Could be an interesting discussion/debate? (child support) - Page 2

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by treeoflife3 

He wasn't taking responsibility for my brother though.  The child support he was required to pay was based on the income my parents made and the needs I had.  Did my brother benefit?  Sure... but it isn't like my father was ALSO paying what my brother's father was supposed to be paying.

Yeah, when a mom has 2 kids by different fathers (thats not a very tactful way of describing that situation, please forgive my less that stellar tactfulness for the moment), and only one father is paying child support - its based on how much he makes, and how many children HE had with the mother.  If its one, then he's paying child support for one kid.  What the state will NOT do is tell the mother that she can only spend that money on the child that the support is for.  If the mother is getting child support for one child, but has two kids, then she can spend that money on shoes for each child, or for clothing for both children.  It might not be "fair" but its better than mothers being forced to only provide properly for one child.

[VocalMinority]

Treeoflife3:  What a daughter your father missed out on knowing!  There are kids out there who would complain about their awful childhood:  Mom was never around enough, we were always going without, but she would take vacations by herself and buy designer shades...  But you see things clearly enough to appreciate her and understand that you were her focus and she strove to do the best with what she had.  She's lucky to have you!

[beenmum]

So since then, I have not allowed him to take her whenever he pleases, and if he wants her, he pays me money as well. This is to assure that if he wants to spend time with her, he wont talk $&!^ about her mom 

Your not punishing him by making him pay to see your child. Your punishing your child. Giving you money in no way requires him not to talk ill about you.

I hope I didn't offend anybody, cause I'm not criticizing people who get C/S but sort of the system itself, or people who take it to advantage 

YOU are taking advantage of the system by requiring him to pay to see his child b/c he pissed you off.

Honestly, people who have kids need to financially care for them. If he didnt want to have a child he should have used protection. HE choose not to (or it failed) so he lives with the fact that he has a kid he needs to support.

I think you need to take a stepback and get a real court order that outlines his rights and your rights.

Youre young. I was the same age when I had my oldest son. But in no way did I play the "Pay me or dont see you rkid" game. That hurts the kid b/c one day he may say "Screw this. I am getting a CO that give me the right to see my kid w/o interference by her mother."

[2xy]

Originally Posted by beenmum 

I think you need to take a step back and get a real court order that outlines his rights and your rights.

I agree. Since he is not on the birth certificate, if someone were to happen to you, your child could end up in foster care until the courts decide what to do with her. Also, there is no legal record of the support he HAS given you. Meaning, he could end up screwed for back child support if you ever end up in court for something.
 

[Smithie]

Those sound like good reason for the OP's ex to get himself put on the birth certificate - but the OP would probably prefer that her current husband raise all her children if she were to pass away, rather than having the siblings separated. In her shoes, I'd find it very very difficult to actively pursue a course of action that would give my ex parental rights, if he were so incredibly unmotivated that he wasn't pursuing them on his own. 

[blondygirl]

Oh this is getting frustrating now to explain my situation 100% so that readers wont judge my actions without completely knowing whats going on. So first let me say to everybody who thinks what I'm doing is wrong, you don't know the whole story so I would greatly appreciate if you didn't act like it.

In either my OP or one of my response posts I said something along the lines that if my ex chose to give my daughter up and focus his attention on a new family, then he could do so with no flack from me. And guess what? That is nearly a 100% guarantee that he will do so because he has told me on several occasions that he plans on moving back to his home country and finding a wife and starting a family. So please tell me, if that's what he wants to do, what would be the point of getting involved with the courts (which he ALSO DOES NOT WANT TO DO, if you missed that as well) just to have him move away and make it more frustrating for everyone involved? The one time I mentioned starting a court-ordered visitation/payment schedule he threated that he would start selling drugs to make sure he paid the C/S on time. He is very happy with the fact that I'm not requiring a set amount every month, get it? If I were to do that I know the second we were supposed to go to court he would be back in his own country so fast and nobody would benefit so pleeeeeease help me understand how that's better? I don't want to waste my time with getting all that done for him to bail, so absolutely I will not do it.

And even if I could get C/S paid to me by the state or whatever, why would I do that? My daughter is not hurting for the extra-support and I'm not about to make tax-payers responsible for her so if everybody is happy with the terms we have now, whats the problem? And since I've been limiting contact between my ex and my daughter, she has enjoyed her visits with him much more. He used to be the "mean" parent, spanking her over every little thing, and his family too, I would see how they were with her before we split and they really are harsh, constantly yelling at her for everything. But since he hardly sees her, he is now the "nice" one, I know she gets away with anything since when I go to pick her up she'll throw a tantrum in front of him and he'll do anything she wants. Before she used to cry her eyes out when he came to get her, now she's happy to see him cause she'll get to be a little "queen" for a day. It is frustrating when she comes home because she'll continue to act like that, but she's a very smart girl and all I have to do is explain to her that at my house, she needs to talk nicely instead of throwing fits, and be obedient, and almost always that's all it takes for her to switch gears back into being kind and respectful. If she spends the night though, it can take her another 24 hours to return to herself. Whenever she comes back from being with him over that long of a period she is quite rebellious when I get her back. I think she doesn't appreciate being left with him for too long. So I am trying my hardest to pick up signs from my daughter and not "punish" her as you claim that I am.

If I die, my ex wont be in the country to claim her will he? Plus, I'm not sure I would want her to live with somebody who claims that he's part of a gang and going to sell drugs. Even if he's lying and saying that just to get me upset, well he's simply an idiot. My husband will be here and he will always provide for her and I am certain that should I die, there is no doubt custody would go to him. My entire family is very close and they all love my daughter so I'm not worried about where she'll end up.  Thanks for your concern though.

[beenmum]

Its HIS child. There is no reason for a stepparent to raise a child when there is a bioparent who is able and willing to do it. Keeping sibs together is not really a legal justification for not allowing a bioparent to claim his child upon the death of the other bioparent.

[beenmum]

 You posted info on a public board. I took QUOTES from your posts...things you SAID and responded to them.,

Of course I dont know your entire story. Why would I? But I dont need to know your entire life to respond to a post that YOU made. I get that you dont like the responses you got. However, it is a public board.

You were the one who had the kid with him. If he is that bad a person, why have kids with him? You need to own that choice you made. And not get pissy b/c people made perfectly legitimate comments to you based on what you wrote.

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by blondygirl 

If I die, my ex wont be in the country to claim her will he? Plus, I'm not sure I would want her to live with somebody who claims that he's part of a gang and going to sell drugs. Even if he's lying and saying that just to get me upset, well he's simply an idiot. My husband will be here and he will always provide for her and I am certain that should I die, there is no doubt custody would go to him. My entire family is very close and they all love my daughter so I'm not worried about where she'll end up.  Thanks for your concern though.

Your DH being willing to keep her is great.  Why not do a step-parent adoption though, to seal that deal?  There isn't anyone on the BC, it should be pretty easy (as long as you are actually married - you refer to him as your husband though, so I'm guessing you are).  Then, your ex won't have any rights to her at all.  No child support, no visitation.  Now, I'm not sure I would agree with you doing that, b/c it would be pretty sneaky since he has a relationship with her.

BUT - without your DH being her legal father, if her biofather petitioned for custody in the event you were not around, he would almost certainly get it.  In country or not, if he showed up, did a DNA test, and proved that biologically he is the father, he would get custody.  Why?  He has a fundamental right (if you live in the US) to the care and control of his children, given to him by the Supreme Court.

[2xy]

Originally Posted by beenmum 

Its HIS child. There is no reason for a stepparent to raise a child when there is a bioparent who is able and willing to do it. Keeping sibs together is not really a legal justification for not allowing a bioparent to claim his child upon the death of the other bioparent.

And the courts won't necessarily allow a stepparent to keep custody of a stepchild without a whole bunch of legal rigamarole. The state can and does put children in foster care until legalities are sorted out.
 

[Katwoman]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blondygirl 

So if your ex is trying to get custody so you pay him child support, that's not sort of proving my point?
 

Actually, it's just proving that your experience is not the only example out there.  You're argument is mandatory CS should not be.  But have you truly thought about the alternative?  A CP would have to hire a lawyer to go to court to prove they needed CS.  That would be an expensive and time consuming process.  If they had the money to hire a lawyer, why would they need CS in the first place.  I would agree with you that the system is flawed and not everyone has it easy.  But to turn it around and make it the norm not to get child support would be hurting really poor people (unfortunately, mostly women).  Have you thought about the real discrepancy between NCP earing potential and the CP's?  Do you know SAHM's who have given up their career to take care of their kids, only to have the Dad hide the assets and hit the road?

It appears from your posts that you have just as much trouble with your DH as you do with his former wife.  He's not a victim, he could document and go to court.  The fact that he has chosen not can be very irritating to you, but that doesn't mean the whole system should be scrapped. 

Originally Posted by blondygirl 

Oh this is getting frustrating now to explain my situation 100% so that readers wont judge my actions without completely knowing whats going on.

But you don't have too.  You're choosing too.  That's the great thing about the internet, you don't have to worry about what other people think of you.  (Especially if they're way off base!)

I'm sorry you're feeling attacked about your personal choices, when really you asked about a national issue - CS.  Maybe you should concentrate on the posts that are discussing CS itself. 

[blondygirl]

OK, I'm not offended that you want my ex to have his rights. If I were a father I would certainly want rights too. But let me explain this to you again:

besides not being on her BC (which he could do if he really wanted to, I'm not stopping him) he appreciates that I'm not expecting anything from him and especially that I'm not getting the courts involved. He's planning on moving to a different country and he does not plan on returning so what part of "waste of time" to make his rights official don't you understand?

My husband has not adopted my daughter yet because my ex wants to be in the picture until he leaves. Which who knows when that is but once he is gone, he knows he's lost his right to (for lack of a better word) "interfere" with her life anymore. He's not a US citizen and doesn't want to come back here, so I doubt he'd ever learn of my death and I know for sure he would never fight to get her sent to his country since he's too lazy to get on her BC I know he'll make no more effort to get custody of her.

What I'm trying really hard to explain to everybody is this. He wants to be a part of her life as long as it's convenient for him. If I got the courts involved, he would leave. If I don't fix her BC, he wont do it himself. If I die and he has his other family, then he wont worry about where she ends up. I know that he loves her but he's pretty immature/selfish/lazy to really TRY to be there for her... Why on earth would I push for him to be more involved? It's his perogative, so I just let it be. As far as making him pay money, it has worked for me because I guess it is sort of manipulating him to be civil towards me. I am still not seeing a problem here. I admit that I'm using the money to punish him but sometimes he'll admit he deserves that.

I just have to repeat this til I'm blue in the face, everybody is OK with my terms, including my ex because he says so himself! My ex picks up my daughter when he's not too busy with his own life. He knows that eventually he'll be "giving her up". He's also conflicted because he wants to be on her BC but he has done NOTHING to fix it... so I think it's ridiculous that people want me to do all this, but it's simply not the best choice in our situation, so what's the point?

[Smithie]

"Its HIS child. There is no reason for a stepparent to raise a child when there is a bioparent who is able and willing to do it. Keeping sibs together is not really a legal justification for not allowing a bioparent to claim his child upon the death of the other bioparent."

It sounds like the message OP is getting from her ex is that he's NOT able and willing to parent this child long-term. He doesn't want to pay support, hasn't pursued legal paternity, and he plans to leave the country permanently. If that pans out, then obviously OP will want to facilitate a stepparent adoption so that her child will not be at risk of being taken away from her father (the guy raising her) and siblings and given to a stranger (the guy she shares DNA with who moved far away a long time ago). 

It's a slightly weird situation - but not unheard-of. 

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by Katwoman 

That would be an expensive and time consuming process.  If they had the money to hire a lawyer, why would they need CS in the first place. 

Really?  Not everyone who goes to court for child support hires a lawyer.  In fact, most people represent themselves.  Why?  B/c its a stupid calculation that the judge does, and then its over.  It's only messy when one party hides income (like my ex), or lies about income, or refuses to pay and needs their wages garnished.  Really though, most of that can be handled pro-se.

It's also highly presumptuous to say that anyone who can afford a lawyer doesn't need child support.  by the time I'm done with my child support issue, I will probably have paid my lawyer $1,500 in fees, maybe slightly more.  HOWEVER - by the time I stop receiving child support (assuming the number never changes, which it will) my ex will have contributed well over $75,000 to raising our son.  Paying a lawyer is a short term investment when it comes to support (and I use that number b/c thats only going until DS is 18, but in my state child support goes until the kid is 21, and it will most certainly be higher than that b/c he's bound to get a raise someday).

Originally Posted by blondygirl 

I just have to repeat this til I'm blue in the face, everybody is OK with my terms, including my ex because he says so himself! My ex picks up my daughter when he's not too busy with his own life. He knows that eventually he'll be "giving her up". He's also conflicted because he wants to be on her BC but he has done NOTHING to fix it... so I think it's ridiculous that people want me to do all this, but it's simply not the best choice in our situation, so what's the point?

So don't go after child support.  But don't make him pay money in order to see her - thats like selling your child, or renting her out.  Which is weird to say the least, and certainly not in her best interest.

ETA - OP, when you start a thread titled "Could be an interesting discussion/debate?" you can expect to get some disagreement - you were asking for a debate!

[blondygirl]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

ETA - OP, when you start a thread titled "Could be an interesting discussion/debate?" you can expect to get some disagreement - you were asking for a debate!

LOL that's true, I guess I was hoping we'd stick to the "idea" of C/S and not nit-pick peoples particular lives. That's what I was trying to not do, but I suppose it was bound to happen. :)

And, I have let him take her sometimes without giving me money, like if his family is having a party or something, then I want her to be a part of that. But, there is no doubt in my mind that if I went back to how we used to do it, he would revert back into creating trouble. I would be totally cool with him not giving me money if he would maybe give me 24 hours notice before he wanted to see her. Oh and not yell at me, and lie, and send me love texts just to piss of my husband. OK, these are the things he used to do, but now that he has these consequence I have not had one problem with him. Why would I go back to how it was before? He's much nicer now, so again, I don't see how I'm using my daughter, since that was 100% his decision to act like that and he KNEW what he was doing.
 

[Katwoman]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

Really?  Not everyone who goes to court for child support hires a lawyer.  In fact, most people represent themselves.  Why?  B/c its a stupid calculation that the judge does, and then its over.  It's only messy when one party hides income (like my ex), or lies about income, or refuses to pay and needs their wages garnished.  Really though, most of that can be handled pro-se.

I was referring to if there was no right to CS, but anyone that needed CS would have to prove they needed it.  (I realize this isn't the most smooth way of talking about it.  But, I was talking about people needing to justify needing CS instead of it being "mandatory" like it is now.)

I honestly believe that if a person had to "prove" to a court they needed the CS, that would be a lengthy and expensive process.  I could be wrong, but the point I was making is our current system does have flaws, but a swing the other way wouldn't be great for the kids involved either.

As for being presumptious, at the time of writing I was thinking about day to day, month to month expenses vs. legal fees for an uphill battle fight to establish the to right to CS. 

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by Katwoman 

I was referring to if there was no right to CS, but anyone that needed CS would have to prove they needed it.  (I realize this isn't the most smooth way of talking about it.  But, I was talking about people needing to justify needing CS instead of it being "mandatory" like it is now.)

I honestly believe that if a person had to "prove" to a court they needed the CS, that would be a lengthy and expensive process.  I could be wrong, but the point I was making is our current system does have flaws, but a swing the other way wouldn't be great for the kids involved either.

As for being presumptious, at the time of writing I was thinking about day to day, month to month expenses vs. legal fees for an uphill battle fight to establish the to right to CS. 

I did prove that I needed child support - I have a child, whose father doesn't live with me.  What more proof do you need?  My son is ENTITLED to be supported by both of his parents.  Both of them.  One of us shouldn't get off the hook b/c the other didn't meet some arbitrary standard of "needing" child support.

It's not ME that has the right to child support, its my SON.  My SON needs to eat, he needs clothing, he needs a roof over his head, he needs gas to light the stove, he needs shoes, he needs good quality childcare (and no, there is no way in hell I can afford that on my own, and I'm willing to bet 90% of single mama's can't either!)

And really, who on earth would it serve to make mothers who truly NEEDED child support go through an expensive and lengthy process?  The NCP's who don't want to support their children?  Yeah, thats what I thought.

[treeoflife3]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

I did prove that I needed child support - I have a child, whose father doesn't live with me.  What more proof do you need?  My son is ENTITLED to be supported by both of his parents.  Both of them.  One of us shouldn't get off the hook b/c the other didn't meet some arbitrary standard of "needing" child support.

It's not ME that has the right to child support, its my SON.  My SON needs to eat, he needs clothing, he needs a roof over his head, he needs gas to light the stove, he needs shoes, he needs good quality childcare (and no, there is no way in hell I can afford that on my own, and I'm willing to bet 90% of single mama's can't either!)

And really, who on earth would it serve to make mothers who truly NEEDED child support go through an expensive and lengthy process?  The NCP's who don't want to support their children?  Yeah, thats what I thought.

She is talking about if C/S weren't considered an entitlement for kids... as in, you only get it if you make under a certain amount for income.  Right now, C/S is mandatory for any NCP if the CP seeks it... but if it were something you had to prove you need to get it (so someone making a ton of money wouldn't get C/S because they can raise a child financially without a problem supposedly) rather than something required because both parents should have to be responsible.

If it were only for people under a certain income, therefor having to prove they only make that much and having to fight the courts themselves for it, not just the NCP... it would probably cost them some money just to get a lawyer to help them assemble their case for C/S... it could potentially mean people who qualify might not be able to get it because they can't afford to prove to the courts they make under a certain income.
 

[Katwoman]

Originally Posted by Super~Single~Mama 

I did prove that I needed child support - I have a child, whose father doesn't live with me.  What more proof do you need?  My son is ENTITLED to be supported by both of his parents.  Both of them.  One of us shouldn't get off the hook b/c the other didn't meet some arbitrary standard of "needing" child support.

I'm not sure why my posts are pushing your buttons so bad you can't read all the words.  I was simply offering up an alternative to the current system.  Which - in MY opinion - would have very bad draw backs.  The OP wanted to discuss no mandatory CS.  I think the current system has flaws but is much better than a total pendulum swing in the opposite direction where children didn't get support from both parents unless their was a court case/fight to prove through the legal system that a child needs the money. 

And for the record, if you live in the US, you did not have to prove you needed child support.  You had to prove who the father was, the laws grant you CS from that point forward.

Originally Posted by treeoflife3 

She is talking about if C/S weren't considered an entitlement for kids... as in, you only get it if you make under a certain amount for income.  Right now, C/S is mandatory for any NCP if the CP seeks it... but if it were something you had to prove you need to get it (so someone making a ton of money wouldn't get C/S because they can raise a child financially without a problem supposedly) rather than something required because both parents should have to be responsible.

If it were only for people under a certain income, therefor having to prove they only make that much and having to fight the courts themselves for it, not just the NCP... it would probably cost them some money just to get a lawyer to help them assemble their case for C/S... it could potentially mean people who qualify might not be able to get it because they can't afford to prove to the courts they make under a certain income.
 

Thank you! 

[Super~Single~Mama]

Originally Posted by treeoflife3 

If it were only for people under a certain income, therefor having to prove they only make that much and having to fight the courts themselves for it, not just the NCP... it would probably cost them some money just to get a lawyer to help them assemble their case for C/S... it could potentially mean people who qualify might not be able to get it because they can't afford to prove to the courts they make under a certain income.
 

Proving income just requires that you write down your income, and then have someone notarize your signature, and then you provide tax returns (if you have them) or paystubs.  It's not terribly complicated.

I don't really see the problem with the child support system thats in place currently?  I mean, I guess if you're a NCP you probably think its terribly unfair that a certain % of income goes to your children, but otherwise I don't see anything wrong with it.