or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Single Parenting › Dr. Phil 2/27
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dr. Phil 2/27 - Page 9

post #161 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsChatsAlot View Post
I think the thing here is we're all applying our own situations to a completely different scenario. This is NOT about each of our situations. It's about ONE family and their dynamic. When I start to apply my situation to theirs, it doesn't make any sense.
.
.
.
I think if it were me, I'd want to work to have something to do and the extra money would probably make up a big difference in the drop in income.

It sounds like these people are not struggling to keep food on the table, shelter and clothes. My values are such that if this is the case, I'd much rather see the kids be able to spend more time with their dad and have a connected relationship with both parents than have extra money for fancier clothes, activities etc. Just my values, but people outweigh money for me every time the basic needs are being met.

Again, we can't apply our own circumstances....


Exactly.

This show is a highly orchestrated thing that gives you maybe 8 minutes all told of info about their lives. On the basis of that, we can judge? I think not.

I can tell you why *in general* it's a bad idea to push parents to accept voluntary drops in child support, and why the courts are not going to go for it. But to suggest that this lady can or should do anything, on the basis of the Dr. Phil show, is overstepping.

(My takeaway from that show: Wow, there's a lot of train wrecks out there. I sure am sane and together. Now I must find chocolate.)

I'm impressed, btw, at the restraint & relative civility on this thread, which hasn't gotten yanked.
post #162 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger_rodgers View Post
I can tell you why *in general* it's a bad idea to push parents to accept voluntary drops in child support, and why the courts are not going to go for it. But to suggest that this lady can or should do anything, on the basis of the Dr. Phil show, is overstepping.
Yes. I think almost everyone here woudl agree that in 'general' it's a bad idea. That's why every case has to be discussed specifically because there are always exceptions...both ways.
post #163 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsChatsAlot View Post
I think the thing here is we're all applying our own situations to a completely different scenario. This is NOT about each of our situations. It's about ONE family and their dynamic. When I start to apply my situation to theirs, it doesn't make any sense.

The dad on the show is going to be taking the kids half the time and the kids are likely in school, so the mom has plenty of time to do something to help make some money when the kids aren't with her, which is a signifcant amount of time. It's not going to be a burden, it's not about childcare, it's just being part of the family. If the dad IN THIS SITUATION is taking the kids more and doing more, why couldn't she help out? What else is she doing when the kids aren't with her?

I think if it were me, I'd want to work to have something to do and the extra money would probably make up a big difference in the drop in income.

It sounds like these people are not struggling to keep food on the table, shelter and clothes. My values are such that if this is the case, I'd much rather see the kids be able to spend more time with their dad and have a connected relationship with both parents than have extra money for fancier clothes, activities etc. Just my values, but people outweigh money for me every time the basic needs are being met.

Again, we can't apply our own circumstances without totally changing the scenario and then it stops making sense.



Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger_rodgers View Post


I'm impressed, btw, at the restraint & relative civility on this thread, which hasn't gotten yanked.


Quote:
Originally Posted by MsChatsAlot View Post
Yes. I think almost everyone here would agree that in 'general' it's a bad idea. That's why every case has to be discussed specifically because there are always exceptions...both ways.
post #164 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsChatsAlot View Post
I think the thing here is we're all applying our own situations to a completely different scenario. This is NOT about each of our situations. It's about ONE family and their dynamic. When I start to apply my situation to theirs, it doesn't make any sense.
Yeah, but...and I hate to say it, but...

If you let ONE family slide, it sets a precedent for the court system to allow it in other families. And because, GENERALLY, lowering c/s by ONE parent's choice is not a good idea, it shouldn't be approved by the court, in the event LOTS of other NCP's jump on the bandwagon.

If you let one slide, you let 'em all slide
post #165 of 167
Mmmm... while I do understand about legal precedents and the whole danger of the slippery slope thing, what about all the people out there who are sliding already?

I know four NCPs who pay nothing at all. I know others who pay between $13 and $30-odd per week- so not much of anything.

It doesn't seem fair to chalk this Dr. Phil dad up to deadbeat status when he really wants to be part of his childrens' lives and wants to continue paying CS, despite already having 50% custody.

I have to agree that taking this one, unique situation and trying to apply broadly doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
post #166 of 167
Leta, the question is "does he cover his obligations", not "is he less miserable than a bunch of horrible guys". If you don't pay your taxes, you can't go to court and say, "But hey, at least I wasn't selling crack -- doesn't that count for anything?"

An obligation is an obligation, and a stand-up guy will do whatever he can to fulfill it. If he wants to do something else, he'll either find a way to satisfy himself and his obligations, or he'll wait.

As mentioned before, I really don't buy the argument that he can't be involved in his kids' lives because he works so much. My own childhood argues against it. Others here have suggested that if he wants to reduce his income and spend more time with the kids, he find a way to do it while maintaining his obligation. Is it easy? No. But when you make a deal with another person, you follow through, even if you come to dislike the deal you made.
post #167 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger_rodgers View Post
Leta, the question is "does he cover his obligations", not "is he less miserable than a bunch of horrible guys".
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Single Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Single Parenting › Dr. Phil 2/27