Dr. Phil 2/27 - Page 3 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#61 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 03:33 PM
 
phrogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Sounds too much like man bashing for my taste. Only a man's interest can decrease in his children? In THIS case with THIS man, he was taking a lower paying job to work less hours to be with his children MORE. I just will never understand why women can not be supportive and encouraging of that occurance for their childrens sake, even if it means a readjustment.

What would the reaction be if he lost his job completely and couldn't pay a cent?

And no, I didn't increase my working, I adjusted our lifestyle to accomidate a fair and balanced relationship with both parents.

I would have a very different opinion if this was a case of a man just being a bum and not wanting to pay. This particular case was not that at all. He wants to continue paying, yet still provide more active time with the children. That isn't a bum, that is a father.
phrogger is offline  
#62 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 03:35 PM
 
AlwaysByMySide's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chattanooga
Posts: 1,802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrogger View Post
As long as the kids are fed, have a roof over their heads and are happy, that is what is important right?
I realize that my situation is very different from a lot of women on this board, but my kids are people too. They are fed, I'm not sure HOW I'm going to keep a roof over their head, and they'd be a lot happier if I wasn't so darn stressed out. Two kids in daycare isn't cheap (one would be doable...two is near impossible), and when there is no child care assistance available for the whole state, and the Section 8 waitlist is closed, and no child support...well, you can see that it's not always so cut and dry.

FTR, I have a college degree. Every job that I've been offered pays relatively well for the area, but in the end, I would be basically handing my paycheck over to a daycare, and after taxes, I might clear $50-$100 a week, to somehow cover food, rent, utilities, gas, etc. because there are TWO kids that would be in daycare. And on top of that, I would make too much money to qualify for things like food stamps, and I would barely get to see my kids.

I didn't watch the show, so I'm only going off of what everyone is saying here, but as a mom who went from one income level to a drastically different income level, simply because her husband is a UAV, doesn't mean that my kids deserve to have to deal with the repercussions, and they don't have a choice. Their father did, just as the father profiled on the show does.

Single WAHM to 5yo DD, 2yo DS, and forever 7 week old angel DD.
AlwaysByMySide is offline  
#63 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 04:12 PM
 
MsChatsAlot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleatha5 View Post
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.
I really love this and believe it addresses the real heart of the matter.

Pointing fingers saying it's the ex's responsibility or the cp's responsibility doesn't move things forward. What moves things forward (when it's possible -- because I realize it's not always possible) is parents being supported in coming together to work together...not because they have to by force or threat, but because they truly want what's best for their family.

I cannot speak for the man in the show, only what I've read about his case, but it does seem like he's genuinely interested in being the best dad he can be and I applaud him for that.

Yes, our decisions impact those around us, yes, as parents, we have responsibilities to our children. And yes, we all decided to do this together, so working together is far more productive than fighting one another.
MsChatsAlot is offline  
#64 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 04:40 PM
 
Goodmom2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by aleatha5 View Post
It should be BOTH parents, as the adults in the situation, that live with the consequences. NOT just the father.
Sure, if the BOTH parents AGREE to the reduction in income. If not, then the ONE WHO IS REDUCING THEIR INCOME is the one who lives with his/her choice.
Goodmom2008 is offline  
#65 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 04:44 PM
 
Goodmom2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrogger View Post
Sounds too much like man bashing for my taste. Only a man's interest can decrease in his children? In THIS case with THIS man, he was taking a lower paying job to work less hours to be with his children MORE. I just will never understand why women can not be supportive and encouraging of that occurance for their childrens sake, even if it means a readjustment.
Man-bashing? That was one huge and mistaken leap.

One person shouldn't be able to force the another person to pick up the slack from his/her choice. And that is what this father is doing by reducing his income drastically.
Goodmom2008 is offline  
#66 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 04:50 PM
 
phrogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodmom2008 View Post
Man-bashing? That was one huge and mistaken leap.

One person shouldn't be able to force the another person to pick up the slack from his/her choice. And that is what this father is doing by reducing his income drastically.
I was talking about the comment that men get disinterested in their kids when a new hobby comes along.

Quote:
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."
While maybe that wasn't the intent, that is how I read it. I find it somewhat offensive considering my own personal experience is quite the oppesite. All the men in my life/that I am associated with are actually the custodial parents or fighting to be and it has been the mothers who walk away without having any responsiblities.

My own husband is the CP and his ex pays nothing, doesn't see her son and doesn't make the effort to see him. My husband, ex husbad, father, uncles etc. have all done the best they can do to be the most active fathers they are allowed to be. I just learned early on how important fathers are and will ensure my boys get that time from their father, even if it means he makes less so he contributes to me less. As long as he can provide food and shelter for his time and I do for my time, that would be ideal. He doesn't live close enough for 50/50 but he does support the kids and sees them. I don't ever see him losing interest in his sons because something better came along.

THAT is what I saw as man bashing. As if men don't connect and bond.
phrogger is offline  
#67 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 04:50 PM
Banned
 
ginger_rodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrogger View Post
And no, I didn't increase my working, I adjusted our lifestyle to accomidate a fair and balanced relationship with both parents.
And you were willing to do so. You found it possible to do without causing a crisis in your life. Key word: willing.

Mothers are not exempt from responsibility, and if you'd read further upthread, you'd see I hold us to the same standards of responsibility. Read my response about the woman who'd agreed to be a SAHM and walked away from her family. Courts will also impute income to women, even if the woman has not been working for some time, based on their education and theoretical earning potential.

It's not uncommon for men to claim that they want more parenting time with the children, as a negotiating tactic, and then not take it. Even my ex did this, and he sees our daughter daily. We had much tearful loving-father drama about how he was like a babysitter, how he needed more time with her in order to be a real father. Of course, when I checked to see whether he was actually using the time he had available to him, the answer was no, he was not. He'd leave her at daycare instead of picking her up when he'd agreed to. And later, when dd was old enough to talk about what went on at daddy's, it turned out there was a lot of TV-watching while daddy slept. When I stopped to add up the amount of time he actually had available to spend with her, it turned out to be considerably more than most married daddies get.

I can certainly understand this fellow wanting to spend more time with his kids. (Don't we all?) But if he's a responsible daddy, he'll either work it out with the mother in a way that's mutually acceptable, or he'll find a way to spend more time with his kids while still fulfilling the promises he made, rather than dumping them on someone who's either unwilling or unable to pick them up.

You won't see the laws change anytime soon because the vast majority of single-mother households are already poor-to-lower-middle-class. Very few of us break $50K, by Census stats. And nobody's going to hand the taxpayer a bigger bill just because daddy wants to stop being a sales manager and go be a math teacher.

MsChats, I get you, but you're positing a world in which mama and daddy still work well together after divorce. Yes, it happens sometimes. I think more often they do not. My ex and I are very civil, he pays his child support and seems to be responsible with dd, and to all appearances things look fine. But there is zero communication, and poking at the structure of agreements prompts major meltdowns. The last time we went off-roading, it ended in my having to call the police to see that someone was actually looking after dd. From England. In the middle of the night, in the midst of a research trip.
ginger_rodgers is offline  
#68 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 04:56 PM
Banned
 
ginger_rodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 439
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrogger View Post
I was talking about the comment that men get disinterested in their kids when a new hobby comes along.
Many men do. Read the stories on here for a few years, or listen to the stories in your neighborhood, and it's remarkable how many guys suddenly need more time to themselves, without the kids, when a new interest comes along. Happened to my dd (after much drama about needing more time with dd, her dad decided it was more important to take classes for a career that will reduce, not enhance, his earning power); a close friend here's now a solo mom because her stbx decided it'd be fun to go off to Africa for 8 months and help poor children there. I can name a hatful of other local moms who find themselves with more time with the kids when their exes find new girlfriends.

I'm sure there are many men who put their kids first. I'm saying it's not at all hard to find men who don't.
ginger_rodgers is offline  
#69 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 05:02 PM
 
phrogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger_rodgers View Post
Many men do. Read the stories on here for a few years, or listen to the stories in your neighborhood, and it's remarkable how many guys suddenly need more time to themselves, without the kids, when a new interest comes along. Happened to my dd (after much drama about needing more time with dd, her dad decided it was more important to take classes for a career that will reduce, not enhance, his earning power); a close friend here's now a solo mom because her stbx decided it'd be fun to go off to Africa for 8 months and help poor children there. I can name a hatful of other local moms who find themselves with more time with the kids when their exes find new girlfriends.

I'm sure there are many men who put their kids first. I'm saying it's not at all hard to find men who don't.
In my personal experience, I don't know a single man who has done that. NONE. And believe it or not, I live in military housing and there are at least 6 different CP fathers on our block, and 4 others just off the top of my head who are ncp but go above and beyond to ensure they are active in their kids lives. So while that might be your experience and the experience of those seeking support. I don't find that to be the norm. How many women are going to come to be support board where the majority of posters are women and say "I am a dead beat mom"? Or how many men are really going to look for support on a board that is a majority of women.

It was like a thread in the step parents forum. Just because you mostly read the negative doesn't mean that there isn't a lot of really good out there, it just isn't posted because people who need support usually need it when times are tough.

I just find it extremely hypocritical for a woman to leave her husband, fight for years to keep him from getting custody or shared custody and then to complain because he wants to do what could very well be in the best interest for the kids. This particular story when I watched it, and I still have it on my DVR and I wil go back and watch it again to confirm that my memory is correct, but she was expecting her ex to still keep HER standard of living the same while he was willing to reduce his own and do as best as he could to ensure his kids had something that is far more important then a fancy house, which is a dad.
phrogger is offline  
#70 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 06:24 PM
 
MsChatsAlot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 5,102
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Like phrogger, I see the world differently. Almost all the men in my life are exceptional dads. They are people who have paid more than their share, go the extra mile, are super-involved and would feel like anything less than half time was unsatisfactory for them and their children.

I do know there are others out there. Heck, my ex isn't winning any dad of the year awards, but I have accepted he makes the choices that are apparently right for him and we live our life the way we choose.

I realize these discussions get so emotional because these are highly emotional situations for us.

I know that all the amount of forcing, threatening, court cases, etc. does not make a man be responsible or be a father. I do know, that my efforts to wave the white flag and reach out to my ex, not as the man that hurt me, but as a person and as the father of my children has been something that served me very well over the years. I see many families doing this too and it works.

There are times when I've cut my ex some slack, sometimes he's gone above and beyond. He does what he can and I give him the benefit of the doubt. So, when he came to me, telling me he was quitting his job of 20 years (one with benefits, good salary, etc.) to start his own business, yes, I had a moment of panic. But, I then realized that I was part of this equation too and I may have to do things differently too. I knew that we'd work together and do whatever it took to ensure our kids have the necessities and hopefully some extras too.

Now, I realize not everyone can do this, but a lot more people could be doing this than there are.

I also know that if my income were to drop, I would hate for my ex to take me to court saying, "Well, you've always earned $X and our children deserve to be living in that income bracket, so now that times are such that you aren't, I'm going to have the courts force you to keep our child in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed."

I also wouldn't be too happy if my ex were making $25,000 when he left and then built up his business and started making $1 M per year and was living the high life while we were still scraping by because he was only required to pay support on the original $25,000. I go back to my original statement that the children should be living in alignment with what it would be if both parents were together. If both or one falls in hard times, everyone has to cut back, if one decides to change careers, everyone has to adjust, if one gets a huge pay raise, everyone benefits...just the same as if the family were intact.

Life flows. Things change. People change. If you're working together, you'll find a way to come together to find a solution. Life isn't always about sticking to the plan, because as I've learned the hard way, the plan doesn't ever seem to work anyway.
MsChatsAlot is offline  
#71 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 06:39 PM
 
yukionna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
All I can say is that a mother should feel lucky to have a man who is willing to pay child support, even if it's a measly amount. Something is better than nothing in my book. And I'm getting nothing, so I know!
yukionna is offline  
#72 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 06:55 PM
 
trinity6232000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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, and if that needs to be renegotiatied, it has to happen in good faith. absolutely. im not saying let every ahole off the hook. i think this thread is about the nice enough guys who want to change their lives, and should be allowed to do so, to renegotiate with a fellow human in good faith, not the total a-holes who are getting away with murder.
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.
: what she said

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.
That is exactly why I'm defending this particular father. Why I got involved in the thread at all. Not every man who is divorced is our ex's. Not everybody is in the same situation. I think this particular dad should be given the chance to change his profession. I think in the long run, making less money, could turn out to be a benefit to his children.

-Janna, independent mother of dd, Ms. Mattie Sky born on my 25th birthday, 06*23*2000. My Mama Feb.21,1938-Sept.10,2006
trinity6232000 is offline  
#73 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 07:16 PM
 
AlwaysByMySide's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chattanooga
Posts: 1,802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Okay, so what happens if a mother buys a house, based on her salary and the child support that she receives. Her ex decides he wants to be a math teacher, and her c/s is drastically reduced. Should it be fair that her home could possibly go into foreclosure, because the c/s is part of what makes up her monthly budget, and now she is the one stuck with the bill?

Single WAHM to 5yo DD, 2yo DS, and forever 7 week old angel DD.
AlwaysByMySide is offline  
#74 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 07:23 PM
 
yukionna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlwaysByMySide View Post
Okay, so what happens if a mother buys a house, based on her salary and the child support that she receives. Her ex decides he wants to be a math teacher, and her c/s is drastically reduced. Should it be fair that her home could possibly go into foreclosure, because the c/s is part of what makes up her monthly budget, and now she is the one stuck with the bill?
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.
yukionna is offline  
#75 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 07:34 PM
 
Seasons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Host city of Laundryfest 2009
Posts: 1,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlwaysByMySide View Post
Okay, so what happens if a mother buys a house, based on her salary and the child support that she receives. Her ex decides he wants to be a math teacher, and her c/s is drastically reduced. Should it be fair that her home could possibly go into foreclosure, because the c/s is part of what makes up her monthly budget, and now she is the one stuck with the bill?
It's fair as long as her ex is a "nice guy" who wants to see his kids a lot.

Apparently.

The only thing you owe to others is to behave with integrity.
Seasons is offline  
#76 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 07:36 PM
 
Seasons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Host city of Laundryfest 2009
Posts: 1,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
If women only became pregnant when "if her partner's income [while married] or CS [when divorced] should happen to stop for whatever reason, she could still keep her head above water," very very very few of us would even reproduce. I know this is a big surprise to everyone here - can I use that rolleyes smiley again? - but it's actually difficult to raise a child on one income (oh, and because we should assume father out of the picture, "raising" would include "full-time daycare/school costs"). I'd cite to a few million threads in Single Parenting, Frugality and Finances, Stay at Home Parents, Parents as Partners saying so... but that would be against the UA...

The only thing you owe to others is to behave with integrity.
Seasons is offline  
#77 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 07:52 PM
 
yukionna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seasons View Post
If women only became pregnant when "if her partner's income [while married] or CS [when divorced] should happen to stop for whatever reason, she could still keep her head above water," very very very few of us would even reproduce. I know this is a big surprise to everyone here - can I use that rolleyes smiley again? - but it's actually difficult to raise a child on one income (oh, and because we should assume father out of the picture, "raising" would include "full-time daycare/school costs"). I'd cite to a few million threads in Single Parenting, Frugality and Finances, Stay at Home Parents, Parents as Partners saying so... but that would be against the UA...
Not sure if you missed my previous post but I have no support financially or otherwise from my child's father at all. Plus I am single. I'm well aware of how difficult it is to live on one income. Luckily I have had help from my parents but that's going to be coming to an end soon. Please don't patronize people who happen to disagree with you. I said that a woman should be able to keep her head above water without CS, I didn't say she should be able to maintain a comfortable and stress free lifestyle.
I understand it's not EASY to plan for the possibility of your income suddenly dropping but it's also not impossible in most cases. And I'm not talking about families who are doing everything they can to just survive even with the CS. I'm talking about the kind of person you used as an example. Buying a house that you could not afford without CS is just not smart. Buying a car you couldn't afford without CS is also not smart. Sure it's not fun to rent an apartment or drive around in a junker but it's a lot less fun to find yourself homeless or without transportation to work should CS stop.
yukionna is offline  
#78 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 07:58 PM
 
~PurityLake~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, US
Posts: 6,148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsChatsAlot View Post

I also know that if my income were to drop, I would hate for my ex to take me to court saying, "Well, you've always earned $X and our children deserve to be living in that income bracket, so now that times are such that you aren't, I'm going to have the courts force you to keep our child in the lifestyle to which they've become accustomed."

I also wouldn't be too happy if my ex were making $25,000 when he left and then built up his business and started making $1 M per year and was living the high life while we were still scraping by because he was only required to pay support on the original $25,000. I go back to my original statement that the children should be living in alignment with what it would be if both parents were together. If both or one falls in hard times, everyone has to cut back, if one decides to change careers, everyone has to adjust, if one gets a huge pay raise, everyone benefits...just the same as if the family were intact.

Life flows. Things change. People change. If you're working together, you'll find a way to come together to find a solution. Life isn't always about sticking to the plan, because as I've learned the hard way, the plan doesn't ever seem to work anyway.
I agree.

Katreena, peace.gif 39 year old Alaskan treehugger.gif Mama to 1 hearts.gif and 1 lady.gif gd.gif
 
 
 
 

~PurityLake~ is offline  
#79 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 07:59 PM
 
Seasons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Host city of Laundryfest 2009
Posts: 1,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by yukionna View Post
Not sure if you missed my previous post but I have no support financially or otherwise from my child's father at all. Plus I am single. I'm well aware of how difficult it is to live on one income. Luckily I have had help from my parents but that's going to be coming to an end soon.
I did see your previous post. And you probably saw mine: like you, I am a solo parent, with no support from my child's father. Unlike you, I haven't had any $upport from my parents. We agree that it is VERY hard to support our families on one income. I do so, and hopefully you will too soon, but I know I'm rare. MOST single moms can't. (The single best predictor of poverty in the U.S. is being the child of a single mom. Not "single parent"; "single mother.")

Quote:
Originally Posted by yukionna
I'm talking about the kind of person you used as an example. Buying a house that you could not afford without CS is just not smart.
Whaa? I didn't use any example but my own, IIRC. Are you referring to AlwaysByMySide's post #73? I'm Seasons.

The only thing you owe to others is to behave with integrity.
Seasons is offline  
#80 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 07:59 PM
 
~PurityLake~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, US
Posts: 6,148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlwaysByMySide View Post
Okay, so what happens if a mother buys a house, based on her salary and the child support that she receives. Her ex decides he wants to be a math teacher, and her c/s is drastically reduced. Should it be fair that her home could possibly go into foreclosure, because the c/s is part of what makes up her monthly budget, and now she is the one stuck with the bill?
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.
I strongly agree with yuki on this particular topic.

If a single mom is in the house buying market, I would not think it wise to include child support as income when figuring out how large a mortgage to commit to.

Katreena, peace.gif 39 year old Alaskan treehugger.gif Mama to 1 hearts.gif and 1 lady.gif gd.gif
 
 
 
 

~PurityLake~ is offline  
#81 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 08:03 PM
 
yukionna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
yukionna is offline  
#82 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 08:09 PM
 
Seasons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Host city of Laundryfest 2009
Posts: 1,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.)

The only thing you owe to others is to behave with integrity.
Seasons is offline  
#83 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 08:19 PM
 
yukionna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
yukionna is offline  
#84 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 08:28 PM
 
Seasons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Host city of Laundryfest 2009
Posts: 1,640
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.)

The only thing you owe to others is to behave with integrity.
Seasons is offline  
#85 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 08:41 PM
 
~PurityLake~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, US
Posts: 6,148
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

Katreena, peace.gif 39 year old Alaskan treehugger.gif Mama to 1 hearts.gif and 1 lady.gif gd.gif
 
 
 
 

~PurityLake~ is offline  
#86 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 08:53 PM
 
yukionna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
yukionna is offline  
#87 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 08:57 PM
 
Goodmom2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 738
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
Goodmom2008 is offline  
#88 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 09:01 PM
 
yukionna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
yukionna is offline  
#89 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 09:24 PM
 
AlwaysByMySide's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chattanooga
Posts: 1,802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.

Single WAHM to 5yo DD, 2yo DS, and forever 7 week old angel DD.
AlwaysByMySide is offline  
#90 of 167 Old 03-02-2009, 09:30 PM
 
yukionna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Oregon
Posts: 74
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
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.
yukionna is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Drag and Drop File Upload
Drag files here to attach!
Upload Progress: 0
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Mothering Forums forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off