Child support

Liz - posted on 10/14/2010

Thanks Tah! We found her under unfortunate circumstances but i guess theres a silver lining to everything right. CPS took her siblings from her mom and is including her in the order for the state to take guardianship. We hope to get custody after the school year ends but not sooner because she needs to get to know her dad, and the rest of us, some first. I wouldn't feel right taking her from a home at grandmas where she is comfortable and throwing her into a situation where she doesn't know anything or anyone.

Tah - posted on 10/13/2010

@Liz..that proves my point, he couldn't see her but he had to pay...smh at scuzzy mamas.....anywho...if she is getting child support they should have a address on her..i'm glad you guys found her andi wish you the best.

Sal - posted on 10/12/2010

a side note follow mine for all the wives of dads who don't see their kids...this was just my story not a view on all seperated parents .just so you know his dad and i split when he was 6 months old, he then moved countries, there were no pay agreements that could be enforced, i lived in the same area for 4 years and although his new wife has made contact with me she wouldn;t gie me phone or address and he never did, and made himself hard to find, peaceful for me but not because of my doing,

Sal - posted on 10/12/2010

for my story i have not recieved one cent of child support in almost 15 yrs from my sons father and am thankful for the peace it has bought me-there has been no custody battles and peace and stability for my son, however i think that vert few situation arise so clean cut as mine, if you want meaningful contact between parents and children it should not have a finacial aspect at all, there are many other ways to have a loving relationship with out it and i think it often gives parents something else to fight about....but if you care about the well being of your child how could you not morally contribute to their upbrining financially or in other ways

So morally they shouldn;t have to do it but morally they should want to,

I guess many parents already feel this but it is where the law steps in making people do what they should already be wanting to do...

Liz - posted on 10/12/2010

Yes you are financially obligated to help support the child you help create whether they live with you or not.

Tah- It would be great if that were true all the time but its not. My husband has only seen his oldest twice and shes 11, he wants to know his daughter more then anything but she has kept her from him for years, for no reason, and he does pay child support. It has bothered me on occasion only because he couldn't find her and we have 4 children right here. We found out over the weekend that she lives with her grandma, not her mom, but her mom is still collecting child support. But now we know where she is and the ball is rolling for visitation.

Tah - posted on 10/12/2010

@Petra and Emma, here, it doesn't matter if the mom or dad are being buttholes about visitation, it is seperate from child support, the same way that if one parent isn't paying anything, you can't not allow them to see the child...thats the way it goes, some judges won't even hear any testimony about the other when presiding over a case for either support or custody.

Tah - posted on 10/12/2010

@Holly, thats good in theory, but if he were to remarry before you were able to get a better job, i wonder if that would change. I can not say enough how important it is to be involved with the children after a split or in the case that the parents were never in a relationship. I had 2 children before i was married, they both had different fathers, (one i had in high school, pregnant after i lost my virginity) we were together for about 4 years. The other i was with for 7 years we were engaged, and started planning the wedding..many times...lol...anywho...my oldest son's father is supposed to pay 406 dollars a month, which would cut down on some hours i work, but hey, good luck getting that out of him...but according to the custody order i have to allow my son to go and see him for the summer( i just had it modified and shortened a few weeks..) 2 weeks for xmas vacation and spring break...you wanna hear the kicker, my son calls me when he needs something and is with his dad. It hurts me to tell him this, but i have to say it.."you are with your dad, if your glasses are broken,, if you need sneakers, you are with your dad, you have to tell him." ..



He doesn't contribute to any of the needs for his son at all. band trips, karate uniforms, sneakers, food, a flipping light bill so he can sneak and read his novels at night, anything. Then i am supposed to send all the clothes we work for, with him to his dad's house so we never see them again and have to replace them and it's a neverending cycle so now i tell him what he can and can't take. A couple of xmas's ago i went to check and see what he had packed, he had towels and washclothes in his luggage, one towel was damp because it was the one he used to dry off..lol...glad i checked...i said why are you pakcing towels, he said the last time he went to visit his dad between him, the girlfriend and her daughter, he didnt have his own towel...i said thats 4 people and thats ridiculous, now i have to send you with the basics.....how about i just find him a house and pay the rent on it to during the time you visit...AAARRRGGGHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!(maybe i should go on want to vent..lol)..



My daughter's father is different, we dont even have a order, he puts 250 dollars every 2 weeks into an account with all three of our names on it. If he gets paid 3 times that month, he can keep the last one. I think he understands because we were together since my son was 2 and he saw how things work when the child needs things. child support is for that, support of the child, some people think it is solely for clothes...but if it needs to be used to help pay a bill, it benefits your child to have lights on, they need water to drink and bathe they eat(alot..lol)...they need money on their accounts at school, to eat some more, trips, uniforms for teams etc. dues. So it really is important that the child maintain the same lifestyle even if one leaves

Angela - posted on 10/12/2010

According to Canadian Law... the child should benefit financially as though both parents were still living together!!!! I think that it is important for the person, that is not living with child, to have to contribute some responsibility to the child they helped create. I only just started getting some again this month. The last time before now was December of '09 and my daughter just turned a year old. I haven't gone through the courts or anything but my ex and I have come to an agreement on our own.

Now when you say morally... you are talking about an individual decision people make. Each person is different. Should they be morally obligated... yes... of course. But do all people feel morally obligated...hell no... There are those out there that think that they don't need to contribute as long as they make a little bit of an effort to see the child.... Its sad, sick and I can't stand those people! They put themselves in a different class (a selfish one) and feel that they should have no part financially in the child's life!

Holly - posted on 10/10/2010

In regards to the whole idea of parents documenting where cs money goes, I am all for it and my hubby and I already do it. We keep receipts from our cs purchases to prove the money actually goes to our daughter (like when we got her new shoes for school or when we used it to get our daughter some new uniform clothes for her school, stuff like that). Our cs comes on a prepaid credit card (provided by the cs service) so it's easy to prove the purchases we made were from the card and we always write exactly what was purchased on the receipt with sizes (if it's not really clear on the receipt). I don't do this for any reason other than being able to prove that we are using what little money we get for our daughter on our daughter (we get a max of $50 per month right now... and that was only for 1 month, the last few months have been about $5 or so each month).

Also, along the lines of the idea that there should be no cs for 50/50 custody, that's bull. Like others have pointed out, what if one parent was a stay at home parent? What if one parent makes significantly more than the other parent. I agree with whoever said it's about the child, and maintaining the lifestyle for the child, not the other parent (I can't remember who said that, sorry!). My hubby and I have talked about it (we had a rough patch a couple years ago, but we have worked it out and we are stronger than ever now) and we both decided that if we were ever to get divorced we would have 50/50 custody (and he would give me equal time with our oldest, even though she's not mine biologically) and he would make sure all my bills are paid (housing and utilities). I could get a job to pay for food and such, but he would want to make sure the kids have a good house with all the utilities taken care of at all times. Then, if I started to make more than my hubby, the situation would be reversed and I would take on the majority of the monetary responsibility.

In the end, it's about the KIDS and it will (for us) always be about the KIDS, NOT the parents. That's life, especially life with kids.

Serena - posted on 10/10/2010

First of all, power to all you single mothers out there raising your children right, putting them first.
I feel like I should explain where I am coming from on this I know women who leave their kids with their mamas to take care of using the child support to buy things they want to head out to the club that night looking for a new babydaddy....
I know that if the roles were reversed and my children looked like they hadn't ate in a week or bathed in one either wearing raggedy clothes, I would like to know where that money went.
My opinion might change if I were in this situation but I"m not so I am only looking in from the outside with only my past experiences.

Jodi - posted on 10/10/2010

" And he was whining that he was going to be broke for the rest of his life providing for all those kids."



LMAO!!! DId he not realise that EVERYONE who has kids is pretty much broke until they leave home?? That's called *life*. What a wanker.



And yes, my ex has mellowed these days, it took him 11 years, but he got there, LOL. He even pays now. Since he got this new girlfriend who has a daughter. Interesting. I think he's seen the other side :) She seems to be good for him!

Holly - posted on 10/10/2010

Oh, I know Teresa! I was just pointing it out for general purposes. :)

Teresa - posted on 10/10/2010

Holly, that's why I put him/her in my op. I know it happens the other way too, so I was being fair. ;)

Sharon - posted on 10/10/2010

I was at the records office once and I heard a guy trying to convince the records clerk that his wife was whore and that no way could all those kids be his because his girlfried never got knocked up, just his wife, lmfao, oh and that 3 of them didn't look like him, and that um his wife was a whore who slept around. And he was whining that he was going to be broke for the rest of his life providing for all those kids. UM WTF ASSHOLE?

I was sickened being in the same room as him. I have no idea what he thought he could accomplish in the records office by getting all his kids birth certs. I got mine and got out!

Holly - posted on 10/10/2010

I'm going to insert one small thing here... It's not always the man who is ordered to pay support. My oldest daughter's bio mom is supposed to pay us $100 per month in support (we have our daughter 99% of the time). Of course, when we got this ordered she DID go to the judge and demand that WE pay HER support because my hubby was the man in the relationship and support couldn't possibly go the other way (she has our daugher for 2 weeks ever 3 months, but has actually skipped all her visits since January 1st)... bitch... lol... she was shot down AND laughed at by the judge of course...

Saying that, yes I do believe that ayone who helps to create a child and doesn't live with the child the majority of the time should pay support. It's the moral thing to take care of what you've made...

Sharon - posted on 10/10/2010

Jodi - your ex is a different order of self entitled douche. Except that your kid is sort of attached to him as a father figure and I think you mentioned he's mellowed somewhat - I think face-meets-bus is in order for him

Rosie - posted on 10/10/2010

If I just so happen to get my hair or nails done on the same week that my ex pays child support, he can suck it...I pay the rent, I buy their food, I pay for their extra-curricular activities, I pay for any daycare they need, I pay for EVERYTHING...so yeah...if I get my hair done with "his" money...he can blow me.



right on!! i will never understand that argument that. so i spent all of MY part of the money that is owed to my child, plus his part, on my child, but there are other expenses in a household other than buying your child food, shelter, daycare etc. i have to live too. i dont' get the whole argument at all. i can guarantee (if i got support) that i spend as much money on my childs expenses as he does. so people aren't supposed to have money left over at all for anything else at the end of the month?? ALL of my money should go to the child, when his doesn't? i don't get it.



now i do get the argument if the kid is in rags and she bought herself some awesome clothes or something and didn't get her kids anything, but i don't really ever see that happening, with ANYBODY that i know. the mother is the one that ends up working, taking care of her child, providing it with love, AND using most of HER income to provide for what her child needs. while daddy is off somewhere crying about the $200 he just is FORCED to spend on his child. cause apparantly providing for their own flesh and blood is fucking horrible...

Chatty - posted on 10/10/2010

That's REDONKULOUS, Jodi! WTF is wrong with some people?

Jodi - posted on 10/10/2010

LOL, Sharon, funnily enough, my ex doesn't think he should pay child support either, and he had no woman....he just didn't think he should have to because I worked anyway, why the fuck should he?



You want a laugh? I had my son all but 2 days a month (and I mean days, he never had him at night back then because he couldn't cope with the night waking, etc), and he thought *I* should pay *him* because I earned a higher income......no shit. Do you know how hard it was to keep a straight face on that one in court?

Sharon - posted on 10/09/2010

Seriously? What kind of flavored douche opts out of taking care of his kids? OH wait, the one who is pussy whipped by some whore... forgot about that one.

Teresa - posted on 10/09/2010

Because Jane, there are some men (a lot actually) that refuse to pay child support because they don't believe they SHOULD. It IS the law, but if you are 'self employed'... it takes a while for the state to catch up to you... take your license, throw you in jail, etc....

Isobel - posted on 10/09/2010

If I just so happen to get my hair or nails done on the same week that my ex pays child support, he can suck it...I pay the rent, I buy their food, I pay for their extra-curricular activities, I pay for any daycare they need, I pay for EVERYTHING...so yeah...if I get my hair done with "his" money...he can blow me.

Jane - posted on 10/09/2010

I'm not sure I understand the question. Morality has nothing to do with it. If the law says they are responsible, then they are.

Jodi - posted on 10/09/2010

Serena, I actually don't believe I should have to show proof of where I spend my child support because a minority of people don't spend it on their kids. Honestly, I only get about $220 a month. If my ex can't comprehend that all of that goes on his kid, then he doesn't know shit about how much it costs to raise a teenage boy. I don't see why I should have to run around and also provide paperwork to prove it. I think you will find that what you described is amongst a minority.

Serena - posted on 10/09/2010

I absolutely agree that child support should be paid but it should be guaranteed to go the child or things that the child needs. Its heartbreaking to see people who use child support to get their hair done or get some new clothes for them, while their children are wearing the same raggedy clothes. I think there should be something done (in terms of the law) to guarantee or show proof that the child is getting the support.

Jennifer - posted on 10/09/2010

Yes they should pay child support!

Jodi - posted on 10/09/2010

@ Alahnna

Our system in Australia allows for the fact that if the paying parent pays things like school fees, medical bills, etc, those payments can be offset against your calculated child support. So you don't end up paying all those things AS WELL as paying additional child support. Well, at least, that is the way it is supposed to work :)

Teresa - posted on 10/09/2010

I agree Kati. It totally ISN'T about the money except for the simple fact that raising kids costs money, but be INVOLVED w/ your kids on a REAL level. Put all your petty crap aside and work for the GOOD of the kids. Not just your (general you, of course) selfish whims and petty excuses bs.

Rosie - posted on 10/09/2010

of course they should be financially obligated to pay for THEIR children. why on earth anybody blatantly chooses to not be involved in their childs life is completely beyond all my comprehension skills. i look at my children and cannot imagine not wanting to help them financially, or emotionally. . the thing that gets me the most though is when the absent parent (usually the father) doesn't make an effort to see his children. my son is 10 and has seen his bio-dad a handful of times before he was one. since then hasn't called, or so much gave a birthday card.
as a child who didn't receive an ounce of child support or get ANY attention from her father, i can tell you with much certainty that given the choice between the 2 (financial or emotional support), i would've rather had my father involved in my life. instead now i just am left with an overwhelming feeling that my father never wanted me, and i wasn't good enough. way to go "dad". absent fathers are PIGS.

Petra - posted on 10/09/2010

Nor should you, Teresa. He sounds like a total poop-head. Keep doing what you're doing, girl :-)

Elizabeth - posted on 10/09/2010

Uhhh yeah

Teresa - posted on 10/09/2010

Yep, Petra. He won't support them unless he has them full time and I'm obviously NOT going to go for that. My son hasn't even ever received a birthday or Christmas present from him. :(

Petra - posted on 10/09/2010

Alahnna - it sounds like your bf has a good lawyer, and it sounds like your bf is a good guy with his kids' best interests at heart. My comments were with respect to instances when the parties agree and sign the requisite documents outside of Court. It always comes down to what the Judge rules when you do go to Court - but I am glad the Fathers' Rights movement is gaining recognition, for instances such as yours.

Chatty - posted on 10/09/2010

Yes!

Alahnna - posted on 10/09/2010

Petra, just in response to your comment. My boyfriend was advised by his lawyer to NOT file for divorce until the children were grown as when he does file, the judge could decide to make him pay her support becuase of the financial difference. Regardless of her spending ways or anything. It is to the detriment of the children as on her weeks, their cupboards are empty and she never has any gas to bring them anywhere, but ordering him to pay her support won't change that even then, because the children will not be the ones to benefit from the money unfortunately. It's just the way she is and she has even said to my boyfriend on many occasions that she knows she wouldn't make it with the kids without his help. But yet, she doesn't change her spending habits

Petra - posted on 10/09/2010

Usually, when support is still paid in a 50/50 arrangement, it is after financials have been submitted and both parties are behaving in a reasonable fashion and there is a serious income differential with detrimental effects on the children - which is acknowledged by both parties. The parents agreeing to come this sort of resolution does not happen often and is really hard to arrive at (and prove that it is necessary) when the split is an acrimonious one.

Alahnna - posted on 10/09/2010

I'm going to make a comment on the 50/50 split parenting and still being required to pay child support.
My boyfriend has shared custody, he probably even has them more that 50% a lot of the time because she is always calling on her week for him to take them for one reason or another. Anyway, he currently does not pay child support but he does make more than she does because she is on assitance.
Here's my problem with paying support becuase he makes more. The extra money he would give her would NOT go for the kids. She knows he provides everything the children need while they are with him, he pays for about 80-90% of all their extra curricular activities, school supplies, etc. She will call him during the week and ask for 20 bucks to buy milk and recess snacks for the kids because she is out of money and he will go buy the stuff she says she needs because if he gives her the money, she will use it on something else, like dyeing her hair or going out to a fancy restaurant to eat, then claim she has no gas money to bring the kids to school. She blows money faster than she gets it, but yet, my boyfriend is still providing more than his share for the kids . SO why should he be penalized and have to pay HER more just because he makes more, when he's already doing more than his fair share? I don't think it's fair for the court to order something like that, because in cases like these, the kids will never get use of that extra money anyway.

Sharon - posted on 10/09/2010

hell yeah child support needs to be paid, REGARDLESS of the parents' personal beliefs or grievances.

Petra - posted on 10/09/2010

The problem is that a lot of parents lose sight of what the purpose of support is - it is not about a mother's right to her ex's money or a father's refusal to pay the mother of his child(ren), but rather the child's right to be supported and their rights to have a relationship with that parent. In Teresa's case, it sounds like he doesn't want to pay her unless it is on his terms, rather than acknowledging that he is not paying Teresa at all, and should in fact be providing much-needed support for his children.

Petra - posted on 10/09/2010

Sorry for bringing a personal gripe into this, ladies. A lot of the time, even with a 50/50 arrangement, maintenance is still payable on a scale to make up for an income differential - very much warranted to maintain an equal quality of life for the child.

Isobel - posted on 10/09/2010

the problem with allowing men to refuse to pay because the mother is denying access...is that the actual affect of that system is that a baby is being denied food and diapers because its mother is a jerk. That's why that's not legal.

Krista - posted on 10/09/2010

I agree completely, Jodi. If the couple were still together, the parent earning more would be paying a larger amount towards the children's expenses. So that should still apply. The ending of the marriage should in no way change the parents' level of responsibility towards the kids.

Jodi - posted on 10/09/2010

I think my point, Petra, was that child support should not be linked to that denial of visitation unless the court determines that denial is inappropriate.



But yeah, off topic. Overall, the child has a right to child support from the non-custodial parent.



I also want to address those who have made the comment about child support not being payable where 50/50 custody is in place. I think, if the income levels of the two households are different to the point where the child may miss out, then child support should be paid by the parent who is better off, or at the very least, some of the needs are funded by the better off parent (such as payment of the school fees, extra-curricular activities, etc).



I on;y say this because sometimes there can be a true disparity between incomes. A mother who has been a SAHM mother for 5-10 years may not have NEARLY the earning capacity of the father. Maybe he earns twice as much. And they had a certain lifestyle before the split. That child has a right to a similar lifestyle wherever that child lives. i am not talking size of house, etc. But you can't just suddenly move schools because mum can't afford her half of the fees. You can't tell them they can't play that sport because mum can't afford her half of the fees. Sometimes, dad needs to pay child support, or extra towards certain expenses, in order for it to be a fair deal for the child.



I honestly just wish that everyone who split up could put the kids first, and consider their needs, but we all know THAT's not realistic.

Krista - posted on 10/09/2010

Yes. That should never be in doubt. You made those babies, you are financially responsible for them until they reach adulthood. Full stop. (Except, as everybody else mentioned, in the case of sperm or egg donation.)

Petra - posted on 10/09/2010

@ Jodi - those are legitimate reasons. I have had the pleasure of working in law for the past decade and have seen too many instances where, despite having access and maintenance orders in place, many parents deny the other simply because its their only tool for control. Its a shame. But, this is way off topic from the OP...

Jodi - posted on 10/09/2010

In Australia, if there is a visitation order in place, you are legally not allowed to do that go against it without good reason anyway. And anyone who doesn't put some sort of court order in place is mad in my opinion.



Just as an example, I have denied visitation only when my son has been sick, when he has had an important commitment on the weekend and his dad would not commit to taking him, or when he has a homework assignment or upcoming exams (his dad doesn't allow him to study at his house, which is fucking stupid, because in a few years, he will hardly see him). However, he is 13, and he now has some say about these things, and these are legitimate reasons.

Stifler's - posted on 10/09/2010

i agree with petra on that one, if one parents is refusing to let the other see the kids just because of a dispute between them and they're perfectly capable of being a parent they shouldn't have to pay them. they're basically denying them parenthood.

Petra - posted on 10/09/2010

Definitely! You have a moral and financial obligation to contribute to the upbringing of a child, and at least the financial obligation is enforceable by law. In Canada, with the proper Court Order you can go so far as to have a deadbeat parent's wages garnished.

I do think though, in the case where the custodial parent will not allow visitation and denies the non-custodial parent access of any kind, there should be some leeway in this obligation to provide support. Being held to the financial obligation and arbitrarily denied the right to parent (without good reason) is not cool.

Jodi - posted on 10/09/2010

I'm going with the abso-fucking-lutely.

I don't think it should be so much that the paying parent can't afford to live themselves, and I don't believe it should be supporting the receiving parent's lifestyle (hence the term "child support" and not "spousal support") but it should absolutely be paid to support the child's physical needs. Every child has the right to have both parents contributing financially to those basic physical needs.

Stifler's - posted on 10/09/2010

What I said doesn't apply to people who donated sperm or an egg.