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

Dr. Phil 2/27 - Page 3

post #41 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollycat View Post
and i understand the pain of a total ahole man taking your for a ride, but from my own experience, isnt there any responsibility taken for marrying the ahole? you know what im saying? the fact is, if you married a guy who was the kind of guy who lived up to responsibility, we'd be having a different conversation. most men do live up to responsibility. if you married one who doesnt, there is some culpability on you, i think.
I would really, really like to "spend" one of my nine free alert points with a sarcastic smilie here, but I will try to take the high road and teach you something instead.

Holly, until your carefully-chosen husband leaves you, you may well think that divorce somehow takes two and that only "ahole" men leave their families and that divorce only happens when marry knowingly choose such aholes. Guess what? Most of the women on this forum thought the same thing. Until... you guessed it. The husband JUST LIKE YOURS became an ahole, and the woman JUST LIKE YOU got left.
post #42 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seasons View Post
I would really, really like to "spend" one of my nine free alert points with a sarcastic smilie here, but I will try to take the high road and teach you something instead.

Holly, until your carefully-chosen husband leaves you, you may well think that divorce somehow takes two and that only "ahole" men leave their families and that divorce only happens when marry knowingly choose such aholes. Guess what? Most of the women on this forum thought the same thing. Until... you guessed it. The husband JUST LIKE YOURS became an ahole, and the woman JUST LIKE YOU got left.
no sweets, i had that boyfriend. over and over. i attracted that kind of situation based on who i was at the time. and yes, i thought the same thing as youre saying now then. but when it happened to me, i learned what my part in it was. and the greatest joy of my life is moving beyond that.
btw, my guy - whose been my guy for a long while - cant divorce me, because we're not even married. we do ask each other every day tho. he's bought me three rings now. just for fun. and as impossible as this might seem from where you are - if he did leave, if be fine. our relationship isnt built on that. money, love, security and so much more - all that stuff found me and flooded me when i no longer needed it. i want nothing but the same for all women.

i knew the "but he wasnt an ahole when i married him" thing would come up. my aholes werent aholes when i dated them either. of course not. when youre at that stage in your development, you cant see you attract your equals. and i sure did. you cant see who they really are when youre both at the same place. i had a lot of pain with those guys but the biggest gift i got was awareness. and now im so grateful for those guys in my life. they gave me everything i needed to graduate from that kind of situation.
im not saying dont fight - do it. it will teach you your self worth. and hopefully you do something really amazing and life changing with that. not just for your kids. for you. i know not all women will hear this. some just want to stay pissed off. but if there is anyone reading who wants to know they really can have it all, and do anything, i promise you its true.
post #43 of 167
I am not a single parent anymore (I was, I am remarried now) but I not sure that everyone who didn't see the show saw that this particular dad went from standard visitation to 50/50 custody. He was paying the same amount with 50/50 custody as he was when he was the NCP. On top of it, he wanted to go from a job where he worked too many hours to a job that he could be more active in his childrens lives. While it would be difficult to readjust to a lifestyle that had less money in it (so many are dealing with that now with the economy) at least these kids have a dad who wants to change professions to spend MORE time with them, rather then less. I hope it works out for this guy. Ideally, in my situation, I would have my ex living close by, not child support in either direction and we both got the kids 50/50.
post #44 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollycat View Post
im not saying no one should ever be rid of their responsibilities. and i understand the pain of a total ahole man taking your for a ride, but from my own experience, isnt there any responsibility taken for marrying the ahole? you know what im saying? the fact is, if you married a guy who was the kind of guy who lived up to responsibility, we'd be having a different conversation. most men do live up to responsibility. if you married one who doesnt, there is some culpability on you, i think. i learned the hard way this lesson and i realized that i had some culpability in the men i dated who werent what they seemed. it was easy to play the victim, but it didnt pay the rent. nor did it keep me from making the same mistake again. because i was the kind of woman who hooked up with that kind of guy. that was the real problem. the only thing that did empower me was the question, what kind of life to i want? and how do I get it? that has been the great joy of my journey and its one i truly hope all women who want it have.
it wasnt easy. but now i have a man who would do anything for me - financially, spiritually, emotionally - and its so pure because i dont need it. im pretty wealthy, totally secure, happy and healthy.
i actually consider me cleaning up my emotional life the same as cleaning up my financial life. once i empowered myself emotionally, the rest followed.

should the aholes be held accountable? absolutely. but good luck with that. and is that the life you want for you? and your kids?
1st, a question for you: have you ever been a single mom? I'm curious, based on the first part of what you wrote. Having been in bad relationships is one thing, but having to co-parent with an "ahole" is quite another, and I'm wondering if you're doing this... (and I mean co-parent, not raising kids with a father who has disappeared completely. That has it's own devastating effects on the kid, and its own challenges. But I'm wondering if you are co-parenting with one of your former "ahole" partners). Also, what you've written, regarding this, is insulting. I get your point, but frankly it has nothing to do with playing the victim. I was in an abusive relationship, and I would never call myself a victim. In fact, I am still struggling to really understand that it was an abusive relationship, to acknowledge the manipulation on his part, rather than taking responsibility for him treating me the way he did. Was there a reason I attracted this type of man to myself? Of course. Does that make me responsible, and deserving of the abuse that followed? No. (If your answer to this is yes, however, I would like to politely ask you to go to a forum where everyone has achieved the happiness you have, and refrain from posting here anymore. I'm sure you know, having made the personal journey that you have, that the best way to progress and move forward is by doing and learning, not preaching or being preached at.)

Secondly, the laws in place are to hold aholes accountable. That is what this discussion is about. No, the laws do not always work, and the guys still find ways to back out of their responsibilities to the children they've helped to create. However, I firmly believe that it is crucial for our children see us fighting for them, and trying to hold others responsible when they back out of that responsibility. No, it doesn't always work, and that's a valuable lesson for the kids too. But the last thing I want my kids to see is me not fighting to hold the man who abused their mother accountable, and not requiring, with the help of the laws that are in place, that he do his part to help raise the kids he created also.
post #45 of 167
Here's a slightly different perspective. Can't wait to hear the comments on this...

My 'ahole' killed my daughter when I was at the dentist for a whole hour, because she was crying and he didn't want to hear it anymore. Did I think that he was going to do that? Of course not, or I obviously never would have left my children with him. Did anyone else who knew him think he would do that? Not that I'm aware of. Quite a few people defended him.

Here's what's interesting. He's in prison, doesn't have to worry about rent, doesn't have to worry about where the money for his next meal (and his kids' next meal) is going to come from, has adequate health care, the whole 9. I had an at-home business that I built from the ground up, and had been chugging along for several years at that point. I found something that I could do that worked with HIS job (because he was in the military, and it's really fun trying to find work as a military wife when you live in a new state every year.) I lost it ALL. I lost my daughter, I lost my business, and I paid an attorney tens of thousands of dollars to get my older daughter back.

And now, I get to wait for hours on end at DHS to get food stamps, am selling plasma to hopefully cover rent, whenever I can find a place that I can afford, because I have two kids who aren't school age, and the cost for daycare is just unreal.

The Section 8 waitlist is CLOSED here. The childcare subsidy waitlist is CLOSED. I get food stamps, and will soon get welfare. Whoop dee doo.

What did I do to deserve this? Yes, my husband and I had our arguments, and even separated once or twice. We always got back together FOR THE SAKE OF OUR CHILDREN. (Ironic, isn't it?) Would I do some things differently? Absolutely. Hindsight is 20/20.

Guess how much child support *I* get? NONE. However, the attorney that Legal Aid assigned me to (who I'm really not impressed with, but that's a post for another day) informed me the other day that he's responsible for paying child support based on the income that he made when he got arrested. Of course, he'll be five years behind by the time he gets out of prison, and gee, that'll do my kids a lot of good.

So, hollycat, yes, I take responsibility for marrying the ahole. I do NOT take responsibility for his disgusting actions. If I had a crystal ball and could see into the future, of course I would have done things differently. I'm sure everyone can say that if they could see into the future and change something horrible that was going to happen, they'd do it. But I can't go back in time, I can't bring my daughter back to life. What I've got now is awareness, just like you, but more importantly, I've got two kids who deserve BETTER than this, because guess what? They did nothing wrong. THEY are the victims here. Now, instead of a mom who can stay home with them, they get a mom who is regularly stressed out, regularly having to tell them to wait a second, or a minute, or an hour, so she can finish up some work, a mom who pays someone else to watch them so I can go out, bust my tail, hand most of the money I just earned over to a childcare provider, and somehow attempt to give them the life they DO deserve.

How insulting to so many of us who are giving 110%, and are simply expecting that the other adult who helped to create our children do the same for them, and someone is going to tell me that I attracted my EQUAL? That it's somehow MY fault that he's a murderer? That you made a choice to be evolved and the rest of us didn't? Must be nice to be so evolved, and to have so much self-awareness that you don't realize that what you're saying just isn't right, and that what you're saying is incredibly insulting to those of us who are killing ourselves trying to make a good life for our kids because their fathers turned out to be losers.
post #46 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollycat View Post
i knew the "but he wasnt an ahole when i married him" thing would come up. my aholes werent aholes when i dated them either. of course not. when youre at that stage in your development, you cant see you attract your equals. and i sure did. you cant see who they really are when youre both at the same place. i had a lot of pain with those guys but the biggest gift i got was awareness. and now im so grateful for those guys in my life. they gave me everything i needed to graduate from that kind of situation.
I was 33 when I had my oldest. I was a college graduate. My ex had NEVER done anything physically abusive before I got pregnant.

My oldest was 8 months old the first time that he twisted my arm in front of my son.

My youngest was 6 months old the second time he twisted my arm. In front of my 2 year old and baby.

There were a couple of other incidents, in particular a very scary one that one of the kids could have gotten seriously hurt.

You see, my ex has a short fuse. One that didn't appear until after the kids came.

BTW, according the 'logic' that you spewed out above, I'm my ex's equal.

Bullsh*t! I have never done that to him nor did I even consider it. And if I had known that he was capable of that, I would never have dated him let alone married him.
post #47 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrogger View Post
I am not a single parent anymore (I was, I am remarried now) but I not sure that everyone who didn't see the show saw that this particular dad went from standard visitation to 50/50 custody. He was paying the same amount with 50/50 custody as he was when he was the NCP. On top of it, he wanted to go from a job where he worked too many hours to a job that he could be more active in his childrens lives. While it would be difficult to readjust to a lifestyle that had less money in it (so many are dealing with that now with the economy) at least these kids have a dad who wants to change professions to spend MORE time with them, rather then less. I hope it works out for this guy. Ideally, in my situation, I would have my ex living close by, not child support in either direction and we both got the kids 50/50.

While he should get a credit for parenting time (some states don't take parenting time into consideration), his ex shouldn't be expected to pick up the slack from his choice to lower his income by $70,000. That is NOT a small drop in income. That is a HUGE one. And if anyone is going to have to live with the consequences of that choice, it should be the person choosing the drastic reduction in income, not the kids.
post #48 of 167
I think it's a tough situation. I'm sure that many of you have one situation in this thread but perhaps this gentleman had a different situation. Sadly, as someone who has worked in the court systems for years I can say that there are many females who want to act like the perpetual victims. They DO NOT want to do any work, they DO NOT want to save, they want to be pampered and treated like children.

Should fathers pay for their children? ABSOLUTELY. Is it a husband's responsibility to pay for his grown adult exwife? No. She is just that, an adult. I was always surprised by how many women I saw that absolutely refused to get a job b/c they had been staying home. Well, circumstances change and YOU and YOUR EX are the adults...you both have to work and to be grownups and support your children to the fullest.

It was I think most frustrating to me because I want women to advance as a whole and if the courts treat them as no better than children (they need support, they need to be provided for, etc). Aren't we just creating the opportunity for our society to look down on women as children who CAN'T support themselves?

This woman's answers were also frustratingly victim-esque. Well, I've only ever had one job for $35k (a pretty good salary) so, I can't get another because I would make less than my ex. WTF?

I guess what I'm trying to say is we women ARE NOT victims. And we need to show the world that we aren't victims. We are just as capable as men at making great salaries, just as capable at being in charge and running the show, just as capable period. We don't need women saying "oh, I can't work, Oh, I could never earn that much money." We need women saying "I can earn more than any man out there" More "I cans" and less "I can'ts"
post #49 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodmom2008 View Post
While he should get a credit for parenting time (some states don't take parenting time into consideration), his ex shouldn't be expected to pick up the slack from his choice to lower his income by $70,000. That is NOT a small drop in income. That is a HUGE one. And if anyone is going to have to live with the consequences of that choice, it should be the person choosing the drastic reduction in income, not the kids.
It should be BOTH parents, as the adults in the situation, that live with the consequences. NOT just the father. We should encourage the parents to work together to find a solution that supports the children and allows them to spend a lot of quality time with both parents.

As a child, I cared FAR more about spending time with my mommy and daddy than about wearing baby prada or having a bugaboo stroller. Those are things parents care about, not kids, kids just want to be loved by their parents. Could this dad give his kids food, insurance, clothing, and heat on his new salary? Absolutely. And those are what kids need, not ridiculous designer ware. Kids learn to be little consumerists, they don't actually need that stuff any more than the rest of america.
post #50 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollycat View Post
im not saying everyone should get a free ride.
i absolutely agree that a man should be held to his word ... isnt there any responsibility taken for marrying the ahole? ... there is some culpability on you, i think ... should the aholes be held accountable? absolutely. but good luck with that. and is that the life you want for you? and your kids?
I always enjoy a lively discussion ...

As for personal responsibility, my dear, that is exactly what most of us are asking of our children's other parent. That they take appropriate responsibility for their children -- financially, emotionally, spiritually.

That doesn't mean *we* don't take responsibility; the two are not mutually exclusive. I have gone back to work even though I strongly believe being at home with my children would be best for them. In fact I am being nominated for outstanding new teacher for my school district (haven't gotten it, mind you). No slouch here, but that does not excuse my children's father.

And because my stbx developed issues that meant he walked off the reservation I am guilty (culpable is your word) of making a poor choice in partner more than 12 years ago? Maybe, but I couldn't see into the future. Regardless, my kids should not carry the burden.

You speak of personal responsibility--parents should be held personally responsible for providing for their children. Period.

M
post #51 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollycat View Post
and the nice guys - lets assume the math teacher is one - who renegotiate may not be sending as much $ to their kids, but they are showing them the value of living their dreams, giving back to society, being happy, and much more important lessons that should be equally important.
And who is the arbiter who says these lessons are equally important?

Look, the math teacher may be a nice guy, but he made some agreements. And they have force. If the ex-wife also thinks that, why, yes, it is equally important that the kids see their father's self-fulfillment, and decides she's willing to work more to make it happen, wonderful. But as a unilateral decision -- no, not so wonderful.

There's something else valuable to teach children, and it's called "being a man of your word."

Quote:
im not saying no one should ever be rid of their responsibilities. and i understand the pain of a total ahole man taking your for a ride, but from my own experience, isnt there any responsibility taken for marrying the ahole? you know what im saying? the fact is, if you married a guy who was the kind of guy who lived up to responsibility, we'd be having a different conversation. most men do live up to responsibility. if you married one who doesnt, there is some culpability on you, i think.
This is the same argument that says women who wear short skirts are asking to be raped, and on those grounds the guy should be let off. It's not valid in that context or in this one.

Camille Paglia used to run a similar line about a purse on a park bench -- if you leave your purse on a park bench, of course it's going to get stolen! What do you think? But -- and here's the kicker -- we still don't let the thief off when we catch him. Stupid does not cancel wrong.

Quote:
should the aholes be held accountable? absolutely. but good luck with that.
Oh, I think you give up much too easily. It's extraordinary what you can do with laws and the political will to use them. Also with a QDRO.
post #52 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleatha5 View Post
. As a child, I cared FAR more about spending time with my mommy and daddy than about wearing baby prada or having a bugaboo stroller. ... And those are what kids need, not ridiculous designer ware. Kids learn to be little consumerists, they don't actually need that stuff any more than the rest of america.
You know, I've heard this line repeatedly, and I'm beginning to think it's the "invoke Hitler" of the c/s debates. I would like you to find for me please these child support queens, because I've never met any. I know single mothers who carry the bulk of both childrearing and home/kid expenses; I know single mothers of multiple kids who find ways to live extremely cheaply so they can be SAHMs rather than sobbing heaps who're trying to work a fulltime job while taking care of three little ones on their own.

In none of those cases have I seen Surification of the children. Why? Because the mothers -- even if they were inclined that way -- can't possibly afford it. You're talking about fathers paying something on the order of $300-1500/mo. Ain't nobody buying Prada on that kind of money.

Now, I have met single mothers who are remarried to wealthy men, and the new husband pays for them to live very nicely. But I can assure you it's not the father's $800/mo paying for the trips to Belize; in every such case I know of, the c/s money's going into a college account for the children to whom it's owed, and the mom just doesn't tell the dad, because she doesn't want to deal with another legal tantrum. What the father's really looking for in that case is to be absolved of financial responsibility for his children on the grounds that the new guy is rich, and therefore the new guy should support his children.

Aleatha, the fact is that I cannot outearn the average childfree guy with my qualifications. I am not a particularly hands-on mom, and my daughter's in school already. Even so, I spend about 7-8 hours a day on childcare and child-related work -- getting the child up, dressed, to school; seeing that she has all she needs; shopping for her supplies, clothes, food; cleaning up after her; taking her to activities, doctor appointments, etc.; being at the school daily in the afternoons to pick her up (there's a long thread elsewhere about why this is necessary; it's a problem for hundreds of parents here, and yes, we've been through all the sensible-sounding solutions like hiring people blah blah blah, because we're not stupid and have thought of these things too. All I can tell you is that locally those solutions have not worked and I'm working on something I hope will pan out); doing homework with her, reading to her, talking with her, listening to her, helping her get some exercise, teaching her.

I am also severely constrained in when I can leave my own house. I must be available at 6 pm to receive my daughter. Once she's home, it costs money for me to leave, and then I'm dependent on unreliable paid care. You may not like to admit it, but those constraints do become a real drag on earning power. I am not available for shift work; I am not available for jobs that require travel. I am not available for jobs that require evenings in the office or bonding events after work. I am not available for 5:30 pm meetings -- you get the picture.

Will and optimism are terrific. Recognizing real constraints is also wise. It's why I am all in favor of NCPs, male or female, paying the CP compensation for damage to career and earning power.
post #53 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlwaysByMySide View Post
Here's a slightly different perspective. Can't wait to hear the comments on this...

My 'ahole' killed my daughter when I was at the dentist for a whole hour, because she was crying and he didn't want to hear it anymore. Did I think that he was going to do that? Of course not, or I obviously never would have left my children with him. Did anyone else who knew him think he would do that? Not that I'm aware of. Quite a few people defended him.
i am so sorry
post #54 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleatha5 View Post

I guess what I'm trying to say is we women ARE NOT victims. And we need to show the world that we aren't victims. We are just as capable as men at making great salaries, just as capable at being in charge and running the show, just as capable period. We don't need women saying "oh, I can't work, Oh, I could never earn that much money." We need women saying "I can earn more than any man out there" More "I cans" and less "I can'ts"
while i do agree with you, i think that it is also necessary to acknowledge the real barriers that single women who are custodial parents face in becoming reeducated or finding employment that pays big salaries. those barriers are not going to disappear because women simply change what they say, it is going to require societal change. a lot of my own ideas about what single mothers "should" do definitely changed when i was a single mom living in poverty.

bottom line is the non custodial parent should have to pay child support based on their income, regardless of what the custodial parent is or is not doing.
post #55 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodmom2008 View Post
While he should get a credit for parenting time (some states don't take parenting time into consideration), his ex shouldn't be expected to pick up the slack from his choice to lower his income by $70,000. That is NOT a small drop in income. That is a HUGE one. And if anyone is going to have to live with the consequences of that choice, it should be the person choosing the drastic reduction in income, not the kids.
i don't believe they actually said he would be making 30k. Teachers in my area sure don't make 30k (they make closer to 50) but I do see what you are saying. HOWEVER, with 50/50 custody, why is there child support in the first place? I guess that is my biggest issue. As long as the kids are fed, have a roof over their heads and are happy, that is what is important right? Wouldn't having more time with dad make most kids happier then making sure they have all the highest paid lessons?
post #56 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandib50 View Post
while i do agree with you, i think that it is also necessary to acknowledge the real barriers that single women who are custodial parents face in becoming reeducated or finding employment that pays big salaries. those barriers are not going to disappear because women simply change what they say, it is going to require societal change. a lot of my own ideas about what single mothers "should" do definitely changed when i was a single mom living in poverty.

bottom line is the non custodial parent should have to pay child support based on their income, regardless of what the custodial parent is or is not doing.
Very well written. I couldn't agree more. There are some very real barriers that need to be changed too. It's not all discourse.
post #57 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrogger View Post
HOWEVER, with 50/50 custody, why is there child support in the first place?
Most states recognize that even at 50/50, there may be significant inequity in earning ability, and they try to keep the kids' standard of living even across the homes. So they take from one and give to the other, usually but not always dad to mom. Also, 50/50 does not necessarily mean the time's split equally, esp. when it comes to workweek hours.

Quote:
As long as the kids are fed, have a roof over their heads and are happy, that is what is important right?
Take away a big chunk of c/s, and the roof they have at mama's may change significantly. It may mean disruption of school, neighborhood, friendships, the mother's support network. It may mean cramped and/or unsafe living conditions. The picture is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Also, your view here is the grasshopper's: Only today matters. The ant says, "Someday these children may need to go to college. Someday Mama may be disabled or old." If you shift more of the child-costs burden to Mama, the odds are even lower that she'll be able to save for these things and insure against them. There are reasons why women are significantly poorer than men when they're disabled or old.
post #58 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandib50 View Post
i am so sorry
Me too.
post #59 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger_rodgers View Post
Most states recognize that even at 50/50, there may be significant inequity in earning ability, and they try to keep the kids' standard of living even across the homes. So they take from one and give to the other, usually but not always dad to mom. Also, 50/50 does not necessarily mean the time's split equally, esp. when it comes to workweek hours.



Take away a big chunk of c/s, and the roof they have at mama's may change significantly. It may mean disruption of school, neighborhood, friendships, the mother's support network. It may mean cramped and/or unsafe living conditions. The picture is not as simple as you make it out to be.

Also, your view here is the grasshopper's: Only today matters. The ant says, "Someday these children may need to go to college. Someday Mama may be disabled or old." If you shift more of the child-costs burden to Mama, the odds are even lower that she'll be able to save for these things and insure against them. There are reasons why women are significantly poorer than men when they're disabled or old.

Hang on a second, are you saying that women are not capable of providing for their children themselves and must be fully dependant on the man? This mother in this story DID have an education, she has the chance of providing for her children, if she choose NOT to increase her income, that is her choice, just as it should be the fathers choice to decrease his income in order to provide more time with his children.

I have been down this road multiple times and I STILL feel it is much more critical for the father to have face to face time with his children then to be the one who is just a paycheck. Why aren't fathers valued more then that? Why can't the mother if she insists on living with a certain lifestyle, why can't she be the one to provide that.

Frankly, we aren't a wealthy family and neither is my ex husband, but the kids are happy and content because they have parents who put them, and time with them above what money can provide. Maybe it is a difference of opinion on what the value is, but I feel that our time with our kids is more valuable then putting away money for the what ifs. What if dad died tomorrow and didn't have that TIME with the kids. Their only real memories are of the money he provided, not the love and dedication.

And really, I watched the show and it is true, there are two different kinds of currancy, financial and emotional, and a healthy balance fo the two is so much more important then a father paying out the big bucks but not being able to be there emotionally.
post #60 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrogger View Post
Hang on a second, are you saying that women are not capable of providing for their children themselves and must be fully dependant on the man?
Not a bit, and I'd challenge you to find the text in which I do that. However, if it costs the woman, say, $4K/mo to house, feed, etc. self and kids (the number doesn't matter, let's not get twisted up about what's a reasonable level of penury for single parents and their kids), and she's making $3K and the daddy's sending $1K, she's just scraping by, and that's the case for many single-mother households. If he drops his c/s unilaterally to $500, and she can't make up the difference within some critical time period, down the ladder she and the kids go.

Given that custodial parents are in general doing far more work than the NCPs are already, I'm not sure why you think it's a good idea to suggest CPs do more work. I'm guessing that if you did a study of how much sleep NCPs get v. CPs, you'd see a difference of 1.5-4 hours a night in the NCP's favor.

Quote:
This mother in this story DID have an education, she has the chance of providing for her children, if she choose NOT to increase her income, that is her choice, just as it should be the fathers choice to decrease his income in order to provide more time with his children.
You've forgotten again that he doesn't live in a little universe all of his own.

When you marry and have children, you make certain promises to each other, implicitly or explicitly. For lack of better word, a contract. Some of those promises have to do with division of labor. These aren't light; they have to do with how the other person may live. If on divorcing you can't sort those out yourselves, the courts will do it for you, and set you a new contract.

You, phrogger, found it both possible and worthwhile to work more and let your guy off the hook. Fine. In that case, you both agreed to rewrite the contract, and you both found it beneficial. That's a perfectly reasonable way to modify a contract. But I can tell you that this is neither feasible nor reasonable for many, many single mothers or their children, and that's part of why the courts don't let it happen. The other reason is that because the women in general either will not or cannot make enough money to pick up the men's slack, they turn to the taxpayers. And they -- we -- aren't interested in subsidizing the guy's bliss.

Finally -- and I hope I don't come off too cynical, here -- but I have seen over the years a remarkable number of stories involving men's waxing and waning interest in being involved in their children's lives. I don't see why a policy of "pay less, see the kids more" shouldn't turn into a policy of "pay less, find a new girlfriend or develop an interest in skydiving or a sudden need to move to Baja, see the kids less." In that case what you end up doing is setting the mom the job of not just working more to take up the slack, but of being Documentation Queen, so that a year from the time she stops pleading with the guy to see the kids more, she can go back to court and say, "See, he lied, please put him back up to where he was for c/s." And what happens then? Why, for a month or so, he can be Superdad again. What we see in custody disputes is that a guy can jerk a woman around for a good long time that way. I don't think it'd be bright to do it with c/s, in law.

Bottom line: If both mom & dad see a contract change as beneficial, super. Do it. If it harms one party and he or she refuses, then no go, sorry. Welcome to the land of binding promises.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Single Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Single Parenting › Dr. Phil 2/27