O/T what do you consider as basic living conditions
We have a venting blog that turned out to be something else, thus I would rather copy paste here and we can nicely debate it.... It's all regarding the CS payment...... ex spouses demand more and more money cause they think it's their right...
as per Human right laws ...
The nature of the right to an adequate standard of living was further defined in Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR),[9] which defines the right to an adequate standard of living in two paragraphs. Paragraph one states that:
"The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to the continuous improvement of living conditions. The States Parties will take appropriate steps to ensure the realization of this right, recognizing to this effect the essential importance of international co-operation based on free consent."[10]
Now no where is it mentioned, designer cloths, screens, electronics, gadgets etc.... I do not even see a private car in this....
Thus is it still fair that a Dad pays so much CS to his ex wife that he can hardly provide for his new family?
Min wages are calculated according to these basic standard of living ... but it is different from state to state and depending on your location, thus basic wage in a city would be more then in rural area's...
- Acratopotes's blog
- Log in or register to post comments
Comments
I am not following 100% what
I am not following 100% what incentive does the court have? They don't benefit in any way.. it's not like they get the money right?
I thought that it was a result of women often being the lower wage earner. This can be for a variety of reasons including the inability to get ahead while they are busy having kids. I also thought there was still a bias for mothers being the nurturer.. or having jobs that would more easily accommodate the needs of kids. It seems that the financial aspect is just a byproduct of the above.
I see that logic as being the
I see that logic as being the state wants parents to cover the cost of raising the kids, not the govt. The more CS.. the more there is an offset of need for govt assistance.
50-50 may be easier for some people than others too. If you don't live in the same school system.. how do you work that? Driving for one parent or the other may not be possible. What about people that need to move for their jobs? Kids ability to have other things like after school jobs etc.. all would be complicated by 50-50. Plus, living 50-50 would seem more disruptive than a child having one "home base".
This is true. SO and Bm have
This is true. SO and Bm have 50/50, and in so doing each parent has a relationship with the children (right/wrong/indifferent) and each parent has some time off to enjoy life, have a little bit of a break from doing all the work of both parents during their time with the skids.
SO, being the higher wage earner, is able to take care of many expenses that are necessary, like back-to-school shopping, and pays medical expenses as well as SOME entertainment, extras. Otherwise they each pay half, whenever possible. I put something in there too, for example, last October I bought Munchkin her costume for Halloween. I buy food and do some cooking and cleaning. So each household has that type of support system, and because it is 50/50 with respect to time, each household is stronger for it.
We have stayed in the same city, for ease of transferal, but also because we have a killer deal on a home rental with a load of space.
Depending on the situation, 50/50 seems to work the best.
Thus is it still fair that a
Thus is it still fair that a Dad pays so much CS to his ex wife that he can hardly provide for his new family?
I think that the crux of this issue is that Dad should consider his existing obligations before adding new obligations.
Theoretically, all parents should be supporting their biological children. Obviously if Dad had 2 kids with wife #1 and she ends up with full custody... he will most likely have to pay as state ordered. Now some states will take into account if he has new children. But if he had the luck to marry and have kids with someone with no to low income earning potential.. well, a larger burden will fall on him.
It is unlikely to fly well though if he marries a new wife who wants to be a SAHM..and he asks for a drastic reduction so he can not only support his new child but also his new adult wife.
Here in the US, we do sort of have first world issues that mean that there may be some expectation of support covering beyond the most basic food/shelter/healthcare needs.
I do agree with you that a
I do agree with you that a man should be honest about his obligations and CS before he has any new children...
but I also know that most BM's ask for increased CS as soon as their Ex re marries or have another child... this seems to be very unfair towards the man IMO, And why can BM decide to be a SAHM and her Ex have to support her with CS?
See this is what I get angry about, if you are to lazy to work, then do not sponge of some one and make them suffer
Bm in our world filed for
Bm in our world filed for increased cs both times that she found out about our pregnancies.
HR - please keep in mind we
HR - please keep in mind we are not from the same countries.....
and on this site, I've read a couple off times where the BM keeps on taking her ex to court for more CS... less time, more time
this is general.... not aimed at an individual BM....
I am quite curios to the take
I am quite curios to the take on this scenario. BM was higher paid and the bread winner when my husband married her. When they legally separated she was earning 60% more than my husband. She met her current husband and he is a much higher earner than her.
BM and SF decided she should be a SAHM. My husband there for was ordered to pay 100% of my SS's living expenses which is based on SF's earnings which is more than both our incomes combined. BM can earn more than my husband even now. He never agreed to her being a SAHM.
Is it fair my husband pays 100% of his son's cost of living with no contribution from BM?
He pays 100% of the minor
He pays 100% of the minor child's costs. Africa doesn't work like the States. My husbands maintenance is almost R9,000. His schooling costs R1,800, rent R2,700, food/lunches/meals R2,000, clothes R250, transport R500. No medical aid, no extra murals, no therapies, no holidays unless it's to his granny which she pays for. You get the idea.
Generally, they should impute
Generally, they should impute the income of the spouse unless it is an extreme situation like the child has developed a disability that requires 24/7 care. Just because new DH says that new wife can stay home... that shouldn't impact what the former spouse and bio parent contributes.
no the child is not living
no the child is not living with them... and yes her DH is paying an enormous amount of CS.... only because his Ex wife, which is highly qualified, decided she will not work anymore and she wants CS..... Why is Mon's husband being punished for his Ex wife deciding she does not want to work anymore?
Acra I didn't mind it while
Acra I didn't mind it while Chucky was in therapy and private school. He's not any more. He is now "home schooled" and is at grade 1 level again through the learning centre that costs R1,800 per month. It's complicated
as you well know.
thus you prefer the kids
thus you prefer the kids staying with the mother, who refuses to work and lives like a rich woman while her Ex husband slaves away trying to meat ends meat and supporting her?
sorry not working, this woman is not special, she can go out and find herself a job and pay for the children she has..... even if it is only 20% of their expenses ... there's no need for this mother to get facials, hair done, new plastic nails on a monthly basis... her first priority should be to put a roof over their heads and food on the table... and if she has to offer her acrylic nails for it... so be it
I wonder if there's a BM
I wonder if there's a BM forum somewhere...
a forum with divorced biological mums only...
hahahahahaha I thought that
hahahahahaha I thought that was for SM's like ANN
seriously there's such a
seriously there's such a forum }:) }:) }:)
now I know what to do in my spare time lol....
I wonder if the number is
I wonder if the number is higher for dad's getting screwed paying CS to BMs who are underemployed/not employed and/or spend the money on themselves and not the kids like they should
OR
BM's who are providing 100% financially for their children because the dad isn't around, or won't pay CS.
zero, oddly enough we have
zero, oddly enough we have both of those dynamics in our home. I support my eldest 100% on my own and my husband over pays maintenance to his ex wife. I'd say it's a comfortable 50/50 from what I have seen even in my social circles and at work.
We have both dynamics too.
We have both dynamics too. Thankfully DH is done paying CS in like 9 days.
Zero, I believe the second
Zero, I believe the second one is more common. It may not be the norm of most of the folks posting here, but I think it is outside of ST.
This is not about.... paying
This is not about.... paying CS or not......
this is not about SM being pissed off because she married a man who has to pay CS...
this is about the amount of CS the husband needs to pay to his Ex....
Just to clear it for a certain poster who does not seem to get the point of the blog.
We are not saying men should not pay CS, we are saying... they should pay CS as per standard living conditions not 80% of their salaries, and we are saying... the BM should be paying for her own bio kids as well.....
and what if he can't afford
and what if he can't afford going to court....
what if it's a Woman friendly state?
What if he can only afford basic living conditions, but now he's being pressured to buy Iphones for the children, playstations, brand clothing etc..... oh and wait Mum decided to stay at home cause who will look after the snow flakes?
Now this man may never re marry or have another child cause he can't afford it?
You don't have to pay to go
You don't have to pay to go to court. Well, you have to pay to file the forms (About $40 here in NYC), but that is it.
If you were to walk into family court downtown Brooklyn, you would see very few lawyers there.
Right. Child support is to
Right.
Child support is to support the child.
CP's who reduce their income in order to raise CS are essentially short changing the child by turning the CS into alimony. How exactly is this in the best interest of the child?
If the CP who's doing this really had the child's best interest at heart, they'd be investing in their child as well, instead of in their nails and handbags. The ex is supporting the child... not the mom.
(or dad. You get the point.)