Unbalanced

Bradley - posted on 11/25/2013 ( 32 moms have responded )

16

0

0

I'm starting this up again because rob had a good point and I unfortunately missed it before the tread was locked. Child support and marriage IS COMPLETELY unbalanced and I challenge any of you to explain otherwise. Now, before all the 'man hating' bs starts, allow me to educate. I pay over 1200 a month for three kids. I am seldom left with more than 300-400 to get by for the month. I payed willingly, then got taken to court and now I pay an exorbitant amount of money to 2 ungrateful women. I can't get a passport. I can't get a hunting license. My drivers license is at risk. Tell me how this isn't unbalanced? I dare you.

MOST HELPFUL POSTS

Crystal - posted on 11/25/2013

83

10

8

The child support system is disgusting. You either have fathers, like you, who can't survive because they support the entire financial.obligation of children without an equal and fair agreement of custody, or mothers who get a laughable "contribution." My cousin's bd pays $25 a month...what is that doing? But a friend of mine pays hundreds every month and struggles to support himself. Child support should be a supplement, not an income. And whoever is saying children cost $400-500 a month is ridiculous. Unless you count on support to pay your bills, which is not what that money is for, then the extra money you spend on your child for non-essential items is your responsibility, not the father's. And too many mothers are using that money for themselves or unnecessary things. Your kids don't need designer clothes/shoes or new toys all of the time. When does the mother's accountability come into play? Yes, he could have "wrapped it up," but why aren't we questioning the women's decision not to use birth control? They made the choice to have children, too and should not have gone in expecting to have someone giving them money every month. Moms get WIC, it's a hell of a lot easier for moms to get SNAP or EBT, day care vouchers and Medicaid. And dads are burdened with proving mom is unfit just to get to spend the time they want with their children. This is pure sexism. Plus, often times, when mothers get government assistance for a period of time, child support from dad is mandatory and enforced by the state whether or not she petitioned for it. How is that fair?

Bradley - posted on 11/27/2013

16

0

0

I'm back. Sorry to have missed so much but I work a lot. I haven't caught up on everybody's responses yet, but I have seen mention of whether or not I see my children. Absolutely I see my kids. Not often due to financial matters. For example, gas. If I don't have gas to get to and from work, I obviously don't have gas to go get my kids. Stay with me? Unfortunately another impossibility. Mind you, I'm working with 300-400 a month so you can only imagine the kind of place I can afford and my children will never see me in those kind of arrangements. Also, in the most polite way possible, I invite any one of you to come call me a dead beat to my face. You'll want to bring the police if you do for both of our protection. You find me a father that works 60+ hours a week to pay 1200 a month and still find time to call, FaceTime and see his kids. This I s the EXACT reason I was hesitant to post in an all mothers thread. There are simply too many of you out there that hate fathers and assume we're all bad to get any kind of message across to you. Honestly, you're hypocrites. Kinda like the whole 'save the fetus but provide no welfare' argument. You want the father to pay an exorbitant amount of money, then when he can barely survive day to day life to pay that amount, much less play an active role in that child's life, you want to go to the defensive, assume the worst, jump to conclusions, and burn the father at the stake. Oh, and to the original hardhead, you still don't understand me so I'm going to use numbers. Maybe that will help. I pay 1200 a month at a 50% pay rate. So that's kinda like 400 per kid if numbers and math didn't exist. 50% means half in the real world. So with you do the math, that means the state is saying it takes 2400 to raise my kids. This is wrong. I can raise my kids on 1200 a month, and well. So being that I have a 50% pay rate, I should be paying 600. Even 800 would be fine by me. Get it now?!

Crystal - posted on 11/26/2013

83

10

8

Jodi, I feel like you are following me...lol. I have to disagree. Like I said, where is the mother's accountability? If the dad is seeing his children as often as the mother, support, usually is lower. But why, in that situation, should he have to pay at all? If he has to spend rent on a home equal in size to mom so that children can stay there, he's paying his rent and part of hers. Not fair. If he's buying groceries for himself and the children, why should he have to pay for hers, too? And if the woman is financially incapable of completing her responsibilities without that supplement, the dad should have custody if he is more able, or they should share equally so the cost is evenly split. My son's father makes a little more than I do. I CHOSE to live in a home where the rent is much more affordable, so that I didn't have to get assistance. For parents that are not in their children's lives, child support is a must. The least they can do is help ease the financial burden if they refuse to spend time with the children they helped make. But everyday dads who act as fathers, who buy their kids new clothes and shows and birthday presents, who take them out to have fun and learn, who help.pay school fees, they shouldn't be penalized because a relationship didn't work out. And, if that were me, the only money you would see is the child support. None of that, "Will you help me pay for a birthday party?" Shoot, not while I'm giving you $1600 a month. I make just that. I would be homeless if this were me.

LalaBoom - posted on 12/01/2013

248

0

41

Bradley is 100% right. Anyone who lives in the state can attest to that.

This is how the system created a "deadbeat dad":

The judge ORDERED my husband to leave his job of 8+yrs as a barber because she believed BM WORDS that my husband earned more than 600$ in a week.... I WISH HE DID! Lol
My husband was ordered to this court-mandated program for employment where he earned LESS. In the meantime, it took him 3months for the follow-up hearing, and CS still had to be paid. During this time, he became a "deadbeat dad" since his account went into arrears.

My husband is now overpaid, and yet, instead of having the 25% garnishes from his wages like its supposed to be, he gets 52% of his wages garnished. When he called to correct the issue for the 5th time, he was told, "this is just in case you lose your job." Ummmm, WHAT?!? Ooooookay..... Lol

My point? The politics of CS court are straight-up BULLSHIT. And NOTHING to do with whether HE OR SHE SHOULD HAVE WRAPPED IT UP.


JODI-
Thats it! I'm moving your way. What country is this?!?!?!

LalaBoom - posted on 11/29/2013

248

0

41

Jodi,

16.40$ is the minimum wage bid?!?!??!

Holy shit! Here is 7.25$ as Bradley mentioned, and you only get benefits (health insurance, retirement fund, dental, etc) if you work in a corporate setting of some sort or FT for a large company. Sp what companies here in the states do, is have employees work a maximum of 25-30hrs so that they dont provide for benefits OR hire less people so that the company doesnt fit under certain employment regulations.

For us is 7.25, but this only happened recently. When I did minimum wage a few yrs back, it was 5.15$ per hour, then it went up to 6-something, and now its at 7....:(

32 Comments

View replies by

LalaBoom - posted on 12/01/2013

248

0

41

How interesting..... I work for the NY rep office for the Reserve Bank of Australia!

I should start thinking about a transcontinental transfer, lol....

Angela - posted on 11/30/2013

2,457

9

322

Bradley, people invariably say they worry more about a daughter than a son. Personally I worry about my sons more. My kids are all grown-up - my only daughter is the youngest of my 4 children, but is actually the most focussed and sensible. Stories like yours, Bradley, make me worry more about my sons - at least I did worry a lot when they were teenagers.

One of my sons, when a teenager, had his teenage girlfriend living with us at our house. I knew they were sexually active. I also knew that she had no family input, was estranged from her parents and pretty much an orphan. In other words, she was a ripe candidate for getting pregnant at a young age (which, to be honest, does NOT always happen "accidentally" whatever the teenagers concerned may claim).

About twice a week I used to get her on her own and advise her that she'd "better not get pregnant". I also spoke to my son on his own on regular occasions. He was quite naive and said that she was on the Pill - he genuinely didn't feel there was any scope for error or deceit, but my parents and I used to have the conversation with him regularly.

And guess what? No, she DIDN'T get pregnant. I'd like to think it was as a result of my regular "warning" pep talks. After a couple of years together, they went their separate ways. She took up with a new boyfriend. She was pregnant in less than a year. And I know for a fact that the mother of her new boyfriend didn't have these regular pep-talks with her like I did.

People can rant and rave as much as they like after someone gets pregnant - but how much input was there BEFORE conception? The decision to go ahead with a pregnancy or to abort is completely down to the female. The man has NO say in it, whatever his age - it's known as the woman's right to choose. But there are always the parents of young men that will rant and rave that their son is too young for such responsibility. Tough.

At least a daughter can only get pregnant to one man at a time. A young man can get several ladies pregnant within a short space of time.

And the fact is that many men (whatever their age) will ASSUME that their partner is on the Pill or somehow taking care of contraceptive responsibility. To ask her or to make a point of asking "and have you been taking your Pill regularly ....?" might just damage his chances of getting no-strings sex - so he doesn't ask. Many men will admit that they don't like using condoms, so they're only too willing to assume (or BELIEVE) that their partner is on the Pill, protected by the Coil etc ....

And this is without taking into account the women who deliberately lie, deceive and aim to get pregnant!

This isn't about "Man-hating" from women - it's about males getting wise and realising that in the grand scheme of things, there is actually no such thing as no-strings sex. If your partner hasn't shown you tangible evidence of using some other (RELIABLE) contraceptive she's using but is discouraging you from using a condom - it's time to ask yourself why!!

Michelle - posted on 11/30/2013

4,209

8

3246

Maybe you should learn how to put a condom on and then you wouldn't have to pay child support.
Sorry but I'm a Mum and have been the "paying" parent for a while. It doesn't just go 1 way mate, whoever doesn't have the children has to pay.
I haven't read all the responses but why would your drivers license be at risk? Why does it affect your ability to get a passport?
I think you need to go back and show your income and then your expenses.

Angela - posted on 11/30/2013

2,457

9

322

I live in the UK where it’s handled differently again. And again, it’s not always fair to fathers – and in many cases it’s totally unfair to mothers.

Generally the “good payers” are picking up the tab for the “bad payers” though the authorities would never admit to this. It’s a rubbish system. In the UK we don’t generally put into practice the option of shared custody where the father can pay less child support or perhaps nothing. This is popular in the States – the Dad puts in for shared custody in order to reduce his financial responsibility but isn’t even around much of the time (through going to work) so his current wife/girlfriend is dealing with the day-to-day childcare – or his parents are.

Over here the petty politics of access (known as “contact”) has some mothers and fathers NOT putting their children first because they don’t want to feel as though they’re doing their ex-partner any kind of a favour ….. I’m talking about fathers who don’t want to have their children on weekends because they’re scared stiff their ex-wives/girlfriends will use the child-free time to pursue a social life ….. What they won’t admit is that they don’t want the kids around curtailing their OWN social life at weekends. Or then, there are some mothers who say “OK, you will want to go out at the weekend, so have the kids mid-week ….” But Dad says no because Mom works and he feels she’s just using him as cheap/free child care! There are also the mothers who arrange special treats for their kids which coincide with the times they would be seeing Dad – so the children don’t want to go with Dad.

We also have the Benefits system. Lots and lots of single mothers are on state-provided benefit. Fathers who contribute towards their children’s upkeep are actually supposed to pay DIRECT to the Benefits system SO THE MOTHER IS ACTUALLY NO BETTER OFF FINANCIALLY but the burden on the taxpayer is reduced because Dad’s paying a significant proportion of what she receives. Or, he CAN pay it to the mother and she must declare it so that portion of her benefit is removed. Now this system is open to LOTS of abuse …..

There are myriads of mothers who say they either don’t know who their children’s father is or maybe they don’t know where he is ….. Or perhaps they were getting benefit for a long time before the current, more stringent rules were implemented. Often the father was unemployed at the time the child was born and the authorities simply didn’t bother to pursue it. He may well be in better circumstances now. These mothers simply get the man to pay them direct, cash-in-hand, so they have their benefit money AND his contribution.

Some men, who are not entirely happy with this idea, pay her anyway, let her get on with claiming her benefits but get signed receipts for every time they make a payment. That way, if there’s any come-back later on, they can provide evidence to cover their own backs and maybe get their child’s mother into trouble should she ever decide to make trouble for him!

At one time (and I believe this is still the case) the State took a very small “token” amount from fathers who were unemployed/on benefit for each child – say like £2 per child. But here’s the weird, totally illogical twist. If the father is out-of-work but on a HEALTH related benefit (e.g. Severe Disablement Allowance, Disability Living Allowance, Statutory Sick Pay, Incapacity Benefit etc ….) then he doesn’t have to pay ANYTHING!! And those health-related benefits are paid at a much, much higher rate than ordinary Unemployment Benefit or Job-Seeker’s Allowance! This is exactly how my own ex-husband got out of paying his way!

And of course there are the men who suddenly discover that their girlfriend is pregnant with an unplanned baby who just quit their jobs the minute they find out. A few short years ago, a man’s financial circumstances at the time of the child’s birth set the pattern for the rest of the child’s dependent years. This has now changed but a great many families have slipped through the loophole, giving absentee fathers fewer financial responsibilities.

The State compensates for this by targeting the fathers who ARE paying their way and taking more money from them.

[deleted account]

I have no helpful advice for you, Bradley, but I just wanted to be another voice out there to let you know I get what you're saying and I agree! Child support is calculated differently in different place. Where I live it is solely based on a percentage of the paying parent's income. They do not consider what it actually should cost to raise a child, what the paying parent's "capacity to pay" is, or even what the custodial parent's financial obligations or income contribute to the equation. Pure and simple, it's a percentage of paying parent's income. If I understood correctly, you indicated that where you live it's supposed to be based it on 50% of what it costs to raise the child? Am I understanding that right? To me, that does seem like it would be much more fair in theory. But if that's the case and the estimate is that it costs $400-$700 a month to raise a child, then I totally agree! YOU are paying the full amount of what they say it should cost...where the hell is mom's contribution??? If it costs (average of $400-$700) $550 a month to raise a child, then along the lines of that system you should pay $275 per child per month, and mom should be paying the other $275. Obviously cost of living varies from place to place, but I totally get where you're coming from. My husband pays CS to an ex who has never worked and lives in her parent's home for free, thus there ARE no housing costs for his child, nor has the mother ever supported her children with one dime of her own money. The fathers of those children are expected to be her income. For a time before CS was set in court, we were buying 100% of my husband's child's groceries - based on the mom's list, non-essentials and all, not what we thought she needed, but what BM demanded. (And though I used the term "groceries" I'm talking about non food items here as well, just in case anyone assumes I'm too stupid to know kids need more than food.) And I added up two months of receipts to learn that what it ACTUALLY cost to support his child, based on BM's list of needs, was almost exactly half of what the mom had insisted she "needed" for this child. And that was ALL of the child's needs each week, not half to allow for mom to contribute half. I'd love to know where the other half of that "child support" money was going all the months he'd been giving her cash before we started buying her groceries ourselves. I totally agree that it is very reasonable for CS to contribute to household costs like rent, utilities, etc, but in our case BM was getting enough to contribute to all of that when she doesn't even have those expenses. And I'm sure you will hear people say that a child costs more than $500 a month to raise, but that's not necessarily true. A child CAN cost more than that, depending on how unwisely you spend you money, but they don't have to cost much more than that. I live in an area where cost of living is pretty average for the U.S. and for several years my husband and I were living on right around $2000 a month. That was total net income, so it paid for everything- rent, utilities, car expenses, clothing, groceries, bday and xmas gifts, EVERYTHING -for a familiy of FOUR, DH, myself, and the two kids we have together, plus we have a dog, so technically that wasn't even all going to us and the kids. Which means even if you want to consider all living expenses in each household members portion of what it costs to survive, (as in 1/4 of the rent and utilities and everything else) we were surviving on around $500 per person per month for an extended period of time. That means a child can very reasonably cost about $125 per week to raise. Smartphones are not necessities, cable tv is not a necessity, name brand clothing is not a necessity. $500 is a reasonable estimate of what a child's NECESSARY monthly costs would be, including housing. Yes, dads should be responsible for supporting the children they helped create, but MOM should also be responsible for paying half of that for the children SHE helped create. I've heard way too many single moms talk as if the dads should have to pay for all of the financial responsibility for the children because she has to support herself. Well guess what, dad still has to support himself too. The financial responsibility should be split equally between the two parents, dad shouldn't be held responsible for paying mom's portion of what it costs to raise kids they both conceived. And he certainly shouldn't be expected to support the mother's needs, which I've also heard way too many people argue for. The dad isn't obligated to take care of the mom, only to HELP take care of his kids. If mom can't afford it, she can seek other employment or government assistance or whatever, but it isn't the dad's problem just as the system isn't holding mom responsible for the dad's expenses when he can't make ends meet. I agree the system is extremely biased towards moms most of the time.

Jodi - posted on 11/29/2013

3,562

36

3907

We have access to free medical (that evil thing called universal health care) as well as an additional 9.25% superannuation (retirement) paid by the employer. This is the law.

I guess this is sometimes why my views differ.

Pure capitalism is not always a good thing, but that is also another discussion :)

Bradley - posted on 11/29/2013

16

0

0

Yeah. Minimum wage for me is 7.25 but that's another jacked up topic all together lol.

Jodi - posted on 11/27/2013

3,562

36

3907

Have you tried going back to court to review your capacity to pay?

I guess I'm having a hard time swallowing that you work 60+ hours a week for $1500 plus tax.....But then, I live in a country where the minimum wage is $16.40 an hour and we have a child support agency that calculates support based on your most recently filed tax return.

My brother was paying $2000 a month at one point for his two children to ONE mother, but he had the capacity to pay that. That has now changed because one of the children lives with him the other lives with mum, however, he still pays her something because he strongly believes this helps maintain a certain standard of living for his kids.

Bradley - posted on 11/27/2013

16

0

0

Lalaboom thanks. I'm with you on that. Mom and dad make a kid. Mom and dad are both responsible. This may be vulgar, but wrap it up? Lol ok. Can I come screw you without a condom? Would you tell me no? I thought you would. That's my point. She's just as much to blame as myself. Her body, her rules. If she would have asked me to use a rubber, I would have. I can only assume she didn't because she was on birth control. 0.o. What, what?! We DID use protection?! No!

Bradley - posted on 11/27/2013

16

0

0

Crystal weems, I mostly agree with you and thank you for being openminded. I want my support to go to bills as well. I'm ok with that. My kids need power. Pay it. My kids need water and a roof. Pay it. My kids need transportation, pay your insurance, car payment and put some gas in your tank. I'm fine with all these thugs because that's what it takes to raise a kid. I'm just sore about the amount. I know they don't need that much.

Bradley - posted on 11/27/2013

16

0

0

Shawnn lively. You are rude, hateful, petty and not at all a positive addition to this conversation. Please take your presumptuous name calling elsewhere.

Bradley - posted on 11/27/2013

16

0

0

I live in virginia for the record. I have had no past pay problems other than when the economy crashed. I was working at lowes who got the biggest hit because of the housing market. We all remember this right? Ok, so I lost my job. Still required to pay 1200 a month. Pretty stout. I picked up a job as a waiter and had to ride that out for about 2 years till I finally caught a break and jumped into auto sales. There were lapses and failure to pays all through that time period so I build up arrears. Now, because the 90's gov't created a housing bubble that fucked our economy 15 years later, I can't have a passport, hunting license, and the 'system' is just ITCHING for a reason to pull my license. Oh, and that's another thing. How assnine is that?! I'm having a hard time paying so let's make it harder and more expensive for you to get to work because that'll motivate you to shit extra money. Give me a BREAK! This system is broken.

Crystal - posted on 11/26/2013

83

10

8

Oh I didn't know you were a mod. Anyway, if he is unable to pay, as he said it's an exorbitant amount, then I suppose he could have had past issues with paying or paying on time. My point was that the system is incredibly unbalanced, either to a mother who receives a ridiculously low amount or to a father who pays a ridiculously high amount. I've seen first hand that income is not always wholly taken into account. Like when there is no income. You are still expected to pay based on your recent employment records. And child custody arrangements as well as child support payments and regulations are highly biased toward the mother and sexist. The mother isn't held as accountable and the father is expected to supplement her income when, many times, she's already receiving assistance. Unfortunately, what can you do? People will continue to have children and leave relationships.

♫ Shawnn ♪♫♫ - posted on 11/26/2013

13,264

21

2015

He's not saying that he takes any actual responsibility beyond paying 2 women $1200 for 3 children.

So, $400 per child per month maintenance...doesn't seem all that unbalanced to me, not at all.

And, since he's in the US, he's saying that he cannot get a hunting/fishing license, and his driver's license is at risk of being suspended. This means, ladies, that this DD has had past payment problems, and he's been put on the books. They don't take hunting, fishing & driving privileges unless they have been chasing you for enforcement of your court ordered obligations.

That's why I have absolutely no sympathy for this one. If he's at the point that he's having privileges rescinded because of non payment, he's not been in compliance with his court orders at all. OF COURSE he thinks the system is "against" him!

Jodi - posted on 11/26/2013

3,562

36

3907

Oh Lord, I moderate the board, I read posts, I answer as I see fit. It is actually quite annoying being told I am "following" someone. Amusing too.

I never actually said the mother wasn't accountable. I said that the paying parent is actually liable for SOME of the bills too.

This particular parent hasn't indicated what his time is with the children so I am not going to comment on that. He certainly hasn't mentioned ever seeing the children.

He does, however, mention two different mothers, and this does make a difference. That means he has two child support cases. He isn't giving one mother $1200.

I'd just be curious as to what the custody arrangements are on all these children.

Jodi - posted on 11/25/2013

3,562

36

3907

Actually, Crystal, support is PARTIALLY to pay your bills. As a primary carer, you should not be required to pay the full rent or mortgage on a family home. Let's say the primary carer was single. The bills would be much smaller. So yes, a good percentage of the every day bills, utilities, etc, are because of the children. Just as an example, my rental costs as a single person would be at least $800 a month less than they are with the kids I have now. I would also be paying at least half in utilities, fuel, and so on. These are all the hidden costs that people seem to forget about.

However, it also depends where you live. The OP hasn't mentioned that. It really depends on the cost of living in the location in which you live.

To be quite honest, I am one of those people that is on both ends of this argument. I receive a measly $30 a month for a 16 year old boy. He can't even eat for a week on that, let alone anything else. We've also had to pay some ridiculous amounts for my husband's children (one was receiving $700 a month for ONE child for a time there when the ex was out of work). I don't begrudge it. We get by, and none of the kids are missing out, and that is the most important consideration in all sides of this debate.

My point is, there will always be someone who thinks they are missing out. Always. Those who pay think it is unfair. Those who receive think it is unfair. That's why there is a system in the first place. If we all agreed it wouldn't be needed, so you pretty much just have to suck it up. If you don't like it, ask for a review. Where I live, they do look at your financial capacity to pay as well (and her capacity to support), not only your income. There is a process you can go through. I can't say what the process is where you live, but it sounds to me like you need to investigate if you don't have the physical capacity to pay through no fault of your own. However, I will say that an income of $1600 a month after tax sounds pretty pathetic.

LalaBoom - posted on 11/25/2013

248

0

41

I live in NY and I actually agree with Bradley.

I posted a comment where before my husband's final judgement, the CS judge told my husband I could "pay the rent alone" so that he could afford the CS. My husband's ex was for a FACT working off the books and living in an apartment where four other adults were earning a living and rent/utils, etc was shared by all. Thankfully he went to the next hearing fully armed with receipts and whatnot, and the judge granted a reasonable order.

It is unbalanced, but you do have an alternative:

Get an aggressive lawyer and increase your parenting time.

Shawnn, normally I agree with you. This isn't one of those times. To tell him that he "should" have wrapped it up is quite demeaning actually. For one, even if he didn't wrap it up, there's an implied agreement that all parties involved will have final say in actually having the baby. And two, there's the presumption that both parties will work together for the best interest of the child without one party screwing the other.

Having said that, I HAVE ZERO RESPECT FOR MEN WHO DONT WANT TO PAY AND ALSO DONT WANT TO BE A CAREGIVER AND SHARE THE PARENTING RESPONSIBILITY.

Bradley - posted on 11/25/2013

16

0

0

Also, to even further show you that there are men out there worth a damn, I got a visectomy 4 weeks after I caught her cheating. So stop looking at me like a dead beat father and read what I'm saying. It's unbalanced as fuck. There are thousands of resources for mommy, but when daddy can't pay his rent, where does he go? When daddy can't eat, how does he work? When daddy can't work, where does support come from? Daddy in jail. It's bs no matter how you look at it.

♫ Shawnn ♪♫♫ - posted on 11/25/2013

13,264

21

2015

You said you have 3 kids, and pay 1200/month. That's $400/kid/month

MORE Than fair.

If you'd been married, would you have had an issue with how much the kids were "costing" you? That's the thing. You didn't mind having unprotected sex, but you do mind paying for the result of that?

Sorry, but no sympathy here. You also have the choice to appeal for custody & visitation. Partial custody cuts down on support needs, because you have them physically in your custody, and are supplying their needs for that time.

Bradley - posted on 11/25/2013

16

0

0

YOU. You are the type of woman I'm talking about. I willingly paid but that wasn't good enough. Now I pay way too much. I have no issues supporting my children. I didn't need help with that. I was paying. Now I'm suffering? What? Oh, and to your 'wrap it up comment', me and my last ex had 2 kids in 6 years. She cheated on me. So what do you have to say to that? Where's the protection for the father? Better job you say? Ok. So you want me to make more money, have a higher tax bracket, and have to pay even more to child support? Well, I did the math. Is have to make over 100k a year to see livable wages. So please, continue. Tell me how my situation is right and fair and just.

Bradley - posted on 11/25/2013

16

0

0

No, I pay 1200 which is HALF of the amount the gov't says it takes to raise my kids. I have a 50%+- pay rate. So yes. I'm raising my kids COMPLETELY. Where's moms half?

Bradley - posted on 11/25/2013

16

0

0

I haven't even finished reading your post and I have to interject. I pay 1200 a month, not 400.

♫ Shawnn ♪♫♫ - posted on 11/25/2013

13,264

21

2015

You are not "condemned to live in poverty". Get a better paying job. You say that the gov't doesn't know how much it costs to raise a kid, that you could raise all 3 for 1200 a month...Guess what? That's exactly what you're doing! Raising all 3 of your kids for $1200 a month.

You just directly contradicted yourself.

♫ Shawnn ♪♫♫ - posted on 11/25/2013

13,264

21

2015

First, I have to say that I advocate for father's rights. Have for 25 years since I married my one & only husband and have had to fight his ex bitch.

HOWEVER: You're complaining, Bradley, about paying $400/child a month in support?????????? ROFLMAO!

Did you ever stop to think, BEFORE you had sex with and impregnated 2 different women, that this could be the result?

BTW...A kiddo costs between $400 & $700 a month to raise, but you can't see your way clear to supporting the kids you helped create? Nice.

At least my husband paid his support. He didn't ever get to know his daughter because of the ex bitch, but he didn't bitch about supporting her.

You only consider it unbalanced because you're on the paying end. If you were on the receiving end, you'd be thankful that there was at least one person out there paying what's been ordered.

Your "woes" of not being able to get a hunting license, passport, and your driving privileges being in danger...well, that's how that get the non-compliant parent into compliance. It looks like it worked fairly well.

Here's a thought. If you don't want to support the kids you create, either stop screwing, or wrap it up. It ain't that hard to grab a package of trojans on your way to the bar.

Bradley - posted on 11/25/2013

16

0

0

There's a bi yearly fee of 25 or 50. The rest go to the kids. The reason it's so unbalanced is because the gov't assumes it knows how much it cost to raise a kid and I'm sorry, but I can raise all three of my kids on 1200 a month. The system is broken. It's wrong. And it needs change. I'm sick and tires of how entitled the woman is in every factor of marriage and child. It's sexist and it needs change. Until it does, I'm condemned to live in poverty while the mothers of my children continue to live comfortably.

Tiffany - posted on 11/25/2013

3

0

2

It is unbalanced, but that is what they do to get their pay. For every letter they send out you pay for it. So you pay 1200 for three kids, you are only paying about 900 for the three and the rest goes to the state for processing and payment of the people who send out the notices. That is just my theory. I have to pay only 98 a month for my son.

Join Circle of Moms

Sign up for Circle of Moms and be a part of this community! Membership is just one click away.

Join Circle of Moms