Dr. Phil 2/27 - Page 5 - Mothering Forums

Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
Old 03-03-2009, 11:39 PM
 
Goodmom2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlwaysByMySide View Post
Oy vey. It IS possible to have a lower mortgage payment than paying rent.

Okay, how about if the mother signs a lease for an apartment? Father/NCP decides to take a lower paying job and thus gives less child support. Mother and child(ren) possibly get evicted.

If child support is not partially for housing, what is it for? Britney Spears, Puff Daddy, lots of celebrities pays tens of thousands of dollars in child support. I doubt it's all going to food and clothes for their kids.
In the child support guidelines for my state, it clearly states that housing is part of child support. I wouldn't be surprised if it is in all of them. Children need to live somewhere other than a park bench.
Goodmom2008 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 03-04-2009, 12:08 AM
 
sunflowers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 2,062
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger_rodgers View Post
A mother's needs are not limited to the moment. She will need to retire; she may get sick; she will get old. In the US, we do not have universal lovely care for the elderly and disabled. We are responsible for providing for ourselves. You may have a big argument with that, but currently them's the facts.

Which means you can't pretend those costs don't exist. You can't say to a mother, "Go live in an apartment and pay rent forever, get a job and put off your education, work to the point of exhaustion because you're young and strong, and if you have so much money that you can save it, STOP and give that to your kids in the form of time with their daddy."

That kind of talk is anti-woman. We need to take care of ourselves first. And that includes taking care of our futures. When single mothers have got all that set, and then they want to give more to help a fella out and give more daddy time to their kids, great. Otherwise, I'd dismiss the suggestion out of hand.
This describes wher I am currently. All of my $ is spent on the daily costs of living with a tiny bit left to save some for their education. I, however, cannot save a single dime for my own retirement. I will have spent 33 years of my life, my entire span of lucrative career years from 21 to 54 years old, raising my children and using every last resource to do it. At that point, I will have a limited education and no prospect for retirement. I wonder if when I get too old to work, if I might have to euthanize myself. I am not joking.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Purity♥Lake~ View Post
I never said one parent should have extensive luxuries while the other parents does not. I simply stated that I think owning your (*disclaimer, your is not in reference to any particular individual) own home is a luxury, in my experience and opinion.

My ex owns several homes. He rents a few, sells a few, and lives in one. I own no home. He has several cars, a boat, and a truck. I drive a 10 year old economy car. He takes at least 3 long, expensive vacations a year. Plus multiple weekend getaways. I haven't been outside of my region in 4 years.

So since I do not have those luxuries, he shouldn't?


I do wonder, since my income and assests are along the lines of 1/5 - 1/10th the amount of my ex's, if he should become custodial, then I should only have to contribute CS along those same lines, right? So i he pays $500/mo now, I would only have to pay $50-$100/mo?
sunflowers is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 01:05 AM
 
~PurityLake~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, US
Posts: 5,802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunflowers View Post

So since I do not have those luxuries, he shouldn't?

Ugh, I never said who should or should not have which luxury.

I simply said that I think home ownership is a luxury not a need.

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

~PurityLake~ is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 01:37 AM
 
AlwaysByMySide's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chattanooga
Posts: 1,658
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
What if it isn't OWNING a home? What if it's renting? On rental applications, I've been asked if I receive child support, so they include it in their calculations.

If you don't make your rent payment, you get evicted instead of foreclosed on. Is that any better?

Is having a roof over one's head a luxury?

Single WAHM to 5yo DD, 2yo DS, and forever 7 week old angel DD.
AlwaysByMySide is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 01:53 AM
 
Jane91's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 140
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
I've just recently starting checking out Mothering. I'm getting married next month and we are planning on trying for a honeymoon baby.

However -- this whole discussion is making me rethink the necessity of some sort of written acknowledgment of what "our" economic plan is for the future(though I don't know how binding that would be in court) or maybe even a prenup.

I earn significantly more (almost 4 times) than my fiance. Our plan is to live substantially below our total income, so that either we can both retire early or so that I can make a step-down to a less exhausting career sometime in the next 10 years. The thought of being forced to continue in my career without respite until we have kids that are 18 terrifies me.

I wonder how many of the people here saying the dad should just suck it up have had the sort of demanding career one would usually expect to receive a $100,000 (or more) paycheck.

That sort of paycheck (in my experience) comes with a certain price -- the waking up in the middle of the night your heart pounding -- terrified you've made a mistake costing millions of dollars, the weekends and evenings given up, the constant stress and worry about clients and deadlines, the vacations where you have plans but ditch them (and disappoint your family) to stay in the room working on your laptop instead, the vacations you never get to take, the working 48 hours straight on a 2 hour nap, the hunching over your computer until your back gives out and you end up having to lie on the conference room floor to continue working, the flying out at a moment's notice, the missing of your grandfather's funeral (or any number of weddings) due to a new deadline, or (as happened to a colleague of mine) having your clients leaving you nasty voicemails because you dared to turn off your cell phone and not answer their calls at your father's funeral.

Anyway -- this whole thing does confirm a gut feeling I had that I did not want my fiance to be a stay at home parent. I was always hesitant to set up a situation which could help legitimate a claim by my spouse for sole physical custody in case of divorce. However, its pretty clear that the economics of having a stay at home spouse in a divorce scenario also really suck for the wage-earner. Guess I'll be encouraging my fiance to go for that grad degree he was thinking about....
Jane91 is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 01:59 AM
 
trinity6232000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlwaysByMySide View Post
What if it isn't OWNING a home? What if it's renting? On rental applications, I've been asked if I receive child support, so they include it in their calculations.

If you don't make your rent payment, you get evicted instead of foreclosed on. Is that any better?

Is having a roof over one's head a luxury?


I'm not sure we're all listening to each other well in this thread. I think when the point of buying a home was first brought up in was in regards to living within one's means, not that having a place to live is a luxury.

The Mom in this particular situation, the ex of the Dad on Dr. Phil wants to keep a certain lifestyle, wants to stay at home, and wants her ex to pay entirely for this, AND they have 50/50 custody. I don't think any of us can personally relate to this, so I don't see how our personal stories can compare at all.


So lets say that without child support I can afford a $700 mortgage, but if I factor in child support I can afford a $1000 mortgage. Or say I need a new car, I could buy a brand new car and factor in I am receiving child support, or I could buy a used car and have a few bucks floating just incase.

I think that is just smart planning. Plus if you can try to live a life where CP isn't totally depended on then you can take that extra money here and there to put away incase something bad happens and you don't get any CP for a period of time.

I don't get CP, never have, so maybe I don't know what it's like to depend on, and maybe my view is clouded by my own circumstances.


I haven't seen anybody say that they think Dad's should just be allowed to pay nothing and abandon their kids. Or that single Mom's don't deserve to own their own home.

This particular Mom wants her ex not only to pay for her children's lifestyle but her own. She's not working. He will still be paying child support, and yeah I think she should make up the difference if it's so important to her to keep her current lifestyle. I feel that is fair.

-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  
Old 03-04-2009, 02:07 AM
 
AlwaysByMySide's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chattanooga
Posts: 1,658
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Speaking as the sole parent of two children, my job comes with the price of weekends and evenings given up, contant stress and worry about how I'm going to pay the bills, working my butt off just to hand 75% of the money I make to a daycare, vacations that don't happen because there isn't money to pay for them, working and caring for two children who are vomiting everywhere and I am vomiting everywhere as well, with no respite (i.e. my past weekend), pulling a back muscle from lugging a heavy baby around (this actually happened to me last year), having to miss work because a child is sick and can't go to daycare and there's nobody else to take care of them...which then adds to the stress and worry about making ends meet, and angry clients.

Yes, money isn't everything. But having a job that pays six figures isn't NECESSARILY any harder than the mom who is trying to make ends meet with little to no child support. Meanwhile, the NCP doesn't have to worry about a lot of those things, unless they happen during their round of visitation. NCP gets to go to work, whether or not the kids are sick. NCP is unlikely to catch the sick bug from the kids. NCP gets weekends and evenings to themselves - whether it's working, or sleeping.

In the end, though, it's not about you, the parent. It's about the child you created. My kids won't remember that I was exhausted and throwing up along with them. They're going to remember that I trudged out to get them Pedialyte, and rubbed their backs when they felt sick, even when I felt as disgusting as they did.

And if the NCP decides that they want to go flip burgers instead of being a CEO, in the end, it's about whether or not that's fair to the CHILDREN, because, to the custodial parent, those kids have to come first.

Single WAHM to 5yo DD, 2yo DS, and forever 7 week old angel DD.
AlwaysByMySide is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 02:15 AM
 
AlwaysByMySide's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chattanooga
Posts: 1,658
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by trinity6232000 View Post
I'm not sure we're all listening to each other well in this thread. I think when the point of buying a home was first brought up in was in regards to living within one's means, not that having a place to live is a luxury.
Yes, but as the conversation veered off to not be about the woman on the show, it seems as though people do think that owning a home is a luxury, working or not.

In my area, it is cheaper to own than it is to rent. It's just the way it is. But even if rent is involved, instead of foreclosure, it's eviction, if the bills don't get paid.

What if the kids are young, and it's cheaper for the mom to stay home? I can tell you from my perspective, with two in daycare, there are some days that I work all day, and come home with $10 after I pay for childcare, and that's not counting gas and other expenses. If I was getting child support, I would be looking for a two bedroom instead of squishing us all into a one-bedroom. That's reality.

So if I all of a sudden started getting cp, and decided on that two bedroom, and ex decides he'd rather do something else, how is it fair to my kids to have to face an eviction, or having to cover the cost of moving into a smaller apartment? And how is it fair to the kids to be squished into a one bedroom when there is enough money for a two bedroom?

If one's means include child support, why is it such a big deal to actually spend it? Why spend 18 years worried about whether or not it's going to end? I can imagine the resentment that someone would feel, as an 18 year old, being squished into a smaller house than was necessary, because mom was worried that the child support might end.

I'm all for living within your means, but I think it's ridiculous that the custodial parent should have to live their life as if they don't get child support, on the off chance that their ex decides that his wants are more important than his children. The custodial parent can't up and decide to take a lower paying job without thinking about the financial consequences for the children. So why does the NCP get to do it?

Single WAHM to 5yo DD, 2yo DS, and forever 7 week old angel DD.
AlwaysByMySide is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 02:17 AM
 
~PurityLake~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, US
Posts: 5,802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlwaysByMySide View Post

Is having a roof over one's head a luxury?
I've already stated my thoughts on that:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Purity♥Lake~ View Post
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.
The mother in the Dr. Phil show has many luxuries and the house is just one of many. She doesn't want the good father to her children to have a career change because she doesn't want to give up her extravagant lifestyle. She is not like most single mothers and certainly not like any I know first hand.

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

~PurityLake~ is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 02:20 AM
 
mandib50's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: my own reality
Posts: 4,698
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
just wondering in all of this because i didn't catch the entire show, did the ex-wife actually have a chance to tell her side?

Midwifery student , Mama to my 4 amazing kids. treehugger.gif

mandib50 is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 02:36 AM
 
phrogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by mandib50 View Post
just wondering in all of this because i didn't catch the entire show, did the ex-wife actually have a chance to tell her side?
She made a statement, basically saying she was an educated woman, but the last time she worked, mulitple years prior, that she only made 35k so it was unfair for her ex to change his career because then that meant that he expected her to make all the money to keep up the lifestyle.

My issue with that is, it is HER lifestyle. I am sorry, but kids need their dad mroe then they need all the extras in life. YES we need money to survive, but getting by with a dad who shows how much he loves you is far more beneficial then having everything monitarily and not having dad there.

Quote:
Unfortunately, there are a lot of dads who say they want to spend more time with their kids in order to lower c/s payments. How many times has their been a post on this board about that?
Then if he doesn't actually spend the time, go back to the original agreement. However, I think you only hear the negative stuff on a message board like this. Very rarely do you hear about the families who DO put the kids first, even if it is less money, it is more time with the kids.
phrogger is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 02:44 AM
 
~PurityLake~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, US
Posts: 5,802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrogger View Post
She made a statement, basically saying she was an educated woman, but the last time she worked, mulitple years prior, that she only made 35k so it was unfair for her ex to change his career because then that meant that he expected her to make all the money to keep up the lifestyle.

My issue with that is, it is HER lifestyle.
This is the main issue. It's not about surviving. Two parents with $35,000 - $50,000 annually apiece is better than surviving. She just wants all her goodies and she wants him to pay for them. Even if she continued to stay at home, his teacher income of $45,000 or so (my mom's a teacher, and worked in more than one state, so I'm averaging here) is certainly sufficient to properly care for their children even if she doesn't work and thinks it's important to have a parent at home with the children. So, yeah, this is so not about survival; it's just about her wanting more stuff, or to keep on living as though she's married and maintaining the lifestyle she has been accustomed to.

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

~PurityLake~ is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 03:14 AM
 
boobybunny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 2,219
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Always by my side

If you ever decide the South is the pits, and want to move North. Find me again, we will talk rent.

I am so sorry. I want to send you nothing but love, happiness and a big strong hug. ::
boobybunny is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 03:58 AM
 
Marsupialmom's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: St. Louis MO
Posts: 9,039
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodmom2008 View Post
That is really simplistic. Financial support is an important part of parenting, as important as other aspects of parenting. Extra cash? No, just his part of the child support based on what he has clearly shown that he can make. If he wants to lower his income, he is the one who should live with the consequences, not his children. And his ex shouldn't be forced to pick up his slack. Especially since she had no say in his choice at all.
Ok, you say if he wants to lower his income that is his privilage. But mom's need to realize if they are capible they should be earing their most. If they choose a lower paying job or no job that is their privliage and he shouldn't have to pick up the slack. He has no say in her choices either.
Marsupialmom is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 09:41 AM
 
Goodmom2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Purity♥Lake~ View Post
I've already stated my thoughts on that:



The mother in the Dr. Phil show has many luxuries and the house is just one of many. She doesn't want the good father to her children to have a career change because she doesn't want to give up her extravagant lifestyle. She is not like most single mothers and certainly not like any I know first hand.
While that mother should be working (child support does not last forever), it doesn't change the fact that the father wants to drastically reduce his income by his own choice. Clearly, the other parent is not willing to accept his choice.

He should be the one who lives with the consequences of his choice, not the kids and not the mother.
Goodmom2008 is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 09:44 AM
 
Goodmom2008's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 720
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marsupialmom View Post
Ok, you say if he wants to lower his income that is his privilage. But mom's need to realize if they are capible they should be earing their most. If they choose a lower paying job or no job that is their privliage and he shouldn't have to pick up the slack. He has no say in her choices either.

Where did I say that CP shouldn't have income imputed to them if they choose not to work or work only part-time?
Goodmom2008 is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 11:05 AM
 
AlwaysByMySide's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Chattanooga
Posts: 1,658
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ~Purity♥Lake~ View Post
The mother in the Dr. Phil show has many luxuries and the house is just one of many. She doesn't want the good father to her children to have a career change because she doesn't want to give up her extravagant lifestyle. She is not like most single mothers and certainly not like any I know first hand.
Okay, but the blanket statement was that a house is a luxury. Not that a house for this particular woman is a luxury.

What I said in my previous post was that this conversation has clearly gone off the show and about single mothers in general. The way laws work is that there is one law, and it applies to everyone, not just people on the Dr. Phil show. I don't know how old the child in question was on the Dr. Phil show, but let's imagine it's a 5 year old. The kid is in school, presumably, so mom can work. Okay, fine.

Now let's imagine it's a 15 year old. Think about how much "extra time" could be spent with the average American teenager, between school and friends and hobbies and whatnot.

Now let's imagine she has three kids, 1, 3, and 5. Two of them are in daycare. She now has less income to cover daycare (which, at least for me, is more than rent/mortgage) and the mortgage/rent. I know very few people who earn enough money to pay for all of that on their own and still manage to find time to actually spend with their kids. Actually, I do. I meet them at the welfare office, where I'm also waiting, because even with a degree, when you are supporting multiple children on your own, it's not so easy.

So, living within her means, without child support, should she live with all three kids in a one bedroom apartment if that's all she can afford, and pretend that the c/s doesn't exist? Is that really fair to the kids?

Or, if they are living in, say, a 3 bedroom apartment (not an actual HOUSE), and the c/s drops, is it fair to those kids to say, "Sorry, kids, dad wants to spend more time with you, so we're going to have to downsize, move to a smaller apartment (if she can even break her lease to do it), deal with new deposits and moving utilities and whatnot." And then dad gets to have the kids all weekend, when mom barely sees them during the week because she's working her tail off to give them a roof over their head. Yeah, she gets them for dinner and bathtime and whatever, but also has to make sure they get ready and off to school in the morning. We use our weekends around here to spend uninterrupted chunks of time with my kids, where we have nowhere to be all weekend. Nope, sorry, daddy gets that now, and maybe mommy can use that time to get another job.

And, if the kids are that young, wouldn't it be better to take the money that would be spent on daycare and let the mom stay at home and raise her kids?

Unfortunately, you (general you) can't take one family's situation on a television show and apply it to the general population.

Single WAHM to 5yo DD, 2yo DS, and forever 7 week old angel DD.
AlwaysByMySide is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 12:52 PM
 
phrogger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,114
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodmom2008 View Post
While that mother should be working (child support does not last forever), it doesn't change the fact that the father wants to drastically reduce his income by his own choice. Clearly, the other parent is not willing to accept his choice.

He should be the one who lives with the consequences of his choice, not the kids and not the mother.
That is the whole point, the kids will BENEFIT from the change. Why isn't time with dad as important as the money? We aren't talking low income people here who a reduction is a make it or break it situation, we are talking about losing out on excess, but gaining time with dad.
phrogger is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 01:28 PM
Banned
 
ginger_rodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by phrogger View Post
I am sorry, but kids need their dad mroe then they need all the extras in life. YES we need money to survive, but getting by with a dad who shows how much he loves you is far more beneficial then having everything monitarily and not having dad there.
phrogger, again, this is your view. This is your set of values. You can apply it to your family, your kids, your ex. You have no way of gauging, from a 20-minute segment, what their situation actually is, what the factors were in their divorce, why she's resisting.

Incidentally, I come from a family where the men spent most of their waking hours working, and for me, that was a good thing. Have there been times when it's been frustrating, absolutely. But it was those men's example I had in front of me during the year before and two years after my ex filed for divorce, when I had no choice but to work.all.the.time -- for money, for school, as a mom, for custody, for the house, for a decent school for my daughter. They taught me how to work.

They were able to buy decent healthcare when they had cancer and heart disease; they were able to help people down on their luck; they taught me to manage and to think big. They also left me well-enough off that I came out of school with zero school debt. And that meant I was able to buy property instead of paying off loans, and walked into marriage with property. Which meant I could be a single full-custodial mom without falling into poverty and taking my child with me. I really would not knock the working-all-the-time dad.

(But wouldn't we have traded it all for more time? My dad managed to work 80-hour weeks, be actively involved in our education, eat with us, spend time with us on weekends and just around in the house, go on vacations with us, and -- later -- manage both his parents' care as they died. He lived far from them, but for several years he called his mother daily; hired, paid for, and stayed in daily touch with her nurses; kept in touch with her doctors, managed her money, and flew to see her once a month or so. After she died, he was the one to make all the arrangements, to go clean out and sell her apartment and execute her will. I'd wanted to come help, but I was 7 mo pregnant and he wouldn't let me. So, you know -- the guy who works a lot is not necessarily uninvolved in his family's life. I didn't feel deprived of his company.)

In the end, you know, with this family on the show, you're probably talking about a difference of well under $10K/yr in child support. Again, I see no reason why -- if what he's really after is more time with the kids and a career change -- he can't figure out how to keep up his financial responsibility at the same time. Math teachers are in demand. If he socks away a decent reserve over the next couple of years -- which he should be able to do if not buying all those "extras" you keep talking about -- while finding ways to adjust his working hours so that he does in fact see more of his kids, switches to the teacher job, and then makes up the diff in c/s from the saved money and extra contribution, he can have all he wants without stiffing the kids' mom.

Phrogger, PurityLake, you guys are talking about situations in which the parents work well together and are willing to do some give and take because essentially they're friends and trust each other. Obviously that's not the case here. Now, would you trust a man who tried to drag your business onto the Dr. Phil show when he didn't get his way?

Quote:
Then if he doesn't actually spend the time, go back to the original agreement.
Much easier said than done. Nor would I want to be in the position of having to spy on the guy. Remember, "time" in my ex's vocabulary includes plenty of napping while dd watches TV.
ginger_rodgers is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 01:58 PM
 
Seasons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Host city of Laundryfest 2009
Posts: 1,533
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger_rodgers View Post
My dad managed to work 80-hour weeks, be actively involved in our education, eat with us, spend time with us on weekends and just around in the house, go on vacations with us.....So, you know -- the guy who works a lot is not necessarily uninvolved in his family's life. I didn't feel deprived of his company.
Thanks for mentioning this, Ginger. Most of us single moms WOH full-time(some of us more than full-time) and yet manage very full parenting lives. Our children are hardly deprived by our being working moms. SOME people, perhaps phrogger, may think that a SAHP automatically is "better" to his/her children than a WOHP. I do not think so. Our U.S. president, who was raised by a single, hard-working mom (in fact he barely met his dad), adores his mother - and chose a WOH woman very much like her to marry. So I think the "earning [more] money means less time with children AND means unhappier children" argument is fallacious.

The only thing you owe to others is to behave with integrity.
Seasons is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 02:00 PM
 
Ceinwen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The cold, crazy north
Posts: 2,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Egads. I can't believe I missed this whole thread, although that may have been a good thing.

I'm glad that despite all our drama and his, erm - lack of foresight? Stbx sees paying for our kids as his most important job right now.

He's paying child support according to the provincial guidelines (based on his gross income and number of children), half of daycare costs and is also leaving us the matrimonial home and contents. Oh, and our brand new mini-van.

Why? Because he's chosen to leave; he's the catalyst to this separation. And quite frankly, even if he wasn't - his POV is that two little girls need their mother f/t and they need him to pony up the $.

Some will roll their eyes or snort and talk about how out of date this concept is, and of course YMMV, each situation is so different. But when I hear about women left high and dry without a cent to their name, or men going after custody to reduce $ payments (and to the pp who said they've n.e.v.e.r. seen that - my attorney does most of his work fighting decreases in child support vs. custody, so it's prevalent)...

Anyway, quite frankly I don't see a house as a luxury. Around here it's more expensive to rent than to buy. My mortgage pmts are less than rental costs. The whole 'My child support is not paying for your rich lifestyle' argument falls flat; except in cases where the mother remarries well off, I've yet to see ANY one living high on the hog off of child support.

Full time working mom to two bright and busy little girls! treehugger.gif
Ceinwen is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 02:03 PM
 
Ceinwen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The cold, crazy north
Posts: 2,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seasons View Post
Thanks for mentioning this, Ginger. Most of us single moms WOH full-time(some of us more than full-time) and yet manage very full parenting lives. Our children are hardly deprived by our being working moms. SOME people, perhaps phrogger, may think that a SAHP automatically is "better" to his/her children than a WOHP. I do not think so. Our U.S. president, who was raised by a single, hard-working mom (in fact he barely met his dad), adores his mother - and chose a WOH woman very much like her to marry. So I think the "earning [more] money means less time with children AND means unhappier children" argument is fallacious.
YES!! I just about fell out of my chair just now. My last post may have been a bit incoherent (I was nights last night and am home now to take care of my fourteen month - alone, no help) but this is so relevant.

I'm working 12 hour shifts as an RN and managing to finish school, AND be available for my two girls for every activity and excursion. It takes lots of scheduling and organization, and the occasional disappointment, but I don't like the 'tude that comes from 'OMGZ you just want to live high on the hog while he does all the work'. Both stbx and I work long weeks, and neither of us are going to be working any less in the future. Having said that, he has chosen to have the girls four days a month - leaving me the bulk of the parenting/organizing duties. His equalizer to that is to pay - to make things more available for the girls.

Full time working mom to two bright and busy little girls! treehugger.gif
Ceinwen is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 02:04 PM
 
trinity6232000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Posts: 3,283
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seasons View Post
Thanks for mentioning this, Ginger. Most of us single moms WOH full-time(some of us more than full-time) and yet manage very full parenting lives. Our children are hardly deprived by our being working moms. SOME people, perhaps phrogger, may think that a SAHP automatically is "better" to his/her children than a WOHP. I do not think so. Our U.S. president, who was raised by a single, hard-working mom (in fact he barely met his dad), adores his mother - and chose a WOH woman very much like her to marry. So I think the "earning [more] money means less time with children AND means unhappier children" argument is fallacious.
Then why is it such a stretch to ask that this Mother from the Dr. Phil show get a job instead of being a SAHM?

-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  
Old 03-04-2009, 02:04 PM
Banned
 
ginger_rodgers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 351
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seasons View Post
Thanks for mentioning this, Ginger. Most of us single moms WOH full-time(some of us more than full-time) and yet manage very full parenting lives. Our children are hardly deprived by our being working moms.
Ha! I can't believe I forgot this! Yes, go us. For real. This weekend coming up's going to be the first I've had a day off from work and childcare in....two years. Unless more work comes down the pipe before then. And this week I've had TWO CONSECUTIVE NIGHTS of 7+ hours' sleep.

Yeah, I'm not quite feeling the pain, here.
ginger_rodgers is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 03:48 PM
 
DogwoodFairy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by trinity6232000 View Post
Then why is it such a stretch to ask that this Mother from the Dr. Phil show get a job instead of being a SAHM?
Well, just my $.02, but who is it thats going to be doing the asking? The ex husband? The court? Us?

Getting a job is a choice. I know, I know, flames will be coming from all sides now. But really, you cant force someone, or ORDER someone to go get a job. Really. If, when they divorced, both parents agreed that it was the best thing for their children to have Mom SAH, and Dad was ordered c/s on that basis, then why should the agreement all of a sudden change on Dad's whim? If the parents were still married, it would obviously be a matter that both parents would discuss before Dad took a lower paying job, and forced Mom into the workforce. Obviously, now as a divorced couple, probably the Mom isnt going to be so receptive to that idea.

And why is it anyone's right to tell this woman to "go get a job"? Maybe she's tried. Maybe the children are being homeschooled. Maybe her career requires extensive travel that would significantly reduce the amount of time SHE gets to spend with the kids during her parenting time. Maybe she has chronic acne and she doesn't want to leave the house. Whatever her reasons, who are WE, or the ex-husband even, to make the decision FOR HER that she needs to go get a job?

When they divorced, he agreed to pay c/s in the amount that would enable her to be a SAHM. Why on earth should SHE change her life, and disrupt her children's lives because HE has a wild hair?

Maybe I'm completely out there, but I was under the impression that "co-parenting" was a shortened version of "cooperative parenting". If one side is not willing to "cooperate" with the other's decisions, then the court order stands.

Once the Dad is absolved of his obligation to pay c/s, he can go do whatever he wants. Or if its so important to him to pursue his "dream" of being a math teacher, he will find a way to do it while still fulfilling his c/s obligations. His children shouldn't be deprived of their mom either, and if she has been a SAHM, forcing her into the workforce would certainly affect the kids, and they would see or spend significantly less time w/Mom.

So does Dad's time with the kids have a higher value than Mom's?
DogwoodFairy is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 04:28 PM
 
Ceinwen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The cold, crazy north
Posts: 2,599
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Day-um SFS! Girl, you should go to law school! I'd let you represent me anyday.

This, of course, is my way of saying I completely agree. That was well thought out.

Full time working mom to two bright and busy little girls! treehugger.gif
Ceinwen is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 05:09 PM
 
DogwoodFairy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Pacific Northwest
Posts: 413
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
lol

I considered law school for awhile.

Given the fact that I dropped out of high school, though, I dont think Harvard will take me
DogwoodFairy is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 05:49 PM
 
~PurityLake~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, US
Posts: 5,802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by AlwaysByMySide View Post
Unfortunately, you (general you) can't take one family's situation on a television show and apply it to the general population.
I completely agree with you there.

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

~PurityLake~ is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 05:53 PM
 
~PurityLake~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, US
Posts: 5,802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by ginger_rodgers View Post

Phrogger, PurityLake, you guys are talking about situations in which the parents work well together and are willing to do some give and take because essentially they're friends and trust each other. Obviously that's not the case here. Now, would you trust a man who tried to drag your business onto the Dr. Phil show when he didn't get his way?
Well, I really don't think trust is the issue regarding making the situation public. And I'm certain he didn't drag her there.

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

~PurityLake~ is offline  
Old 03-04-2009, 05:59 PM
 
~PurityLake~'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Anchorage, Alaska, US
Posts: 5,802
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
SFS, I guess we just disagree on the issue pertaining to this family on Dr. Phil show.

Everything you said in your last post can be turned around and said about the dad. Seriously, I don't feel like arguing, though.

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

~PurityLake~ is offline  
 
User Tag List

Thread Tools


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not 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