or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Blended and Step Family Parenting › My step sons hate me (Update in post #155)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

My step sons hate me (Update in post #155) - Page 7

post #121 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by L&IsMama View Post
And *I* don't see why "kid A" should get primacy over "kid B". : The court does not dictate MY right to have children with my husband. Are you saying that MY kids should have just not been born, cause, after all, "kid A" was there 1st? If so, that's just WRONG. And cruel towards my children, and all the other "subsequent" children out there.
I'm not judging you or your situation. All I'm saying is that it shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody who marries someone who already has children that those children are going to need to be supported. To deny those children support is wrong and cruel, too.
post #122 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by siennasmom View Post
No, because A's parents knew they would have to take care of A. If A's parents choose to have more children, they know in advance that they will have to support them with what's left after they've taken care of A. If there's not enough left over for B, C, and D, that is a choice the parents made and it is terrible for them. It's not their fault. It's not A's fault or the court's fault, either.
Law aside, that's revolting. The subsequent children deserve NO LESS.
post #123 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by siennasmom View Post
No, because A's parents knew they would have to take care of A. If A's parents choose to have more children, they know in advance that they will have to support them with what's left after they've taken care of A. If there's not enough left over for B, C, and D, that is a choice the parents made and it is terrible for them. It's not their fault. It's not A's fault or the court's fault, either.
I'm glad the issue is so cut and dry in your eyes. Geez :
post #124 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmzbm View Post
If anyone says, yes, the others shouldn't be here...can you hold my hair while I vomit? Can you imagine telling those kids that? That is absolutly heart wrenching. The step kid mean more, hu? Based on ORDER? Gag me.
Yeah, it sucks to have your parents tell you that they can't afford to support you because they have other kids to take care of. I know, because I was Kid A and my dad couldn't afford to send child support once he had a new batch of kids.
post #125 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmzbm View Post
Law aside, that's revolting. The subsequent children deserve NO LESS.
Of course they deserve no less. But that doesn't mean their parents have it to give them. Sometimes parents make choices that their children have to pay for. It sucks. It's wrong. But it happens anyway.
post #126 of 171
So, what would be wrong with splitting it FAIRLY? Law aside, of course. Because kid A getting a slab of money that prevents the others from eating is - eh...UAviolation, self censored.
post #127 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by siennasmom View Post
I'm not judging you or your situation. All I'm saying is that it shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody who marries someone who already has children that those children are going to need to be supported. To deny those children support is wrong and cruel, too.
Do YOU have step children? Have you ever had to send in 205.00 a week, even when it meant that YOUR children would have to go without something they needed (I'm not talking food, but things like a new carseat, or clothes) so that your dh wouldn't end up in jail ? Of course, *I* should have KNOWN they would more than DOUBLE my dh's CS payments, and therefore should never have had my kids, right?
post #128 of 171
This whole thread is making me sad. I hate so much that people on both sides of the issue are struggling with child support payments. There aren't many ways I can count myself lucky when dealing with my ex, but I am lucky in that we agreed to an amount and have both been able to comfortably live with it. And no, neither of us are rich - I'm surviving supporting three kids by myself on about $2k a month (child support, a rental income, and the money I make for cleaning our church) and he is doing very well for himself taking home just about the same amount.
post #129 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmzbm View Post
So, what would be wrong with splitting it FAIRLY? Law aside, of course. Because kid A getting a slab of money that prevents the others from eating is - eh...UAviolation, self censored.
Of course everybody should be able to eat. I didn't realize we were talking about the barest of essentials.

Quote:
Originally Posted by L&IsMama View Post
Do YOU have step children? Have you ever had to send in 205.00 a week, even when it meant that YOUR children would have to go without something they needed (I'm not talking food, but things like a new carseat, or clothes) so that your dh wouldn't end up in jail ? Of course, *I* should have KNOWN they would more than DOUBLE my dh's CS payments, and therefore should never have had my kids, right?
I don't have step-children. Having been a step-child, I was careful not to date anybody who had kids, because I didn't want to end up in a difficult situation. Not just financially, but emotionally. I think people underestimate how hard it can be to blend families.
post #130 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by siennasmom View Post
Of course everybody should be able to eat. I didn't realize we were talking about the barest of essentials.
And my point is I am pretty sure there ARE families out there where this is reality. Wouldn't you think? Telling those kids "Child A eats, then you do" is pretty evil.
post #131 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmzbm View Post
And my point is I am pretty sure there ARE families out there where this is reality. Wouldn't you think? Telling those kids "Child A eats, then you do" is pretty evil.
I am not by any means saying that Kid A lives in the lap of luxury while the rest of the kids wear rags and live in a hovel. However, if parents put their kids in that kind of a situation, that is also pretty bad if you ask me. It's not like the fact that kids have to eat should come as any big surprise.
post #132 of 171
I'm really glad my parents stayed in their miserable marriage. And I never thought I'd say that. :
post #133 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by siennasmom View Post
I am not by any means saying that Kid A lives in the lap of luxury while the rest of the kids wear rags and live in a hovel. However, if parents put their kids in that kind of a situation, that is also pretty bad if you ask me. It's not like the fact that kids have to eat should come as any big surprise.

Of course not. But would you agree that sometimes circumstances can rapidly go downhill...through noones fault? I just think that the courts SHOULD take the TOTAL number of kids into consideration, not just say "Step kid wins, rest: suffer!" And, clearly, that does happen.
post #134 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmzbm View Post
Of course not. But would you agree that sometimes circumstances can rapidly go downhill...through noones fault? I just think that the courts SHOULD take the TOTAL number of kids into consideration, not just say "Step kid wins, rest: suffer!" And, clearly, that does happen.
I guess it depends on what kind of lifestyle Kid A has with his/her other parent. Obviously all the kids should have their basic needs met, but after that I'm not sure that A should always have to sacrifice when his/her parent decides to have more kids. It is up to the parents to support their children, and if you take away from one kid to give to another it's like you're making that kid support his/her sibling. So IMO it would depend heavily on the totality of the circumstances.

But again, all of this information is known to the parents before they have more kids. They know what they owe in CS. They know that more kids cost more money. They generally, though not always, know whether they will have enough money to support all of their children. If they make poor choices even with that information (and just to reiterate, this is NOT a commentary on anybody here) their children *will* have to pay for those choices. It's just a matter of which kids and how much.
post #135 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by L&IsMama View Post
I'm SO outta this thread now. Too emotionally charged for me
Promises, promises.
post #136 of 171
Listen, if your family cannot make it after child support then it's time to quit your bitchin and petition the court for a reduction.

CS is usually a % of income.

I am also glad that CS is something my ex and I agree on. And he has to pay through college so consider yourselves lucky.
post #137 of 171
So what would you say about those cases in which Dad is hit with an order yrs. after the fact? It happens.

Look - all I'm saying is NO child is MORE IMPORTANT than another. To think otherwise is wrong. Just cuz a kid came "earlier" doesn't make it more worthy.
post #138 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by kerikadi View Post
Promises, promises.
Yeah, whatever. It's kinda hard for me to keep my mouth shut when people are basically saying that any subsequent children should go without, or not even BE here, due to the child who was, after all, here "first".
post #139 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by siennasmom View Post
I'm not sure that A should always have to sacrifice when his/her parent decides to have more kids.
Nor should B because A already is.
post #140 of 171
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmzbm View Post
Nor should B because A already is.
And, why is it acceptable for child A's mother, the ex, to have more kids should she remarry or whatever, and no one bats an eye or calls her irresponsible? No one tells her her subsequent children should go without. But God forbid dad moves on in a new relationship and has another child.....
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Mom › Parenting › Blended and Step Family Parenting › My step sons hate me (Update in post #155)