of paper."
Yes, bring back fault divorce.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:19 pm
The dad, a relative, is left by his wife because she has a new boyfriend. She takes the kids, he works job that pays $13K a year, she owns a business. He is hit with a $12K a year child support commitment and an arbitrary $5K in arrears by the court. She spends the last 6 years doing everything in her power to keep the dad from seeing his kids. Ignoring every visitation court order, and getting away with it in court. He has paid over $90K in child support over the last 6 years by borrowing from family and friends. Child Support Services refused to review his case until Jan of 2009, after repeated requests. Now the review is done and his support should be lowered by the court. He waited 3 months to be heard and instead of hearing him, the judge put him in jail, for the second time in a year for being a "deadbeat dad". He has three kids he loves dearly. They love being with him. The man is destitute, in jail and living with a relative. There is no money for a lawyer. I am his relative, I am a 59 year feminist. This is not a feminist issue, this is a humanity issue, and somebody needs to step up.
April 16th, 2009 at 12:28 pm
"I am his relative, I am a 59 year feminist. This is not a feminist issue, this is a humanity issue, and somebody needs to step up."
Hate to break it to you Elaine, but the reason why it's possible to do that stuff, and the reason why it's acceptable (even desireable) to do that stuff to him is 100% the result of feminist lobbying and "public awareness campaigns".
Your friend is where he is, in some measure, because of feminist thinking and dogma. And you being a feminist means that yes, you personally share a small slice of the guilt in doing this to men, and your friend in particular.
Maybe if you would have said something before it came to this, he wouldn't be suffering. But you had the power to help effect change, and didn't do it.
Could that be because it didn't affect you then?
April 16th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Elaine - "I am his relative, I am a 59 year feminist. This is not a feminist issue, this is a humanity issue, and somebody needs to step up."
While you may not personally consider it to be a feminist issue, the "gender feminists" certainly have seen it that way. And they have been the ones who have aggressively steered policy towards and anti-male bent.
You seem like a very fine and caring person, but, all too often, the first time many women ever consider the potential consequence men face as a result feminist-inspired gender-biased laws is when a friend of loved-one comes to be adversely affected.
If you' d like to step up, remind your feminist friends that men are people too; and that unintended (or, perhaps intended) consequence do hurt these people very badly, as you've now seen.
April 16th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
If the woman or the man divorces for little or no reason, the petitioner ought to get little or no money and little or no property.
If the woman is divorcing her husband because he just put her through school. Or that she is bored so is having sex with other women and men, for example, if she ought to get zero - no kids, no money, no property.
At every divorce DNA test ought to mandatory to establish without doubt who the parents are.
April 16th, 2009 at 3:40 pm
My opinion is that when the marriage is dissolved, the responsibility to the other party is dissolved along with it. If she only makes a third, or a tenth or whatever fraction of his income, because she stayed home, she wasted her time and shouldn't be rewarded for sitting on her butt. Child support should not be a proxy for alimony. People are not entitled to life insurance, but while some people have the means and foresight to plan for their absence, yet the court does not compel married people to take out insurance on the primary wage earner. It's a personal decision for that couple on how (or if) to mitigate the risk of losing their partner.
Abandonment used to be enough of a deterrent for women not to cheat, not to have other men's babies while married. Our current system actually rewards women for getting caught having an affair, a situation that her husband does not benefit from. If anyone cheats, *he* loses.
When you're divorced you're on your own. Women and feminists decided that they're equal to men in the eyes of the law, that they're just as compentant as men, and therefore, should be held to the same standards of accountability. If they can't provide for their children, they should be concerned enough for the children to *consider* that the parent with the larger earnings might be better able to care for the children, and women don't have a right to be a stay at home parent, let alone continue to be one after the divorce.
Taking the money out of custody will go a long way to reducing the fallout from an already adversarial system. Stop rewarding women for filing for divorce. I'm not saying that you should punish them, but at least make the situation equitable.
Just because I ate at a restaraunt yesterday, I don't expect to go back in there today and get dinner without paying for it. In the same light, I'm not going to pay them again for the dinner I ate yesterday, because they were "used" to it.
No, if you want to sit in your sexist, stay-at-home-mom role, it shouldn't be used to justify from robbing money from your ex on a monthly basis when it suits your purposes later. Take responsibility for your own life.
April 16th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
That "surprized" feminist got me thinking......
Do feminists and polititcians/lawyers/judges/teachers/social workers/journalists ever have sons? Isn't it a human reaction to love all your children, regardless of gender, the same? So why are grown men suddendly treated like monsters? Every one of them is somebody's son. What the h#ll is wrong with these people?! (rehtorical questions, but feel free to answer if you want).
April 16th, 2009 at 6:59 pm
All together now folks: in Western society, women have choices; men have responsibilities.
April 16th, 2009 at 8:11 pm
Glenn,
Guess I wasn't too off base huh? You really need to clarify some things to your readers.
And offended_dad, how could you possibly say anything about taking responsibility of your own life? Don't you know that if you don't get what you want you can always get the libs to give it to you for free?
April 16th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
2ndwifetoo, we have a poster similar to what you describe, Jeana, who is clearly experiencing the phenomenon known as "cognitive dissodence" where she has a struggle between caring about her son and justifying entitlements for herself due to her gender.
Note that I didn't say anything about her husband or father. That's because these men were introduced to her as providers and protectors she didn't have an immediate emotional stake in taking care of. In the case of her husband and boyfriends, she could use sexual extortion to filter out men who dared to show her that men had emotional or financial needs.
Modern women not only tend to dehumanize men as objects to be exploited but also children as well. What responsible woman, for example, would brainwash or deny her children a father simply as a power game to get a little family court money? What kind of woman would deliberately have children out of wedlock and put them into poverty? Women from my grandmother's generation and my foreign born wife find such notions unthinkable but they're common here in the states. I also know women who are full blown psychopaths who play games with other women. Consequently, many women in the states (including these women themselves) distrust other women as friends. If you want some fun, check out the Real Housewives series on Bravo.
Part of the blame, admittantly, falls upon men who make excuses for these women because they want to please their mommy or crave sexual acceptance. It's strange to me because while I had pretty strong urges to have sex in my teens and 20's, I found that by my 30's I had an attitude towards sex the same as I do towards my favorite foods. I enjoyed them when I had them, but I didn't die if I didn't get them everyday. Perhaps the sex drive is just stronger or has a stronger emotional effect on other men? It's strange to me that men's judgements can be clouded by sex and mommy issues for most of their lives past the age of 30 or so.
April 17th, 2009 at 7:30 am
If you listen to Dr Laura preach her rhetoric about how women SHOULD stay home and care for the children ya da ya da yet NOTHING about if that the case, then the woman SHOULD stay married and not divorce the man when they are "unfulfilled."
Used to be SAH mom was not stay in BED mom like today. Watch a little Oprah, eat an sleep; meanwhile the baby's diapers remain unchanged for hours. There was actual HOUSEWORK involved as well as cooking and, oh yes, wifely duties, ahem;
Todays stay in bed mom does not feel she needs to do housework, childcare, financial duties, kitchen or wifely duties,
April 17th, 2009 at 8:42 am
polishknight, I agree with you totally. Women in this country, for the most part, are too brainwashed with entitlement and the princess syndrome to ever be considered good wives. Like you, I now am dating a foreign born woman from south america. She says it is so strange seeing this culture where women have all the power and families mean nothing to them. I must say, it is quite refreshing to find someone totally untouched by feminism, and still believes that family is number one.
April 17th, 2009 at 10:42 am
Razor, I feel a need to warn men reading that not all foreign cultures are untouched by feminism nor are all these women safe. I know that sounds obvious, but it needs to be said. On this forum, there's an article about how Costa Rican women are throwing out foreign men from their own apartments or homes based upon allegations of DV. There are bad women in every culture just as there are good women. By the time I had grown and traveled I could have found a good woman in the states but, by then, I had met so many wonderful foreign women I didn't bother.
To be fair, American men also leave a lot to be desired and some foreign women will consider them to be too wimpy or unsophisticated (but most smart foreign women know that like a dull penny the men can be shined up.) Also, our culture has evolved recently into a "hook up" culture where traditional dating has been replaced by shack-ups. When I was coming of age the concept of getting sex on the third date was radical but now there often isn't any dating at all. This means that if a decent looking man uses a condom and other precautions they can have lots of sex but on the other hand it kills relationships and drains women emotionally.
What I'm saying is that American culture is dysfunctional and I don't blame the women for this. Men need to share in some of the blame and responsibility and show leadership in helping to solve the problem.
April 17th, 2009 at 11:53 am
The overall, helps-the-most-people / least-of-all-evils scenario:
More marriages, which tend to be durable. Fewer divorces and with reduced perverse incentives such that one gender does not greatly out-file-first the other in order to obtain these incentives.
April 17th, 2009 at 1:31 pm
Be careful of foreign born women too, I've known a few men whose foreign wives left (and took 1/2 their assets) after a few years and a Canadian Passport issued. Of course there are many successful relationships with foreign men or women too, but it has risks.
I agree there are many women who choose to be a SAHM, but then don't want to do any work, so they get a maid, nanny and spend all their time at the gym. Alot of women in N. America have a sense of entitlement and are unapprciative of what they have in their lives (family, men, women friends, love, children, homes, food). How many women say "I'm just not happy" when they really should be. It is something within that is missing.
June 1st, 2009 at 12:19 pm
The family courts in the US has really entered into the slave trade if you think about the
parallels to the pre-civil war era of the plantation owner. In the instance that a Judge
writes a support order that is impossible to comply with. Which has been done to tens of millions of US adults over the past decade. Which even more prevalent in todays economic crisis. When support orders are above what a person can pay the arrears are destine to accumulate. There are an abundant number of cases. Probably tens of millions. If the parent can not ever get financially even that person is enslaved to the state. Judges are reluctant to reduce support payments even during hardship. It is not unusual for a person to be 10's of thousands of dollars in arrears. The person can never become free of the state. The possibility of debtors prison is ever present. Both slavery and debtors prison has been outlawed. But the state engages in their practices under the guise of different
names. You might say Family Court Judges violate the US Constitution and their oath
of office as a matter of routine. Without consequence. It should be interesting to see
what happens as more and more people become aware of what Family Court Judges
have been doing. As the number of people intimate with corruption increase.
August 10th, 2009 at 1:55 pm
I am all for men getting equal access to raising children...which seems to be a popualr idea now that they are being required to pay child support. They should be treated fairly, and handled on a case by case basis. However, it is the woman who bears the child for 9 months, and is usually limited in her ability to do both child rearing and work full time. Staying home, raising a child is a job, which somehow is going un noticed by labor statistics, and earnings. I say if men want to stay home and raise children, cool....but just becuase he earns more money is no indicator he is any more qualified to care for a child. If a mother stays home, cares for the kids..why would a guy think he is more qualified if he isn't doing it? Is he staying home to care for sick chidren taking time off from his high paying job. Not usually, he is deferring it to his "unpaid" baby's mama/wife or domestic partner.
Men and women are biologically different......women bear children, men do not. Since the beginning of time men have been the one to hunt for food and shelter for their families, where women typically care for children. The womens movement, or mens interest in raising children, does not change the biological facts that exist. It is the norm, not the exception which we need to concentrate on.
Men need to take care of the families...they make more money, they don't have to take time out to have children, and should not have any advantage based on how much they earn.
September 10th, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I'd would love to know what others think about my current situation. My husband became disabled 9 years ago and is on Social Security Disability. I have been our sole support.fianancailly and in all other ways.
Several Months ago I caught him in an affair... not such a strange story. but in his case it's another man. Since I have been seeing a Pchycologist and am Depressed. I had never even dreamed I would ever see a pchycologist before I discovered he was gay or bi-sexual. I wanted to stay with him as I loved him desperately even though I also ended up finding a match.com men seeking men profile he set up, followed by a nude male picture of one his long term also married "friends" on his cell.
Last Tuesday, I came home from work to a post it note on my kitchen couter saying I'm leaving you. He had cleared out his clothing and personal items and some electronics. I was served with Divorce papers today.
In them he states he could not deal with my depression and attitude for the past several months. He is asking for over 50% of what my take home pay was last year in a Emergency Temporay Support order requested without oral hearing.
Before he left, he made arrangements for his disability payments to be direct deposited to a new individaul checking account he opened. The failure of that money to be deposited to our joint checking accout caused our mortgage payment to bounce. My take home pay is only about 35% of what it has been in the last 5 years due to the economy. I am in sales for the staffing industry so duh.. there are very limited sales opportunities in this economy.
He has not spoken to me at all and placed a restraining order so that I could not call his cell or email him or any of his family members anymore. Without his disability moeny I have no way to pay our mortgage. Why should I have to pay him support if I can't pay the mortgage? My pshcologist now wants to pull me out of work and have me go to an in-house treatment program. I can't do that as I will have no way to support myself or defend myself in this divorce proceeding... I am being told by the attorneys I have spoken to so far that I will be forced to pay him support for the rest of his life due to his disability. We are in Ohio so apparently "fault" is not considered at all in granting spousal support???
September 10th, 2009 at 6:51 pm
Dana, this is becoming a more common scenario as women start to earn more than men. Stay at home moms have the capacity to generate sympathy by playing the victim. I imagine a disabled person might also get the benefit of the doubt from the court.
If you were a man, you could probably expect a lifetime alimony award set at some % of your "imputed" income (i.e. the income the judge thinks you COULD earn if you really applied yourself). Given that you're a woman (pardon if my assumption is wrong) then you MAY be treated more leniently by the judge and be allowed to base the alimony calculation on your actual income. Worst case might be transferring half of the difference in your imputed annual incomes for life. This suggests you would probably lose the house (if you don't find a room mate or ten).
A couple of suggestions: use mediation (it's cheaper) and settle at any amount (and period) you think is even halfway reasonable, You might consider the hardball tactic of having yourself voluntarily committed (thus losing job and house). On the up side, your actual income will be close to zero so you might get out of having to pay alimony (at least initially). Try to make sure that any alimony order is NON-MODIFIABLE (particularly upwards) or you could be ordered to start paying alimony as soon as you begin work again. Avoid a trial like the plague - the lawyers just want to run up billable hours.
P.S. I'm not a lawyer so this is not legal advice - just the voice of bitter experience.
September 10th, 2009 at 6:53 pm
P.S. I notice you can buy an Ohio spousal support calculator on line which may give you a starting point to deciding what is "reasonable". In mine case, my ex kept insisting on 50-80% more than any calculations, which makes it basically impossible to settle.
September 10th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
Dana:
Now you know why we are here, doing this. Welcome to the club.
My only advice to you is get used to living, and being happy, with much less than you have right now.
These are the effects of female entitlement coming back to rest on women, and while I sympathize with your plight, I can't help but feel that there needs to be a whole lot more women just like you before anyone will bother changing things. Ergo, in a twisted sort of way, I'm glad to see it happen. And for that, I apologize.
October 31st, 2009 at 4:47 pm
I am a single father of two girls. My ex wife and I have been divorced for over two years and she has paid a total of 1k for child support. She owe just over 5k. I was working a decent paying job before and since am not I am a full time student and father and i work from home. I still support my children without her, but the problem i have is this.
1. She was told she had to pay 215 a month for two children which is totally not what would of happened if she received child support.
2. she does not pay her child support yet calls and acts like she is a contributing parent and she is not.
3. when asked about child support she says well and i remarried and a stay at home mom so i cant pay it...how fair is that? I support my children and i work from home.
FYI
she moved out of state and remarried and has another child
she has visitation and joint custody
I truly feel that discrimination is agaisnt me the male here then the female and I am not sure how i can fight it.. i am already low on funds i spent all reserves fighting for my children