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

Dr. Phil 2/27 - Page 5

post #81 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seasons View Post
Unlike you, I haven't had any $upport from my parents.
I'm not sure why you keep trying to take a jab at me in that passive aggressive way but it's really not necessary. People often don't agree with each other and it's not because they're ignorant of the 'real world' or because they've been sheltered or they're from Planet Xenon or something. It's because we're human and humans often have different opinions on things.
post #82 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukionna View Post
I'm not sure why you keep trying to take a jab at me in that passive aggressive way but it's really not necessary. People often don't agree with each other and it's not because they're ignorant of the 'real world' or because they've been sheltered or they're from Planet Xenon or something. It's because we're human and humans often have different opinions on things.
??? passive-aggressive? Let's not get this thread yanked. I said what I meant, in pretty straight words. I used the dollar sign in "support" to show again that it is HARD to finance a family on one income; you say - you posted it; I didn't make it up - that you get $ assistance (housing etc) from your parents. So you are not supporting your family alone. I'm not saying that's good or bad; I'm just saying you are another example of the many single moms who can't support their kids by their own wage-earning efforts alone. They NEED child support, or someone else's monetary support.

We disagree on whether men can unilaterally reduce their child support obligation. Yes. I never said you fare rom another planet. I basically said you were wrong. And I tried to explain why: among other things (like keeping promises), because it is HARD to finance a family on one income. And you are an example.

(To be VERY VERY clear: I'm not trying to insult you by saying that you get $upport from your parents, and I'm sorry if you heard an insult.)
post #83 of 167
Not trying to get this thread yanked, but however you meant it to come across, writing "$upport" was very negative in my mind and appeared to be an attempt to reduce the validity of my argument.
Again, I never said that it wasn't HARD to support a family on a single income. And I never said that women should be self sufficient in all cases. What I was saying is that they should not be making life decisions such as buying a house or car or other luxuries based entirely on their CS payments. That's just a recipe for disaster.
post #84 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukionna View Post
Again, I never said that it wasn't HARD to support a family on a single income. And I never said that women should be self sufficient in all cases. What I was saying is that they should not be making life decisions such as buying a house or car or other luxuries based entirely on their CS payments. That's just a recipe for disaster.
Hmmm. I might agree, there. But most single moms aren't using CS to buy luxury houses or luxury cars. Most single moms are using CS (or other $upport: their parents, welfare, WIC, their church's gifts, food banks) to afford ANY housing, ANY food, ANY transportation. :/ So yes, they are making life decisions - like getting their first, single-life apartment after their parents' or friends' or shelter's couch - on CS. They have to.

(I don't think the particular mom on the Dr. Phil show was statistically representative of most single moms.)
post #85 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukionna View Post
What I was saying is that they should not be making life decisions such as buying a house or car or other luxuries based entirely on their CS payments. That's just a recipe for disaster.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seasons View Post
Hmmm. I might agree, there. But most single moms aren't using CS to buy luxury houses or luxury cars. Most single moms are using CS (or other $upport: their parents, welfare, WIC, their church's gifts, food banks) to afford ANY housing, ANY food, ANY transportation. :/ So yes, they are making life decisions - like getting their first, single-life apartment after their parents' or friends' or shelter's couch - on CS. They have to.

(I don't think the particular mom on the Dr. Phil show was statistically representative of most single moms.)
I think there was a slight miscommunication between the above 2 quotes. I bolded the discrepancies, if it makes any difference to anyone.
post #86 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seasons View Post
Hmmm. I might agree, there. But most single moms aren't using CS to buy luxury houses or luxury cars. Most single moms are using CS (or other $upport: their parents, welfare, WIC, their church's gifts, food banks) to afford ANY housing, ANY food, ANY transportation. :/ So yes, they are making life decisions - like getting their first, single-life apartment after their parents' or friends' or shelter's couch - on CS. They have to.

(I don't think the particular mom on the Dr. Phil show was statistically representative of most single moms.)
Well I used that as an example because of your initial post about a mortgage payment. In my mind, it doesn't have to be a luxury car or luxury house to be considered a 'luxury'. If you're pulling in $3000 a month (random number) from your job and CS and $1000 of that is CS, going out and buying a house with a mortgage of $1000 a month when you could get by with an apartment for $500 a month would be considered a luxury. Same goes with buying a new car as opposed to a used one.
post #87 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukionna View Post
My opinion on that is that a mother should live her life in such a way that if the CS should happen to stop for whatever reason, she could still keep her head above water. Depending on an often uncertain income as CS for such essentials as food or housing is just not good planning in my opinion.

Child support IS for housing costs and essentials.
post #88 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodmom2008 View Post
Child support IS for housing costs and essentials.
Read my other posts. I didn't explain my position well enough in that first one. It's not as extreme as that but I still stand by my opinion that you shouldn't live outside your own means (CS not included) if at all possible.
post #89 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodmom2008 View Post
Child support IS for housing costs and essentials.
This.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yukionna View Post
Read my other posts. I didn't explain my position well enough in that first one. It's not as extreme as that but I still stand by my opinion that you shouldn't live outside your own means (CS not included) if at all possible.
Easier said than done. Remember that having ONE child and not receiving c/s, while difficult, is a whole different animal than having 2 or more without getting c/s.

It's really sad that it takes two people to create a child, but even custodial parents who DO receive c/s are apparently supposed to live as if they don't. Just in case the NCP decides to go off and commune with nature and not pay c/s, the CP and kids should always be prepared for that? Crazy.

Because when you are the child of a divorce, it makes sense that mom should have to always be prepared that dad won't kick in the funds, so maybe rather than having a room to yourself, mom should make the kids share a room, JUST IN CASE Dad decides to spend more time with them several years down the road. Or maybe, when deciding between a house in a decent neighborhood or a house in a not-so-good neighborhood, she should think, "Hmmm, what happens if their father decides that his wants are more important than his children's environment?"

There's a difference between buying a house because you want to, and buying a house because you have kids to raise and want to do what's best for them.
post #90 of 167
Again, I didn't say it was ideal for every situation but no matter what your situation it is ALWAYS a good idea to do what you can to plan ahead for any future difficulties. As far as CS and such is concerned, we can agree to disagree.
post #91 of 167
I personally dont think that a house/apartment/dwelling for my child is a luxury. I may be in the clouds here, but isn't child support SUPPOSED to be used to defray basic living expenses? Meaning: rent, utilities, transportation costs? I know that its foolish to depend on someone paying their c/s, and its a damn shame.

Some of us NEED and DEPEND on that c/s to pay for the roof (however insignificant) over our children's heads. If we could all be self-sufficient as single parents, and live indefinately without c/s, the current c/s laws wouldn't exist. Neither would the courts impute income to determine earning potential, nor would the courts have specific laws in place to enforce child support paymets.

I wish I could come from the place that I dont NEED c/s to pay the rent. But I do. And I'm not receiving any. Instead, the state is paying my tab right now for my child. And my stbx is wearing brand new sunglasses that cost him $135.

Who's buying the "luxury" goods?


IF he were paying c/s, I would be usng that $ to get an apartment, rather than couch surfing with my young child. And I would FREAK OUT if he then decided to take a lesser paying job so that he could pay LESS money, because THEN what would my son and I do? My ex's decisions regarding income changes certainly affect his child. All there is to it.
post #92 of 167
Ok people are completely misreading my posts. I'm not saying that a place to live/car to drive, in themselves are luxuries. But when a parent who's on CS decides to buy a house that they could not afford without CS as opposed to renting a place they could afford without CS (should it end), that's poor planning.
post #93 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukionna View Post
Ok people are completely misreading my posts. I'm not saying that a place to live/car to drive, in themselves are luxuries. But when a parent who's on CS decides to buy a house that they could not afford without CS as opposed to renting a place they could afford without CS (should it end), that's poor planning.
So, in that vein, should couples who are married and both work only buy a house that they could afford if only one of them was working, even though they are both working? Because that's basically the same thing.

It's also a possibility to rent a place based on the income you make with c/s. Forget foreclosure, let's talk eviction. What if the CP is spending $100 more on an apartment every month, because she's getting $1000 in c/s, but should the c/s stop, she can't pay that rent? She should live in substandard housing anyway?

The c/s money is FOR THE KIDS. If the kids LIVE IN THE HOUSE, it makes no sense to deprive the children of what could possibly be a better living situation just in case their dad wakes up one morning and decides to work at McDonald's instead of Merrill Lynch.

I don't get c/s, but from the friends I know that do, if you aren't spending it on the kids (or something indirectly for the kids, such as housing), and your ex decides to take you back to court, they can argue that you aren't using the money that you're being given on your kids.

ETA: What I'm getting at, and what I think some other posters are getting at, is that a house in and of itself really isn't a luxury. It's a need. The child needs it just as much as the CP does.
post #94 of 167
Well I'm just going to stop debating this since my point is being lost and no one seems to see what I'm trying to say.
post #95 of 167
I don't know where these guys live, but in my state they use a calculation method for child support and they take the amount of the highest paying job the parent has EVER had and use that as the income amount, and they do it at the full time rate, no matter if you are working part time, or making less at the time of the order, so the waiter thing would totally backfire in Montana!
post #96 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukionna View Post
Well I'm just going to stop debating this since my point is being lost and no one seems to see what I'm trying to say.
I see your point, and I agree with what you said about buying a house in our means without CS.

The best advice I ever heard given to a newly married couple (this was my uncle talking to his daughter, my cousin) is live your life on one salary, when both people are employed. So that's what they did. Since they were married (in 2001) they have lived on only the husbands salary, and my cousins pay is direct deposited into their savings account. Now of course I imagine they have dipped into the savings at times. The point my uncle was trying to make was they wanted my cousin to be a stay at home mom, so they should get used to only one income anyhow.

I thought this was so smart for so many reasons. Many things can happen to a married couple, it's not just divorce that shakes up incomes. I know not everybody can do this. I know most couples are working cause they both need to work to live, but many do because they want a certain lifestyle, and that lifestyle takes two incomes.

I don't say any of this lightly. This whole thread was started to talk about a certain show, not dad's in general. I know personally how hard it is to keep above water on one salary. I do it now. I don't get child support, if you looked at my income I am considered to live in "poverty". I do count my blessings though, and I like my life. I don't feel like I live in poverty.

If I started to get child support tomorrow I would stay where I live, and drive what I drive. Our lifestyle (my dd's and mine) would not change much. I would probably put most of it in dd's savings account for what if's in the future. I would maybe give some monthly to dd's school where she is going on scholarship.

I still think this particular dad should go be a math teacher, and have more time with his kids. I think his ex should get a job. That's just how I feel, I don't expect anybody to agree with me, we think about this differently, that's cool.

I would make more money if I worked for a different agency in my area. I took a job with an agency that pays me less, yet gives me a 9-3 M-F schedule. That way I can get my dd on and off the bus, and not have to use after school care. I would be very disappointed (actually pi$$ed) if somebody told me that I needed to work for agency #1 so that I could make my potential income.

(PS- my posts on this issue aren't about deadbeat dads, or dads who want to walk away from their responsibilities. My posts are about this certain dad, and about living in our means in general. I value all of the points of views shared on this issue, even if I don't agree with them.)
post #97 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukionna View Post
Well I'm just going to stop debating this since my point is being lost and no one seems to see what I'm trying to say.
I do see your point and I do agree with you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Socks for Supper View Post
I personally dont think that a house/apartment/dwelling for my child is a luxury.
I think this may very well be the point that makes us look at this issue from such opposing points of view. I do not see a house as a need. I see a house as a luxury. I think a roof over your head and a home are a need, but I don't think that must be an actual house for the need to be fulfilled.

Socks, I see you are saying the same thing regarding some kind of home, I am just quoting you because it's a clear sentence to make my point that a roof is necessary; an actual house I see as a luxury.
post #98 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukionna View Post
Read my other posts. I didn't explain my position well enough in that first one. It's not as extreme as that but I still stand by my opinion that you shouldn't live outside your own means (CS not included) if at all possible.
If there are children, then child support is part of th means of the family income.

Ideally, it would be nice if a CP can. But reality has a way of intruding on the ideal.

And even if the CP could live without the child support, that doesn't mean that when the NCP voluntarily and drastically lowers their income that the child support should be reduced, too. The person who is choosing to lower their income should be the one to live with the consequences of his/her choice. S/he shouldn't be able to force it onto the children or the other parent without the consent of the other parent.
post #99 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukionna View Post
Well I'm just going to stop debating this since my point is being lost and no one seems to see what I'm trying to say.

Just because we don't agree with you doesn't mean that we don't see what you are saying. It just means that we don't agree with you.
post #100 of 167
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukionna View Post
Ok people are completely misreading my posts. I'm not saying that a place to live/car to drive, in themselves are luxuries. But when a parent who's on CS decides to buy a house that they could not afford without CS as opposed to renting a place they could afford without CS (should it end), that's poor planning.

I could not afford my house without child support.

BTW, I kept the marital home. I didn't just go out and buy a house that I can't afford on my own.

The problem is that it wouldn't be any easier in a 2/3 bedroom apartment.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Single Parenting
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Single Parenting › Dr. Phil 2/27