I think the family laws should be rewritten to give back more authority to the DH and his new life/family/wife
I just want to live in a world where the laws dont put the BM and the skids as the priority.
According to articles I have read lately....the law finds the first children of a man to have priority over any subsequent bio or steps that he may acquire along the way...and then these skids are used as ammunition for crazy BM's. Cos if you have the right amount of fire power...then you may as well go into war with your enemy (the DH and his new wife n kids)
AND,
I think this is what turns them BM's into the crazy queen Golden spiteful dripping uterus that they are these days - or it at least fires them up. makes them realise that they have every right to keep causing issues...not all of course...this is just the crazy ones...
I know ours would be in the ear of the skids saying stuff like....'your father has to do this and he doesnt...and you kids should be his number one priority...not that bitch he is married to'
I think the family laws should be rewritten to give back more authority to the DH and his new life/family/wife....it doesnt have to be much but just enough to stop the injustice that thus far occurs in our lives....
But where do we start...?
"But where do we
"But where do we start...?"
With men (and women) being honest and saying "I can't afford more kids right now."
How many people will go out and buy a vacation home if they were struggling to maintain their primary residence?
I’ll admit it pissed me off when I read the report from DF’s last CS hearing last month. BM is only required to contribute $5.86 per week to support her 2 daughters. That is just sick. She attends a nursing program 2 nights a week. For some crazy reason, the nut will not get a job.
I think both parents should be responsible for supporting their kids.
Parents should not be able to get food stamps, WIC and child support.
I do agree that both parents
I do agree that both parents should be responsible for supporting their kids, but I disagree that parents should not be able to get food stamps, WIC, and child support. I think there are circumstances where the latter forms of assistance are necessary.
I do agree on your larger point though. I don't think the family laws are fair. They definitely don't take into consideration the stepparents.
I'm all for helping those who
I'm all for helping those who need assistance.
But not a single mom who needs assistance because she refuses to work; or for a couple that needs assistance because they want mom to be a SAHM. Both have made the choice not to work.
DF's ex is getting food stamps, WIC, Medicaid, welfare and TWO welfare cell phones. All because she won't get off her ass and get a job.
I think ONE great start would
I think ONE great start would be to REQUIRE DNA testing on any child that is subject to a child support order. If the woman says so-and-so is the father and he is NOT...then there should be a lesser amount awarded, if any at all.
I think you should also be limited into the number of different baby daddies you have filed for CS against.
I think BOTH parents should have to contribute the SAME amount into a fund for the child. I think that the CP needs to submit receipts, etc. for expenses (think flexible benefit reimbursement) related to the child ONLY to get that money back. Any balance left in the fund when the child is no longer the object of a CS order, would go to the child OR be split between the parents.
Disagree...a lot of times
Disagree...a lot of times suspicion doesnt arrise until later behavior from bm, or after a divorce, or seeing no similarity physicall after birth.
IMO a man should be able to get a paternity test ANYTIME...a BM that has LIED and committed paternity fraud should lose all CS, the courts should allow the kid/and man to have a relationship if they stil want to, on HIS terms (not what works for BM), or he should have the ability to disestablish paternity... and IMO the man should be able to sue BM OR the father once/if found for CS paid. Period. Fair is fair. Trifling whores have gotten away w/this trick for centuries, time for them to pay up.
The victims here are the 'dad' and the kid also-but dad should not be further penalized to 'be fair to the child' if he was a victim of paternity fraud, sorry...to bad.
I agree with this. HRNYC,
I agree with this. HRNYC, what do you think? That every baby should have a DNA test as soon as they are born? That is ludicrous.
The thing is this...either
The thing is this...either the law should demand EVERY MAN that signs a birth certificate take a DNA test and reads/understands his rights if he is not the father, or what could be affected later if he signs and isn't the dad (by legitimazing)...or the option should be there for men to take at ANY time.
I guess the good adage you can't legislate morality-BUT I think a lot of pain/suffering for ALL involved could be avoided if this test were mandatory w/in maybe 1-2 months of birth. I say that because I understand testing while enjoying the moments w/your newborn could be very emotional. BUT realistically I doubt they would ever require this....too much possible loss of future CS payments kickbacks for the state.
after all the testing that
after all the testing that the bio mother has to go thru at the start, during and after pregnancy....I guess its not too much to ask ?
My DH said something to me the other day that he thought his youngest ss14 may not be his....I was shocked...dumb founded and just havnt been able to speak to him about this comment .... bc...yeah...maybe????
You let me know where you can
You let me know where you can start and I will help you...
But I can tell you this...I don't give a damn what any law states..
especially if it is not fair..
I am my DH's family now and guess what I come first...
I am his wife...just like when he married that BM of a person..
she came first (big Boo Boo)...
So now I am first...and he would be the first to tell anyone that too.
How much do you think is
How much do you think is needed to raise a child? What do you think is a fair amount for CS?
In Australia it was 18% of
In Australia it was 18% of the gross wage for 1. 24% for 2 kids, and 33% for 3....it has been altered slightly but that was based on one parent having the child the majority of the time and the NCP having child the miniumum....which was 2 weeks a year of the school holidays...and EOW. Should the NCP have the child more times...then the amt can be adjusted as if he provided receipts for care of the child. Should the NCP not work...then he owes only 10 bucks a month per child....mine pays 250 per month for 3 as he hides his money ....
Im over chasing him for money and he must owe about 20k in arrears....but you cant get blood from stone.
The worst bit about CS is it gets paid to the hated BM on most occaissions, and if she dont want to spend it on the kids then she dont have to....The payer has not control on what the receiver spends it on.....thats where it hurts.
Incidently.....as a lending mortgage manager we usually suggest that a single parent with 3 kids is supposed to spend 1300 per month on expenses....i.e. food, entertainment, drinks, petrol, etc....doesnt include liabilities....if they are married it goes to 1800 per month....CS finishes at 18 but the receiver of CS should be putting some money aside to cover costs of children for in case....& NOT CALLING THE NCP AND EXPECTING HIM TO PAY
When you have a BM like we
When you have a BM like we do..
who claims she does not make any money at her job..
and lies to the IRS ( we have it all on tape saying that she does
not claim all that she makes)
Well then I guess yes..I will see you in court..
Because the laws are just as good for her as they are
for us!
.
.
Ahem. I think there are
Ahem. I think there are plenty of moms out there that don't support their kids as well.
And I would also like to see your statistics/rationale.
I could not agree more... My
I could not agree more... My DH are struggling to survive right now, we can not afford to pay all of our utilities... We do not drive around the most out landish vehicles... We returned a favor to get the vehicle I am driving, and now we can not even afford that... She was able to go into Child Support and tell them that we live to nice... We live in a freaking 1969 mobile home for gods sake... how nice can that be when you are living in a $70,000 home, just spent 20,000 on new basement walls... the list goes on and on... but we live "modestly...." REALLY... we can not even get assistance for anything, because she get $1300 a month, does not have to work, is on HEAP, Medical Card through the state, gets food stamps... the list goes on and on.... but what do we get... Oh, thats right, FUCK YOU!
I think the fathers need to
I think the fathers need to be given more rights, and CS guidelines need to be rewritten so Dad is able to provide for ALL of his kids. Maybe this will encourage BMs like the ones we vent about to be more active about seeking employment.
PAS needs to be recognized as child abuse, punishable by losing custody, financial restitution to Dad, counseling and prison time.
Not that it's fair, but as my
Not that it's fair, but as my professor puts it, "first to the trough, first to eat." That's the way the law looks at it. I was floored by some of the stuff I learned when I took family law.
In the early 19th century the
In the early 19th century the court system adopted something called the "Tender Years Doctrin," prior to this, children were considered property, and since women had very few rights, children were typically given to their father's. Enter the tender years doctrine; this essentially says that children should be with their mother's, that they thrive better under the nurturing gaze of their loving mother's. Most states have eliminated the doctrine from their legal systems, unfortunately, you can't un-teach what has already been learned.
There is actually a pretty big social movement that started in the UK, and is spreading in the US, called Fathers 4 Justice. It is seeking to have cases looked at on a more individualized basis, among other things.
When my DH had his CS upped
When my DH had his CS upped (again) he told the woman at the state office that he had a family to take care of....she told him it didn't matter. Second wives get the shit end of the stick alot of times. I hated that that spoiled, selfish cow got 1/3 of his income! :sick:
Exactly. Its just Not right.
Exactly. Its just Not right. Can't we lessenthe stress on families by acknowledging that the father now has a new family and can't this govt try to help them before that too ends in divorce??
Half these skids have one last chance at being associated with a normal family and authorities don't recognize it wen they see it and it's not taken into account anyway
Wrong. That right there needs to change.
In a time gone by kids were told to go live with the parent who is now more stable shld there have been custody battles....I think we shld start looking at that test again....cos these kids r really getting mixed up
Yeah but jojo...I'm not just
Yeah but jojo...I'm not just talking about CS. It's about the whole big picture ... What type of disjointed children are we greasing where the la w doesn't recognize te better home...regardless of CS...
After my kids' father and I
After my kids' father and I split up, he went on to have 6 more kids with 2 other women.
He owes me $40,000 in cs for our 3 girls. Maybe he should have thought, "If I can't support the first 3 I made, maybe I shouldn't make more."
Lord knows I can't have more- *WE* decided *I* would get my tubes tied so *WE* wouldn't have more children.
Hmmm So .....how about if the
Hmmm So .....how about if the mother refusers to work, then she is not demonstrating responsibility towards her child, therefore if the father is in a responsible relationship with a new wife and can prove that his home would be better for the child then the child can be taken from the single mother....if mother has remarried , then she is fine as long as she can demonstrate she is providing for the child adequately and home life is good ....and then and only then can she claim CS.
No way Why should SM have to
No way
Why should SM have to raise and help support SO and BM's kids?
I only have 1 kid because I couldn't afford more. I can now,but DF can't afford more. If we have a child, I'll have to pay for everything.
I didn't mean it would be
I didn't mean it would be automatic, just could happen if the father and sm wanted to apply for it.....
Yeah but in this world of
Yeah but in this world of stepland we KNOW that it would be what "father" wanted-he wouldn't give two shits about what SM wanted if he wants the kid to come live with him and not pay CS we SM's would be screwed....SM will take care of his spawn physically/financially....i mean we see this on the site ALL the time!!
I think this makes sense. It
I think this makes sense. It would at least put more responsibility on the mother rather than just letting her use her children as a paycheck. If one set of parents is more capable of taking care of the children and they want to do that, they should be able to. The single mother shouldn't just get paid because she gave birth. All the current system is doing is encouraging women to have children they can't afford by making dad pick up the tab with no say in custody.
I understand the system is in place to prevent deadbeat dads from taking care of their kids, but it is wholly unfair to those fathers who actually want to be a part of their children's lives and dutifully pay their support. Why shouldn't they have the same rights as the mother? Who determined that the mother is automatically a better home for the children and that the father needs to prove otherwise??
We pay 25% of DH's post-tax income to the BM but all insurance premiums and half of medical costs. This comes out to about 40% of his total income. And for what? For them to come over in rags? For us to pick them up in the dead of winter not even wearing a jacket? For them to have to make their own dinner every night because she is too lazy to cook a healthful meal? Oh I got it! For her to pay for a nanny so that she doesn't ever have to deal with them. That's why we pay her 40% of DH's total income.
I totally agree with this -
I totally agree with this - our BM has two kids with DH, ages 12 and 17, and her 14 year old nephew. She works 30 hours a week and claims that she can't work more hours because she has kids at home. Of course when she wants to get hammered or go on dates, she leaves them alone all the time. DH just went back to court with her last week and the judge actually said that she wasn't going to reduce spousal support because its one thing to go to dinner once in a while and another thing to have to get another job? The judge also said that DH's standard of living has remained the same - this is because I work full time AND have a three year old. How is it okay for me to figure out how to work 40 hours plus with toddler, but BM doesn't have to with teens at home?
JOJOBo....I love this....and
JOJOBo....I love this....and cant wait to research further ^^^^
I thought I might add that Germaine Greer researched similiar inconsistancies regarding married men vs married woman then...single men single woman and was fascinated to learn that:
Most Male Jails are full of Single Men, and most female jails are full of Married women (married can also mean 'living with partner"...
Not sure which book of hers it was ....not the Female Eunice...but one more recent.....Her thoughts were that men settle down when looked after by a woman, where as women turn nutty looking after a man..... :?
:jawdrop: 
Im disagree in part, and
Im disagree in part, and agree in part.
When a couple are living together you can usually budget better....
So Instead of saying; 'well you were on this amt when we broke up...(cos, man, or woman, may have been able to work 4 nites a week in the evening as the other parent looked after the children and helped to make the extra work possible) The CS should be based on the NCP current income, so if it goes down, then so too should the CS....fair should he or she remarry and have a new family....hence if the wage goes up....then yes...the kids should get a cut of that too...he is the father nonetheless....just wish money could be directed into a bank a/c for the kids not....given to the BM nutter to piss up against the wall....
totally agree, just because you win a big lottery.....or you inheret money....nothing to do with old marriage and kids.....thats your money...your divorced...future winnings has nothing to do with ex'es, as does what a current will determines where an estate and money should be distributed....
OH...No....the more kids you
OH...No....the more kids you have the more you pay....whether you live with them or not....you still have to pay for them....if DH takes off on me...and his wage goes down, as tough as it may be....I still think it fairer....IMHO
Oh I see what your saying....so...should my DH and I have children then he leaves me....His wage fluctuates, so too should his CS.....so if he earns more....all Custodial parents of his offspring recieve adjusted amounts based on his wage...not what it used to be.. but adjusted depending on what he is currently earning....
and that adjustment can be influenced by the BM/custodial parents wage - as this can be used to alter the percentage SLIGHTLY!
BM tried to take DH to court
BM tried to take DH to court for CS when she quit her job-but we keep receipts for clothes, shoes, school lunch account, sports, field trips, insurance, doctors, dentists-the list is endless LOL she pays for nothing. DH told her lawyer well I have him 52-82% of the time AND I pay for everything AND when I lived in another state she was ordered by the court to pay half of every other plane flight but never once did so she owes me roughly 22,000.00- her lawyer told her she wouldn't get anything from DH and she had to get a job-BAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! DH could pursue the 22,000.00 but he likes bringing that up whenever she threatens to take him to court for CS.
Sometimes I do feel like my son and I take a backseat but not in regards to CS. We want to move. I want to live near my family. I miss them terribly. They treat my SS as if he were mine, SS WANTS to move with us (he's 9 and apparently what he wants doesn't matter)...but we can't leave him with the psycho and they won't let us move with him. I don't think it's fair her family lives right around the corner literaly like 10 mins away and they never do anything with my SS but if we lived near my family we would have the benefit of extended family. It's sickening I know but my family still does Sunday dinner and they get together for every single holiday not just major ones. I have a big family with lots of kids both my SS's age and my son's age. The kids would play sports with their cousins and they would never be bored everyone lives within 10-15 mins of each other...I think that the kids would benefit from that kind of environment but I could be wrong...