'He takes his bitch on trips, and is never there for the kids'
August 11th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Background: In my recent blog post Women Tell It: 'Hell Hath No Fury...', I discussed a new book about second wives. The book discusses vindictive, "hell hath no fury" ex-wives who destroy fathers' relationships with their children and extort money from them--from the perspective of these men's current wives.
I've asserted that often it's the woman who dumps the man and then is bitter that he finds someone else, and the book provides some examples.
The letter below is from a female reader who didn't like what I wrote.
"I think as a ex-wife I can say that men want the cake and bring a jug of milk, too! I have 4 children, and my ex is still with the woman he left us for. I can say that this slut woman comes before his children. Am I upset? Damn right. I could care less who he puts in his bed, but do I care if my children have what they should have or need. He takes his bitch on trips, and is never there for the kids. Oh, and this woman came to my baby shower for my last son, to let me know my ex was with her. As to child support, it isn't enough to cover basic needs.
"The facts show that a child's living standard goes down by 48% [after divorce]. That is a lot, but the men don't have to look the kids in the eye and see the hurt when you tell them they can't have something or play a sport because you can't afford it. Just so long as daddy is happy!
"Maybe if men had to have the children, they wouldn't walk away so easy. Men can't ever do the right thing. They smell fresh you know what, and they're off and running. That is why so many kids grow up without fathers. As to being a bad ex....I stay as far away from him as I can. What goes around, comes around. I don't want my children or myself near him when it all comes down. And men know it will, because karma is the real bitch here, and she kicks hard. So man up and do right by your kids, even when you didn't by your ex."
"));
19 queries. 0.432 seconds.
August 11th, 2007 at 1:37 am
Lady,
If you're struggling for money, get a job.
That's what we men have been told from the day we leave our parent's home (actually, for some years before).
Some whining and act like an equal.
August 11th, 2007 at 2:00 am
Maybe if women acted like women and accepted accountability, examples like this would cease. It takes two and I am quite sure that this woman was not immaculately conceived in her mother's womb. Perhaps if she acted like a wife and was self-sacrificial, then perhaps, just perhaps, this situation would never have come to fruition.
August 11th, 2007 at 2:10 am
If karma is the force this lady contends it is, then I suspect there are a few million women and their lawyers in this country who should be mindful of the type of karma they have earned for themselves by their deeds.
August 11th, 2007 at 2:15 am
So a couple gets divorced and al the money that went to support one home now goes to support two, lets see 100 divided by two equals 50
As you can see basic math holds this princeable to be true.
Dont want your kis stanndard of living to go down, dont get divorced, better yet dont have kids.
If and when I ever get married, I will not have kids until after the 5th or 6th aniversery - got to make sure a marrige is strong before you ruin some kids life.
Personally I would like to see a study on how often childern born are truly unanted by one parent or the other or both and how exactly the pregnacy occured. How often do you hear of guys "doing the right thing" and marry the pregnant girl, how often have you heard someone say "I thought a baby would make /our marrige stronger / him settle down / me feel loved"
How many pregnacies are really accidental? And if they ever start marketing a real form of birth control to men how many accidents will stop happeneing?
I wonder how a generation of children who are not accident or unwanted and not born to unfit parents will behave as they grow up.
August 11th, 2007 at 3:52 am
I had these problems --more problems than the letter writer-- when I was a struggling lone father. Many lone fathers have problems as bad or worse than this letter writer. I would never blame all women for my ex-wife's bad behavior. I would not lay her bad behavior on the head of all women. I doubt if any lone father would.
Letter writer: Why do YOU think YOU can get away with sexism?
Here's the thing, some people behave badly. Life is hard, what's that, the second Dharma? Something like that at any rate. We make mistakes and marry bad people, it happens. Or we have bad luck and marry a good person who has been hurt beyond endurance. These things happen, one does one's best to cope.
Now though, we face a BIG problem: That is, the belief amongst a significant minority of our population that contempt for innocent boys & men is a good thing!
How do YOU think YOUR contempt for men effects YOUR son?
The effect will be BAD, really bad. Oh, the effect will not show up until he's in his thirties or forties. You likely will never see it, but the effect will be there and will be BAD.
Now, what good have YOU done?
August 11th, 2007 at 8:58 am
To the letter writer, jw hit the nail on the head and the other posters above jw's post are all correct (it is taking me a long time to write this, not sure who might post after jw and before me). I choose to leave my ex-husband, our child and I lived in a shoe-box of an apartment for over a year before I was able to afford something better. At that point I could afford better because I worked harder and got a better job, not because I counted on him to 'pay my way'. Yes, he pays child support and I can count on it like clockwork, but that support will come to an end in less than a year. When the support does end I still have to be able to pay my own way. There is no alimony. I don't expect him to support me, just his child. (For those who do not know already, he is military and all over the globe, therefore CS in this case is needed. Otherwise, I would have been fine with 50/50 custody and no support.) If you do not like your current/new lifestyle then YOU do something about it. If you are not happy about his new wife, then you should have worked harder on your marriage while you still had it. If it was a lost cause then it was a lost cause, MOVE ON ALREADY! My ex is not only remarried, but also has a new child. I say good for him. I am neither happy for him nor hate him for being happy. I am neutral on that particular point. I think the most important point you are missing is keeping his children from him. Yes, you are hurting him by not allowing him to have time with his children, but you are hurting the children more. They are the real victims here. If you do not allow them to have a relationship with their father here is what is going to happen: 1- they will grow up with a complex, thinking their father hates them. 2- once they are older and realize what you have done, they will hate YOU. 3- they will not be able to have a good relationship with anyone else because they have too many internal issues and do not have a good role model for what a good relationship is.
There is so much more I could say to you, but there is limited time in the day and I do have a family to spend time with and things we need to do. Bottom line, it would be in the best interest of the children and YOU for you to get along with their father and his new wife. What they do in their own time is their business and NONE of your business.
August 11th, 2007 at 9:06 am
One more thing. No matter what else happens, he is and always will be their father. Not even God himself can change that fact now. There were life decisions made by you and by your ex, mistakes were made, feelings got hurt, but the children had nothing to do with it. Stop punishing them for it. Grow up.
August 11th, 2007 at 9:14 am
When people write in and use trailer trash language it negates most if not all of what they have to say.
"As to child support, it isn't enough to cover basic needs."
It does not need to cover your basic needs, it should cover 1/2 what the children cost above and beyond your expenses. So all child support should cover is the cost of upgrading due to extra people. For rent, if it is $500 for a 1 bdrm and $600 for a 2 bdrm child support only needs to cover 1/2 of that $100 difference. The base $500 is the mother's to pay, as is 1/2 the $100 difference. If the food bill would be $200 for the mother a month and it is $350 with the kids, the child support should only be 1/2 the $150 difference. The base $200 is to feed the mother, that is her responsibility, as is 1/2 the $150. Also, any time the kids spend with the non-custodial parent needs to be deducted from these totals. Child support is not mother support, if you do not have enough money, you need to find a better job or give the kids to the parent who can support them.
"Maybe if men had to have the children, they wouldn't walk away so easy. Men can't ever do the right thing."
Wow, what a completely bigotted statement. Men can't ever do the right thing? How does your son(s) feel about that? Remember they are young men too.
Why don't you give your husband the kids full time? Give him, say, 3 months with you visiting on the current visitation schedule, and see how he and the kids do? You may be suprised. Of course the biggest suprise will likely be how much of a stranger in your kid's life you may become only seeing them the allotted 4 days a month and how you are never there for them. But hey, your ex has it so easy now without the kids, you will probably be living the Life of Riley and won't have a care in the world.
August 11th, 2007 at 11:39 am
'Seems fairly clear why he left...
August 11th, 2007 at 12:00 pm
One more reason my mantra is:
DON'T
GET
MARRIED
!
August 11th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
It is true, by and large (and the exception always proves the rule) that:
1. Women see men more as a wallet than a father.
2. Women see men as expendable and will actively and maliciously engage in PAS, more often than not.
3. Don't believe in equality, unless it is to their advantage and a man's disadvantage.
4. Will pull out the "be a man" bullshit card when it suits to them, rather than be held to a standard of equality and parity.
5. Need I go on?
Don't get married, if you are a man, it is effectively a death sentence.
August 11th, 2007 at 2:16 pm
The other problem I see on this blog is that men tend to get a pass on everything, feminism in reverse if you will. The answer isn't not getting married, it's making a good choice on whom you marry. Sorry, but there are no shortage of men that think it's just great the woman they're dating is really impressed with their car and Visa card then act shocked when they "pretend" to realize the woman was just after someone to pay her bills.
August 11th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Couple of things, some somewhat address, some not.
If she thinks that kids standards of living drop by 48% she found the one article, since self-refuted by the author, that cites that.
Fact is, spread out over several studies, that kids standard of living goes UP.
I am certain the lady who says child support is not family support is well meaning, but if you look at the construction of the CS tables in most states, you will quickly determine that it is indeed, FAMILY support, a fact which the Director of DCS in the FU-WA admits publically.
And the commenter who notes the new construct in what real CS should be (half of the marginal cost of the extra household occupants) is right on.
No complicated calculations necessary.
We will work it to be so in the FU-WA, as we are just setting up a CS WorkGroup to look at the tables, and inequities.
The Geez
August 11th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
"Fact is, spread out over several studies, that kids standard of living goes UP."
I wouldn't be at all surprised.
After all, children of married parents are legally entitled to nothing at all from their parents beyond their basic needs.
Once mom and dad are divorced, however, the kids are suddenly "entitled" to a certain standard of living that the state decides is appropriate. See Glenn's previous article about the kids who were "entitled" to live in a gated community just because dad could afford it, for instance.
Discrimination if I ever saw it.
August 11th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Ah, but Tex. Only SOME of a man's children are entitled. The rest he is LEGALLY responsible for, such as after acquired children, either his or his new spouses, are not only not intitled, there are still judges that say, according to another judge, "to hell with the other children".
So, I cannlt wait for some kid's guardian to file suit, alleging unequal treatment, because their siblings are "priveleged" and they aren't. Would bring this insensitve and deleterious CS system to it's knees.
August 11th, 2007 at 8:47 pm
"Child support is not mother support, if you do not have enough money, you need to find a better job "
While Mom's working a better job, or if she needs to go back to school or get more training before she can get a better job, who's going to be taking care of the kids, taking them to afterschool activities, making dinner, helping with homework, etc...especially if Dad's already working long hours?
"or give the kids to the parent who can support them."
Why? So she can pay support to him even though he's already making much more than she is? Or, so his new wife, girlfriend, mother (or even a total stranger) can take care of the kids while *he's* at work? (Why is it that the same men who are willing to pay a babysitter or daycare to take care of the kids, become unwilling when the money goes to the mother and is called "child support?)
August 11th, 2007 at 9:38 pm
Annie said:
"While Mom's working a better job, or if she needs to go back to school or get more training before she can get a better job"
Do you think the court cares if a father states that he cannot earn the income that is imputed to him and he says he needs to go back to school to get more training before he can get a better job or earn more? Hell no. He can do what he wants but he will go in arrears and eventually go to jail. Why is it that understanding always has to be extended in the direction of the female? Let us just stop with the platitudes about equality and equity because that is not the reality. Since it is not the reality, it screams for intervention and resolution. This system is parasitic upon the children and the men, it cannot endure.
August 11th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
To Geezer:
Are you aware of this:
http://www.toprights.org/Documents/Solutions_Consolidated_Response_Final_TOP_Format.pdf
It looks like some Washington State Mens Issues organizations are keenly aware of the necessity of getting their opinion in front of the legislators.
DanH
August 11th, 2007 at 10:38 pm
Yeah, Dan, I am. I wrote parts of it, and Kevin Turner compiled it.
Eloquent sombee, aren't I, as well as the other peeps.
I had a great time sitting on this Workgroup last summer. The bill that came of it was not to our liking, so we worked it through the system, got it heavily amednded in the house committee (with the help of the gay lobby, BTW. Listen up you gaybashers--politics makes strange bedfellows and you find your friends in the oddest places sometimes)
We do have lots of street cred with DCS and the legislature in the FU-WA. That does not mean our sheyt gets adopted, but we do have a seat at the table to get our agenda out, and to do prophyllactic work on the proposals of those who would oppose us. There were four of us, and 8 others on this committee, including judges, legislators, DV divas and the obligatory lobbyist from NOW.
Thanks for the props
Mark, the Magnificent.
August 11th, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Judges imputing wages is so very, very wrong, but the law lets them do it without any indiction, let alone conviction of intent to defraud.
Men are jerked out of carees they enjoy and forced into jobs that are a poor fit. They suck it up, produce the bigger check and the Child Support System rings this up as another success as the man is slowly being ground into the dirt. I've see it first hand a couple of times. In not too many years the men were old and broken, aged well beyond their years, the kids long since drifed away from this unappealing shell of a man.
The Exes become unhappy and mean spirited as he became more and more withdrawn and resigned to his fate.
August 11th, 2007 at 11:13 pm
Thanks to the media and schools, women have this ridiculous idea that all men do is oppress and deny responsibility. They don't see that back when men took responsibility, they got something in return. Feminism has filtered down to the loewer classes, and it's now Shania Twain feminism, where the woman gets to do as she pleases (abort or not abort, put the kids up for adoption, bring in the boyfriend) and the man has to "man up." We need to get rid of that phrase, which in itself is sexist.
August 11th, 2007 at 11:52 pm
As far as imputation of income goes, check this site out:
http://www.geocities.com/rogerwknight/
August 11th, 2007 at 11:56 pm
Here is a question Annie why should anyone get money tax free for anything?
Why is it if a woman can not support herself on the money she is getting from child support you assume the guy is doing fine?
Why is it OK for children of married parent to be babysat by hired help of familly when both parents have to work but it is unacceptablefor children of divorced parents while in the custody of women?
lets say I make 120,000 a year, 10,000 a month,
I pay 1800 a month for home mortgage and insurance
I pay 1000 a month for car payments, isurance and gas
I pay 500 a month for utilities
I pay 200 a month for cell phones
I pay 100 a month for phone and internet and other bundled telecommunications
I pay 400 a month on grocieries and other misc item
That totals 4000 a month with 6000 a month left over, please note I am assuming one house no other payment such as life insurance appliance replacment any kind of electronics like dvds, tvs, video games, cable, or any of a dozen other things people routinly spend monry on with out thinking about
Now lets say I get divorced aside from cell phones and grocieres every thing doubles
Now I m paying 8000 a month with 2000 in savings - but due to stanndard of living clauses and the fact that wives are entitled to the same stanndard of living divorced that they had while married my alimoy and child support will be figured assuming I am only spending the 4000 a month I did while married. The result I have to cut back because we cant ask that ofthe ex and kids.
My business fails? Too bad I still got to pay, I get a raise she can sue for an increase in payments, I get laid off or take a pay cut I cant sue for a reduction in payments.
Are there guys that are complete asses who will stop working entirely and sponge off familly and freinds? Yes, but nowere near the number people would like to belive.
I have seen this system in action, to be perfectly honest my mother got screwed over they way most guys are, I think it might have had something to due with the fact that my mother left the mormon chruch the same time she left my father - I get the distict impression from the court records had she remained a memeber of the church the judge would have let her keep custody, just her bad luck to get a judge who cared more for religion than the law.
he problem is these days many judges care more for political expediancy that justice and it has to stop.
August 12th, 2007 at 3:41 am
Mark says men get a pass on everything on this blog.
Well maybe, maybe not. I assume you've read the women's blogs where all men are guilty of all things and at all times? A LOT of them, the overwhelming majority of women's blogs commenting on these issues. Here men do get a break, but not THAT big of a break. Here at least men have a chance. What is wrong with a bit of equality and decency?
-----------
Annie: Your list of assumptions is huge. Too huge to comment on individually.
I assume you know full well that in a third of marriages the female earns more than the male? So, it is not always the evil male out to starve the poor pity needing female.
Do you know any custodial fathers? Have you ever dealt with trying to get child support out of a woman? It's a nasty business sometimes: The dad is openly seen as evil for daring to take money from a poor pity needing female for something so minor as feeding children!
On and on and on go the lists of sexist assumptions.
Some of these guys are commenting on severe and often life threatening problems. Imputation of income being one of the nasty ones; it can and often does kill.
We fix problems by fixing them, not by throwing out sexism.
I'll freely admit that I am skeptical about our women's motivations. The letter which started this thread and your post show the reasons for that skepticism. That said, there is a HUGE difference between being skeptical and being bigoted!
August 12th, 2007 at 11:55 am
JW SAID:
"I assume you know full well that in a third of marriages the female earns more than the male?"
Right, and that means that in two thirds, i.e., the majority of marriages, the man earns more than the woman.
"So, it is not always the evil male out to starve the poor pity needing female. "
What I'm really puzzled about at this board is while many of you blather about 'equality', there's some pretty transparent anti-woman sentiment out there! Most of what I'm hearing is the "screw the witch" mentality. Where is the compassion, love and concern for the children? And if men don't want children in the first place, why don't they take responsibility for birth control, or hold off on having sex altogether?
I never said that all men were evil. I was responding to a particular post (JenK), who commented that the kids should be given to the parent who could support them financially. I was trying to make the point that it's not necessarily as black and white as that. For example, if a mother is a stay at home parent during the marriage - with the father working to financially support the family - it doesn't make sense that suddenly she should be expected to be the primary (or even the 50% contributor), if that means that now post-divorce both parents will be working full time and neither is available to actually take care of the kids.
"Do you know any custodial fathers?"
Yes, and they run the gamut from being loving, responsiblye parents to abusive, selfish and vindictive bastards. But why all the focus on "custodial"? Custody is a legal term, often used regarding imprisoning someone as in "being taken into custody". Unfortunately, I do know several fathers that fall into that category too. They have essentially imprisoned the children and use them to get back at the mothers, only demanding "custody" as the means to punish the mothers for trying to divorce them.
" Have you ever dealt with trying to get child support out of a woman? It's a nasty business sometimes: The dad is openly seen as evil for daring to take money from a poor pity needing female for something so minor as feeding children!"
I actually agree with you that there are problems when you are dealing with a child support "system". However, although I have also seen fathers being treated unfairly re child support, I personally have seen more mothers destroyed both financially and emotionally , especially by particularly rich men working with pitbull type attorneys, in situations where it was absolutely outrageous for them to "go after" a women for support. Off the top of my head I can think of at least three millionaire men who have lined the pockets of very unethical lawyers and court appointees to take children away from their mothers, then demand "support" from women who had been stay at home moms or were in school. I also know of one situation where a custodial father is in the military and mom is struggling to make ends meet working at a coffee shop in another state. Dad has made his ex's life such a living hell that even his current wife has offered to help her.
"On and on and on go the lists of sexist assumptions."
At least I talk about men and women, mothers and fathers, whereas you reduce them to males and females as if you are not even talking about human beings. By the way, I personally believe it's the ultimate "sexism" to belittle a women for the one thing that makes women truly different than men, i.e., the ability to give birth and mother children.
August 12th, 2007 at 12:34 pm
In response to JenK, Annie asks – “While Mom's working a better job, or if she needs to go back to school or get more training before she can get a better job . . .”
Wait a minute Annie, looking at this from the woman’s perspective these are “her” children, presumably she chose (perhaps even more so than the father) to bring them into the world. When she decided to bring these children into the world surely she asked herself the question, ‘what might happen if the father died or became disabled and therefore would not be around to contribute to their upbringing?’ Surely she was responsible enough to at least ask the question! (I certainly asked myself this question repeatedly before having my children). Surely she considered the very real possibility that she might have to raise the children on her own. If she didn’t, then why not – do you, like her, believe it is someone else’s responsibility? Well guess what? It’s not – each parent has to be prepared to step up if life’s circumstances require it. JenK’s argument is an age-old one that has served us well – it is about responsibility, your’s is about entitlement. Hers has historical validity yours is socially dangerous.
Annie then goes on to criticise JenK’s comment "or give the kids to the parent who can support them,” by saying,
“Why? So she can pay support to him even though he's already making much more than she is?”
What do you mean? The money she “pays” is NOT for his support – it is for her children. It is her responsibility to contribute to her children’s upbringing regardless of their location and regardless of either parent’s income. So the short answer is YES – ABSOLUTELY she should (from a moral perspective) make a reasonable contribution to their support, even if he does earn more because it is HER responsibility just as much as it is his. (As an addendum to that, I note that many men who have “custody” of their children do not ask for monetary contributions from the mother, the converse is exceedingly rare).
Jane Austin has a lot to answer for. Suck it up, life wasn’t meant to be easy.
August 12th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
Love you Celia, I was wondering if anyone else noticed her double stanndard - child support from a man if for the children, child support from a woman goes to support a man who can support himself.
Just love it when hypocrites are caught out
August 12th, 2007 at 2:26 pm
I never said men didn't deserve a break, or that the feminist BS wasn't BS. What I did say is that common sense dictates when you seek out women that are impressed by money, have no education, work expendable service industry jobs, or otherwise don't support themselves you're walking in a mine field.
Now I fully agree that Annie is nothing sort of the biggest hypocrite I've ever seen. It's amazing how when women destory men finanically it's for the children, but women owe no obligations to their children.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
Celia wrote (in response to Annie):
"What do you mean? The money she “pays” is NOT for his support – it is for her children. It is her responsibility to contribute to her children’s upbringing regardless of their location and regardless of either parent’s income."
Now, let's rewrite the exact sentence, except let's reverse the genders:
"What do you mean? The money he "pays" is NOT for her support - it is for his children. It is his responsibility to contribute to his children's upbringing regardless of their location and regardless of either parent's income."
Still agree with the sentence, Celia? Why or why not?
August 12th, 2007 at 5:19 pm
Annie said, “For example, if a mother is a stay at home parent during the marriage - with the father working to financially support the family - it doesn't make sense that suddenly she should be expected to be the primary (or even the 50% contributor). . .”
What planet are you living on? Suppose, in your rather traditional but disturbing view of marriage, the father dies? Does it not make sense that suddenly she, the mother, be expected to be the primary bread winner. Well, yes Annie it does. It is nothing short of absolutely reasonable that the mother become the primary financial contributor IMMEDIATELY for the sake of the children.
This goes back to my earlier point about responsibility. Both parents have responsibility for the care and raising of their children. This includes nurturing, preparing them for making their way in the world and financial support. It is reasonable, responsible and often an IMPERITIVE to go to work to support your children financially – as noted earlier it is sometimes relevant to consider getting a better-paying job. Why would any reasonable person assume otherwise? If you want more for your children (or in your case, apparently, for yourself) then you should be prepared to do the right thing – go after what you want for you and your children, don’t ask someone else for it. There is nothing wrong with a 50% contribution by each parent. In fact it is probably the most reasonable way to approach this rather vexing issue.
I have financially supported my children without much help from anyone for the last 10 years. I did not ask for much of anything at separation and I certainly did not expect it (and I have definitely gone without a lot of creature comforts for myself). It is an absolute, unqualified privilege to be a “stay at home parent” not a right nor is it particularly reasonable to assume that your traditional view is how it should be. At the risk of apparent lack of objectivity, I think that it is self-indulgent in the extreme to assume that it should be this way.
Returning to the issue of responsibility - each parent should ask the hard question before bringing children into the world – can I support my children without the other parent? The reason for asking that question individually is obvious – the other parent may not be around (for any number of reasons, including death or disability (or irresponsibility)). If the answer is no, then my view is that one would be extremely irresponsible for doing it and in turn, unlike you, would have little room for complaint about having to go out to work to support the children you have brought to life.
Annie says, “I personally have seen more mothers destroyed both financially and emotionally, especially by particularly rich men working with pitbull type attorneys, in situations where it was absolutely outrageous for them to "go after" a women for support.” This is complete nonsense. You must have a very limited experience and/or trouble with or disinterest in reading. The vast majority of the legal vindictiveness is directed toward men by both the legal community and the so called “family courts”. Do some research. Your personal experience is not only very limited but highly subjective and certainly not the truth. The point here though is that the mother, even in these hypothetical, seemingly skewed situations still has a responsibility to pay a reasonable amount in child support. You seem to think it is okay for a father to be in this situation but not a mother – are you serious? I am going to really stir things up here by suggesting that if you wanted to analyse this in “natural law” terms the mother should be more inclined to want to make the greatest financial contribution – what do you say to that? I have certainly done that with my kids and wouldn’t have it any other way.
August 12th, 2007 at 5:44 pm
Celia said:
"What planet are you living on? Suppose, in your rather traditional but disturbing view of marriage, the father dies? Does it not make sense that suddenly she, the mother, be expected to be the primary bread winner. Well, yes Annie it does. It is nothing short of absolutely reasonable that the mother become the primary financial contributor IMMEDIATELY for the sake of the children."
Why are you talking about dead fathers, instead of answering a simple question? Why are you so pissed off at me that you're twisting my words? Clearly, you're so mad you don't even understand what I was saying. Could it be that you're angry that your present husband is paying support to someone else?
August 12th, 2007 at 6:21 pm
In response to my earlier post Annie says,
"What do you mean? The money he "pays" is NOT for her support - it is for his children. It is his responsibility to contribute to his children's upbringing regardless of their location and regardless of either parent's income."
Still agree with the sentence, Celia? Why or why not?
Yes. I absolutely agree. Read my lips - PARENTS (no gender bias here Annie) have a responsibility to support their children. They should support them equally. If one parent cannot make the same financial contribution at the time, then that parent can make up their portion of that 50% at a later time (ie repay the other parent). Yes Annie, the answer is YES - parents should be responsible for the costs of raising their children and 50% is a reasonable way to do it. It should not be based on income but on what it actually costs to raise a child. If one or both parents want to make greater contribution than the real costs of raising them then that is a good and admirable thing (and almost certainly good for the kids) but it shouldn’t be subject to additional imposts on the other parent. The notion that anyone should not pay their reasonable share of the costs of raising their children (which I believe is 50%) is wrong. The world doesn’t owe anyone a living, it is only in the surreal situation of so-called social justice issues that reality becomes altered in an unsustainable manner – wake up pay your way, pay for your kids.
By the way, I am not mad at you or at anyone else. I am, however, exceedingly disappointed and concerned that the whole legal arena has become so irrational and so intrusive on our personal lives – not how it was meant to be. I also understand perfectly what you are saying – your message (specifically the connotations within) couldn’t be clearer. Your view of responsibility appears to be rather narrow. I am not going on about the hypothetical dead parent for no reason. It is an exemplification of how life can deal some tough blows, separation and divorce are a couple of others. If you are a responsible parent YOU should pull up your boot straps and get on with supporting your children REGARDLESS OF ANYTHING ELSE. You seem to struggle with this, not sure why. Put simply, I am suggesting that you, and your ex and I and my ex (in other words all parents) should all be equally responsible for the financial costs of raising our (their) children. But even if my ex isn’t responsible then that is no excuse for me not being, after all I played the same role in bringing our children into the world as he did – so, regardless of what he may do, I am going to be responsible and so should you! BTW my close male companion doesn’t have any children of his own and actually loves mine without any strings (of any sort) attached.
August 12th, 2007 at 7:43 pm
If the notion of 'support' is strictly pecuniary, monetary, fiduciary and the state defines 'support' as such and nothing else, then the parent has the right to resist that notion and also what the state says because it debases his dignity and that of the child. 'Support' and 'responsibility' and mere euphemisms from the foul mouths of those who represent the state. They pretend and fain some moral connection between 'support' and the law. However, they would be the first ones to deny an objective moral order yet they use this latent peer guilt to shame and manipulate parents, particularly men. If they cannot understand that morality is the very foundation of law then they have no business thinking they can twist the conscience and arms of these fathers. Lets just fill up the prisons, after all, they don't have enough money to repair bridges or build new refineries so they certainly do not have enough money to build new prisons. Lets just shut this damn system down.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:14 am
Annie thinks stay at home moms shouldn't have to pay for children after divorce because they're accustom to the luxury. You should see her stand up act.
August 13th, 2007 at 3:55 am
Mark: I commented on your post due to the size, scope and virulence of the 'women may freely hate men and no male of any age has any right to complain' problem combined with the 'all males are scum' problem.
While I agree that men have a duty to look carefully at the women we marry, women also have a duty to look carefully at the men they marry. More importantly, some amount of fairness and decency must be brought into the gendered legal systems. The current system of women may do what they please and the man is always at fault is a great wrong, it is evil, it hurts children and innocent adults.
Thus, we need many places wherein men may comment freely on our thoughts and experiences. I do not want to see the men's movements degrade into the hate which is the women's blog-forum system, but we still do need the space and time for the men. I think Glenn is doing his best to create exactly that!
Annie: When you can talk without men-fathers-boys-males are at fault and are always at fault, then we can talk. Until then, forget it.
August 13th, 2007 at 7:31 am
Ding ding ding! We have a winner - Mark, you have hit the nail on the head when it comes to men who try to impress women with their Porches and their sailboats and their Amex, then cry foul when they realize they've attracted a money-grubbing opportunist. OK, so I'm old and I'm not the type woman men have ever been wont to impress in that manner, but there have been occasions when I have been privy to such bragging and I could not get away fast enough. I'm no prize but I'm also not going to use a man for his money, nor extort it from him when things go sour.
That said, a man can not let on about his wealth and make a bad choice when it comes to a marriage mate anyway, because some women are just such damned good actresses. They pretend at not caring about money until the papers are signed and then wham! It's only ever been all about the money.
I can certainly see how some men feel that it's just too risky to get married.
Finally, I am an ex-wife (x2) and I never referred to my ex's wife as a slut. She was pleasant enough and good to my daughters for the most part. Sadly, the woman my ex left me for WAS a money-grubbing opportunist - and no, he didn't see it. I was saddened to hear what she did to my ex. WHERE IS EVERYONE'S HEART THESE DAYS? Ladies - you once loved him, and now you want to see him suffer?
August 13th, 2007 at 8:30 am
"Child support is not mother support, if you do not have enough money, you need to find a better job "
"While Mom's working a better job, or if she needs to go back to school or get more training before she can get a better job, who's going to be taking care of the kids, taking them to afterschool activities, making dinner, helping with homework, etc...especially if Dad's already working long hours?"
You do what millions of working parents do-you find child care, or better yet you work an opposite shift than your ex and split the time the kids spend with you 50/50. Take a night job while he watches the kids, and have your kids while he works days-you will make better pay for the same job and your kids will benifit from having both parents in your lives. Then that pesky notion of child support will be nil-if you each support the child 50% of the time in your own homes no money changes hands. Only 25% of all women stay home with kids full time. The other 75% manage, and now you will have to as well. As Celia aptly pointed out, being a SAHM is a privilage, not a right.
"or give the kids to the parent who can support them."
"Why? So she can pay support to him even though he's already making much more than she is? Or, so his new wife, girlfriend, mother (or even a total stranger) can take care of the kids while *he's* at work? (Why is it that the same men who are willing to pay a babysitter or daycare to take care of the kids, become unwilling when the money goes to the mother and is called "child support?)"
How much money he makes is irrelevant to the discussion, other than if you cannot support them it is irresponsible of you to subject them to poverty when their father can support them. Their father has no responsibility to keep YOU out of poverty, but does have the responsibility to keep THEM out of poverty. The wife and husband no longer have any access to the money the other makes once divorced. If you divorce him, you divorce his money too. The kids, on the other hand, will get 1/2 their expenses paid by each parent, no matter which parent gets the kids, or if both parents get the kids. If he makes twice as much he still pays the same-the kids don't suddenly need more simply because he makes more.
You are assuming he has the responsibility to pay you, and you are mistaken. You assume that you are included in child support and you are mistaken-you are not a child.
As for stay at home parents needing an education, the state school system will pay for everything if a divorced SAHM wants to go back to school, including child care. You have no leg to stand on there. Also, if you are that worried about being with your kids, be a child care provider. You can watch your own kids and make money watching others in your home or someone else's home. I have done it, it is a good way to earn money while having your kids with you. If you think outside the box knowing it is YOUR responsbility to provide for yourself and 1/2 the kids expenses, you can find many solutions. If you are still under the mistaken idea your ex-husband is still your keeper, then you will of course find no solutions.
August 13th, 2007 at 11:33 am
'You should see her stand up act.'
You folks are the ones that are TOO funny! You're so willing to pounce on any biological mom telling her she is wrong, wrong, wrong, even when you don't have a clue what she is talking about, or you can't see how idiotic your 'solutions' for someone else's kids are.
I just LOVED Jen's comment about Mom working nights, while Dad's watching the kids (and presumably working days), leaving the kids with NEITHER parent to be there for them, especially when Dad decides to take the new girlfriend on a romantic vacations (just the "two of us") so that Mom either has to take unpaid time off, or pay a sitter to take care of the kids ALL day long...
August 13th, 2007 at 11:54 am
"The kids, on the other hand, will get 1/2 their expenses paid by each parent, no matter which parent gets the kids, or if both parents get the kids. If he makes twice as much he still pays the same-the kids don't suddenly need more simply because he makes more. "
What "expenses" are you talking about. Yes, food, clothing and shelter are obvious. But what about basketball, dance classes, karate, summer camp, etc.? What about those cases where Mom hasn't had a vacation in years, is working her backside off to make sure that the kids are able to continue doing the sports and activities that they love, while Dad takes would rather go on vacation with the new wife -- without the kids -- than help pay, *or* come to any of the games, recitals, etc.? (I think this is more the scenario the writer was referring to when she said that he takes the bitch on trips.)
August 13th, 2007 at 11:56 am
I think the original letter writer is speaking out of anger. That would explain that language and generalizations in her letter. At the same time, I am sure that most of us here have said or done things that we should not have when angry. The point of this post is to say that there is two sides to every story and every family is different. This is something that should be looked at on a case by case basis. Sweeping generalizations will never help equality to be reached in the family court system. Saying just don't get married is not a solution. Saying that all women want to be victims is simply not true. Saying all men want to leave their children and not be responsible is also not true. None of these veiwpoints really work to futher the Men's Rights movement.
August 13th, 2007 at 1:56 pm
Annie says,
“I just LOVED Jen's comment about Mom working nights, while Dad's watching the kids (and presumably working days), leaving the kids with NEITHER parent to be there for them . . .”
As wrong as it may seem, there is no presumption, either at law or in society more broadly, that a parent has be with their children at all times (or at any time for that matter). Absentee parents can and all too frequently do fulfil the legal requirements for parenting. Of course, the legal requirements don’t address moral, ethical or social issues more broadly. None the less, the law does require that both parents support their children financially – the reasons for this are both obvious and rudimentary – children need to be fed and housed no matter what else. In other words in survival terms (and probably morally) this is the first point of call. A reasonable and responsible parent will embrace this intuitively – it goes to responsibility. Of course we all know that kids need more than this – which I suspect is where you are coming from Annie. You are right, in fact it really is SO obvious that it goes without saying. I am sure that others can put their fingers on studies showing that, all things being equal, kids do “best” when they have interactions with both of their parents. Traditionally social and family networks stepped in to help with the issues of both physical and emotional support but as usual in this over-lawyered country the lawyers and politicians have to stick their noses into our personal lives under the banner of “the greater social good”.
Annie goes on to ask, “What "expenses" are you talking about. Yes, food, clothing and shelter are obvious. But what about basketball, dance classes, karate, summer camp, etc.”? Believe it or not the law does take this into account, although I personally think this is its worst aspect. No one has a right to go to basketball, dance classes, take karate or go to summer camp unless they pay for it. The parents normally make decisions regarding these activities together – including whether they can pay for them. These are privileges. Sure these are great things to do but millions of poor kids never get these luxuries – someone has to pay for them. There is no guarantee that during marriage these would have been paid for, so why should there be any guarantee following divorce?
There was a time when only fathers were legally required to pay child support. This outmoded notion has changed. Interestingly its genesis can be traced back to a quaint common law tradition, in which men, believe it or not, owned both their children and their wives. All this, of course, has changed and under the law, all parents have a legal obligation to support their children (as it should be). The obligation can be enforced (although it rarely is) within the family (ie during marriage) through so-called abuse and neglect laws wherein parents who fail to support their children can not only be fined but run the very real risk of losing their children. The same obligations are enforced after divorce (or separation for non-married parents). In the case of non-custodial parents the enforcement may come about through the imposition of formal child support obligations. The latter is a very vexed issue since there is considerable question as to the moral, ethical and (for people like me) the legal aspects of some of the various state iterations (and modes of action) on this general theme.
Annie, perhaps you can take some solace in this. In Wisconsin recently a family court (a contradiction in terms if ever there was one), in the matter of Jane Chen, decided that a mother could quit her job to stay home with her children – something I wish I could do (but wouldn't because I actually want to support my children financially). This, obviously, is not in the spirit, let alone the word of the law, ie the notion that each parent must provide financially for their children. So while this was bad enough, they also determined that the father had to contribute more ($4,000 more per month!!!!) than previously because the mother elected to spend more time with their children. Hmmmm see anything wrong with this? The mother wanted to spend more time with her teenaged children (the children were not consulted, perhaps they weren’t even in favor of this!). In other words the mother unilaterally made a life-style choice, and the state couldn't see anything wrong with her (selfish?) decision. The father, on the other hand, could not elect to work fewer hours, thus allowing him more time to spend with their kids. See anything wrong with this? Can you see why there are some angry people out there. I certainly can. The whole thing is UNREASONABLE. When laws become unreasonable people have every right not only to complain but to make every attempt to rectify the situation.
August 13th, 2007 at 5:25 pm
[...] was reading a letter that Glenn Sacks put on his blog, from a witch (who else can be that angry and evil?) who doesn't like that her ex has a new [...]
August 13th, 2007 at 9:39 pm
Anne: “What about those cases where Mom hasn't had a vacation in years, is working her backside off to make sure that the kids are able to continue doing the sports and activities that they love.”
The Ex is perfectly free to make those decisions…and pay for them. Dad thinks the kids would do well with the summer in France so Mom should be nailed for half? No. Divorce and Child Support doesn’t work that way.
August 13th, 2007 at 10:09 pm
For those interested, the Wisconsin Supreme Court case to which Celia refers above is called Chen v. Warner, decided on May 6, 2005.
The text of the decision, along with the dissents, can be found here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=wi&vol=wisctapp2\20043-0288&invol=1
For a legal analysis of the case, see this link:
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/grossman/20050614.html
August 13th, 2007 at 10:31 pm
Annie, I AM a biological mother. Guess what, Annie, NO ONE is entitled to a free pass. That includes biological moms. I worked my a$$ off before AND after my husband left (yes, he divorced ME to marry someone else who turned around and screwed him over big time. Sad. Very sad. I saw him at my grandson's party and I feel for him. I wish he could find a nice woman. And I mean that witih all my heart and I would have meant it had I not met my wonderful man.
Anyway, you're right in that no one can fully understand what someone else is going through. You, also, cannot fully understand what some of the persons posting here have been though/are going through. Yes, there are some horrific dads, but there are also horrifc mothers. Can you at least acknowledge that?
August 15th, 2007 at 5:55 am
By the way in the early 20th century, and from the Beginning of Time it was men who raised the children in broken marraiges.
It is actually quite contemporary thought that woman should legally raise children, devolped from the womans groups of the 1890's untill the 1950's or 1960's when it became more acceptable for woman to raise children. Of course when "Men used to raise children there was no such thing as child support. When woman gained popularity in raising children so did child support gain popularity, more important necasary support"
So this unclassy, uninformed, bitter ex wife, raises the argument "Men should raise the kids?" Let's see her give her children to their father, And if it wasn't for the laws today, in the past she would have had her wish. Probably Not having the results she'd expect!
August 15th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Thanks for the links Knock Knock – I was recounting this case off the top of my head.
I know this might stir things up a bit but I just want to say a little more about parental responsibility and the law. Technically child support from non-custodial parents has been available since the 1970s but in 1988 federal statues were put into place that, in effect, insured that every state would conform to child support guidelines that delineated precisely (pro forma) how much a non-custodial parent would be obliged to pay. This legislation was almost certainly meant to take some of the subjectiveness (read that judicial ‘discretion’) out of the various state systems but it also tended to “fix in stone” amounts to be paid, which is, of course NOT how life is. So you have the situation in which, for example, a bureaucrat (include judges here)(who has a tenured, secure, over-paid job) might sit in judgement of a person who lives in the real world of uncertainty of tenure and who perhaps works in an insecure industry that doesn’t pay particularly well. Here’s the problem – the bureaucrat doesn’t care about the individual or his/her circumstances, its not the bureaucrat’s problem. If you analyse this, one reason that it isn’t an issue for the bureaucrat is because there is no directive or regulation requiring him/her to take into account ALL relevant factors of an individual’s ability to pay – nor are there any statutory penalties for damage caused by their actions. In other words the state determines how much a non-custodial parent must pay, whether they are genuinely capable (ie capable in fact) of paying that amount or not. Now for the scariest part, the formulas (ae) used by the agencies operate on the basic assumption that children should benefit from the same percentage of parental income after divorce as they did in the marriage. Where does this come from? This is not reasonable - it is a socialist/national socialist (fascist) notion. It is another of those “entitlements” that the real world has proven over and over again to not work. It seems that our legislators, with far too much judicial sanction, have all too readily embraced these notions of entitlement without meaningful legal (if not moral or logical social) analysis. These notions of entitlement have been creeping into our society for quite some time now. They are not reasonable and they are socially (read that culturally) dangerous.
It is reasonable, rational and morally sound for parents to support their children’s basic necessities. It is not reasonable for the state to dictate anything beyond that. (There are some who believe that the state shouldn’t even dictate as much as that – and technically they have some grounds for that argument). Otherwise what’s in the child’s best interest might be held to be living in a mansion, with lots of servants. Obviously, this is an embellishment but technically there is nothing to stop this sort of unreasonable (outrageous, actually) legal usurpation from invading every aspect of our lives. This is why I said earlier that a 50% contribution was a reasonable basis for support – because it is just that, its reasonable. If either or both parents want to contribute more (and they often do) then, as DanH notes, that is great but it is their decision, not the state’s.
Shawn raises some interesting issues. Shawn, can you or anyone else point to primary sources regarding these points? Also, has anyone here found some good primary sources (or links to them) regarding the thinking behind these statutes or some early attempts at legislation that failed upon judicial review? Sorry I’m not being lazy, I am actually busy supporting my kids!
August 15th, 2007 at 10:36 am
I agree with Rosemarie - it's confusing to me to see such contempt between two people who were once lovers. It's not marriage that ruins a good thing, people - it's the belief that people own eachother (and own their kids - makes it easier to kill them when you objectify them, right?) If you love him/her, then let them go rather than hang on to your bitterness, even when you feel betrayed. It takes two to tango, so it's said: marriage, domestic violence, infidelity, deceit, having and raising children, and divorce. If you want to keep your lover/spouse, then love them in all sense of the word and nurture what you have and be genuine. Sound too dreamy? Then I'd hate to know what the hell you define as a relationship.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:21 pm
Celia - You go, girl! The dialogue between you and Annie is the greatest demonstration of the difference between Glenn's blog / the Men's Movement and the feminist blogs / feminism. I will give you one original source which is especially applicable in cases of imputed wages: the "Declaration of Independence" by Thomas Jefferson.
August 17th, 2007 at 12:33 pm
@Ken
So, you've been banned from Pandagon too?
August 20th, 2007 at 11:21 am
You have to wonder what really happened. I wish that I could reach my sons, alas their mother is the custodial parent and she has successfully imposed PAS. It is my fervent prayer that when they are emancipated that one day I will be able to reach them and rebuild our prior strong relationship.
September 4th, 2007 at 11:53 am
' As to child support, it isn't enough to cover basic needs.'
bull...
woman who know how to use (yes, abuse) the system get what they deserve based on MATH, not what she bitterly laments later as insufficient 'to cover basic needs'.
WAKE UP MOTHER!
You have the kids so YOU have to pay for shelter for YOU. Your kids money is for THEIR FOOD and THEIR CLOTHS, PERIOD.
If your respective financial conditions changed to warrent you 'deserving' more, it's YOUR option to take it back to support court.
In lieu of that, it's YOUR responsibility to better budget your money. Buy cheaper food, buy cheaper cloths, and DON'T spend it elsewhere.
While, if it's true that your husband left you, know that betrayal works both ways to dear one. How about losing the home that your income alone bought, to your ex spouse after she took up with a boy 12 years her junior next door?
Don't cry about it, do something about it, or quit your bitchin.!
January 16th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
test
January 16th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
test
January 24th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
What ever happened to personal responsibility? Who the heck has 4 kids nowadays and thinks they can afford them? With or without your divorce, all your children will suffer because you had too many. I am willing to bet you saw problems in the relationship before your first child, and certainly by the birth of your second. Why did you blindly continue conceiving and why are you unwilling to take the responsibility. As for your ex going on vacation. I am willing to bet she is the one paying for it, not him. You got the divorce and it is going to take you 4-5 years to recover financially. Deal with it. The kids do not deserve to hear your anger or be told they are not getting enough. Ultimately they deserve to be feed, clothed, sheltered and loved. As long as you ex is providing these things for his kids, he has done his job. After that everything is up to interpretation and nothing is yours to demand of your ex. If you want the kids to have more, get a better job, get some education - whatever. You need a reality check.
January 11th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
its all about jealousy, she's pissed-off because she thinks the second wife is getting something she isnt so she full of "feel sorry for me and the kids stories". i bet she is a user and manipulater too. first wives are so pathetic.
February 9th, 2009 at 3:28 pm
This women obviously doesn't understand the fact that the NCP's child support payment are not supposed to COVER her costs of raising children. It is his HALF. Everytime I hear a custodial parent complain "he only sends me 10,000/year, how can I raise a kid on that?" I cringe. The custodial parent is supposed to contribute the same amount in proportion to her income. You are now divorced. You have to get a job and work. Your husband has another household to run, he is paying his share for the kids and that is ALL! (and the CS formulations are way too high to begin with, NO kid costs what the tables say, but you will NEVER hear a custodial parent say that, no matter how much the NCP sends, it is NEVER enough for them).
April 26th, 2009 at 1:50 pm
As a first wife, a step-wife and a second wife through remarriage I am throwing in my two cents here in regards to child support and management of the funds. While I know that there are moms and dads out there that utilize each and every dime received from child support towards the current needs of their children. I know there are just as many women and men receiving child support payments that are in excess of the immediate needs of their children.
Let me explain my stance further through my real life example. I have a 21 year old in college that works full time without any financial support from her father. In Texas, the child support payments are finalized when the child either turns 18 or graduates from high school by whichever event occurs last. I continue to cover her car insurance, cell phone and misc. expenses. After all, I don't want her to give up on college because juggling work and school becomes unmanageable and too much for a young adult that is just learning how hard real life can be and is just starting to learn how to manage life on her own. She is the model for the advice that I am about to give every woman or man out there receiving child support payments from a former spouse. Take every penny now because you don't know when you'll need it for their future. Hence, the 21 year old that gets no financial support from a father who considers her to be an "adult" and should be completely self sufficient and on her own. His current way of thinking is not how he thought during our 19 years of marriage. However, it has changed upon his remarriage. I am the one that carries the financial burden of helping at the expense of being criticized my ex and step-wife that I am doing her no favors by enabling her. That's how they rationalize it to keep from having to face the reality that they would rather keep their money than help her out. I meanwhile have maintained all her car insurance payments and many times have brought her groceries, helped pay for gas and oil changes...the list can go on and on, but I do it because she is my child and I love her. I didn't stop because the law states that at 18 she is an adult and I am no longer legally responsible for her.
Yes, custodial parent out there reading this...Take every penny you can now and if you can save any extra have something to show for it....Set up 529 plans and savings accounts for the children. My 21 year old has siblings that are 5 & 8 years old. There are many years ahead for me to plan/save funds from their child support payments that will help after the payments stop. By contributing money into these savings plans you can demonstrate to the payee of child support that you are working together to help meet future financial needs of the children you share. This will hopefully offset and diffuse some of the negativity you might be experiencing when the parent paying the child support becomes accusational or hostile about the payments or thinks that he/she is overpaying. If you can, take some of the money and set it aside, it will help in your financial defense and make you the winner....
Unfortunately, I have a high conflict relationship with my ex and his wife for many reasons, but that hasn't stopped me from ensuring that my children have their needs met now and in the future. I can't accept less and accept his word that he'd be there for the two younger ones to help with college expenses and such, because he hasn't done that with our oldest child. You don't have to see eye to eye with the ex, but you do have to make sure that your children are cared for presently and in the future.
I hope everyone reading this doesn't throw daggers my way. It is through sharing my own experience that I hope will help someone else with the same struggle and to shed light on possible future struggles. It only ends when the child is 18 by law. Who's going to be the one burdened with the expenses after that? In my situation I can't even get my childrens father to prove that he carries life insurance with them as beneficiaries. Am I going to take every penny? HELL YEA....
Child support laws are substantiated, mandated and enforced. Emotions are what obscure and get in the way of what's best for the children and what best serves to helping the welfare of the children. The only victims here are the children. We are adults and should do everything in our power to rectify conflicts. However, some conflicts will never be rectified so it's best to just step away and halt communication if that's the only thing that will work. Allow the law to speak for you and remember that every pancake has two sides...
Good luck.