or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Single Parenting › would you file for support in this situation?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

would you file for support in this situation? - Page 3

post #41 of 86
Thread Starter 
I agree that the termination was not an "option" but it seems easier for a man to say/think that than the woman that is actually carrying a child.
post #42 of 86
Thread Starter 
Well the father has told me more than once that he is planning on giving me money, supporting me etc., I just am not sure if he really will so that is why I was asking if people thought I should file anyway - overwhelmingly most of you say yes -

As for him being in the child's life he said he would support my decision from the beginning but he just really didn't want me to have the baby. Now he is accepting of it and has not said a single negative word about my decision (except saying " I can't believe you're pregnant" all the time)
post #43 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by veggiemama4 View Post
Well the father has told me more than once that he is planning on giving me money, supporting me etc., I just am not sure if he really will so that is why I was asking if people thought I should file anyway - overwhelmingly most of you say yes -

As for him being in the child's life he said he would support my decision from the beginning but he just really didn't want me to have the baby. Now he is accepting of it and has not said a single negative word about my decision (except saying " I can't believe you're pregnant" all the time)
I know all about that "supporting my decision, I will give you money and be there for both of you" not to have a negitive attitude, because I do still have hope that someday he will come through on his words, but as of yet (2 years) he has not. I am right now deciding if I will file for support because after so many "the money is in the mail" 's I can't wait anymore. This thread has confirmed that I do need to file for the sake of my daughter. I'm a "I can do it myself" kind of person so this decision has been hard for me, but when I look into her sweet face and know that we would be better off with an extra few hundred dollars a month and the insurance that would be included (she currently has none because I can't afford it) I know it's what I need to do.

This is just me and my situation, but I wanted to add my thoughts! Good luck to you and your growing little one!
post #44 of 86
Well, I'd like to see who here's heard the "I'll send money/I'll do better than the minimums/I'll be there" song & dance. Oh, a near-universal show of hands. I waited patiently for it to come true for about nine months before saying "let's just go" to the lawyer; others? Ladies?

Not to be cynical, veg, but I'd just cut to the chase and file. This game is a dodge meant to give him an excuse to see you as the bad guy (everyone else sees clearly what's going on, but he needs this). You're supposed to wait endlessly for him to make good on a regular basis. If you file -- ever -- you're betraying him and stabbing him in the back. Don't fall for it. A stand-up guy will deal with the paperwork and the legal obligations, and just take care of them.
post #45 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger_rodgers View Post
Well, I'd like to see who here's heard the "I'll send money/I'll do better than the minimums/I'll be there" song & dance. Oh, a near-universal show of hands. I waited patiently for it to come true for about nine months before saying "let's just go" to the lawyer; others? Ladies?
My daughter's father does send $ each month without being forced by courts. We've never gone to court & his name isn't even on the birth certificate. He didn't for the 1st year, but I contacted him & told him I was struggling & he needed to pay. It's a bit less than I would get if I filed, but his income is under the table so it'd be hard to prove what he makes & it's not worth the trouble for a few bucks. So every month he sends a payment, if he stopped I might go thru the courts. I don't see anything wrong with a few months of trying to see if he'll pay or not. If he doesn't you can file, you can file when the baby is a day old or 5 years old or whenever you decide to. You can wait a bit & see if he pays on his own & while most don't yours might.
post #46 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger_rodgers View Post
Well, I'd like to see who here's heard the "I'll send money/I'll do better than the minimums/I'll be there" song & dance. Oh, a near-universal show of hands. I waited patiently for it to come true for about nine months before saying "let's just go" to the lawyer; others? Ladies?
My ex was all 'I'll help! I'll send money!' Elly is now 10 months old and every single time his bio dad has seen him it's because I drove to where he lives. I have seen $40. and one pack of diapers. That's all. I was invited to christmas at his mothers under the impression that it was going to be presents presents presents and money. I was greeted by the son he made with another girl while we were married three months before he got me pg. and he drove up with her. Didn't stay long and the gifts were cheap and pathetic.

Good thing my dh wants to adopt Elly. That's what we are working on now.

So go for the support. Even if you didn't mean to make the little one, you are taking responsibility and so should he.
post #47 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger_rodgers View Post
Well, if you specifically don't want to risk having a child, you should specifically not have sex.
Hmm. Call me a heathen, but I don't believe sex should only be for procreation. So, people who don't want children should specifically NEVER have sex? Okay, okay, there is birth control and all that snipping stuff. I was religious about my pills and never got pregnant. My mom, on the other hand, went the more drastic route and ended up pregnant with twins after she got her tubes tied. Unfortunately, even drastic measures don't always work.

oops, just veered a little off-topic there.
post #48 of 86
I wouldn't try to get support in that situation, but thats just my opinion.

Only situation I would try to get support :
Married, SAHM or underemployed mom with no marketable skills gets a divorce in which her hubby was at fault.
post #49 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by misswerewolf View Post
Hmm. Call me a heathen, but I don't believe sex should only be for procreation. So, people who don't want children should specifically NEVER have sex? Okay, okay, there is birth control and all that snipping stuff. I was religious about my pills and never got pregnant. My mom, on the other hand, went the more drastic route and ended up pregnant with twins after she got her tubes tied. Unfortunately, even drastic measures don't always work.

oops, just veered a little off-topic there.
I don't think sex is only for procreation but if we're going to have sex we need to realize that no sex is guaranteed to be consequence proof. It's a risk.
post #50 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoppyMama View Post
I don't think sex is only for procreation but if we're going to have sex we need to realize that no sex is guaranteed to be consequence proof. It's a risk.
Exactly. And if you're a man, then you need to realize that sex may result in a baby, and that you'll have no control over that once you're done enjoying yourself, but that you will have responsibility.

Through most of my life I'd have had no problem at all choosing abortion. Now, though, I wouldn't. I also don't want another child, and am not willing to risk having one. Alas, am straight. Solution is remarkably easy. No sex involving other people.
post #51 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by misswerewolf View Post
Hmm. Call me a heathen, but I don't believe sex should only be for procreation. So, people who don't want children should specifically NEVER have sex? Okay, okay, there is birth control and all that snipping stuff. I was religious about my pills and never got pregnant. My mom, on the other hand, went the more drastic route and ended up pregnant with twins after she got her tubes tied. Unfortunately, even drastic measures don't always work.

oops, just veered a little off-topic there.
So, is the person consenting to having sex? Isn't sex one of the ways to get pregnant? The directions on every single birth control method I used, including condoms, clearly state that it is not 100% effective.

As for getting the tubes tied, they do it differently now. They actually cut them and then tie them whereas, before they just tied/clamped them. The reason for this is because they found that actually cutting the tubes worked way better.

As for the vasectomy, you are supposed to go yearly to have your sperm counted.

Irregardless of the above, if you aren't willing to take responsibility for any child you produce then don't have sex. If you choose to have sex, you should be held responsible for any child that is produced.
post #52 of 86
No, my child isn't a paycheck.


I am in a very similar situation and, while the financial help would be nice, I don't want anyone involved in my son's life unless they genuinely want to be there. I don't want X to be around simply because he has to write me a check every month or to resent my son, children pick up on these things.
post #53 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Crunch View Post
No, my child isn't a paycheck.

A paycheck? How crass. And a very inaccurate statement. Going after the OTHER PARENT for his/her financial obligation for the child isn't a paycheck, it's making sure that the child has at least the financial support of BOTH parents.

But if you want to give up support that your child has a right to, that's fine. As long as you don't ask the taxpayers to help support your child.
post #54 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodmom2008 View Post
A paycheck? How crass. And a very inaccurate statement. Going after the OTHER PARENT for his/her financial obligation for the child isn't a paycheck, it's making sure that the child has at least the financial support of BOTH parents.

But if you want to give up support that your child has a right to, that's fine. As long as you don't ask the taxpayers to help support your child.
I certainly don't think that choosing to file for support means you are considering your child to be a paycheck- I agree that was not a good word choice. Obviously the money goes for the child, which is a good thing, in many or even most cases, barring severely dysfunctional circumstances. I have nothing against mamas who file, and believe that they are doing what they know to be best for their child.

But I also dislike the implication that by NOT filing for support, a mama is depriving her child of something to which they are entitled. To me, a child is entitled to both financial stability and emotional/parental stability. If a single parent can provide financial stability and meet a child's needs, then I don't think they should be seen as depriving their child of something that that their child should have in that arena. In addition, many times, sadly enough, it is a tradeoff. Child support payments can muck things up in a way that decreases the emotional/parental stability factor- as the pp said, creating resentment and involvement by default/obligation rather than genuine love and desire to be involved. So if I can give my child both financial stability of meeting their basic needs, and the emotional stability of consistency and positive parental involvement by choice alone, then to me I am making that decision in my child's best interests and providing everything that child deserves.

And "the taxpayers" are all of us! I dislike that implication because to me, I believe most of us have in the past/present and/or will in the future, contribute our share. That wording seems to bring up an us versus them mentality that we as mamas don't need! Most states do require you to file if you need a certain amount of public assistance, which I understand, but I actually feel that this can take away a mama's ability to make decisions based on her child's best interests, and applies a one-size fits all model to varied circumstances. Sometimes a man is abusive or has significant problems that are not worth any amount of money saved; sometimes he doesn't make any money and would be simply be thrown in jail, helping no one.. it's hard to generalize without knowing the situation a person is in.

I just think we can agree to disagree while acknowledging that scenarios can differ and that most mamas are acting in their child's best interests and out of love, regardless of whether they file or don't (and not filing immediately does not preclude filing down the line, if circumstances warrant). Let's please not try to demonize either choice!! We are all mamas doing the best we can by our little ones, often in the face of situations which do not start out as ideal circumstances. We need to stick together and support each other!
post #55 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mama_Gaia View Post
But I also dislike the implication that by NOT filing for support, a mama is depriving her child of something to which they are entitled. To me, a child is entitled to both financial stability and emotional/parental stability. If a single parent can provide financial stability and meet a child's needs, then I don't think they should be seen as depriving their child of something that that their child should have in that arena. In addition, many times, sadly enough, it is a tradeoff. Child support payments can muck things up in a way that decreases the emotional/parental stability factor- as the pp said, creating resentment and involvement by default/obligation rather than genuine love and desire to be involved. So if I can give my child both financial stability of meeting their basic needs, and the emotional stability of consistency and positive parental involvement by choice alone, then to me I am making that decision in my child's best interests and providing everything that child deserves.

And "the taxpayers" are all of us! I dislike that implication because to me, I believe most of us have in the past/present and/or will in the future, contribute our share. That wording seems to bring up an us versus them mentality that we as mamas don't need! Most states do require you to file if you need a certain amount of public assistance, which I understand, but I actually feel that this can take away a mama's ability to make decisions based on her child's best interests, and applies a one-size fits all model to varied circumstances. Sometimes a man is abusive or has significant problems that are not worth any amount of money saved; sometimes he doesn't make any money and would be simply be thrown in jail, helping no one.. it's hard to generalize without knowing the situation a person is in.

I just think we can agree to disagree while acknowledging that scenarios can differ and that most mamas are acting in their child's best interests and out of love, regardless of whether they file or don't (and not filing immediately does not preclude filing down the line, if circumstances warrant). Let's please not try to demonize either choice!! We are all mamas doing the best we can by our little ones, often in the face of situations which do not start out as ideal circumstances. We need to stick together and support each other!

And there are certain types of public assistance where the CP would not be required to go after child support.

I don't have a problem with someone needing assistance, what I have a problem with is someone making the choice not to file for child support and then file for the type of assistance that one can get without going after child support. I'm sorry, but it is wrong to not go after the person who helped get you pregnant for child support while asking the taxpayers to help you out financially.

If the parent can financially support the child, without struggling, without the child support, then go for it. But that doesn't change the fact that the child is entitled to, at the very least, the financial support of both parents.
post #56 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodmom2008 View Post
And there are certain types of public assistance where the CP would not be required to go after child support.

I don't have a problem with someone needing assistance, what I have a problem with is someone making the choice not to file for child support and then file for the type of assistance that one can get without going after child support. I'm sorry, but it is wrong to not go after the person who helped get you pregnant for child support while asking the taxpayers to help you out financially.

If the parent can financially support the child, without struggling, without the child support, then go for it. But that doesn't change the fact that the child is entitled to, at the very least, the financial support of both parents.
I think I just have to agree to disagree with your view of things. I don't think it is as clear cut as right versus wrong, I think it is a matter of mamas doing what they believe best by their child, no one else, in varied and sometimes difficult situations. And even if one believes that it is a straightforward matter of right/wrong (which I don't, but I can see that you do and respect that), can one at least acknowledge that those mamas who make what you see as the "wrong decision" not to file are likely doing so in response to their belief that they are making the right choice on behalf of the child they strive to protect? I am just saying that regardless of our views, I know this can be a heated topic, but I just feel it is important to recognize first and foremost that we are all moms, many of us without the voluntary financial or emotional support of the other parent, trying to do what is best by our child, and to me that overshadows anything else. To me, perhaps the real issue here is that these men would have to be coerced by the state to support their child if needed, and/or would use that support as an opportunity to create strife or inconsistency in the life of their child.

And actually, I do see where right/wrong could come into play, but not in the same way. I see filing/not filing, or needing/not needing assistance both as complex issues where the motive determines right or wrong more than the face value of the act. To me, filing just so that you can have more money to spend on yourself is wrong (and imo not something most mamas here would consider, but sure it happens!) As would not filing out of pride or anger when your child is struggling and really needs that support. But to me, either choice can be a good choice, when rooted in the child's best interests, and only the mama involved knows the situation and her child and her motives, yk?
post #57 of 86
Please notice that I said "my child", I don't judge anyone for their decision to seek child support.. or not.

In my case child support would simply be a supplement income. I am capable of providing food, clothing, and a roof over my child's head.. anything more is gravy.

Sure with child support I could work less and Luke could have more expensive, er I mean nicer, clothes and toys.
However, it is not worth the emotional games that would be played and the heartache that would arise.

That is my situation, one size does not fit all.


Can I make a request? Can we do away with the phrase, "Go after" when talking about child support? It seems so hostile and at least for me conjures up visions of greed and spite, as in "I'm gonna go after him for all he's worth!"

Sorry for rambling on.
post #58 of 86
i would file. the child has the right to that money. even if you take the money and put it in a savings account and gift it to the child on their 18th birthday, that's actually what i would do, assuming i didn't need it for the day to day expenses associated with child-care.
post #59 of 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Crunch View Post
Can I make a request? Can we do away with the phrase, "Go after" when talking about child support? It seems so hostile and at least for me conjures up visions of greed and spite, as in "I'm gonna go after him for all he's worth!" .[/FONT]
It doesn't have that connotation for me, Captain_Crunch. Going after child support is not the same thing as going after an individual. But it is sometimes a real effort and a chore, and that means sometimes you do have to gear up and go after it. I hear it as a phrase of encouragement & motivation.
post #60 of 86
I have a feeling that those mamas who aren't going after c/s -- either out of a sense that this represents independence, or in order to steer clear of the dad -- are not paying attention to what kind of money we're talking about.

Assume c/s is $500/mo. If you start at birth, and save the money for education when the child turns 18, and you do it in some ultra-safe way where you beat inflation by only about 2%, the child will have:

$129,155 on his 19th birthday (in current dollars -- no worry about inflation).

But suppose you're thinking farther ahead than that, and don't want to be in boobybunny's aunt's terrible situation at age 60. You decide to save the money for your retirement so that your child doesn't spend his midlife trying to take care of you and pay for all of your expenses while also paying a mortgage/rent, supporting his own family, and trying to save for his own old age.

Suppose you're 24 years old and have a new baby. If you get c/s from age 0-19 for the child, $500/mo, and you save that money in safe places till you're 65, you'd have in the neighborhood of:

$200,000 in retirement savings (again, in current dollars). Which would spin off about $10,000 in income for you a year, invested safely at 5%.

If you were a slightly savvier investor and got about 4% above inflation, you'd have more like:

$300,000 in retirement savings, or an income just from interest of $15,000/yr.

So that's what you're giving up when you waive child support. It translates to the ability to send the child to college and start life without crushing debt, or the ability to let your child go on and take care of him/herself and family instead of trying to support you when you're old and sick.

Those are both major things, and, in my book, worth going through a lot of trouble for. I do understand that it's often difficult to get the c/s owing, but there are statutes of limitations for going after the money; often you'll have a good 20 years to collect. If the daddy has the money through a good chunk of the rest of his life, you can collect it, or your child can. So it's definitely worth having the right on paper.

As for exes being horrible when pressed for child support....When my ex filed, and I started reading about how these things go, it came clear pretty quickly that the usual thing for guys to do was to scare the women silly about custody and escape with all the money, leaving the women with all the responsibility. So I decided I wasn't going to fall for it. Yes, I'd gear up for a real custody fight, and stay vigilant about it. But I wasn't going to take it seriously -- I'd take it as a bluff.

And that's exactly what it was. My ex played stupid games right up to the week of our court date, and then turned aside in the game of chicken. And no, I wasn't going to do the woman thing where you go, "Anything, take anything, just don't hurt my baby." I went after reasonable money, too -- "reasonable" defined as "you helped make her, you pay half the real costs of raising her," which, frankly, does not account for his share of the parenting job that I do for him for free, which has some hefty costs for me -- and got all I asked for: obligation to college funding, childcare, a favorable asset split and payback schedule, the last word on health insurance, and more. Does he still play games? You bet. So now I just deal with them like an administrator. Collect the paperwork and have it ready in case I have reason to act.

20 years ago, I probably would've let a lot more go. But unless you have reason to believe the guy is going to physically harm you and your kids, I don't think there's any reason to fall for the guff.

So there is my spiel on why it's worth it to gird the old loins there and go get the money.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Single Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Single Parenting › would you file for support in this situation?