That's why if I could do it all over again I would never give a man with kids a second look. I was happier when I lived by that rule, then I decided to give it a chance after all I had a kid, and I sometimes wish I had not.

Oh. How nice. There's a reason why they instates the 65% rule, and that was because otherwise, it would turn all of them homeless.

Love it! I can't wait for my taxpayer dollars to go towards more welfare for these now completely broke fathers!

my uncle recently got approved for SSI. his son will be getting a little over 500 a month in SS as his dependant child. i don't know if this is in place of cs or added to it. i didn't ask questions, i was just there when he told his son how much he will be getting in SS a month. i think it's crap to take everything a man has, he has to eat too! however, when it comes to a POS deadbeat like bd's sperm donor, who has never paid a dime, yet manages to be high all the time, i wouldn't feel a bit bad if everything he had went to bd and he starved to death. }:) i only think it's unfair to constantly stick it to fathers who are doing what they are supposed to, but somehow are seen as never doing enough.

My opinion on this straddles the fence.

I agree that insane levels of CS are rediculouse and should never be ordered. No more than 20% of a persons income should be allocated for CS regardless of income levels. IMHO of course.

I also believe that a parent has a responsiblity to their children and that children should have a right to equitable access to the benefit of the incomes of both of their BioParents. I came up with this one during my their money could go to support my SS's three younger also oowl SpermIdiot half sibs. I made damned sure that my SS had equitable access to his SpermIdiot's income. My SS is the oldest of BioDad's four oowl spawn. If the idiot could not afford the younger three he should have thought of that before he found two more womb donors.

So I make my judgements on this topic on a case by case basis.

Generally I do not think it is fair or rational to be able to take 100% of an NCPs income to recoup CS arrearages. On the other hand a dirtbag NCP who dodged a reasonable CS order or even an insame CS order for a decade+ and is now siting on huge arrearages, penalties and interest should not only have 100% of their income confiscated and sent to the CP who raised the child without help from the NCP but the NCP should also have to turn big rocks in to little rocks with a sledge hammer. If the CS order was insane then the NCP should have regularly paid what they could reasonably afford and not dodged CS completely.

I also believe that CPs should be required to undergo an annual audit of CS to show how CS was spent. If it is found that the CS was not used primarily for the support of the child(ren) then the CP should have to pay back the NCP for the CS with penalties and interest. Repeated violations should automatically deliver the kids to the full custody of the more responsible former NCP.

I know that this part of my opinion will not be universally popular but I firmly believe that the parent most capable of providing for the child should get custody with the less financially viable perent getting visitation and owing some level of CS.

In my SS's case his SpermIdiot initially paid $110/mo in CS. We never needed hte money but we kept the worthless POS on the hook for CS for the entire 17+ years of the CO. I made damned sure that my son (SS) would never have to hear that his SpermClan did not care enough about him to support him at least at some insultingly low level.